Peanut Gallery 2012

I don't understand RAZD's objection's either.
I don't understand how anyone could object to the clear and (very) patient way bluegenes has been explaining the scientific method.Even RAZD's example doesn't make sense to me: This example is very true. You investigate the sightings... but the claim is not weakened until actual repeatable, objective evidence of the actual Ivory Billed Woodpeckers is found.Which is exactly the same with imaginary SBs.
Many "sightings" have been claimed.
And they have been investigated.
And no repeatable, objective evidence of SBs has ever been identified.If the Ivory Billed Woodpecker sightings are investigated.
And no evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is found.
...and this happens many times (as has happened with SBs)
...and no evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is ever found.
...doesn't this add confidence to the theory that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker is extinct?Therefore, the fact that so many sightings of SBs have been investigated and no evidence is ever found indicates that confidence is added to bluegenes' theory.I don't understand why RAZD is bringing up an example that helps prove bluegenes' point... and then act as if bluegenes is wrong. It doesn't make sense to me.I am failing to see why RAZD included this woodpecker example. I feel that if RAZD's reasoning for the example could be identified, then RAZD's issues with bluegene's theory would become clear.

Science doesn't deal with "correct." Because that's not something we can ever know with any certainty.
Science deals with "confidence."Whoever's claims match the observations of reality... gets more confidence.Since the USFW is claiming it exists, we start with them.
Call them up, ask them how they know. (1) If they say "well, you can come and visit us and we'll take you out to their nesting ground..."
Or something like "we have these pictures and videos..."
...and the observations can be verified, then the theory that the woodpeckers are extinct is extremely weak to the point of being completely falsified. (2) If they say "well, my cousin's father said he had this dream telling him they were there... and then my sister heard one... I think..."
...and the observations can't be verified, then this adds confidence to the theory that the woodpeckers are extinct.Getting back to the point of the example and back to SBs...
Over, and over again, whenever SBs are investigated... no evidence is found and response #2 best describes the results.
Therefore, no observations can be verified and confidence is added to bluegenes' theory. Speaking in colloquial, non-scientific terms... if the ones making the existence claim can provide evidence, then they are correct. If not, then the ones making the non-existence claim are correct.And, as far as SBs are concerned, bluegenes is correct.

I agree, I do this many times myself.The additional point is to simply note that this is not science.
Honestly acknowledging to ourselves when we are and are not "doing science" makes it much easier to identify when we should and should not cling to our personal ideas on any specific issue.I also personally hold many ideas that do not align with actual scientific thought.
I hold the personal idea to try and be a good person all the time.
However, scientifically looking at my record, I make a lot of mistakes. Therefore, scientifically, I will likely make more. Therefore, scientifically... I cannot be a good person all the time... so (scientifically) I shouldn't even try. I should only try to be good most or just some of the time.But... there is a difference between my desire to be a good person and my scientific ability to actually do such.
Identifying and understanding the difference between these too aspects helps me to clarify my motivations for being a good person against my physical abilities. This clear separation allows me to pick apart my physical abilities easier and therefore I can improve certain physical abilities that would not be apparent otherwise. For this reason... I continue to hold the idea of trying to be a good person all the time for my motivation while relying on scientific observations to let me know how I'm doing and where I need to improve.There's nothing wrong with not doing science.
There's only something wrong with not doing science and then trying to force a "scientific label" onto it. This can only lead to confusion and error.It is also quite possible for a scientific theory to not be "correct."
That is, the woodpecker may very well exist. But perhaps the repeatable observations are unattainable for some reason or another.
Therefore, the scientific theory that these woodpeckers are extinct would be factually wrong. However, it would still be a "correct scientific theory"... because scientific theories are based on repeatable observations. And, according to those, the theory is still correct.This is a known flaw.
It remains, however, that the scientific process is still the best known method for learning about reality. It's correct-enough and not-wrong-enough for us to build the amazing infrastructure and space travel and computer technology and all the crazy-awesome stuff we see all around us. Because of these obvious results... we use the scientific method for important stuff even though it's possible that it's wrong. If a method ever comes around that is impossible to ever be wrong... I'm sure it will replace the scientific method rather quickly. We just haven't discovered that method yet.In conclusion:
bluegenes has stressed that he is making a scientific theory... which then gains or loses confidence depending on the repeatable observations of reality. Which, so far as I've ever been made aware, entirely support his theory with great confidence.The fact that bluegenes' theory is a correct scientific theory does not mean that it's impossible for SBs to exist.
It means that SBs do not exist according to the best method for accurately describing reality that humans have ever developed (so far).Whether or not that means anything to you personally depends on you're own personal character.