Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

After scientists replay the call of a bird last seen in 1941, it appears

By Arden Dier
Published March 07, 2015

Good news courtesy of the Wildlife Conservation Society: An apparently "extinct" bird last seen in Burma almost 75 years ago has flown back into view. The Jerdon's babbler, or Chrysomma altirostre, initially discovered in 1862, was spotted in grasslands near the town of Myitkyo in July 1941 but seemingly disappeared as people and farms invaded its habitat.
Last May, however, a team of scientists studying other birds at an abandoned agricultural station near Udo heard the bird's call, National Geographic reports. They recorded it and replayed the sound, which brought a "magnificent adult Jerdon's Babbler" within sight amid patches of tall grass, the scientists write in BirdingASIA magazine.
Scientists spent two days finding the small, sparrow-size bird at several sites, snapping photographs, and taking blood samples. Scientists will now study DNA samples to determine if Burma's Jerdon's babbler is in fact a unique species.
Scientists say that's a "good possibility," citing differences in the bird's coloring and song. Such a discovery would boost conservation efforts, but either way, "future work is needed to identify remaining pockets of natural grassland and develop systems for local communities to conserve and benefit from them," a WCS director says in a press release.While scientists say grassland habitats may remain in unsurveyed areas of Burma, "extensive searches using satellite imagery give us little cause for optimism." Still, a council member of the Oriental Bird Club says the fact that several birds were spotted is a "very good sign" and likely indicates "the habitat is still there." 

JohnStOnge wrote:That is cool. Another example of how you can have a lot more confidence in confirming that something is than you can have in confirming that it is not. As an aside, another illustration that Popper's "Falsification" philosophy that has been so popularized is a bunch of crap.

If somebody had asserted and said this species persists based on some kind of mathematical modeling and assessment of habitats then set about trying to locate it based on that modeling and assessment the "Falsification" crowd would've said it's not "science" because the persistence of the species can't be "Falsified." The "Falsification" crowd even uses examples like finding Bigfoot to claim that things they don't want to call "science" aren't science.

But if you find the bird you find the bird. You've shown the species persists.

Science is about positive determinations, not "Falsification."

Chizzang wrote: I love it when Religious Folks tell everybody "what Science is"
But when Scientific folks tell everybody "What Religion is" the sh!t hits the fan

Fun Stuff

If only Religious Fundamentalists applied this ^ with any regularity

JohnStOnge wrote:

If only Religious Fundamentalists applied this ^ with any regularity

I hate to break this to you, but it's not "Religious Fundamentalists" who rely on the "Falsifiability" cop out. It's Secularists. You're not going to see "Religious Fundamentalists" challenge something by claiming that it's not "Falsifiable." You're going to see them challenge it based on an argument that it's not affirmatively established.

Now you may not agree with them about whether it's been affirmatively established or not. But that's how it's going to go.

JohnStOnge wrote:That is cool. Another example of how you can have a lot more confidence in confirming that something is than you can have in confirming that it is not. As an aside, another illustration that Popper's "Falsification" philosophy that has been so popularized is a bunch of crap.

If somebody had asserted and said this species persists based on some kind of mathematical modeling and assessment of habitats then set about trying to locate it based on that modeling and assessment the "Falsification" crowd would've said it's not "science" because the persistence of the species can't be "Falsified." The "Falsification" crowd even uses examples like finding Bigfoot to claim that things they don't want to call "science" aren't science.

But if you find the bird you find the bird. You've shown the species persists.

Science is about positive determinations, not "Falsification."

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote: I love it when Religious Folks tell everybody "what Science is"
But when Scientific folks tell everybody "What Religion is" the sh!t hits the fan

Fun Stuff

Can people who are religious be Scientists?

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: Can people who are religious be Scientists?

Sure... I'm just having fun Baldness
Unlike you who seems to spend most of his time grinding his ax on this forum
I actually kinda like this place

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:

Sure... I'm just having fun Baldness
Unlike you who seems to spend most of his time grinding his ax on this forum
I actually kinda like this place

Chitz, you're always good for a laugh or two.
Even when you're not trying to be funny.

Not grinding an axe at all, I just find it rather hilarious when people deal in absolutes and contradictions.
That's all.

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: Chitz, you're always good for a laugh or two.
Even when you're not trying to be funny.

Not grinding an axe at all, I just find it rather hilarious when people deal in absolutes and contradictions.
That's all.

So we agree then...

Chizzang wrote:

Baldy wrote: Can people who are religious be Scientists?

Sure... I'm just having fun Baldness
Unlike you who seems to spend most of his time grinding his ax on this forum
I actually kinda like this place

Baldy wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
So we agree then...

Maybe...

Are those 33 out of 100 scientists who believe in God, "true" scientists?

kalm wrote:T-man and JSO…pay attention:

93henfan wrote:

kalm wrote:T-man and JSO…pay attention:

Gotta love George Carlin.

andy7171 wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Gotta love George Carlin.

Carlin? I thought that was the old man in Harry Potter!?!

93henfan wrote:

andy7171 wrote: Carlin? I thought that was the old man in Harry Potter!?!

Shit, I think you're right. He also looks like Sigmund Freud or even a younger Hubert Reeves.

kalm wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Shit, I think you're right. He also looks like Sigmund Freud or even a younger Hubert Reeves.

It's Richard Harris.

travelinman67 wrote:Solzhenitsyn

dbackjon wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Solzhenitsyn

Gehsundteit