Credibility, Evidence, and Discovery: The Case of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
Credibility, Evidence, and Discovery:
The Case of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Michael Lynch
Cornell University, USA
(mel27@cornell.edu)
Introduction
This paper discusses an effort to Referring to documentary materials
document the rediscovery of a North available online, the paper focuses on
American bird that was widely believed the elaborate efforts the researchers
to be extinct. In April 2005 a team of made to demonstrate their rediscovery
researchers announced publicly that they with the video record. These included
had identified an ivory-billed simulations and reenactments of the
1
woodpecker (Campephilus principalis) video scene and the conditions under
in the Cache River swamp in Arkansas. which it was recorded. The same
This announcement was a major news documents provided other ornithologists
story, not only for ornithologists and with material for skeptical reanalysis.
amateur “birders”, but also for the public The skeptical accounts raised a demand
at large. The present paper uses publicly for more definitive, mechanically
available documents to examine how the recorded evidence. This demand for
ornithologists sought to demonstrate definitive evidence provided a context
their discovery of the bird. Although for the rapid dismissal of further (more
several professional field ornithologists detailed) observational reports at a
described and sketched the bird, the different site a year later. Consequently,
effort to document the discovery focused the public standards for evaluating
intensively on a frame-by-frame analysis evidentiary claims were conditionally
of a brief segment of videotape in which relevant: sequentially bound to the fate
the (alleged) ivory-billed woodpecker of prior “rediscoveries”2.
was depicted in flight.
2
A version of this paper was first presented at
the “Scientific Practice as Ordinary Action”
workshop, at the University of Fribourg,
Switzerland (22-23 March 2007), and then
reworked for the international conference,
“Cognitive Passions: Investigations into the
pragmatic and political dimensions of the love of
knowing,” Saint-Etienne, France (7-8 January
2010). I’m grateful to Florian Charvolin and
others at the conference for questions and
comments. I also benefitted from conversations
with Trevor Pinch, Park Doing, and Joeri
1
Most ornithologists appear to use the lower Bruyninckx. Finally, I am grateful to Philippe
case for the name of the bird, so I have followed Sormani and the reviewers of this paper for
that convention. helpful comments and challenging criticisms.
78Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
The Topic of Discovery “discovery” can turn out to have been an
inadvertent “replication” of an earlier
Discovery is one of the most persistent achievement made by others. Moreover,
and alluring topics in philosophy, even in cases of celebrated discoveries,
history, and social studies of science, what counts as the discovery may differ
and yet there is surprisingly little work from what the researchers in question
that directly addresses discovering work. initially set out to achieve (Barber and
Hans Reichenbach’s (1938) distinction Fox, 1958), and retrospective judgments
between the context of discovery and of the significance and validity of
context of justification consigned the discoveries change historically.
former to a contingent, non-rational
status, while reserving logical analysis Augustine Brannigan’s (1981)
for the rational reconstruction of attributional theory of discoveries
(possible) discoveries. The title of Sir encourages us to treat the collective
Karl Popper’s (1959) Logic of Scientific response as the crucial determinant of
Discovery signaled an effort to tackle the status and significance of particular
what Reichenbach consigned to discoveries, but rather than treating such
psychology, but Popper also said little attributions as “merely subjective”
about discovery while devoting far more historical accidents, he outlines a set of
attention to logical analysis of the general criteria to describe the
procedures through which theoretical conditions of intelligibility for any
ideas acquire consensual scientific discovery.
status. N.R. Hanson (1967) offered
useful grammatical distinctions between With some modifications (discoveries
different types of discovery (stumble- are deemed to identify “products of
upon discoveries, discoveries that nature” and not manufactured
confirm conjectures, discoveries that inventions), these criteria resemble those
undermine prior assumptions, etc.), but used by patent examiners in the Anglo-
Hanson’s (1961) legacy of “theory-laden American legal tradition: novelty,
observation” encouraged a reversion to a significance, unprecedentedness, and
priori theories or concepts as the non-obviousness. Unlike in patent law,
epistemic basis for discovery. in cases of discovery the relevant
judgments are made by what is often
Part of the difficulty with characterizing called a “scientific community” rather
discoveries, either as logical sequences than by designated officials in a formal
or concrete courses of action, is that the submission process, although peer-
fate of a specific course of observational review of journal submissions and grant
or experimental work often is not applications has some resemblance to
apparent at the time. Moreover, as many patent examination.
researchers can testify, there is a crucial
distinction between thinking that you Brannigan’s (1981) perspective can be
have made a discovery (or even misread to imply that it would be
announcing that you have made one) and hopeless to attempt to observe, record, or
actually making and getting credit for analyze “discovering work” (the
one. Even when no hidden source of practices and interactions that constitute
error or illusion later emerges, a discoveries). Such a misreading might
79Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
seem plausible, because, absent the their own status as historicized
wisdom of hindsight, there would be no “moments of discovery,” their
discernible difference between contingent status, as such, is itself
circumscribed sequences of “replication thematic within discovering work (cf.,
work”, “mistaken-discovery work” and Koschman and Zemel, 2009). The
“actual discovery work” (also see contingent historical status of the present
Collins, 1983). Moreover, many moment as a possible discovery is
recognized discoveries do not trace back, explicitly featured in the recorded
even retrospectively, to discrete dialogues among the parties in the tape
“moments”. However, it is worth that Garfinkel et al. (1981:154) analyze.
distinguishing between “discovery” as
an accredited historical achievement and Discovery is thus a prospective-
“discovering work” as a project of retrospective product of specific courses
action. of action and later accounts of those
actions. Specific sequences of action at
A study such as Garfinkel et al.’s (1981) particular times and places and later
analysis of a tape recording of a segment efforts to document, validate or
of “the night’s work” of two astronomers discredit, and build upon the outcomes
and an observatory night assistant who of those actions are all part of
set out to observe and document a discovering work.
possible astronomical object (an optical
pulsar) can reveal some local features of Discovering work, as Garfinkel et al.
discovering work: courses of action and (1981) elaborate, includes the real-time
interaction in which the researchers practices (the “lived-work”) of handling
attempt (whether from the outset, or equipment, recording and analyzing
after having ‘stumbled upon’ an data, and piecing together different
intriguing possibility) to successfully forms of evidence in laboratory and field
observe and document a phenomenon situations. However, given the fact that a
that might come to stand as a discovery3. course of action that leads to the
announcement of a discovery is not by
The possibility that the course of work itself sufficient to establish that it will
may or may not turn out to have been a turn out to be a discovery, and the fact
discovery is notably part of the actions that would-be discoverers are attuned to
and interactions themselves. Although, such contingency, the public
the local actions alone do not secure documentation and reception of
discovery claims is crucial.
3
Although researchers do often set out to make With this in mind, the present paper
discoveries, an intention to make a discovery is addresses discovering work through an
neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for
becoming part of a retrospective-prospective analysis of the documentation and the
sequence of discovery work. There are reception of that documentation, which
circumstances in which a course of action itself was documented, rather than
becomes recognized as being significant for a through an analysis of the lived-work (or
discovery only well after its completion, and a tape recording of such work). In this
other circumstances in which researchers find
that a discovery that they intended to make, and
even were sure they had made, later comes to
nothing.
80Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
case, the lived-work is inaccessible4, of a series of sightings of an ivory-billed
except in the form of publicly woodpecker. These sightings were
documented reports and visual evidence. presented and disputed in print
What is accessible, and makes up the publications, online documentation, and
topic of this paper, is an unfolding public presentations. What was at stake
temporal relationship between was whether a large, spectacular North
observational reports, public American bird, which had been widely
documentation, skeptical re-analysis of assumed to be extinct, had persisted
the documentation, and authoritative during the decades since the last
assessments of the status of the definitive sighting.
discovery.
Chronologies produced in reports of the
The discovering work described in this sightings credit the initial sighting to
paper was part of an effort to Gene Sparling, an outdoorsman and
“rediscover” an object that had held guide on 11 February 2004. Other
doubtful, and even non-existent, status sightings had been reported elsewhere in
for a long time. If accepted as a recent years, and so Sparling’s was the
discovery, it would not be a discovery of “initial” sighting in a retrospectively
something new, but a discovery that an composed sequence of local sightings at
object with doubtful status actually the study site documented in the reports.
existed5. The work in this case consisted A “second” sighting in the sequence was
recorded to have occurred two weeks
4
later. This one was credited to an
The lived-work of composing the evidentiary ornithologist and a member of a college
documents was itself inaccessible (unlike in the
documentary practices for a neuroscience project communications department guided by
described by Lynch, 1985a), and print Sparling. In the months that followed, at
publications and online images and videotape least seven other sightings were reported
segments are the materials for this study. by members of a team of researchers
Although there is no question that the material affiliated with the Cornell Lab of
basis for this study differs from that of the tape
recording used by Garfinkel et al. (1981), or the Ornithology (CLO) and several other
tapes and field notes used by Lynch (1985a), research institutions during a year-long
post-hoc reconstruction of the lived-work was a expedition in the Cache River swamp in
necessary part of those studies as well. Arkansas (for convenience, I shall call
5
The difference between a discovery and this the CLO team).
rediscovery is not as clear-cut as it might seem.
No single discovery, or type of discovery,
provides a model for all others (Hanson, 1967), The team publicly announced the
and the “rediscovery” in this case shares some rediscovery in April 2005, more than a
features with some types of discovery. The year after the initial sightings. The
optical pulsar case (Garfinkel et al., 1981) also researchers documented these sightings
could be said to be a rediscovery. Pulsars –
rapidly pulsating astrophysical objects, with
frequencies of many beats per second – had potentially fruitless task. The “discovery” in
already been identified and documented with question coordinated a known radio pulsar with a
radio telescopes, but theoretical reasons had been documented frequency with the position of a
given for doubting whether they would emit particular star visible (with a telescope) in the
energy in the optical range. The resolution of optical range. That star also happened to be the
radio telescopes is much lower than optical remnant of a supernova (the Crab nebula), and so
telescopes, and so coordinating a radio pulsar identifying that star as the pulsar supported one
with an optical star was a difficult and of the extant theories of how pulsars formed.
81Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
with notes, sketches, a blurry videotape, be extinct). Consequently, it seemed
and numerous audio-recordings of implausible that such a bird could elude
“knocks” and call sounds that they ornithologists for decades, not to speak
believed to be characteristic of the of millions of amateur birders.
species of woodpecker (the high-pitched
bird calls are transliterated with the word However, there had been numerous
“kent”). reports by amateurs over the years.
These sightings, in some cases
The announcement was delayed for at accompanied by audio-recordings and
least two reasons. One was to get the blurry photographs, and in one case a
best documentation possible, given the feather, were chronicled and reviewed in
likelihood of a skeptical reaction, and the publications by the CLO team, and at
the other was to secure protection of the least some of them took on greater
sensitive habitat before drawing public credibility in retrospect. A few sightings
attention to the research site and in recent years were deemed credible
unleashing a stampede of enthusiastic enough to motivate the Cache River
birders. expedition as well as an earlier,
unsuccessful expedition in Louisiana. It
As anticipated, the announcement was also was imaginable that a small
major news, and not just for population of this secretive and largely
ornithologists and birders. The solitary bird could persist unnoticed in
researchers published an article in the vast swamplands in the Southeastern
Science magazine (Fitzpatrick et al., USA.
2005b) announcing their discovery and
documenting it with photographic and Consequently, while any sighting of this
other evidence, and the story was bird was likely to be met with
immediately picked up by major skepticism, this was nowhere near the
newspapers. This was an extraordinary degree of skepticism that would greet
announcement, because sightings of the sightings, photographs, and videotapes
ivory-bill had not been “conclusively of, say, plesiosaurs in a Scottish loch.
documented” since 1944 (Fitzpatrick et Some popular field guides continued to
al., 2005b:1460). include the ivory-bill, though often with
a notation to the effect that the bird was
Credible reports of “fleeting very likely extinct. One exception,
observations” of at least two individuals though not the only one, was the
in what is often described as a relatively new, and very popular, Sibley
subspecies were made in Eastern Cuba (2000) guide, from which the ivory-
in the late 1980s, but had not been billed woodpecker was conspicuously
confirmed since then (ibid). The ivory- absent.
billed woodpecker is far from an obscure
bird. Roughly the size of a common As we shall see, there was a reciprocal
crow, with striking markings, it is (or relationship between public conceptions
was) the largest North American of adequate evidence, and shifting
woodpecker (the Imperial Woodpecker, degrees of skepticism and standards of
a larger species of the same genus in proof. What counted as definitive
Mexico also is considered very likely to evidence was relative to informal
82Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
conceptions of probability and a videotape shot a couple of months later
possibility: Could such a thing exist, and from another canoe captured a few
how likely was it that those particular seconds of flight of a bird expedition
observers correctly identified it? The members believed to be an ivory-billed
case also suggests that more or less woodpecker. The question then was
stringent demands for public proof also whether these sightings were any more
are conditionally relevant6 – or less conclusive than the earlier ones.
retrospectively and prospectively bound
to the historical sequences in which they The “discovery” thus was qualified in a
occur. number of ways.
Methodological and Conceptual Issues First, if credited, it would not be a
discovery of an unknown object, but
Before proceeding further, it is necessary instead a discovery of a known object
to address how, if at all, the that was believed to be extinct. The
documentary materials examined for this research team announced it as a
paper bear on the topic of “discovery”. “rediscovery”, implying that the
observation was precedented, but this
The status of the reported sightings in did not reduce it to a mere replication or
2005 remains in doubt, and the doubts confirmation of a prior discovery, since
have grown with the passage of years (if successful) it would have retrieved
and the lack of definitive confirmation. the bird from oblivion7. Second, given
Moreover, even if we accept the Cornell the previous reports of the bird, the issue
team’s observations as evidence of a was whether conclusive evidence could
discovery, others such as Sparling (and be secured. Third, its status as a
even some other amateurs who reported discovery would depend upon what
sightings in recent years) could also “conclusive evidence” meant in detail, in
claim priority, or at least a part of the this case.
credit.
A “sighting” is not a discovery, though
The issue was not so much that sightings the term implies a degree of success in
were reported, but how they were made “catching sight of” a particular object as
and documented. During the expedition,
7
One of the “grammatical” criteria for a
6
Conditional relevance is an established discovery that Brannigan (1981: 60) mentions is
organizational principle in conversation analysis, unprecedentedness – by this he means that a
where it identifies a sequential relationship discovery is by definition unprecedented. In this
between an initial utterance and a “next” case, however, calling the sighting of the bird a
utterance. The “next” utterance gains its identity “rediscovery” does not diminish its importance
and sense (e.g., as an answer-to-a-question) by in a way that would be analogous to “reinventing
virtue of its placement after the “first” the wheel”. Given the presumption that it was
(Schegloff, 1968). Conversation analysts did not extinct, the “rediscovery” was not simply a
invent the term, as it has long been an confirmation of an “original” discovery. Indeed,
established concept in law and logic, among no mention of the original discovery (or
other fields. It also has affinity with discoverer) of the bird is mentioned in any of the
ethnomethodology’s empirical specification of reports. The informal name that was sometimes
the phenomenological theme of retrospective- given to the bird – “Elvis” – suggests that
prospective sense of occurrence (Garfinkel, discovering that it still persists would be akin to
1967:41). discovering that Elvis Presley is alive.
83Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
opposed to, say, “looking for, but failing them are readily accessible in
to see, it” (Coulter and Parsons, 1990). publications and websites.
Whether or not a reported sighting
counts as an adequate observation The disadvantages are that, for
depends upon the circumstances. A understandable reasons, access to the site
reported sighting that feeds into a survey of the (alleged) discovery was restricted,
of common species is reviewed with far and public announcements were not
less stringency than an unverified report made until more than a year after the
of a rare or vagrant species, let alone a initial sightings were made. The
report of a species that had never been principal parties to the research also
seen or recorded or, as in this case, of a gave many public accounts of the events
bird that was widely assumed to be on their own, and in addition to being
extinct. The CLO researchers were less than receptive to being studied by
aiming for something more definitive outsiders, they were unlikely to reveal
than a “sighting”: they wanted more than “inside” information that they had not
a fleeting glimpse with naked eyes or already chronicled in their own accounts.
binoculars. What would count as
“conclusive documentation” was not Though, on site investigation, and even
specified in advance, but it was clear in-depth interviews with some of the
both from descriptions of the expedition main parties to the research, would
and its reports, and from the reception of undoubtedly have been valuable for
those reports, that seeing-and-reporting examining and reconstructing practices
would not be enough. of documentary work, this paper will
make use of published writings and
Regardless of the increasingly tentative interviews, and supplementary online
status of the CLO “discovery”, the case materials that are already on record.
can be treated as an apt example of
discovering work. Readers are urged to consult the relevant
sites, to view and review the visual and
As noted earlier, discovering work can other materials used to document the
be described even when the ultimate discovery8. These documentary materials
status of the discovery in question will be insufficient for recovering the
remains in doubt. Such a description “lived-work” through which they were
cannot say whether the “product” of assembled, but they should allow for an
such work should be granted ultimate appreciation of the documentary
status as a discovery, but it can delve practices involved (see also Bjelic and
into how the work, its documentation, Lynch, 1992; Lynch and Law, 1999).
and reception relate to that possibility.
The publicity and controversy
surrounding the particular case offered 8
Because of copyright issues, and the
advantages as well as disadvantages for impossibility of embedding video in a paper, the
the analysis of discovering work. The online sites of the documents are referenced
advantages are that documentary here. It is likely that URLs for some of the sites
will have changed before publication of the
materials and rival interpretations of paper (they changed during the drafting of it as
well), but with further searching, all of them
should be accessible.
84Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
Given the limitations of the material, the 1988; Goodwin, 1994), as it involved an
key analytical issues addressed in this elaborate effort to simulate conditions of
paper have to do with the formal observation that allowed for systematic
presentation of and responses to comparisons and categorical
evidence in written reports. One might discriminations. In brief, it was a matter
object that this analysis is about the of building a quasi-experimental space
context of justification rather than around visual evidence in an effort to
discovery, but such an objection would maximize the intelligibility and
be miscast. analyzability of that evidence.
The formal announcement and Initial Reports
documentation of the discovery was an
extension of the discovering work. It did In April 2005, the team published a
not simply provide justification for a report in Sciencexpress, an online
discovery-already-made, because the publication from Science magazine. The
standing and success of the prior work as article had seventeen authors, with John
an instance of “discovery” hinged on the Fitzpatrick, director of the CLO, listed as
contingent production and reception of lead author (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005a).
the documentary materials. The The article included links to further
publications, supporting documents, and documentation (Supporting Online
public presentations strongly Materials).
emphasized visual materials.
According to Fitzpatrick (2005), this
The strenuous efforts to make the best of online publication was hastened into
admittedly bad visual evidence provide print as a result of a leak to the press that
an instance of the well-known occurred shortly after the acceptance of
ethnomethodological research interest in the draft-article by Science.
trouble – either deliberately induced or Simultaneous with the online
found in situ – as a methodological publication, the CLO team also wrote
opportunity for explicating orders of press releases and gave interviews to
practical and interactional activity news sources. The publication in Science
(Garfinkel, 1967). followed in June (Fitzpatrick et al.,
2005b).
In this case, the troubles can help attune
us to the work that goes into visualizing The article and press releases described
and classifying a natural phenomenon. and exhibited the evidence of seven
As we shall see, the production and sightings by different members of the
analysis of visual documents in this case expedition between February 2004 and
involved an elaborate set of practices February 2005. The evidence included
designed to enhance the intelligibility of personal testimonies, field notes and
the visual evidence and the classification sketches, and a few seconds of
based on them. However, such intensively analyzed videotape. The
enhancement was far more than a matter personal testimonies were prominent in
of working with images in order to the press coverage, such as in the
enhance their visibility and analyzability following quotation from a New York
(Lynch, 1985b; Lynch and Edgerton, Times article:
85Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
“Within two weeks [after Gene transcendence, the Greek ekstasis that
Sparling’s reported sighting] Mr. the existentialists use to define a
Gallagher [of CLO] and Bobby R. particular awareness of standing outside
Harrison of Oakwood College in oneself.
Huntsville, Ala., were in a canoe in the
refuge, with Mr. Sparling guiding This expression is far different from the
them. Mr. Gallagher said he had “view from nowhere”, originally coined
expected to camp out for a week, but by philosopher Thomas Nagel (1986),
after one night out, on Feb. 27, he and which critical studies of science have
Mr. Harrison were paddling up a bayou turned into a slogan signaling the
bounded on both sides by cypress and modern, rational, objectifying “gaze”. It
tupelo when they saw a very large also is incompatible with the logical
woodpecker fly in front of their canoe. empiricist conception of context of
When they wrote down their notes discovery, because Gallagher and
independently and compared them, Mr. Harrison are not marking an initial
Gallagher said, Mr. Harrison was moment of apprehension. The
struck by the reality of the discovery outpouring of passion is simultaneous
and began sobbing, repeating, ‘I saw an with a personal realization and
ivory bill’. Mr. Gallagher felt the same. conviction that an object they had just
‘I couldn't speak’, he said” (Gorman, seen could have been nothing other than
2005). what they saw it as 9.
Whether or not the events happened The videotape, taken in April 2004 from
exactly as reported, the story is a camera set up by M.D. Luneau (of the
analytically interesting. Harrison and University of Arkansas), which was
Gallagher – two academics, one of running while laying unattended in the
whom is a professional ornithologist – canoe as he and his brother-in-law
are portrayed as notable characters in the Robert Henderson paddled within the
story, whose passionate reactions are study area, was treated as the key item of
portrayed, not as expressions of bias or evidence (The short segment of video
interest that detract from the credibility can be viewed at:
of the discovery, but as expressions of http://clomedia.ornith.cornell.edu/IBW/I
conviction: “Mr. Harrison was struck by BW_RealTime_DEI.mov).
the reality of the discovery …”; Mr.
Gallagher is quoted as saying “I saw an It shows several seconds of an out-of-
ivory bill”. focus bird flying away from the camera
through a forested area. Another very
There is none of the mitigation of a brief segment of the Luneau video,
tentative observation (“I think I saw an recorded just before the bird revealed
ivory bill”) that defers commitment to itself in flight, also was published. This
the reality of the object (cf., Pinch,
1985). “I couldn’t speak” is a vivid way 9
The same newspaper account quoted above has
to express awe and self-effacement; it is the delayed outpouring of passion occur just as
an expression of a modest witness the two witnesses are inscribing their notes
“independently” – as disciplined observers. I
(Shapin and Schaffer, 1985), but in a thank Wendy Sherman for pointing out this odd
very particular sense. It marks juxtaposition of disciplined and passionate
witnessing.
86Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
segment showed a tupelo tree trunk on flight pattern, and especially the
which the bird apparently was perched distribution of white and black field
just before launching its flight, and the marks on the birds’ wings (ibid., figure
researchers analyzed the frames to show 1), the researchers “considered and
a very blurry image of a bird that was rejected the [more challenging]
mostly obscured by the tree trunk. hypothesis that the sightings and video
can be explained by a ‘piebald’ or
The analysis in the Science article partially leucistic pileated woodpecker
devoted extraordinary attention to the with symmetric white patches on wings
two segments of Luneau videotape. and back approximately matching the
First, a frame-by-frame series of still pattern of an ivory-billed woodpecker”
pictures was reconstructed from the (ibid., p. 2).
segment of the flying bird. Second, the
image of the partially hidden perched The published reports and press releases
bird was subjected to a series of analyses were far from the end of the story, and
involving sketches that extrapolated the story has not ended six years later.
from the visible parts and compared the The ivory-billed woodpecker remains in
video image to models placed on the tree suspended animation between extinction
and photographed from a similar angle and existence. With the passage of time,
and distance. the conviction of reality that struck
Gallagher and Harrison with such
Analyses of both segments compared the emotional force has faded almost
bird shown in the video with drawings entirely away; though not exactly an
and scale models of the ivory-billed embarrassment for the Cornell Lab or
woodpecker and of the pileated Ornithology, the bird is no longer a
woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), a subject of conviction and celebration.
widely distributed North American
species with superficially similar Analysis
markings and slightly smaller size. The
comparisons were designed to rebut an The context of discovery/context of
argument that had been used to call into justification distinction does not provide
question many of the “anecdotal” reports an adequate way to analyze this
made in recent decades: particular case, but something akin to it
may be relevant. As mentioned earlier,
“Such reports are suspect because of researchers are well aware that to think
the existence and relative abundance you have made a discovery (even with
throughout this region of the great conviction) does not mean that you
superficially similar pileated have made a discovery.
woodpecker” (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005b:
1460). A discovery is a social phenomenon, and
a product of disciplinary histories.
Although the two woodpeckers should Researchers are far from passive in
not be difficult to distinguish for relation to such histories. Even for a
experienced birders (let alone world- discovery that can be traced to a key
class professional field ornithologists), revelatory moment, extensive and
because of differences in size, behavior, painstaking efforts are made to
87Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
document that it is a discovery. This mistaken identifications, or in the case of
differs from justifying a discovery, as the photos a likely hoax.
the very identity of the discovery, as
such, turns on the documentation and its More detailed attention and credibility
reception. was ascribed to a more recent history of
sightings that preceded the expedition.
The article in Science and the many These began with reports of a possible
other presentations and accounts given sighting in 1999 by a forestry graduate
by the CLO team members made student in the Pearl River Wildlife
strenuous efforts to head-off or rebut Management Area in Louisiana. Efforts
skeptical dismissal of the sightings, even to confirm the sighting included a 2002
while the popular media was celebrating CLO expedition in which the research
the (re)discovery of the bird they dubbed team set up recording devices in hopes
“Elvis” (also, supposedly, a code name of capturing signature sounds from the
used by the researchers during the year- bird. The Louisiana expedition was a
long period when they maintained notable failure.
secrecy), or “The Lord God Bird”. The
article did so: The research team admitted that acoustic
analysis revealed that repeated sounds
(1) by retrospectively analyzing prior that they at first attributed to the bird’s
“anecdotal” reports of sightings; “knocks” on a tree might have been
(2) describing a series of “authentic” caused by repeated gunfire by a hunter
sightings made just before and during (Fitzpatrick, 2002). Not long after that
the expedition, some of which included expedition was abandoned, repeated
sketches; and, above all, sightings, again by amateurs and this
(3) devoting extraordinary attention to time in Arkansas, motivated a further
the analysis of mechanically recorded expedition.
evidence.
Particularly notable was a sighting by
“Anecdotal” evidence and its reanalysis Sparling. Though he was a local guide
and outdoorsman, with no professional
The article and Supporting Online credentials as an ornithologist, his
Material (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005b) description of an unusual bird he saw
located the present report within a during a recreational kayak trip (which
history of reports made in the decades he had posted on his website) attracted
after the last “conclusively documented” the attention of CLO members. The
reports some 60 years earlier. In a published paper’s narrative gives special
section on “reports with disputed attention to Sparling’s description,
evidence”, the article lists several reports giving a precise time, date, and location,
in the decades since 1944, as well as and specifying some of the key markings
some photographic evidence, audiotapes on the bird he described. As summarized
of knocks and “kent” calls, a nest cavity, in the Supporting Online Materials:
and a feather found near the nest cavity.
With the exception of the reports of the “11 February 2004 sighting. Field
Cuban subspecies, these reports are marks noted by G. Sparling were the
described as actually or possibly bird’s unusually large size compared to
88Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
pileated woodpecker, peculiarly http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqZX
pointed red crest with black anterior PUDTmOc), Fitzpatrick reviewed
edge, long neck, and extensive white several of the prior sightings, and while
on lower half of folded wings showing discussing how they were partial,
slight yellowish tinge along edges ‘like flawed, and even fraudulent, he also
parchment paper’” (p. 2). presented them as possible evidence
(Fitzpatrick, 2005). Just as the recent re-
Sparling also mentioned that he had seen discovery seemed to elevate the
many pileated woodpeckers in the area, credibility of some of the earlier
and that this bird was clearly larger and sightings, treating those earlier sightings
had distinctive field marks. Sparling with renewed seriousness now supported
provided a key link to the CLO the credibility of the re-discovery by
expedition. “The apparent authenticity” suggesting that there was evidence-all-
of his sighting is credited with having along that the ivory-bill persisted. In the
motivated Gallagher and Harrison to absence of such evidence, the recent
travel to Arkansas in hopes of validating sightings would likely have faced a
it. They arranged to have Sparling guide burden of skepticism that would have
them in the swamp, and it was while been even more difficult to overcome.
they were with him that they made their
sighting two weeks later. The full In other words, although the sixty-year
expedition was initiated soon after they gap between “conclusively confirmed”
reported their sightings to Fitzpatrick sightings and the recent expedition
and others. Sparling eventually was remained in place, the interim was filled
included on the list of co-authors in the with variably plausible, if not
Science publication. conclusive, evidences of continuity.
Neither Sparling’s nor Harrison’s and Authentic visual encounters
Gallagher’s sightings in February 2004
counted as conclusive documentation, During the year-long expedition,
but neither were they consigned to according to the published report, “at
“mere” anecdote. Like Sparling himself, least fifteen reported visual encounters”
whose recognition in the article elevated were made by participating researchers
him to an intermediate status between (Fitzgerald et al., 2005b: Supporting
amateur and professional, the sightings Online Materials, p. 2). Of these “seven
themselves had gained greater credibility contained sufficient detail for the authors
than the prior, inconclusive sightings. to treat them as authentic”. One of these
Following the 2005 publication is summarized as follows:
announcing the (re)discovery, the prior
sightings also received renewed “11 April 2004 (Melanie Driscoll
attention, and some of them gained a watched a large woodpecker fly across
degree of credibility, as though riding on a 50-m gap in the forest where she was
the coattails of the successful expedition. stationed, and through 10-power
binoculars at 120 m she saw broad
In a presentation to the American white trailing edge of wings, white line
Ornithologists’ Union in August 2005 extending from wings up the long
(available at
89Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
neck, and small flash of red on crest, Though drawn independently of each
with head otherwise black)” (ibid.). other, Harrison’s and Gallagher’s
sketches can be construed as extensions
This compact account not only describes of, rather than independent evidence for,
what Melanie Driscoll may have seen, their descriptions. They depict and
but it also does so in a particular way highlight what is most significant for
that anticipates the context of argument making the key comparison, while
in which the description is situated. The eliding the rest. Fitzpatrick (2005) jokes
report’s inclusion of measured distance that the two ornithologists drew
lends specificity to the account, and its “headless” birds. The descriptions, hand-
mention of the expanse of open space written notes, and pointers enhance and
and the 10-power binoculars supports supplement the sketches: black is not
the credibility of describing the observed just black, but “brilliant black” or “jet
field marks from that distance. The black”. The notes also indicate that
described marks are not just any Harrison and Gallagher saw or
markings, as they include the singularly recollected what they saw consistently
most important mark for distinguishing with their schematic sketches: “My
the ivory-billed from the pileated entire focus was at the trailing edge of
woodpecker. the wing …”; “Because my eyes were
drawn to the contrast between black and
In his lecture to the AUO, Fitzpatrick white, I have no recollection of head or
(2005) repeatedly stresses that large tail feathers”. Drawing and seeing
white patches extending all the way to worked in concert to document and
the trailing edge of the dorsal wings highlight conventional criteria for
provide the most important distinction to making the identification (Lynch, 1985b;
note (for illustrations of the comparison, Goodwin, 1994).
see:
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/evide Other members of the expedition also
nce/segments/upperwing). documented their sightings with
drawings, always emphasizing the
The pileated woodpecker’s wings are telltale white trailing edges, along with
described and depicted with smaller other features, in both descriptions and
patches of white, bordered by a black sketches. Taken alone, the evidence
band at their rear edges, which are provided by the eyewitness accounts,
visible even in a blurry photograph. field notes, and sketches, might be
Fitzpatrick (2005) also notes that viewed as powerful, and even
sketches made independently by conclusive. If this were a court of law,
Harrison and Gallagher immediately the eyewitness testimony would be
after their February 2004 sighting show considered quite strong, if not
the markings clearly and schematically dispositive. Many of the observers were
(For the sketches, see Supporting Online highly credentialed.
Materials [Fitzpatrick et al., 2005b:Fig.
S1], available at: Aside from Sparling, who was deemed
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f credible if not credentialed, most of the
ull/1114103/DC1). others who made sightings were
professional ornithologists with ample
90Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
field experience. They knew what to by Locke, which establish corroboration
look for and how to distinguish between and credibility, and not just individual
the ivory-billed and pileated testimony. Although modern science is
woodpeckers, and detecting the often distinguished by a special degree
difference between the two large birds of certainty, sometimes called
would not normally be viewed as “mathematical” certainty, in practice
especially challenging for persons with contemporary scientists, no less than the
their level of expertise. The multiple rest of us, rely upon testimony,
sightings also corroborated one other. credentials, credibility ascriptions,
This combination of personal proxies and trust when making
credentials, corroboration, and judgments about fact (Shapin, 2008).
descriptive detail might seem sufficient
to establish the fact in question. Recall, Given the extraordinary circumstances,
for example John Locke’s criteria for however, when preparing their evidence
assessing the credibility of matters of the CLO team evidently anticipated
fact: disbelief, and perhaps even mistrust.
They also recognized that they were
“1. The Number. 2. The Integrity. 3. open to accusations that their
The Skill of the Witnesses. 4. The professional vision was obscured and
Design of the author, where it is a overridden by wishful thinking. They did
testimony out of a book cited. 5. The not present themselves as disinterested
Consistency of the Parts and observers. Many of them spent the 2004-
Circumstances of the Relations. 6. 05 year searching through a vast snake-
Contrary testimonies . . . [As] the and mosquito-infested swamp for the
Relaters are more in number, and of elusive bird. As the account of
more Credit, and have no Interest to Harrison’s and Gallagher’s emotional
speak contrary to the Truth; so that reaction indicates, they were
matter of Fact is like to find more or passionately searching for confirmation
less belief” (Locke, Essay Concerning that the bird existed. And, as Fitzpatrick
Human Understanding, quoted in (2005) points out, this was not simply a
Shapiro [2002:258-59]). matter of solving a mystery about the
singular bird. He makes clear that he and
In a field such as ornithology, personal others in the expedition were committed
skill, integrity, and trust remain highly to saving and restoring a vast ecosystem
relevant, but in this case the expedition whose destruction through logging in the
members did not, and apparently knew 19th and early 20th centuries is held
that they could not, rest their case on responsible for the decimation of the
personal testimony and “moral certainty” bird’s population. The publicity, and the
(cf. Shapin, 1994; Shapiro, 2002). legal protections, that would follow from
a conclusive confirmation that the ivory-
The early-modern conception of moral billed Woodpecker still lived in those
certainty, which is roughly akin to the forests (forests, moreover, that were
notion of “beyond a reasonable doubt” in gradually recovering) would help
modern jurisprudence, requires more preserve far more than the remnant
than personal conviction: it involves a population.
conjunction of the considerations listed
91Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
Though the tight coupling of seeing, Mechanically recorded evidence and its
sketching, and classification exhibited in “reenactment”
the eyewitness accounts can, from one
point of view, enhance the credibility of The CLO team’s resort to mechanical
the sightings by showing that the and simulated forms of evidence created
observers specifically attended to the a curious situation: whereas the personal
field marks that are most critical for testimony of several experienced and
drawing (literally and figuratively) a credentialed observers should have been
categorical distinction between the two highly convincing in terms of standards
most likely candidate species, this very of eyewitness testimony, the mechanical
coupling could be (and was) turned into evidence was of very poor quality by
grounds for disbelief. Given the any standard. The researchers
observers’ attunement to those very acknowledged this, noting that the
criteria, and their evident hopes and Luneau video fragment to which they
desires, skeptics could (and did) ascribe devoted so much attention was far from
such seeing and drawing to a projection optimal.
of the type specimen on to the fleetingly-
glimpsed tokens10. “The woodpecker remains in the video
frame for a total of 4 s[econds] as it
So, rather than resting their case on the flies rapidly away. Even at its closest
testimony of several credible point, the woodpecker occupies only a
eyewitnesses, the CLO team sought a small fraction of the video. Its images
more modern form of documentary are blurred and pixilated owing to rapid
evidence: mechanically recorded images motion, slow shutter speed, video
and sounds. However, they did not, and interlacing artifacts, and the bird’s
could not, let these recordings “speak for distance beyond the video camera’s
themselves”, and they supplemented and focal plane” (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005b:
analyzed the recordings they collected 1460).
with models, photoshopped images and
processed sound recordings, and This mere four seconds of blurry video
simulations of comparable observations received extraordinarily detailed
(See Supporting Online Materials, attention. Fitzpatrick (2005) joked that it
available at: was “the most famous lousy video since
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f the Zapruder [film]” – referring to the
ull/1114103/DC1 ; and Cornell Lab of blurry home-movie of the assassination
Ornithology, “The Search for the ivory- of John F. Kennedy, which was the
billed woodpecker,” at: subject to endless frame-by-frame
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/). analyses during the Warren
Commission’s investigation. The
evidence for the Science article included
frame-by-frame analysis of the Luneau
tape (A more elaborate analysis is
10
available on the CLO website, at:
The theme of projection is implied in the title ).
sightings with seeing an ephemeral object that
has no real existence.
92Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
They also made measurements of the depict the bird and its key features, with
number of wing-beats per second, and particular attention to the white patches
the apparent dimensions of the bird on the wings. The outlines were
shown on the video. These calculations extended beyond the visible portion to
were an attempt to discriminate between complete the outline of the parts of the
the two kinds of woodpecker, because bird obscured by the tree (see Fitzpatrick
the ivory-billed measures slightly larger et al., 2005b:1461, Fig. 1).
on average than the pileated.
Then, after measuring the diameter of
The researchers also examined the run- the tree, the researchers estimated the
up to the key four-seconds on the tape to size of the white patches and of the
find further evidence (unnoticed at the entire bird, and plotted the
time) of “an indistinct object” – measurements (showing estimated error
presumed to be the bird before it began range) against average measurements for
its historic flight. Two brief, very poorly pileated and ivory-billed woodpeckers
resolved, sequences were found. One set (using measurements derived from
of frames occurred just before the bird museum specimens). Such inscriptions
appeared in flight. According to the and measures superimposed upon blurry
researchers, the flight sequence images were reminiscent of the exhibits
(Fitzpatrick et al., 2005b: Supporting used in another frame-by-frame analysis
Online Materials, Fig. S3) traces back to of a famous videotape: the primary
a series of frames in which a white wing exhibit used during the 1992 trial of the
patch appears from behind a tupelo tree. police accused of excessive force when
They interpreted this to be a partial view they arrested Rodney King in Los
of the bird just as it launches into flight. Angeles (Goodwin, 1994).
The other sequence occurred some 20-26
seconds before the flight sequence (this Particularly interesting was the research
clip is available at: team’s efforts to “reenact” the conditions
). The sequence shows a compare similar framings of Ivory-billed
blurry form on a tree in the distance as and pileated type-specimens. Unlike
the canoe drifts by. This form was not digital image processing techniques used
seen by the two canoeists at the time, to enhance the visibility and
and is extremely difficult to see on the analyzability of the evidence, the
video, even with the aid of a directional reenactments attempted to reproduce or
pointer. simulate rather than to overcome the
perspectival limitations and out-of-focus
The video evidence was enhanced and quality of the video. The inadvertently
extrapolated to highlight and upgrade the “lousy” quality of the video was made
“indistinct object” so that it more closely analytically comparable with other,
approximated the overall form of a bird deliberately produced, “lousy” videos.
with white patches on the dorsal side of
the wings. The researchers used digital Instead of trying to enhance or “purify”
image processing techniques to “de- (Latour, 1993) the evidence, the
interlace” and “resize” video stills, and researchers made painstaking efforts to
they inscribed outlines on the stills that reproduce its “impurity” so as to enable
93Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
comparisons and measurements. The http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f
documentary materials shown on the ull/1114103/DC1).
CLO website include a photo of
researchers in a canoe preparing the Another “reenactment” was made for the
reenactment, complete with director’s analysis of the portions of the video
clipboard (see showing the flying bird. The published
http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/evide supplement described the reenactment as
nce/segments/segments/methods). follows:
This parody of a Hollywood production “For the re-enactment (performed 15
also drew upon the conventions of filmic March 2005), we constructed, painted,
realism – the deliberate simulation of the and mounted on long poles lifelike
spontaneous, non-choreographed, wooden models of ivory-billed and
unedited “feel” of a grainy on-the- pileated woodpeckers with outstretched
ground scenario. However, the point of wings. Operators could flap the wings
this production was not to produce a at a rate of about 1 flap s–1. Models
convincing nature documentary (cf. were held at different angles to reveal
Mitman, 1999), but to produce both upper and lower wings. Slow
controlled conditions for inspecting the shutter speeds (1/8 s, 1/15 s) produced
video evidence and conclusively blurred images comparable to those on
eliminating the alterative hypothesis that the Luneau video. The re-enactment's
“indistinct object” in question was a location, camera-to-subject distance,
pileated woodpecker. light conditions (overcast sky near
midday), camera (Canon GL-2), and
The segments of the perched and studio treatment were the same as in
launching bird were analyzed, not only the original” (Fitzpatrick et al., 2005b:
by closely inspecting and upgrading Supporting Online Materials:1).
stills drawn from the videotape, but also
by comparing the frames with other out- Once again, the videos of the two
of-focus videos shot later with the same models were compared with each other
camera from approximately the same and the Luneau sequence, frame-by-
positions. The “indistinct object” found frame. The researchers concluded from
in the Luneau video did not show up in this comparison that the Luneau
the control videos, thus supporting the sequence more closely resembled the
idea that it was the bird. Further sequence with the ivory-billed model.
comparisons were drawn by building Moreover, they also claimed (and
life-sized, painted wooden models of documented with images) that the
pileated and ivory-billed woodpeckers, sequence with the pileated model
attaching them to the tupelo tree at the “clearly shows a broad black trailing
apparent positions shown in the video edge, despite the obvious blurring”
segments, and then shooting them from (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/ivory/evid
similar perspectives, with the same ence/segments/resultsunderwing).
camera, with similar focus and under
comparable lighting conditions
(Fitzpatrick et al., 2005b: Supporting
Online Materials, Fig. S5, available at:
94Ethnographic Studies, No 12, December 2011
Skeptical reanalysis science” and “skepticism”.
As anticipated by the researchers Jackson cites a personal communication
themselves, the public announcement of from Fitzpatrick, that there was an error
the discovery touched off skepticism as in the supplementary material to the
well as excitement. Jerome A. Jackson 2005 article (Jackson, 2006a, referring to
(2006a) initiated a heated exchange with Figure S5A in Fitzpatrick et al., 2005b):
Fitzpatrick et al. (2006a) in The Auk, the the video frame likely was “a branch
official quarterly of the American stub […] rather than a perched ivory-
Ornithologists’ Union. After stating a billed woodpecker […]” (this error was
medley of doubts and criticisms, Jackson later acknowledged in Fitzpatrick et al.,
reviewed the series of anecdotal reports 2006a). He then rebuts or casts doubt
made over the years, and asked about the upon the evidence based on the analysis
CLO team’s sightings, “what makes of field marks (white patches against
them different from the almost annual dark backgrounds), size and flight
handful of sightings that cannot readily pattern comparisons, and acoustic
be dismissed as ‘almost certainly a recordings. Echoing a criticism made
pileated’?” Answering his own question, earlier by a pair of Brazilian
he asserted “it is not necessarily the ornithologists, he suggests that a variant
quality of the evidence, but the attendant of a pileated woodpecker could show the
publicity and aura of authority pattern of white underwing the CLO
associated with the announcement, that researchers found so definitive.
has raised the profile of the Arkansas
reports” (Jackson, 2006: 5). In a letter published in The Auk,
Fitzpatrick et al. (2006a) presented
In the course of his wide-ranging rebuttals to a long list of points in
criticisms of interests and motives as Jackson’s article, heading almost every
well as evidence, Jackson mentions that paragraph with phrases such as:
Luneau was an “engineering professor” “Jackson is incorrect in alleging […]”,
and Harrison “an art professor”, and he “Contrary to Jackson’s suggestion […]”,
points to how Harrison’s story became “Jackson is incorrect in stating […]”;
embellished with successive re-tellings. and “Jackson is incorrect and naïve in
Though he does not accuse them of suggesting […]”. Jackson (2006b)
deliberate deception, he suggests that continued the exchange in another letter,
they and their colleagues rushed to “sell” toning down the argument slightly, while
their discovery (p. 6). Quoting someone reiterating his earlier assertions that the
named M. Lynch (no relation), he asks: evidence was inconclusive, expressive of
“Will [the ivory-billed woodpecker] be wishful thinking, and potentially
the poster child for new fund-raising damaging to the thus-far highly
efforts for Cornell and The Nature successful effort to promote
Conservancy?” After running through a conservation of the habitat in question.
list of fund-raising efforts, hyped press
accounts, and successful efforts to Though clearly designed to convince
commit funds to preserve the region of skeptics that the sightings were not
Arkansas, Jackson assumes a sobering fleeting impressions gathered by
tone and invokes a need for “sound interested observers, the video-analysis
95You can also read
