Questions:
1) What is the major conflict between Brad and Mary in terms of the scientific process? Make a list of Brad’s arguments and valid pieces of evidence and Mary’s response to each.
Brad & Mary's major conflict was whether to announce his discovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker with the evidence he got in Arkansas.
1) What is the major conflict between Brad and Mary in terms of the scientific process? Make a list of Brad’s arguments and valid pieces of evidence and Mary’s response to each.
Brad & Mary's major conflict was whether to announce his discovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker with the evidence he got in Arkansas.
Brad's Argument
|
Mary's Response
|
2) What do you think about Brad’s concern that by waiting with the announcement they could miss their chance to save the birds?
I think that Brad's concern about waiting with the announcement that could miss their chance to save the birds is something anyone could relate to. I understand that discovering a bird that no one has seen since the 30s would make you want to spread the news around to help protect their habitat, and if anyone else was in his shoes they would do the same & announce the discovery.
3) Imagine you are the owner of a company that owns the logging rights adjacent to the area of the woodpecker sightings, or a biologist trying to protect the habitat of another endangered species in another part of the state. Do you think that they would be satisfied with the same amount of evidence in this case as Brad? Why/Why not?
If I was the owner of a company that owned logging rights in the areas of woodpecker sightings or a biologist who is very protective of the habitat of endangered species, I honestly don't think that they would be satisfied with the same amount of evidence as Brad because they would want evidence that would be convincing enough to think that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct.
4) What is the right amount of evidence? How can you determine the answer to that question?
The right amount of evidence would be where you wouldn't have to second guess what you see & don't need to keep testing the evidence. That type of evidence would be more convincing to announce to the public.
5) Give other examples of public discourse, policy decisions, or controversial issues where your insights from this case could be applied.
Other examples where my insights from this case could be applied is people being accused guilty of murder, but without enough evidence to support it.
6) Decide how much evidence you would need to accept the claim that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct.
I think the amount of evidence needed to accept that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct is to have evidence that people need that will convince them on the spot.
7) Decide how much evidence you would need to accept that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extinct.
I would need evidence such as DNA samples, a very high quality video, clear pictures at the right angles & clear recordings of there "kent" calls.
8) Put yourself in Brad’s position—what would you have told the reporter?
If I was in Brad's position, I would of told the reporter that "I know what I saw, and I for sure know that I saw an Ivory-billed Woodpecker." & "Even though the evidence might not be enough to convince you, I know what I saw and I'm convinced"
9) Does it matter to you who presents the evidence?
Yes, it matters who presents the evidence. The person who should be presenting the evidence should be the person who was actually there, with a few witnesses who saw also, & someone who can prove that the evidence is enough.
10) Who presented the evidence in the real Ivory-billed Woodpecker case (who was present at the press conference)?
In the real Ivory-billed Woodpecker Brad Murky presented the evidence with his team by his side.
I think that Brad's concern about waiting with the announcement that could miss their chance to save the birds is something anyone could relate to. I understand that discovering a bird that no one has seen since the 30s would make you want to spread the news around to help protect their habitat, and if anyone else was in his shoes they would do the same & announce the discovery.
3) Imagine you are the owner of a company that owns the logging rights adjacent to the area of the woodpecker sightings, or a biologist trying to protect the habitat of another endangered species in another part of the state. Do you think that they would be satisfied with the same amount of evidence in this case as Brad? Why/Why not?
If I was the owner of a company that owned logging rights in the areas of woodpecker sightings or a biologist who is very protective of the habitat of endangered species, I honestly don't think that they would be satisfied with the same amount of evidence as Brad because they would want evidence that would be convincing enough to think that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct.
4) What is the right amount of evidence? How can you determine the answer to that question?
The right amount of evidence would be where you wouldn't have to second guess what you see & don't need to keep testing the evidence. That type of evidence would be more convincing to announce to the public.
5) Give other examples of public discourse, policy decisions, or controversial issues where your insights from this case could be applied.
Other examples where my insights from this case could be applied is people being accused guilty of murder, but without enough evidence to support it.
6) Decide how much evidence you would need to accept the claim that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct.
I think the amount of evidence needed to accept that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is not extinct is to have evidence that people need that will convince them on the spot.
7) Decide how much evidence you would need to accept that the Ivory-billed Woodpecker is extinct.
I would need evidence such as DNA samples, a very high quality video, clear pictures at the right angles & clear recordings of there "kent" calls.
8) Put yourself in Brad’s position—what would you have told the reporter?
If I was in Brad's position, I would of told the reporter that "I know what I saw, and I for sure know that I saw an Ivory-billed Woodpecker." & "Even though the evidence might not be enough to convince you, I know what I saw and I'm convinced"
9) Does it matter to you who presents the evidence?
Yes, it matters who presents the evidence. The person who should be presenting the evidence should be the person who was actually there, with a few witnesses who saw also, & someone who can prove that the evidence is enough.
10) Who presented the evidence in the real Ivory-billed Woodpecker case (who was present at the press conference)?
In the real Ivory-billed Woodpecker Brad Murky presented the evidence with his team by his side.