About methods, measurements, errors, baits and the art of debating

[peter]

2 - THE ERROR IN THE THREAD 'ON THE EDGE OF EXTINCTION' (tigers)

In the fifth paragraph of my first post in this thread, I referred to an error in a number of posts on tigers and bears in southeastern Russia. I wrote the 'error' was in fact a bait. I also wrote I would explain later. In this post, I will deliver. I will start at the beginning. As the post is a long one, I decided to use paragraphs.

For those interested in the proceedings. In the first part of the post (a-g), I offer my opinion on some actions of the poster WaveRiders on WildFact from the perspective of a co-owner who was addressed without him knowing anything about it. The last part is a personal contribution to a (largely virtual) debate on a number of issues not discussed when WaveRiders was a member of this forum. For this reason, WaveRiders is Wave.     


a - A mistake in a number of posts on tigers and bears

Some months ago, in the thread mentioned above (see the title), I referred to a recent study conducted in southeastern Russia. Seryodkin was involved. To me, it was about the weight of the three adult male brown bears they studied. In my post, I wrote all males were Ussuri brown bears (Ursus arctos lasiotus). This, however, was not the case. One of the bears was from a very different region. Some days after my post, a reader contacted me with a few questions. I then realized I had made a mistake. At first, I wanted to correct my posts. Later, I decided against it. For now. Here's why.


b - Why it wasn't corrected

Bears and tigers still are 'hot' on animals forums. Furthermore, I am co-owner of this forum. This means it is likely my posts will be read by those interested in bears and tigers. Some of these are members of other forums and a few of these, for different reasons, carry a grudge. As they in particular are well-informed, chances were the mistake would be noticed. I expected only one of them would respond in public. The poster I had in mind is a former member of this forum. WaveRiders left with a smallish grudge when I had to intervene in a heated debate which turned inproductive. I expected him to pay his respects sooner or later.

A bit far-fetched, some of you no doubt will say. True, but the well-informed and the proud usually are one and the same and they in particular are the ones who carry and feed a grudge, no matter how small. I know many of them will seek retribution in some way. I can hear you say 'Could be, but a forum isn't an arena, is it'? I disagree. A forum in particular is very suited, because it is in the public domain for all to see. As retribution usually means honour saved, it also means the opponent has to pay. In public if possible, as this would mean both honour saved and loss of face for the opponent(s). 

If Wave would have recovered from the turbulence in a way fitting his knowledge, he would have contacted me to solve the problem. This would have produced the desired result. If he opted for something different, he had to face a few things. Anticipating the second option, a mirror was borrowed.  


c - The flipside of arrogance

I can hear you say 'What had to be faced'? The answer is arrogance has a lot of disadvantages. WaveRiders probably read more books and documents than most of us. Apart from that, he (suggested he) is connected to science in some way. He also was in Africa to talk with lions. Excellent credentials, one would think. In spite of all that, he succeeded in creating animosity even before he had settled. Why was that?   

My guess is he, regarding the books and documents often mentioned in forums, got to different conclusions. He could have asked a question to get to an interesting debate, but opted for a method which resulted in the opposite: he refused to disclose his sources. Monopolizing knowledge opposes the method scientists prefer. They in particular refer to peer-reviewed documents when debating. 

One of those who opposed him in public was a mod. Although mods make mistakes as well, they need to be respected. It is a fact this rule was ignored. When things got heated, all mods were just about done with WaveRiders. I had no option but to intervene. In my post, he was again confronted with the disadvantages of his way of communicating. He wasn't dismissed, but encouraged to adopt another method of interacting. My post had no effect.


d - A new home but no change 

WaveRiders left our forum and joined another. His first posts were a continuation of the would-be debate he left months earlier. From a distance, covered by his new tanks and with the 8-inchers in front of him, his flawless paragraphs were replaced by armour-piercing shells. When the owner of the new hotel found out about it, however, WaveRiders was forced to sell his guns. 


e - Conclusions

One is that WaveRiders, in spite of his suggested connection to science, ignored a number of important scientific rules. Two is he ignored fundamental rules of interaction. Three is he lives by his own rules. Four is he uses them to his advantage. Five is he is not to be addressed.  


f - My response to the problems in WildFact

I told him I intervened to prevent a war and to back the mod attacked. I did it in a friendly way, because I do not dislike those who live by their own rules and really know about tigers, lions and bears. There are, however, limits and he crossed them when he insulted our mods. I know mistakes have been made and I also know it will take time to learn, but I like them no matter what and will always back them. The reason is they are honest, committed and heavily involved in the world they are interested in. This in spite of conditions unknown in countries where wildlife has disappeared a long time ago. Notice I didn't refer to their education. They are well-educated, but it is about something else. 


g - The bait

I offered WaveRiders the opportunity to respond to the error I made (I didn't inform Guate and the others about it) and he went for it. But it wasn't about the error, Wave. It was about how you would respond to the opportunity, as this would reveal those departments of the soul many of us cover with degrees, tables, experience and flawless paragraphs. What did we see?


h - Your response 

It is a fact your demons again got the better of you. When going over the error, you couldn't avoid indulging in red lines, personal comments in red, red paragraphs and red arrows. After dismantling all illusions of those interested in our forum, your brother in arms was introduced. The poster who had been opposing the ignorant for years. You first congratulated him on his work and endurance. This was necessary, as you would use some of the results later. Than the main dish was served. They were projections of the terrible mistakes you had exposed. They included " ... repeated mistakes, twists, misinterpretations and so on ... " (your post of August 23, 2015). Mistakes, unfortunately, are human. It was about something else, meaning you concluded that that some of these 'repeated mistakes and twists' were made " ... intentionally ... " (your post of August 23, 2015).

In your post mentioned above (see the previous paragraph), you realized it takes two to debate: " ... For a fair gentleman challenge I should await for Peter to come back and reply ... ". In spite of that, you couldn't overcome the urge to administer more punishment. In your post of August 29, 2015 (the one severely deleted by Taipan later), you wrote " ... when Moderators will not offend users any more ..., when the philosophy of the website may have changed and users not following the unidirectional stream of excessive tiger bias and having a different understanding of size, weights, stomach contents ... ". Some time later, you added " ... I can guarantee you (he was talking to Grizzly) that I can hit Guate and Peter even harder with my scientific and logic weapons of sort of that ..., but it would absolutely not be my nature to do that ... ". As usual, you contradicted yourself just a little further on when you wrote " ... I put my armour on, took my sword and shield ... " (all quotes in this paragraph are from your severely edited post in Carnivora of August 29, 2015).


i - Evaluation

I could say a lot, but I can also keep it short and say I saw frustration at work. Frustration usually is a result of lack of recognition. There was no need, Wave. Quality isn't the problem. Adjustment is. When you want to interact, you got to accept a few rules. When you declare yourself exempt and post statements that can't be checked and mix them with insults, then don't complain about the results. 

My advice is to ignore the urge to defend the point you made at all costs. When you like to interact about the things you are interested in, join a forum and respect the other participants. At times, it will result in something good and at times it will not. When you buy a sword every time you're not quite satisfied, others will treat you accordingly. 


j - Preference  

I plead guilty to preference to a degree, but I only practise in my own house and it didn't result in distortions. When I don't post, I read. The threads our new mod Majingilane created, often featuring the brotherhood, are very interesting. 

I could say a lot more, but the point is accusations have to be based on facts, not something else. You also have to distinguish between mistakes and deliberate misinformation. Nearly all of us produce mistakes at a quite alarming rate, but that doesn't mean they were a result of doubtful intentions or extreme preference. Most are a result of slops or assumptions. Another reason is unclear information in peer-reviewed documents. 


k - Unclear information 

1 - Forest Officers. A century and a half ago, in the UK, those trained to become Forest Officers in India were taught to measure big cats in a straight line. Many of them did, but some adapted to local habits when in India. How find your way in the books some of them wrote? You read them and do it again. In spite of that, mistakes will be made. The reason is a lack of clear information. Not something else.

2 - Hunters. A century and a half ago, a debate on how to measure a dead big cat in what was then British India erupted between hunters. Most big cats were measured 'over curves'. An unreliable method, it was concluded. Sterndale proposed a new method to measure big cats ('between pegs'). More reliable, they thought. After the debate had been concluded, some hunters adopted the new method. Most, however, did not. The reason was it wasn't easy to measure a big cat in wild India. There was no flat surface, there was no help to move the tiger and many just didn't have the time to give it a try. For this reason, every book or article which has measurements has to be read with care. In quite many cases, the attempt to get to a conclusion will prove to be fruitless. The reason is a lack of clear information. Not something else.

3 - Biologists. When I became interested in big cats, I talked to biologists (and zoologists). The aim was to find out in what way big cats are measured. Dr. P. van Bree told me they have to be measured in a straight line ('between pegs'). The (steel) tape shouldn't be pressed against the body. It should be used to measure the straight line between the markers (nose, insertion of the tail and the last bone of the tail) made on the floor. The distance between them is measured when the cat is removed. In our country, students are taught to do it in that way. Other biologists confirmed. I visited a biologist in Belgium and talked to Dr. D. Morike in Stuttgart. Same answer.   

However. The peer-reviewed documents I read often are unclear, if not outright confusing. Some biologists measured big cats themselves 'between pegs', whereas others used old hunting records. In some books, it isn't clear in what way the big cats mentioned were measured. In others, both methods ('over curves' and ;'between pegs') were used. In one and the same table, I mean. At times, things got mixed up. Could have been a printing error and could have been a result of something else. 

The table on the size of Amur tigers in the great book of Heptner & Sludskij is a good example in that it has both reliable and unreliable records. It took me a long time to find the information I was after. Not something one expects when reading a book written by competent biologists, but there you have it. The conclusion is you have to find your way each and every time. Nothing can be taken for granted. If mistakes are made, they are a result of unclear information or confusion. Not something else.  


l - Back to the 19th century: Today's tiger authorities, methods and peer-reviewed documents

What I know is as result of reading, interviews and practise (skulls and big cats). When I thought I knew enough, assumptions crept in. One of these was today's biologists measure big cats in a straight line. Wrong. If I was forced to express an opinion right now, I would say most probably don't. Not in the way it should be done, I mean. Methodwise, one could say we re-entered the 19th century and be right. A bit over the top?

No. Ullas Karanth, an undisputed authority on wild tigers, wrote measurements taken 'between pegs' are anything but reliable (...) and he was bloody serious about it. This most probably meant Nagarahole tigers had been measured 'over curves'. As he also wrote they compared to those in Chitwan and Russia, I became a bit nervous. I mean, if he was right, it meant tigers in Nepal and Russia also had been measured 'over curves'. This was about a decade ago, well before I joined a forum. I decided to read more about Chitwan and Russia. After reading everything I found, I concluded the Chitwan tigers were measured in a more or less straight line. But it also is a fact the tape was pressed to the body. Not how it should be done. After reading Sunquist's emails, I settled for something close to 'between pegs'. I admit I'm not too sure, though. One reason is Dr. Tamang, regarding the same tigers, wrote they were measured 'over curves'. The debate on who is right never started.   

I than turned to Russia. The conclusion was all Amur tigers mentioned in old books and articles were measured 'over curves'. In 1992, the Siberian Tiger Project started. American biologists introducing modern devices, Russian biologists walking the forests to get to the core of things, translations of old Russian books and new documents. It was a very promising prospect and when I read the Appendix in the document about the morphology of Amur tigers, the nervousness regarding methods and measurements largely disappeared. I mean, why publish an Appendix on how to measure a big cat in the correct way and then ignore it? But I wasn't sure.    


m - On the consequences of misinformation by biologists

Let's assume wild Amur tigers, as Ullas Karanth indirectly suggested, also were measured 'over curves'. If so, I would be interested to find out why those involved decided to ignore the Appendix mentioned before and re-enter the 19th century. If tigers were measured 'over curves' in the last decades, it means the general public was misinformed. It would also mean the information I posted on the length of today's tigers is largely incorrect. If so, the question is if it has to be qualified as deliberate misinformation. In order to get to an answer, one first has to find the answer to the question if those who wrote the documents I used were explicit regarding the method used to measure tigers. If it was mentioned, the question is where.  

Readers also have responsability. But should they be prepared for what seems to be a strategy directed at evasion? If questions on methods are not answered, should they contact those who (co-)wrote documents which have measurements?  

Why is it so many biologists writing documents do not address vital questions? Why is it so many get to general statements when their sample is unreliable? Why is it so many old books loaded with measurements are dismissed out of hand when it is also known that those who dismiss apparently use the same method? Why is it that not one biologist or zoologist even attempted to get to a real good, read onjective, appreciation of old records? Why is it modern records have not been evaluated?                  


n - On forums, methods, measurements and misinformation

When interacting with others about methods, measurements and the reliability of records, one has to be careful with words and accusations. Those who post on methods and measurements in this forum read everything available. There also have been plenty of discussions about methods in different threads. If mistakes were made in spite of that, they were not a result of deliberate misinformation or preference, but a result of a lack of clearity in peer-reviewed documents. One has to remember that interpretations start when good information is lacking.

Posters who accuse others of misinformation the public, knowing they could have been misled by biologists who apparently don't know how to measure a big cat and, on top of that, also refrained from offering crucial information on the method used in the documents they published, not only compare to them, but deliberately misuse the predictable results of flawed documents in order to get to a confirmation of a statement resulting from a grudge which could have been prevented if they had just learned to to interact in a productive way. How to satisfy the urge to get even in any possible way, lesson one. But the debate was about something different, remember?                      


o - Suggestions         

As far as I'm concerned, you can join the debate any time. When you do, remember it isn't about the result. The road you follow also is important. When you walk that road and interact in an honest way, you'll win a few encounters and most probably lose a lot more. Many people think they reach their summit when they win the challenges they face. I don't agree. People shine when they learn to accept they can't have it their way most of the time. The best of these manage to interact in a respectful way, in spite of a few disappointments. More often than not, they deliver quality at every opportunity.

What I'm saying is it could be more productive to reach 50% of your objective in a good climate than 90% in one loaded with viruses yet to be discovered. One day, they will find you. In a system in which only few decide, a mistake often has way more effect than in a system where all have a voice. Never underestimate your fellow man. Unexplored territory, but very important. 

Same in sports and music. I know a bit about both as it was there I made my living. In order to play real good music, you need good musicians. A good miscian is someone who knows how to use his abilities. The best support others, erasing flaws while doing so. The one affected will respond, in this way inspiring his collegues. If all understand and participate, they will reach a stage in which they are capable of anything. This is the moment they will not forget. Although it has yet to be proven, I do not doubt that the energy created in this way is very real and very productive. Beats everything you hope to achieve on your own. It only is created when you really cooperate and make 'm shine and it can't be trained or taught. This is where humans could excel.

This is my best effort. Make up your mind. When you like to win no matter what, stay away. When you are able to accept life as it comes and deliver quality in spite of the often difficult conditions, report for duty. 

I will post on the other issues mentioned in my first post in some time, but not now. Time to indulge in a bit of music. Regards,

Peter. Reply