Old wives tales and critical thinking

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately... mostly the last 15 years really, about how certain concepts enter the collective consciousness.

Deep. I know.

The finding of a Marsh Warbler in Ireland, seemingly happy to sing from reeds in a reed bed (granted I'm told there's a bush or two nearby) reminded me of a claim many years ago on the Irish Bored Network...no...not a typo, that Marsh Warblers don't sing from reeds.

It was wrong to me then. And it's still wrong to me now. Just the other week I was watching one singing in reeds on my patch with my oul fella in tow.

I've heard a lot of these old wives tales over the years. I'm sure you have too.

Large raptors don't cross water is a famous one for all the wrong reasons (cough cough Booted eagle).

I was once told wild Goosander would never come to bread, after seeing birds do just that, in multiple locations around Europe.

I was once told Great Spotted Woodpecker never drums before March. Really? Even though it says in the literature they drum from January? Hell I've had them drumming in December!

I was once told Goshawk only inhabits large forestry areas, and couldn't possibly have seen one at an estuary location on that basis.
Please, please visit Helsinki city center sometime... you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Many of these old wives tales were re-iterated to me by birders many would deem competent, even experts. Some went on to be members of dreaded rarity committees.

I'm sure many birders could tell you similar nonsensical fables.

And this is where the problem lies...

It's only nonsense if you assess that information for yourself and find it factually lacking or incorrect.

If you swallow it without question it becomes, not nonsense, but gospel, it gets parroted around, and can then become very difficult to undo.

The case of the drumming Great Spotted Woodpecker was particularly disturbing. In that instance, the birder claiming that Great Spotted Woodpecker never drums before March, Ciaran Cronin, did so solely on the basis of personal, anecdotal evidence of him (and an unquantifiable "everyone I know"), having lived in Scotland for a time, never having encountered one doing so. I found it laughable that he had apparently taken the time to conduct such a detailed survey.

It's tempting to rely solely on personal experience, but obviously a scientific process of referring to literature and publications, when available, is preferable.

When I did so, providing references for drumming from January, was when things got really interesting or dis-interesting if you will.

This birder acknowledged the references, but qualified them as, "January drumming is only likely to occur where population density is high, with a high proportion of young birds."

Inevitably I asked the question "can you provide references/papers to substantiate that?" 

The response staggered me and I'm not sure my eyes ever actually rolled back to their normal position.

That response : "Scientific papers are not the only source of
information in the world, and often not even the best."

I think Dara o'Briain said it best with : "Get in the fuckin sack."

He then went on to mention gamekeepers as a good source of information...as if the scientific paper comment wasn't enough to deem the conversation hopeless.

Humanity has had this issue since time began. When a gap in knowledge is present, it can often be filled in with made up bullshit. And I use the word bullshit unequivocally and without apology.

I've made no real secret over the past few years, that my personal beliefs disqualified most of the older generation of birders from learning new tricks. And that my criticisms of birding systems is aimed solely for younger birders who may stand a chance of changing things, principal among which should be their minds.

It's a prejudice. I'll grant you that. I promise you, however, that if I ever see any evidence of real change, like the disappearance of such old wives tales, I'll rethink that view.

Critical thinking is a skill. It's not innate. It can be learned.

For me, it starts with the changing of your own default position. Instead of listening to what others say and swallowing it unquestioningly...you dissect it. You absorb only if you find that information is verifiable, true and of use.

This applies to bird identification too.

Many birders in Ireland, perhaps some in Britain too, will remember hearing, a few weeks ago, about a Spring Dusky Warbler on Tory island, Donegal.

It was called a Dusky Warbler, primarily on the say so of a well known name in birding, Killian Mullarney.

You won't find this text on the Irishbirding website anymore, the author had it hastily removed, which should tell you something in and of itself.

This bird was identified from a video. A video which was eventually placed on the internet shortly after this identification was made in the background. 

The bird in the video was instantly recognizable as a Chiffchaff. 

However instead of birders in Ireland realizing this, many went straight into congratulation mode. Undoubtedly this was due to the big name that made the call. It's hardly the first time this has happened. It certainly won't be the last. 

Birders in Ireland, and further afield, have a very bad habit of switching their brains off when a big name makes a call like this. Critical thinking not only stops...it never even kicks in. 

Pedestals that you put people on are barrier to reason. 

The suggestion I make to young birders is this. Switch your default from 1 to 0. Positive to negative. 

The next time you see someone like Mullarney make an identification, instead of assuming they are correct...start from the position they are wrong. Then work through the identification from there. 

This mindset will likely win you no friends and plenty of critics. It may even hurt a few feelings. But it won't hurt YOU in any way and you will likely pick up a valuable skill in doing so. 

And should you ever feel bad about doing so? Rest easy in that you can be positively certain, that someone, maybe even said pedestal-installed entity themselves, has, and will continue to, apply such a negative default position to you.