• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Parrot language and exaggeration

Ashles

Pith Artist
Ashles
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
8,694
Location
The '80s
Sigh. For some reason it's not enough is it that a parrot is found to have remarkable speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3430481.stm
The bird, a captive African grey called N'kisi, has a vocabulary of 950 words, and shows signs of a sense of humour.
Click to expand...
Okay fine so far.
And then, of course, the almost inevitable trip into lala land:
N'kisi's remarkable abilities, which are said to include telepathy, feature in the latest BBC Wildlife Magazine.
Click to expand...
Telepathy??? What?
Telepathy, just thrown into the article for no reason, with no further reference or information of any kind.

And for this we pay a licence fee.:(
 
Close this thread. The bird will know we are talking about it and come after us!!!!

:scared:
 
Yeah, and said by whom exactly? The reporter, talking out of their arse. Which is really even more remarkable than a funny parrot.

Oh, I just figured it out. Google N'kisi and telepathy, and the first link is Sheldrake.

Sigh.
 
That's hilarious. "The bird, said to have once piloted a NASA space shuttle around the moon, has bright green feathers and likes peanuts."
 
Given what the claims are and how many universities there are in and near New York City (which is where the parrot and his owner lives ), I'm disapointed that there hasn't been other attempts made to test them. :(
 
Teek spotted this and emailed the Beeb to compleain. Interestingly, even after the edit it still says "Last Updated: Monday, 26 January 2004, 15:27 GMT".

The version mentioning telepathy is still in Google's cache (retrieved on 23 Dec 2006 22:53:44 GMT).
 
Mojo said:
Teek spotted this and emailed the Beeb to compleain. Interestingly, even after the edit it still says "Last Updated: Monday, 26 January 2004, 15:27 GMT".

The version mentioning telepathy is still in Google's cache (retrieved on 23 Dec 2006 22:53:44 GMT).
Click to expand...

it's a cover-up!
 
I'm starting to doubt these parrots really have vocabularies of 1,000, or can use syntax, etc. But where's the good skeptical critiques of these studies?
 
Whilst I am fully happy to take the credit for getting the article edited (I do have friends in low places, you know :D), I wonder if anyone else emailed them as well?
 
Ashles said:
Sigh. For some reason it's not enough is it that a parrot is found to have remarkable speech:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3430481.stm

Okay fine so far.
And then, of course, the almost inevitable trip into lala land:

Telepathy??? What?
Telepathy, just thrown into the article for no reason, with no further reference or information of any kind.

And for this we pay a licence fee.:(
Click to expand...

Funny how they can get away with this type of thing by saying "is said to". Technically, it may be accurate, but it doesn't tell us a damn thing.

Editor: According to your story, the parrot is said to bench press 500 pounds.
Reporter: That's right.
Editor: Who said it?
Reporter: Who said what?
Editor: Who said the parrot could bench press 500 pounds?
Reporter: Oh. I did, aloud, right before I wrote the article.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Funny how they can get away with this type of thing by saying "is said to". Technically, it may be accurate, but it doesn't tell us a damn thing.
Click to expand...

Ah, but it's not kosher reporting, particularly given the context (it follows the sensationalist headline about 'scientists' which gives the impression that 'scientists' have deemed the parrot telepathic, but the article doesn't substantiate that claim or even elaborate on the source and that's a BBC no-no). It's semantically accurate, but not up to BBC standards, but sadly it falls to the layman to do the editor's job for them. At least they fixed it though.

I'm also quite pleased that they changed such an old article, although the age of the story actually forms part of the argument for removing the telepathy reference, as in the three years since then, no further telepathy has been proven or Nobel prizes won.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Editor: According to your story, the parrot is said to bench press 500 pounds.
Reporter: That's right.
Editor: Who said it?
Reporter: Who said what?
Editor: Who said the parrot could bench press 500 pounds?
Reporter: Oh. I did, aloud, right before I wrote the article.
Click to expand...
No, the parrot said it.

Are you going to argue with a parrot that can bench press 500 pounds?
 
tkingdoll said:
Ah, but it's not kosher reporting, particularly given the context (it follows the sensationalist headline about 'scientists' which gives the impression that 'scientists' have deemed the parrot telepathic, but the article doesn't substantiate that claim or even elaborate on the source and that's a BBC no-no). It's semantically accurate, but not up to BBC standards, but sadly it falls to the layman to do the editor's job for them. At least they fixed it though.

I'm also quite pleased that they changed such an old article, although the age of the story actually forms part of the argument for removing the telepathy reference, as in the three years since then, no further telepathy has been proven or Nobel prizes won.
Click to expand...

To be fair, even editors are human. Not being familiar with the BBC beyond Britcom exports, I don't know what their error rate normally is. Do readers have to contact them often about errors, or is this a rare enough occurance that they can be forgiven for slipping up now and then?

Marc
 
Last edited:
Polly wants a cracker
I Think I should get off her first
I think she wants some water
To put out the blow torch
 
Marc L said:
To be fair, even editors are human. Not being familiar with the BBC beyond Britcom exports, I don't know what their error rate normally is. Do readers have to contact them often about errors, or is this a rare enough occurance that they can be forgiven for slipping up now and then?

Marc
Click to expand...

I correct them often. Their standard is, frankly, in the toilet, particularly when it comes to science articles.

I know editors are human, I am one :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom