Psychic parrot? What are the BBC thinking?

[tkingdoll]

Anyone over 25 and from the UK will probably remember the naff TV show That's Life, a sort of magazine style consumer show in which the hosts would go off and do battle with cowboy plumbers and such.

The show would also feature people and their zany pets, for examples dogs saying "sausages" or cats who could flush the toilet.

Well, I've been complaining about the demise in journalistic standards on the BBC news website for some time now, but today they have not only hit an all-time low for shoddy reporting, they have managed to turn themselves into a corking version of That's Life.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3430481.stm

There is so much wrong with the way this story is presented, it's staggering. From the headline and opening paragraph:

Parrot's oratory stuns scientists

The finding of a parrot with an almost unparalleled power to communicate with people has brought scientists up short.

One would assume that the rest of the story would somehow back up this claim. But no. There is mention of one scientist, Dr Jane Goodall, who I believe is the woman responsible for the big con that is gorilla sign language, but that's all. No hordes of stunned scientists to be seen.

But the sentence which really alarmed me was this one:

N'kisi's remarkable abilities, which are said to include telepathy

Erm...said by whom? Following on from the opening para, doesn't that somewhat imply that scientists are stunned by the parrots telepathic abilities? And yet, reading on, that appears not to be the case.

The journalist has clearly decided to push the paranormal agenda. Quite why, I don't know, but I have fired off an angry email to the Beeb demanding some critical thinking and balance to the article. We shall see.

 

[mummymonkey]

It was bollocks three years ago as well.

 

[tkingdoll]

It was bollocks three years ago as well.

Old story? Damn, I wish I'd know that before I sent my email, I could have berated them even further. It's on the front page in today's most emailed stories.

ETA: upon re-reading, the story is dated Jan 04. Why is it front page news today??

 

[Mojo]

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

ETA: It was also the subject of a TV programme about which Sheldrake complained that:

the programme presented his work in a false and misleading way; the programme makers did not honour their assurances that the programme would be presented in a fair and unbiased way; and, neither he nor any other qualified scientist had been offered an opportunity to respond to the sceptic’s criticism.

Ofcom found that:

The programme did not make false claims about Dr Sheldrake’s research, rather a critique of his analytical approach was offered. This critical point of view was acceptable given both the expectation that scientific research would and should be subjected to examination and that Dr Sheldrake’s scientific referees had raised various queries about the way he analysed his research data.

But they upheld the second and third parts of his complaint:

The lack of a balancing view in the programme as broadcast led to the breaking of the guarantee given to Dr Sheldrake regarding the content of the programme. This resulted in unfairness to Dr Sheldrake.

The programme makers’ failure to give Dr Sheldrake an opportunity to respond to what would amount to a damaging critique of his research resulted in unfairness to Dr Sheldrake.

 

[tkingdoll]

http://www.sheldrake.org/nkisi/

I might have known...

 

[Goshawk]

Erm...said by whom

Well, the whole sentence reads, "N'kisi's remarkable abilities, which are said to include telepathy, feature in the latest BBC Wildlife Magazine", so I presume that the "whom" is whomever wrote the article in question, or whomever he/she interviewed for it.

The previous thread, but that's okay, there's no reason why we shouldn't discuss paranormal parrots again. It's quite fascinating actually, what people can persuade themselves to believe.

As to why the Beeb re-ran it, probably because they needed a "soft" human interest story with animal tie-in, and some editor somewhere was in a hurry during a dismal Christmas week with everyone else on vacation somewhere glamorous, so he just grabbed whatever was on top.

 

[tkingdoll]

Cool thread, thanks Goshawk. To be honest, it looks like everything that needs debating about paranormal parrots has been done in that thread, although I am interested in the BBC's lousy reporting.

I thought it was a recent decline but that must be my own bias, as this article is an old one. I guess I'm just noticing sloppy science writing more of late.

It appears that the article is at the top of the 'most emailed today' list, which means that either someone came upon it by accident and it's doing the email rounds because people (like me) didn't bother to check the date, or because someone bumped it for a reason.

Now, I am going to stick my neck out and speculate that there is going to be a new Sheldrake/animal telepathy press release very soon and that this article has been bumped for pre-publicity.

 

[Ersby]

?

I don't see this on the BBC front page(s). Curiously, Louie Savva briefly covered it recently in his blog.

The pdf covering this experiment is downloadable from this page:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/abstracts/v17n4a1.php

Even then, there's seems to have been some judicious trimming involved. The paper described 131 trials, some of which were removed for various reasons. For example, if he remained silent or if the parrot didn't say any of the key words on the list it was not scored. Surely that counts as a miss. Also "Non-scorable comments consisted of N'kisi's attempts to contact Aimee, or unrelated chatter about events of the day."

This all seems curious to me, but I've not had a closer look.

ETA: I see that a similar criticism was raised in the old thread.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Teek wrote:

One would assume that the rest of the story would somehow back up this claim. But no. There is mention of one scientist, Dr Jane Goodall, who I believe is the woman responsible for the big con that is gorilla sign language, but that's all. No hordes of stunned scientists to be seen.

Er.... Jane Goodall's kinda one of the good guys. She's the chimp lady, never worked with gorillas, and I don't thinkg she's tried to humanize chimps in her studies, to the best of my knowledge. Here's her description of Chimpanzee communications.

Calls
Chimpanzees communicate with a wide range of calls, postures and gestures. The food calls -- a mixture of food grunts, barks, and pant hoots -- alert other chimpanzees to the whereabouts of food sources. A special intensity of excited calls of this type indicates that there has been a successful kill after a hunt. Each individual has his or her own distinctive pant-hoot, so that the caller can be identified with precision. A loud, long, savage-sounding wraaaa call is made when a chimpanzee comes across something unusual or dangerous. When young chimpanzees play, they emit breathy laughter. And soft grunts uttered by foraging or resting chimpanzees probably serve to maintain communication within the group.

Posture and Gestures
Posture, gesture, and facial expression communicate many messages and emotions within a group. When greeting a dominant individual after an absence or in response to an aggressive gesture, nervous subordinates may approach with submissive signals - crouching, presenting the rump, hold the hand out - accompanied by pant-grunts or squeaks. In response, the dominant individual is likely to make gestures of reassurance, such as touching, kissing, or embracing the subordinate.

The Goodall Institute has a pretty decent website. http://www.janegoodall.org/default.asp

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
One would assume that the rest of the story would somehow back up this claim. But no. There is mention of one scientist, Dr Jane Goodall, who I believe is the woman responsible for the big con that is gorilla sign language, but that's all. No hordes of stunned scientists to be seen.....

You might want to get your facts straight before dissing one of the great scientists of our time, Jane Goodall. This is the woman who dedicated decades of her life meticulously observing chimpanzees in the wild.

Re gorilla sign language, you are referring to Dr. Francine "Penny" Patterson [who] has a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Stanford. She is President and Research Director of The Gorilla Foundation,

And then there is The Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute, Central WA U. where sign language has been taught to chimpanzees as well they've been observed teaching it to their offspring if I remember correctly.

This is not woo science by any means. Why wouldn't great apes be capable of learning sign language even if it doesn't meet the level of human communication? Even parrots have been taught how to identify and communicate the names of objects by their material, color and number. Heck, even my dogs learned how to bark a certain way when they want out and scratch the door to get back in. From your statement, you are disregarding a large body of evidence in the field of communication among the great apes. Perhaps you haven't kept up on the progress of the research over the years? Maybe you should look again.

 

[Dave1001]

Re gorilla sign language, you are referring to Dr. Francine "Penny" Patterson [who] has a Ph.D. in Developmental Psychology from Stanford. She is President and Research Director of The Gorilla Foundation,

And then there is The Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute, Central WA U. where sign language has been taught to chimpanzees as well they've been observed teaching it to their offspring if I remember correctly.

This is not woo science by any means. Why wouldn't great apes be capable of learning sign language even if it doesn't meet the level of human communication? Even parrots have been taught how to identify and communicate the names of objects by their material, color and number. Heck, even my dogs learned how to bark a certain way when they want out and scratch the door to get back in. From your statement, you are disregarding a large body of evidence in the field of communication among the great apes. Perhaps you haven't kept up on the progress of the research over the years? Maybe you should look again.

Human users of sign language use it for abstract, symbolic, and grammatical communication. Using nouns and verbs, subjects and objects, in novel combinations to communicate ideas and desires. That is what I think people are skeptical of regarding nonhuman primate sign language, and even parrot communication. I don't think anyone doubts that a primate can learn to wave his/her hand a certain way to indicate s/he wants a banana.

 

[El Greco]

Maybe the parrot knows what the BBC are thinking.

 

[CFLarsen]

This is not woo science by any means. Why wouldn't great apes be capable of learning sign language even if it doesn't meet the level of human communication? Even parrots have been taught how to identify and communicate the names of objects by their material, color and number. Heck, even my dogs learned how to bark a certain way when they want out and scratch the door to get back in. From your statement, you are disregarding a large body of evidence in the field of communication among the great apes. Perhaps you haven't kept up on the progress of the research over the years? Maybe you should look again.

Can the apes communicate correctly through sign language with humans they have just met?

 

[tkingdoll]

I stand corrected on Jane Goodall (shame her name is attached to such an appalling story), but I stand by my assertion about gorilla 'sign language', and am fully up to speed with current research on it, thanks. It's a bag of hooey, sorry. It's facilitated communication, at best.

Actually, I recall there was a good thread here on this a while back, I'll have a look for it.

 

[Mojo]

Anyone over 25 and from the UK will probably remember the naff TV show That's Life, a sort of magazine style consumer show in which the hosts would go off and do battle with cowboy plumbers and such.

The show would also feature people and their zany pets, for examples dogs saying "sausages" or cats who could flush the toilet.

My favourite was the dog who could count. The owner would ask the dog a question with a numerical answer, and the dog would bark out the number.

The owner leaned forwards to address the dog and to listen to it (it was small and yappy), and would then lean back again once it had barked the required number of times.

 

[ohp]

?

I don't see this on the BBC front page(s). Curiously, Louie Savva briefly covered it recently in his blog.

It isn't on the front page of the BBC.

But it is on the front page of DIGG......

 

[tkingdoll]

It isn't on the front page of the BBC.

But it is on the front page of DIGG......

It was at the top of the BBC 'most emailed' list for yesterday (and therefore on the front page) but today is merely number 6. Someone is bumping this around t'internet for some reason, I stand by my 'impending press release' theory.

 

[ohp]

It was at the top of the BBC 'most emailed' list for yesterday (and therefore on the front page) but today is merely number 6. Someone is bumping this around t'internet for some reason, I stand by my 'impending press release' theory.

Ahh. Well, all that's happened is that with the aid of Digg, this story has been brought back from the grave. It often happens on digg, and they really should look at filtering out old stories. The BBC are showing it on their most emailed list simply because it's getting a lot of traffic.

Just spoke to a friend at the BBC, and they confirm it's quite common for old stories to bubble to the top for no apparent reason.

 

[tkingdoll]

Ahh. Well, all that's happened is that with the aid of Digg, this story has been brought back from the grave. It often happens on digg, and they really should look at filtering out old stories. The BBC are showing it on their most emailed list simply because it's getting a lot of traffic.

Yes, but who brought it back from the grave, and why, eh? *strokes beard and looks sideways*

 

[ohp]

Yes, but who brought it back from the grave, and why, eh? *strokes beard and looks sideways*

I don't think there was any reason behind it. One day someone was googling for something, a person who has an interest in parrots who has access to a parrot mailing list, they came across the story (didn't pay much attention to the date) and mailed the link to the list. one of those people puts it on Digg..