Page 5 documents the rediscovery of takahē when they were thought to be extinct. It describes the initial evidence that led to the rediscovery and the multiple pieces of additional evidence that the amateur ornithologists had to produce to convince the scientific community that their discovery was valid.
Adapting the resource
The main Nature of Science idea to be gained from this summary page is that multiple sources of evidence that reinforce each other are more convincing than single sources, especially when the claim being made is controversial.
After reading the story ask:
- What was the existing knowledge about the New Zealand takahē? [It was thought to be extinct.]
- What was the first evidence that suggested that this might not be right? [An unidentified bird call, and an unusual foot print in the snow.]
- Was this enough evidence to say that it was? Why or why not? [No, because it might have been an atypical call made by a known bird (or the hearer might have been mistaken – especially as this was a discovery he really wanted to make), the print might have been a fake, or made by a different bird species, etc.]
Over time more evidence was collected.
- What was this evidence? [Evidence of plant damage from feeding, unusual droppings, an actual bird that was caught and filmed.]
Finally, the role of communication in this process could be discussed to develop the idea that changing the status of science knowledge is brought about by a community of scientists, rather than just someone working in isolation, so the evidence has to be very convincing.
Discuss:
- Why did they catch the takahē, even though they knew it was an endangered species? [So that they could create a clear film that was obviously not a fake.]
- What might they have done next that is not mentioned in this story? [Published their claim for the critique and ultimate acceptance of other ornithologists.]
When the evidence has been through an intense level of peer review it is more trustworthy (this relates to capability 3).