>> If a conclusion is to be questioned, the specifics 
>> should be presented in detail to support the 
>> questioning.

> That's ridiculous. I question everything and everybody. 
> It is up to you to prove your case. 

In the specific example I was citing, the "case" had been very well-proven
via the peer-review process, and was being questioned by a beekeeper who was
overtly declining to mention of the basis for the statement "I question
those conclusions".

> If it can be toppled by casual questioning, 

Nothing was toppled, of course, but the stand-alone statement "I question
those findings" without a shred of rationale or data to explain why left
both you and I wondering, moreso given that the findings being "questioned"
were neither extraordinary or contradictory to the common experience.  As
you said "Why come into a discussion group only to say you don't care to
discuss it?"

My point was that published stuff tends to be accompanied by substantial
evidence in support of the conclusions, and anyone who wants to, for
example, claim that the data in a paper does NOT support the plain language
of the conclusions drawn faces a steep uphill climb, and should provide a
rationale, data or other support for that claim.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html