However, this is quite clear: "there is a chasm between research and real life."


Yes,  there is.   Research as you correctly point out is not the same.  Tigers in a cage and all....  and research has a few other handicaps. Small sample size,  say 24  vs 12,000.   So when I see a researcher tell me there is no perk from say Tosylin in feed,  and I see someone ( I will leave names out)  who has run 10,000 hives for 30 years tell me its an must after pulling honey,  Sorry  but your researcher looses that IMO.


The major issue from research is that it is a snapshot,  one point in time,  one set of conditions  and usually  in bees case one location and weather pattern (usually not always of course) But here is what I see as the difference,  some  in particular seem to want research to back up everything,  while I don't think real researchers want that.  There are giving us bits and pieces which we are then expected to apply to our own situation.  The majority of papers I read are very well qualified in their findings.  Such as the paper on decreased biomass in Germany.  They were very careful to say they didn't know if local farming changes decreased insects,  or acted as a sink. Very clear that more work and discussion is in order,  not a single headline shows that line of the paper though.

Particularly relevant in beekeeping,  such as your point that under supering is just as good.  Your relying on the argument of someone else who bothered to write it up. And in some cases you could defiantly show that’s true.   But yet when your told that its not always true,  you disagree,  because you haven’t seen the research.  In my case when an old beek who makes a lot of honey told me not to be lazy,  I took it to heart,  and can define the situations where under supering is different. Slow flow and smaller populations with bottom entrances matter.

Point is simple if your willing to accept it,  My issue is not and never has been with science or researchers,  its with us and how we chose to use that research,  such as the need for research to support under supers.(just an example)  As I read your reply,  your position seems to be its untrue, because you read it doesn’t matter,  So you actually use research to back up an argument, in this case the argument is about the need for work,  Never seen any that says it’s a bad idea, just that its no better.  So the issue isn't with that work,  its with how we present that work and argument  instead of trying it out. 

My support and thoughts for science and engineering is unwavering.  My support for those who wish to misuse it is.   We must be careful when we want to quote research,  as I find most are using it as a shield for their agenda  not as a tool of enlightenment.   

This does not mean that Chasm is a problem,  just that one should watch their steps carefuly as they walk along the edge.

Charles

             ***********************************************
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