Dear BEE-L subscribers, After my short input about confirmation bias on the 19th, Bob Harrison raised some points related to that concept. Let me clarify. Confirmation bias is one of the most important problems in scientific research, but all too many scientists and others fall into that seductive trap. As eminent philosopher Karl Popper wrote, “Confirming evidence does not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory.” He also pointed out that confirming evidence is very easy to obtain. (Bob: you can find Popper’s comments on p. 22 of our 1990 ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY book.) Consider now that beekeepers have endured (?) quite a few claims about techniques that might control/eliminate varroa mites. We have had promotions of mineral oil, powdered sugar, small cells, screen bottom boards, etc., all mostly based upon confirmation-type experiments. A problem then surfaces: anyone who puts a lot of stock in one of those treatments and loses a great many colonies will likely remain silent about the loss. By contrast, should one’s colonies survive, the natural tendency is to alert others to the success (even if the technique itself might not have been responsible). That’s human nature. But anyone who really WANTS a particular outcome should not be the person to do the experiment. (That is why we have blind, double blind, and strong inference experimental designs, techniques usually avoided by those locked into dogma.) Likewise, anyone committed to dogma should not be the person to write a review about a controversy; yet, that is done all the time. For example, Emily Smith and Gard Otis epitomized that flaw in their “review” of the dance language controversy, as published in the March and April 2006 issues of the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. They rounded up all the confirmation evidence and positive commentary they could find. In doing so, they omitted a great deal of evidence that backs up the 1930s von Frisch odor-search hypothesis and counters the dance language hypothesis. Pat Wells and I addressed the Smith and Otis omission in our letter published in the subsequent July issue of ABJ (p. 561). For an expanded version, see http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/abjmar_aprreply.htm (“Resolving a controversy or shoring up a belief system?”) Bob also included a sentence from James and Carol Gould’s book: " Wenner and Wells were misled by their assumption that if bees communicate by odor under one set of circumstances , then they must use odor in all cases." Gould rose to stardom by reverting to single controlled, confirmation-type experiments, consistently misrepresenting our conclusions (as above), and omitting evidence contrary to his belief system. Bob also wrote, “I gathered from reading the book the Goulds had done experiments to prove Wenner & Wells hypothesis incorrect?” No, Gould misrepresented the odor-search hypothesis and instead gathered confirmation type evidence for the existing dogma, evidence welcomed by those who wished to believe. Then he claimed that he had proven us wrong. However, journals did not permit us to respond to his claims. For example, see: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/EXC.htm (Bob: on p. 274 of our book). The genome sequencing of the honey bee DNA, completed in 2006, provided an opportunity to resolve the controversy. Recruitment communication, if an “instinctual signaling system” as claimed, would require the presence of genes not shared with other insects. No genes for “bee language” surfaced. Researchers instead found a total of 170 odor receptor genes (most not shared with other insects), indicating “a remarkable range of odorant capabilities.” The language hypothesis had thus failed another test and the odor-search hypothesis gained more support; see: http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/jib2002.htm Can we now expect an O.J. type defense tactic (DNA isn’t necessary for the instinctive dance language, after all)? Adrian Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone) 967 Garcia Road [log in to unmask] Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm "Having one view prevail is harmful; it becomes a belief system, not science." Zaven Khachaturian — 2006 -- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---