On Jul 3, 2013, at 8:21 AM, James Fischer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Claims about "intent" don't address findings, but instead, might be seen as attempts to attack the personal credibility of the authors.

What I am talking about is a fundamental difference in approaching the problem. For example, a person is accused of murder. One approach would be to look for evidence to link him with the crime. Another approach would be to determine who killed the person. 

An actual case was in the news recently. The guy was convicted on the basis of a DNA test despite a number of people testifying he was in another city at the time, far from the crime. The case was revisited years later, and the test was found to be in error. 

Hence, we can see the error of using only one "fact" despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, but also the error of not even looking for the actual culprit. This is what is wrong with so many of these studies. 

They start by trying to prove neonics "could be" the source of global bee decline, and flog about from there. Instead of doing real work, which often yields ambiguous and unsatisfying results.

Peter Loring Borst
             ***********************************************
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