Now that the "dust has settled" somewhat on the ongoing exchange about
the bee language hypothesis and associated issues, let me respond to some
objections to my earlier postings, as raised by Peter Borst. I also add a
point (#5, below) as to why beekeepers should be concerned about the
outcome of this debate (in reference to a query by Barbara Belyea).
1) On 5 January, Peter posted a quotation from a 1964 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
article of mine. At that time I had stressed the potential importance of
the positive correlation between dance straight run time and distance
travelled to food sources by foraging bees.
* I do not know why he posted that quotation but thank him for that
mention (it provides an opportunity for clarification). I had conducted my
doctoral research on the faith that bee "language" existed. Naturally I
wanted, at that time (as a person early in a career), to sway others to the
potential importance of sounds produced during that maneuver. Later,
however, I learned more about scientific process --- in particular, that
finding a correlation does not constitute proof about what might be
happening.
* Later yet, our results from carefully controlled experiments resulted
in an erosion of the language hypothesis. One might imagine how many
sleepness nights I had --- knowing that my whole doctoral dissertation
research had been undermined by our own results!
2) On 7 January, Peter assured me that he has been a skeptic most of his
life and that he had no strong opinion on the language hypothesis.
* On that same day I wrote him: "Actually, all the points you have
raised so far are covered very completely in our book: 1990 Wenner, A.M.
and P.H. Wells. ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY: The Question of a "Language"
Among Bees. Columbia University Press. The Cornell University library
undoubtedly has a copy. In particular, read Excursus TEL: Teleology (pages
362 ff). "
* That book has received rave reviews from people in many different
scientific fields but only scathing reviews from bee language proponents.
3) On 9 January, Peter posted an attempted refutation of each of the five
points I had originally provided to this list, the points I listed that
conflict with expectations of the language hypothesis.
* Actually, all but one of his objections are adequately addressed in
our book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY --- except for the results from the
robot bee experiments; they were published too late for us to deal with
them fully in our book.
* However, one can find out how the robot bee experimental results
actually negated the language hypothesis in the following invited review
paper: 1991 Wenner, A.M., D. Meade, and L. J. Friesen. Recruitment,
search behavior, and flight ranges of honey bees. AMERICAN ZOOLOGIST.
31(6):768-782. (No, don't expect to find any mention of that paper in
books written by language proponents.)
* Edward Southwick, though, provided a favorable review of that paper
on pp. 641 ff in the October 1992 issue of the AMERICAN BEE JOURNAL. The
many people who have requested further information will receive a copy of
that paper and of Southwick's review.
4) On page 22 of our book, one can read the following quotation by Karl
Popper, an eminent philosopher of science, as follows:
"Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld
by their admirers --- for example, by introducing AD HOC some auxiliary
assumption, or by re-interpreting the theory AD HOC in such a way that it
escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues
the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying or at least
lowering its scientific status."
* Supporters of the dance language hypothesis have now qualified their
hypothesis so much that it no longer has predictive power --- and thus no
longer has scientific merit.
5) Why should beekeepers and applied bee researchers be concerned? A
body of language supporters has exercised control (through the anonymous
review system) of allocation of much of the funds available for basic bee
research. Consequently, millions of dollars have now been spent on
fruitless bee "language" studies during the last three decades. (The robot
bee experiments alone required almost a million dollars.)
* During that same period of time, relatively few dollars have been
allocated for applied research on trachael and varroa mites, nosema, AFB,
EFB, etc. Just think where we might have been with our serious beekeeping
problems if available funds had been more fairly directed to support of
research meaningful to beekeepers!
* I guess we shouldn't despair. Consider that the University of Utah
allocated 5 million dollars to "cold fusion" research and that the
militaries in Britain, USSR, and the US spent several million dollars on
"polywater" research --- all to no avail.
6) I just received my copy of the January issue of the AMERICAN BEE
JOURNAL. One can find there (pages 11 and 12) a letter of mine that
responds to contents of three letters of very divergent viewpoint printed
two months earlier. Clearly, our attitudes to this overall problem depend
largely on our past experiences.
* Paul Doerr of Fairfield, CA also has a letter in that issue, in which
he stated (in part): "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? This
is just as silly as the controversy over what is a language (ABJ, Nov.
99)..."
* I agree that it is time we move on to the really serious issues that
beekeepers and bee researchers face today. Will bee language proponents
allow that to happen, or will they continue to flood the popular media with
the exotic story of "bee language"?
Adrian
Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone)
967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX)
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
********************************************************************
*
* "History teaches that having the whole world against you
* doesn't necessarily mean you will lose."
*
* Ashleigh Brilliant's Pot-Shot # 7521, used by permission
*
********************************************************************
|
