Continued, part 3.
With all the evidence at variance with the language hypothesis
finally now all readily available, why do language advocates continue
to ignore the extensive body of that negative evidence?
First, perhaps, is that fact that many researchers have "put all
their eggs in one basket" and have based their research career on the
"truth" of bee language.
Partly it's human nature, especially with something so exotic as
the language hypothesis. The exotic sells in science, just as with
the general public. If someone says they have "proved" that dolphins
have a language, acceptance comes quickly. Evidence counter to that
conclusion will hardly receive a similar reception.
Partly it's bias -- a condition prevalent in all belief systems.
When I start a lecture to a large audience and want to illustrate the
pervasive nature of bias, I ask, "What percentage of you are average
or below average drivers?" Invariably, only a few hands go up. I
remain silent for a short while, and then the audience breaks out in
laughter. Point made!
The bee language hypothesis has now been with us for decades,
inculcated into the minds of people of all ages as "fact," "proven,"
or "discovered" -- but not presented as hypothesis (it seems it never
was). That severe bias has colored quite a few postings on the
subject this past couple of weeks.
For instance, one normally very astute contributor to this list,
who just published a superb article on sweeteners in BEE CULTURE,
bemoaned the fact that chefs in this country have a consensus that
sugar is just as good in recipes as honey. At the same time, he fell
back and apparently accepts the consensus of bee language advocates
during the recent debate, writing: "Our currency is evidence. I am
convinced by the evidence at hand. So is most of the rest of the
scientific community."
From my vantage point that last short sentence is not true (maybe
for a certain clique of bee researchers but not for the whole
scientific community), as one can witness by accessing:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/comments.htm
Although that set of unsolicited comments does not contain names,
I can furnish a more complete list to anyone (by attachment along
with names) who so desires. We have received, and continue to
receive, scores of such comments.
"Our currency is evidence."
We have often heard the phrase, "overwhelming evidence," in
support of the language hypothesis. In science one does not stack up
pro and con papers and see which stack weighs more. Instead, a set
of negative evidence counts far more than supportive evidence.
Evidence from double controlled experiments and strong inference
experiments also carries far more weight than less rigorous
experiments (the type of experiment usually done by supporters of the
dance language hypothesis).
Jim Fischer called for evidence in support of the odor-search
hypothesis (von Frisch's original belief). Chapter 9 of our 1990
book has evidence from double controlled experiments, in which
searching recruits had paid no attention to distance and direction
information in the dances of successful foragers. Chapter 10 has
evidence from strong inference experiments, where searching bees
totally ignored distance and direction information and ended up
instead at a feeding station that had odor of the previous day. One
can read the original Science paper (as summarized in our chapter 10)
at:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/sci1969
The physicist John Platt told me he considered our "crucial"
experiment one of the finest examples of a strong inference
experiment that he had ever seen.
I also provided a summary of the odor-search hypothesis (as
mentioned in the last posting) at:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/az1991.htm
Unlike in physics, in much of biology the anonymous referee system
virtually guarantees that those who come up against "consensus" (read
"dogma") will not get a fair hearing in the scientific community,
either in manuscript publication or in grant support for research.
Authors of manuscripts often submit a list of "favorable" referees,
sometimes at the editor's request.
In terms of penalty, I had to forgo summer salary income from
grants for decades (many tens of thousands of dollars) due to my
insistence that (as found later) von Frisch had the right idea in the
first place. That's all right, though, I can live with my conscience.
It strikes me that intellectual honesty requires that one not
reject the odor-search hypothesis because of a "consensus" in favor
of the language hypothesis, at least not without having studied the
contrary evidence in our many publications. With our papers now
readily available on the Internet (many thanks to Barry Birkey),
everyone has an opportunity to study the evidence withheld so long by
the bee research community.
And one can easily forward this current set of three presentations
to friends and colleagues, something not possible before the Internet.
Finally, as published already, in science a valid hypothesis
should lead to practical application. However, we have now had the
dance language hypothesis for more than a half century, but
beekeepers have yet to receive practical benefit -- despite the
millions spent in attempts to prove that "language" exists, after all.
I am reminded of the adage: "You can lead a horse to water, but
you can't make it drink!"
[ I will be in Maryland this next two weeks on a bee project
and will not be able to respond promptly to any input. ]
With all best wishes.
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
*****************************************************
*
* "We not only believe what we see:
* to some extent we see what we believe."
*
* Richard Gregory (1970)
*
*****************************************************
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
