> When the preponderance of evidence is negative, I find it difficult to
> be other than negative... Plus, do we not owe it to new members of
> the list to state our view and allow our views to be challenged so the
> new member can arrive at some idea of the truth?..

It is one thing to relate our experience and the results of our own
research, and caution others to be careful, and another entirely to claim
omniscience.  There are ways to express disagreement that are constructive,
and encourage an exchange of ideas, and ways that simply drive the
discussion elsewhere.  If we are to be at all honest (and scientific) about
this and other topics of which we are sceptical, then we must admit that
were unable to come up with any convincing proof that a given method works,
not trumpet categorically that it doesn't work, because -- in truth -- we
only know what we know.  No more.

Some subscribe the philosophy that if it quacks like a duck, walks like a
duck.... and I can understand that this approach can work in a system where
we are certain that we know all the possible birds.  My position, however,
is that we know damnably little about bees and mites, and that we are
therefore very vulnerable to errors when we extrapolate.

> A search of the archives shows that you share that view and challenge
> ideas presented here often and with vigor. I appreciate that, and it
> is expressed well in your final sentence.

We are in agreement to the point where anyone claims to know the unknowable.

allen
A Beekeeper's Diary: http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::