Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 10 Jul 2009 06:52:23 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
>>Doesn't that take us right back to the beginning of the whole debate?
>>Beekeepers' subjective and objective field observations, hunches,
>>experiences and comparisons vs. various published and unpublished studies
>>of various qualities, depths and independence.
>
> Not at all, Allen. Whether a pesticide causes harm under actual field
> conditions can be fairly easily tested and quantified by the scientific
> method. The point is, that a field or semi field test is more important
> than a lab trial.
I guess that illustrates why this debate will not end and why neither side
will ever understand the other.
Your comments show that you believe that the scientific method can and will
identify and deal with all possibilities.
On the other hand, many of us doubt that -- whether or not science can
actually deal with unique and transitory situations, which an interesting
and interminable philosophical debate in itself -- the current practitioners
have the incentive, the money or the imagination to be able to replicate all
the possible situations, microclimates, local concentrations, synergistic
and catalytic effects which may be occurring in the wild.
There are limitations to the application of the scientific method which are
beyond the scope of this discussion, but must be recognized.
***********************************************
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
|
|
|