> Could you please elaborate specifically on an example of the sort of "standard" that you are speaking of, so that we can discuss this intelligently?

Seriously, people have been studying cause and effect using the scientific method for 200 years. Every year some Johnny come lately says y'all been doing it wrong. Some of the comments are so far off the map, they're "not even wrong."

Instead of saying "there are no standards" it would make more sense to take a particular study, like Rinderer's work to show that Russian bees are more resistant to mites, and point out the flaws. What did he do wrong to invalidate the results? 

If a strain of bees is actually resistant to mites, that should be easy enough to show. And you can't invalidate it by throwing in red herrings, like "he used different sized frames from me," or "I don't keep bees in Louisiana." 

The resistant bees and the susceptible bees were both subject to the *same* environment, so that removed the environment as a variable when studying the strain of bees. 

Yes, the environment itself varies, but both strains experience the same varying environment during the study, so that would not account for measurable differences in mite resistance. 

On the flip side, if all the Russian bees had fewer mites, than the controls, how could the environment even cause that? And if it was the way the Russians responded to the environment differently, that points right back at the strain being the thing. 

This is just an example, there are millions more. 

PLB

             ***********************************************
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