Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" |
Date: |
Thu, 9 Aug 2018 07:29:15 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
quoted-printable |
Message-ID: |
|
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Finding it hard to follow some of the recent dialogue and getting
useful information from it. At the risk of oversimplifying, here is a
rough attempt to rank the information value of different sources or
presentation modalities of information:
1) Raw data, numbers measured, prior to processing by authors, usually
only available in appendices or directly from authors, provided one
understands how the data were collected.
2) Summarized data in tables, figures after authors have chosen a way
of presenting it. Sometimes the massaging or stats can cover up gaps
or show the authors biases.
3) Direct reports from those who observed a phenomenon, not necessarily
collected in a "scientific" way.
4) Indirect reports or anecdotes collected by a third party in an
effort to summarize a topic in a uniform and comprehensive fashion.
5) Quotes from the Discussion or writings of authorities in various
areas of apiculture. Discussions tend to be summaries of the authors
opinions, highly speculative and generally try to make as much as
possible about the limited value of findings. Writings by people
considered knowledgeable or experts in the field are just that, their
informed opinions on topics at the time of the writing.
6) Quotes on related topics from other fields. May be interesting and
intriguing, but if not provided with context and critical analyses of
the value and application to bees, beekeeping, etc. can actually derail
the conversation.
***********************************************
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
|
|
|