As some of you on BEE-L might suspect, I could not help but note the
following comment on BEE-L (Excerpt from The Scottish Bee Keeper October,
1998 Vol.75 No.10):
***********
>"Ignore the internet! On this the panel was unanimous, the reason being
>that any idiot has access to it and every idiot adds his ha'penny worth
>of nonsense so that it becomes very difficult to sift the wheat from
>the chaff."
>The experts (beekeepers) hailed from Belgium, England, Wales, and New
>Mexico.
***********
Some years ago I recognized the power of the Internet with respect to
how rapidly information could be transmitted and wondered, "Are scientists
[and others] ready for democracy?"
By now those of you who have subscribed to BEE-L for long must recognize
the value that one can receive by attending to input from around the world
that appears on that particular network. A newcomer can have a problem,
and an expert can point the direction to a ready source of information.
Repeatedly, for example, we have had concerns raised about allergic
reactions to bee stings. Fortunately, Justin Schmidt published a chapter
in THE HIVE AND THE HONEY BEE, one which every beekeeper and medical person
should read. When that question arises (as it does repeatedly), those of
us in the know can respond immediately and refer the questioner to his
chapter.
Another quite different example: When I first fathomed the extent of
the problem of varroa infestation in the United States, I broadcasted a
request for input on when varroa mites first appeared in the various
states. That permitted publication of the following article:
1996 Wenner, A.M. and W.W. Bushing. Varroa mite spread in the United
States. Bee Culture. 124:341-343.
No, the "experts" who would unanimous insist that one should ignore the
Internet apparently have some deep seated concern other than that expressed
in the brief message we received (as given above). In the past, for
example, the scientific community has operated under an oppressive umbrella
consisting of anonymous referees. That is, each time we who have done
experiments must submit our manuscript to a journal. The "Gatekeepers," as
they have become known, then can pass judgement on whether or not the new
"truth" should appear in print.
That is all well and good. Such a process keeps a lot of
unsubstantiated material out of the scientific literature. However,
manuscripts (however poor they might be) that support existing belief
systems can get rushed into print, while manuscripts that contain
information at variance with what the establishment wants to believe (as
expressed in the initial item, above) can be resounding rejected.
So, folks, do not be discouraged. Any question asked in sincerity is
not a "stupid" question. Yes, sometimes we see questions for which answers
exist in the most elementary books about beekeeping. However, the beginner
might not know about such books.
And that is what all the fun is about with the Internet. I recently
found a 1930s (or earlier) folk recipe for Nosema treatment in a novel I
read and posted the relevant quotation on BEE-L. That brief insertation
spawned several other contributions about what had worked or had not worked
for others in this day and age. Were those comments by "idiots?" Hardly.
Those who responded had firsthand experience with the problem.
No, insisting that one should shun the Internet, to me, is somewhat like
insisting that beekeepers should not exchange ideas with one another and
that they should not attend local beekeeper meetings. We all live in
somewhat of a "pool of ignorance," whether we like it or note. Do not be
discouraged by what those "experts" apparently agreed upon unamimously in
their meeting in Scotland.
Of course, some of you might also suspect my motives in this matter. In
brief, one example might suffice. Tom Seeley ended his "review" of our
Columbia University Press book (ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY) with the
expression: "Reader beware." He clearly did not like what he read and did
not want others to be exposed to the "heresy." Those in other scientific
fields, however, apparently recognized the substance of our book and wrote
rave reviews about the content of our book.
Another point deserves mention. Too often those in science defer to the
"leaders" in their field and do not themselves critically examine published
evidence. In short, those who wish to keep the status quo intact have
little tolerance for the free expression of ideas. It is, in fact, that
intolerance that leads to controversy in science.
I summarized that problem in a review published a year ago, as follows:
1997 Wenner, A.M. The role of controversy in animal behavior. Pages
3-37 in Greenberg, C. and E. Tobach (eds). Comparative Psychology of
Invertebrates:The Field and Laboratory Study of Insect Behavior. Garland
Publishing, New York.
Anyhow, I have perhaps gone on too long. On the other hand, some have
complained in the past that this network has had too little substantive
input. Perhaps the above contribution counters that emphasis on the
practical problems beekeepers face. So, don't be discouraged. The
Internet has far more value than limitations, I feel.
Adrian
Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone)
967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX)
Santa Barbara, CA 93106
************************************************************************
* "...in the drift of the years I by and by found out that a Consensus *
* examines a new [idea] with its feelings rather oftener than with its *
* mind. You know, yourself, that is so. Do those people examine with *
* feelings that are friendly to evidence? You know they don't." *
* *
* Mark Twain *
************************************************************************
|
