BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Noble <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:21:02 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (38 lines)
Maryam Henein writes: “And as far as i am concerned that fact that the 
losses are happening in France, Greece, Italy, Slovenia...etc... and that 
beekeepers independantly come to the conclusion tnat toxins are effecting 
their bees, serves as emprical proof. Are all these beekeepers nuts? I 
don't think so. Let's give them some credit.”

    In defense of science, I have to respectfully take exception to this 
view.  First of all the author refers to scientists that she says she has 
talked to, but offers no specific reference as to their identity or their 
work.  It makes it kind of hard to know how much weight to give it.  
    Then there is the willingness to accept as empirical proof the 
conclusions of a whole bunch of people whether they are independent of each 
other or not.  Specifically where is the empirical evidence, that we can 
all look at, that supports what all these beekeepers have concluded?  I 
seem to remember from my history studies, a few cases where what almost 
everybody concluded turned out to be dead wrong.  So I just have a 
different idea about what the term empirical proof means.
    I am making no claims about whether pesticides are killing bees in 
Europe or not, but I suspect that this may be a case where the 
dreaded “agenda factor” may be clouding the issue.  This happens when 
people get attached to an idea, in this case the idea that all chemical 
pesticides are bad, and allow that attachment to affect what really ought 
to be raiser sharp objectivity in an area where that is what is called 
for.  
    Beekeeper’s don’t have to be nuts to be mistaken.  At least as a 
hypotheses, what everybody thinks is true usually has some credibility, 
certainly enough to warrant some scientific research.  But if you are going 
to invoke the name of science and empirical proof, you have an obligation 
to avoid confusing them with what amounts to something that appears, on the 
face of it, more like belief.

Steve Noble      

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2