> As it happens, the etymological sources do not seem to indicate that vision is a requisite for observation -- but what does it matter?

You should know me better by now. Of course, I consulted before making such a statement. Observe is defined thusly

"1. notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant"

So, the concept has been completely disconnected from vision, and reassigned to perception in general. And, as I stated, perception takes place in the mind, hence it can result from input from any of the senses. 

Anyway, it turns out Jim was referring to a particular observation that he was convinced that Huber could not have made. He suggests that:

"Anyone who reads Huber will find much that is 'breathtakingly false'"

I am sure anyone who reads at all finds things that are, in retrospect, false. However, as I wrote in my ABJ article on Royal Jelly:

> Huber lost his eyesight as a teenager but went on to build a body of scientific work based upon his studies of the inner workings of the bee hive. He enlisted the eyesight of his wife and servant and brought many startling revelations to light. Beyond that, he seems to be the first person to use the term royal jelly:

> Bees give the royal treatment to certain worms,-- they drop some particles of royal jelly into cells containing the worms destined for queens. 

Which brings us to the second definition of observation, where one *makes* an observation. 

2. a remark, statement, or comment based on something one has seen, heard, or noticed

So, regardless of the etymology of the word, the usage has been considerably broadened. Here one takes one's "observations" and makes an "observation" based upon them. In other words, the creative process enters into it. Without imagination, there is no science, no art. 

Pete

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