On Wed, 5 Feb 1997, Allen Dick wrote:
 
 
> One of the factors that appears to me to have changed in the last few
> decades is increasing understanding of statistics and importance of
> sample size and internal consistency in the scientific and lay
> community, and the routine exposure of experimental results to
> statistical analysis.
 
 Hello Allen and All,    As you stated above the mean population is
getting more educated on statistical analysis.The model that is used to
collect the data is flawed, many times do to the complexity of what is
being
analysied. If I would  take an analysis of the bees at my house and leave
out the fact that half of the hives get more early sun and are on sand
instead of grass.The test would be flawed.The bees that are wintered over
sand, winter better and have less moisture problems.
 The more knowledge we get on the subject , the more critical we are on
how the test was performed.When it comes to the Honey Bee,we have so many
variables that it is hard to do a test to cover all of them.I would wish
for a little more information on , what was left out and why.
 
> Added to this is the fact that <asbestos underwear on> I have seen
> some well known and very well respected peer-reviewed research
> lately, offering only one year's results over limited numbers of
> hives, and in only one region.  I have seen no indication that
> anyone has sought to duplicate the results and yet everyone, high and
> low, seems to believe the published results, rather than see them as
> a challenge to look further.
>
  All of the research needs to be peer-reviewed.A piece of knowledge is
only one block in the buliding of understanding.The reason we need many
people working on a problem , is the fact that many different factors
affect the behavior of the subject. Each one needs to be added to the
whole. One answer brings up more questions. It never ends.
 Best Regards
 Roy