Science, Really?

Under the pretext of so-called “science,” one can huff and puff lots of 
hot air with fake orgasms; Creationism and Scientology, for instance, all 
claim how they too are kissing-cousins of “Science” while busy pushing and 
promoting their hidden monolithic world view: conversion, conversion, and 
more conversion, of others into their mold.  

When someone claims such unerring accuracy of being scientific, I get 
scared, for their understanding of science, for instance, is not science 
at all, as we understand the definition; rather, in such instances, 
science degenerates into a religion, of sort.  Such pseudo-scientists fail 
to realize that the very essence of science is the unerring and underlying 
doubt that had started the inquiry in the first place; hence, even after 
repeatable experiment, science must humbly employ cautious verbs, such 
as “suggests,” “it appears,” and “indicates,” etc. and NEVER an absolute 
statement, knowing fully well that under different sets of circumstances 
or given long enough time, the results may vary or change.  (Hence such 
statement as “mites *appeared* to have learned not to wipe out its host, 
thus preventing their own demise.”)

Only religious conviction can provide definite/absolute answers, not 
science.

While recognizing the dynamic nature of science—“Science is not static. It 
is a continuing process with things being affirmed and disproved. Most 
science stands the test, but occasionally things that were thought to work 
one way are shown to work another or not at all”—a poster here damns 
science for its “suggestions” and “hypothesis” without certainty.  The 
ability to say “we don’t know what causes DD *at this point*” is in and of 
itself a scientific statement, a cautious, honest, humble statement of 
facts.  Being wish-wash is not cowardice, but being factual.  To say CCD 
is caused by Nosema-C alone is a definitive statement with religious 
certainty, but we are not so sure yet.  May be or may be not.  So what?

The same “scientific” poster makes another glaring sweeping 
generalization, an uninformed and unscientific assumption, in earlier post 
that agricultural chemicals, which had allegedly killed bees, did not 
affect other insects in the vicinity; therefore, the chemical must be  
harmless—-not realizing different insecticides impact on different species 
of insects *differently* because their genetic make-up is different and 
unique, a totally idiosyncratic survival strategy in the game of producing 
the next generation.  This *scientific* fact has been already well-
recognized by entomologists as early as in the 1960’s; in fact, Rachel 
Carson, among others, reiterates this important discovery in her seminal 
book Silent Spring.  

Little reading, just as little science, is indeed a dangerous thing.

I do not post everyday on Bee-L, for I am getting tired of daily arm-chair 
philosophizing of this type of nonsense cloaked in the vestige of science, 
especially regarding the cause of CCD, about which anyone who can process 
food yields a pie of an opinion daily; this spinning of second-handed 
opinions, though interesting and good for time-killing for some, neither 
proves nor ascertains anything other than googled facts.  For the record, 
I too have an opinion as to what may be causing CCD, but I bite my tongue, 
and being able to hold my silence, in my view, is much better than 
pretending I am doing some dubious, self-serving, scientific inquiry.

Yoon

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