>>The key to most tests or trials is to control variables, which is close to 
>>impossible in the field.
>
> If the hypothesis that one wishes to test is whether the presence of a 
> particular variable (such as a particular pesticide) will lead to poor 
> colony performance, then that variable can be readily controlled in a 
> field or semi field trial.

Such tests tend to be statistical.  That is the problem with so much of the 
'science' that is done with bees.  The averages mask the specifics.

For study purposes, failures, indeterminate cases and outliers are often 
discarded or averaged out.  When we actually get to examine the underlying 
data behind much of that 'science', we often wonder how any meaningful 
signal could be found in the noise, and how such a small sample observed 
under limited conditions could be extrapolated to suggest a generality.

Fortunately for researchers, however, the conclusions reached, no matter how 
tenuously, often support (magically it seems) the goals of the funding 
agency and also magically fail to marginalize the worker or prevent 
promotion and further opportunities to do more of the same.

For a beekeeper's purposes, one unique case could mean total loss, so of 
course the exceptions and special cases that are conveniently neglected in 
so many 'science' studies are vital.

For those inclined to believe, the mere mention of the word 'science' or 
suggestion of method is enough to cause capitulation.

Others of us are more skeptical and require more than cursory and ritual 
assurances.

A good example of public credulity whenever the name of 'science' is invoked 
is AGW.  Anyone who can read a chart can see that the graph Al Gore uses to 
'prove' that C02 follows global temperature rise actually -- if it proves 
anything -- shows that historically C02 more often rises *after* global 
warming than before a temperature increase, and that although there appears 
to be a correlation between temperature and C02 levels, there is no proof of 
cause and effect.  Reason alone would suggest that warming would release 
more C02 into the atmosphere from storage and from increased biological 
activity, not the reverse.

I only mention this example to show that people believe whatever they need 
to believe.

Another point: people think that thought precedes action, but more often it 
is the reverse.  Think about it. 

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