>
> I think Dee is saying that it is proven to *her* satisfaction.  As for
> proven, well in spite of what most of us think, much of what
> we believe is
> not actually well proven.  Most bee facts are based on
> limited tests in
> limited regions with specific bees at specific times in specific
> environments.  We feel comfortable generalizing from these
> 'proofs' and are
> seldom challenged because others are easily persuaded by the
> same shallow
> proofs.
>

Without being disrespectful to Dee, one of the problems we have had on
the list is a number of beekeepers who wander the line between scientist
and alchemist. What Dee is trying to do makes some sense and is worth
the effort to investigate. Her methods are, at times, wanting. But that
should not be a reason to discourage her efforts.

I think that since this list does hint at being "informed" we all need
to apply our own filters to the information provided and understand its
limitations. Ancient astronomers thought the world was the center of all
things, they were wrong but could predict an eclipse. The right level of
skepticism is always the best position.