Thanks for taking the time to explain this interesting study. It sheds even
more light on how bees perceive the world.
> a "controversy" requires someone to actually take the objections to the
> general consensus seriously...
Then, there is a controversy, or do I need to prove that there are several
such people, and with good credentials.
FWIW, I am not one. I have no dog in this fight.
I have *no* opinion one way or the other, and it never made any difference
to me how the bees found things--as long as they did--and I never really
cared if they could 'talk' to one another or not.
Personally, I have been entertained by the arguments on both sides, and what
I really find interesting how passionate the topic makes some otherwise
rational people, especially when someone calmly questions their beliefs, and
offers proofs -- valid or not, I will not judge -- that counter what they
apparently *need* to believe.
> The good news is that William Towne of Kutztown University, Kutztown, PA
> has recently done the experiment requested...
I read you summary, and found that it left a number of questions unanswered
in my mind. Although it does reveal some interesting things, I'm not sure
the details you provided prove what you say they do. Maybe there is more
that was left out that does so. I may never know, though, since I really
don't care that much one way or the other. I'm more interested in the
nature of the debate than the underlying details, so unless you care to
further educate us...
Although I don't think I have time enough to read all the literature and
form a real, informed opinion -- it would take months or years -- I do know
two people who have lived and breathed these matters, and tend to respect
what I have learned from conversation with them. One is Adrian, and the
other is Jerry B.
Adrian is always happy to discuss experiments that seem to indicate that
although the "dance" apparently contains information, and beekeepers can
read that information, other honey bees do not seem to get the whole
message, if they get anything at all. He thinks that for a group to
considered to have the ability to use language requires that some or all the
members of the group demonstrate BOTH the ability to transmit information
AND the ability to receive and process the same information. He thinks that
he has proven that the bees may be giving obvious signals about what they
are doing, signals that we can read, but seemingly, in his experiments the
fellow bees don't get much more out of the shaking around and prancing up
and down the comb than that there is something happening. That is my
impression of some of what he has told me, so Adrian, correct me if I am
wrong.
Jerry will love me for this I am sure, but in all our discussions, I can't
recall his ever saying that he is using the dance cues from bees (although I
am sure he is observing what we all see). What I do recall is his interest
and use of their sense of smell and perception of movement, and how he is
working with the former.
Jerry and Adrian both report that the bees can respond to very subtle cues
that researchers miss, and that very often people trying to prove one thing
or another fail to consider how sensitive the bees sense of time, space, and
smell are. This often results in the bees confusing people because they do
the unexpected for reasons that are obvious to bees, but not to people.
> If dance direction vector information were meaningless or irrelevant,
> dance direction vectors would not change from "completely wrong" to
> "accurate" as a result of the availability of UV navigation data to the
> foragers, nor would other foragers be "fooled" by such dances... It is
> very compelling when one can "fool the bees" or "make them lie", as the
> bees themselves are giving the incorrect information to other bees, who
> then act upon the "lies", and waste their effort, evidence of what the
> bees themselves think, and this makes one's results less open to arguments
> that one has misinterpreted data.
Maybe there was mention of recruitment and successful or unsuccessful forays
in the original that are missing here in the summary?
True. I have been told, however that the results of any recruitment are
very scattered, and while they may be interpreted to contain a vector when
averaged, the scatter is very wide, so wide sometimes as to be almost
imperceptible. Tell me if I am wrong about that.
> Please note that my participation in the game does not imply that I feel
> that there is any "controversy" in this area that requires any additional
> evidence to resolve.
I am even less involved. I am mostly interested in the devotion people show
to the idea of dance language.
> The situation, in my view, is similar to the "controversies" about the
> impact of human activities on global warming, and the impact of smoking on
> the smoker's health.
Apples and oranges, IMO.
How about softwood lumber?
> Also note that I don't see much impact from the problem exposed by Dr.
> Towne on practical beekeeping, in that an overcast day may screw up
> navigation, dances...
It is, however, very interesting.
>> If we don't get at least one answer to this, I'm going to have to
>> conclude either
>
>> 1.) that nobody here believes strongly in the dance language hypothesis,
>
> The line above forced those of us using the Troll plug-in to set
> the threshold on our troll detection systems to much higher levels
> than we had been able to use in prior months.
>
>> or 2.) that nobody who does can imagine anything that would
>> change his/her mind about it.
Seems like a reasonable question to ask among friends, and not an
intentional troll.
Maybe you could check the definition of "troll" next time, before you misuse
the term. There is a very specific definition. I won't belabour this.
Back to the two questions, frankly, I was hoping for the former, and that
the members of the list are educated and secure enough in their own
understanding to enjoy seeing a hypothesis tested. I also wondered, for
those, if any, who worship the dancing bee, what it would take to make them
doubt. I was disappointed to find that several people got quite hot to have
what is really a hypothesis tested, replying quickly, without weighing the
matter and realising that, hopefully, we are all interested in fact and
truth.
> The line above still evinces a basic misunderstanding of the difference
> between "Science", and "Belief".
I don't think so. Au contraire. See above, and re-read the previous post
if still in doubt.
> Personally, I see a situation where specific minor points are
> seized upon as a basis for critique of specific experiments.
> While these critiques may be perfectly valid as far as they
> go, they do NOT imply that even a major defect in one or more
> experiments are a valid basis for supporting "odor", as the
> critiques never offer any tangible support for "odor", but
> merely attempt to undermine "dance", and then offer "odor"
> as if it were the only possible alternative explanation.
I am not sure that is the intent. There may be some hair-splitting on the
definition of language, but basically, heat aside, this is an interesting
topic. Those who care to participate should, and those who get hot when
their beliefs are questioned might benefit from asking themselves why. Is
this hypothesis so fragile that it cannot bear some questioning?
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
