Steve said:

There is no
> reason to trust 
> someone in as much as they are extending their claims
> beyond that which 
> they can possibly know.  

Steve, I agree, and I thought over you comments for sometime before deciding how to respond. 
First, I want to say that IMO, the making of claims beyond ones ability can be very problematic towards productive and honest discussion.  This being said, what I look for is ‘claims with balance’.  I will tend to look towards extending more trust to those making a few high sounding claims if they are accompanied with balance.   

For instance, I have no problem posting for all to see, my losses and bee problems, including the occasional case of foulbrood, sacbrood, chalkbrood, fluctuating winter kills.  You can go back to 2001 on many lists and see posts I made commenting on my 50 to 100% winter failures year after year.  This is what I tend to look for, the good with the bad, which to me is perhaps more suggestive of being truthful. 

Now, for folks promoting small cell OR any other ‘single treatment’ for that matter, as a miracle cure for all, without giving balance, sends up red flags with me. 

What I see going on here is that
> people are being 
> called to task, not so much for offering their personal
> experience, but for 
> in some cases dogmatically claiming more than that
> experience alone can 
> support.  

I agree that they should be called to task.  Now I thought for quite some time about where exactly the problem is.  Where does the grief, blow ups, and hard feelings come from in these disagreements?,,,I hope to express in a very strong manner that IMO, it is not the dogmatic claims that are the problem.  This, as I said in a previous post is ’junk mail’ and should be ignored, thrown in the trash or called to task.  The problem lies in how one chooses to respond to the dogma.  

You need not go any further than to look at the persons that IMO are experts in promoting good discussion.  And 2 of my many favorites that should be exemplified for their good discussion are Chris Slade and Keith Benson, who are both very good at confronting wild claims with well crafted questions.  

On the other side of the coin are those that choose to attack the person, or make insulting remarks, and I need not say more here.  Any thread that gets out of hand is usually from a person resorting to insults or personal attacks.  This is where the problem is, it is not the dogma!  Watch the threads that get out of hand, and you will see the persons making personal attacks or insulting remarks in the middle of the fray every time.

What we 
> are really looking for is a preponderance of irrefutable
> evidence, and for 
> some there is a need to be able to bet the farm on it.  

I regret to say that we will perhaps never achieve 100% acceptance of irrefutable evidence on any discussion list.  I have seen good research being picked apart on this list and others because of perceived or fabricated error that may have had no effect on the outcome of the study.  This is due to some choosing to be disingenuous and dishonest in their debating tactics.  Again, in parting words, evidence means nothing without trust.    

Best Wishes,
Joe


      

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