>> 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.
Let me clarify: "...taken seriously by those who share the consensus".
(There was a time when the objections were taken seriously, but after
a longish period without much progress on undermining the consensus, even
the journals started to reject the ongoing objections to the consensus,
as they offered nothing new or compelling.)
> 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
Passion and rationality are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, I am very passionate about rationality.
> I read you summary, and found that it left a number of questions
> unanswered in my mind... so unless you care to further educate us...
I said "But read the actual papers. Don't make me the point man
for an argument that may never end." So, read the papers.
> Although I don't think I have time enough to read all the
> literature and form a real, informed opinion...
You pose a "challenge", you phoo-phoo a legitimate "entry" in your
little contest, but you can't be bothered to read two papers that
are both brief and written with a surprising lack of jargon?
> I can't recall his [Jerry B] ever saying that he is using the dance
> cues from bees
'Cause he doesn't - he tracks the flight of bees on the terrain with
a fancy laser reflection system.
> Jerry and Adrian both report that the bees can respond to very subtle
> cues that researchers miss,
I think it is more accurate to say that there is much that has been
claimed that has not been "missed" as much as it has not been
reproducible. A lack of reproducibility does not imply that "other
researchers" are stupid, unobservant, or unskilled. Look up "N Rays"
for another example of something "subtle" that other researchers were
unable to reproduce.
> fail to consider how sensitive the bees sense of time, space, and
> smell are.
Here's an idea, read a specific paper or three, and talk about
specific work. Your generalized critique is useless without
a few specific examples of the "failures" you claim.
> Maybe there was mention of recruitment and successful or unsuccessful
> forays in the original that are missing here in the summary?
Maybe reading the cited papers would help?
> I am even less involved. I am mostly interested in the devotion
> people show to the idea of dance language.
Its more than an "idea", it is the generally-accepted current
scientific consensus. (And again, the use of the term "devotion"
reveals a bias in your view, one that may be too "subtle" for
you to see yourself.)
> How about softwood lumber?
What, still smarting about losing that one on both the "personal
debate" level and the "international trade" level? Gosh, you might
as well complain about the Carolina Hurricanes snatching the Stanley
Cup away from the Edmonton Oilers in game 7. That game's over, too.
(As an aside, it appears that Canada is about to get their knuckles
rapped again over compliance with the sanctions imposed upon them:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2334383320070223 )
> Maybe you could check the definition of "troll" next time...
I did, and you really should provide them with a better photo! :)
> I was hoping... that the members of the list are educated and secure
> enough in their own understanding to enjoy seeing a hypothesis tested.
People are testing this stuff all the time. Adrian has called
several times for research funds to be spent in more productive
ways, as he does not think the money is well-spent when the results
keep refuting his positions over and over.
> I also wondered, for those, if any, who worship the dancing bee,
> what it would take to make them doubt.
Again, I am forced to point out that the line above continues to
evince a basic misunderstanding of the difference between "Science",
and "Belief". It also attempts to "spin" or "frame" the current
generally-accepted consensus as some sort of issue of "faith".
Terms like "worship" are a dead give-away that despite professing
disinterest, there is an bias in your view.
>> 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.
Heck, you won't bother to read the papers cited, I certainly
won't bother to re-read your prior post. I said what I said,
and you can either offer specific reasons why I might be wrong,
or you can't. Apparently you can't. I continue to see a clear
bias in the way you address the issue, as revealed in your
choices of words.
> 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?
So let me get this straight - You openly admit that you can't be
bothered to even do your homework on the issue, claim to have
"no dog in the fight", issue an open challenge to all and sundry,
refuse to even READ cited peer-reviewed articles that meet the
specific criteria of your challenge, and then presume to set
yourself up as the ultimate arbitrator of something or other,
including the psychological make-up of those who have done
their homework, and therefore might have the sort of informed
view that you admit you lack?
We don't need another "Karl Popper" or "Thomas Kuhn", as both
have been so thoroughly discredited, even quoting them discredits
the person doing so. You don't want to end up like that.
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and other info ---
|
