>In other words, a decrease -
>or an increase - of, say, 10% in honey production (or in other parameter
>of bee performance) may have been occurring but we wouldn't know until
>careful measurements have been made.
Sorry Robert, I cannot agree with you fully on this one. We certainly
would have noticed from our long term records. Others in a different
situation may not have checked. Absence of any drop off is good enough
for us. We do not need to paralyse our operation checking exhaustively
and scientifically for these things, as the costs (in time and money)
would just not be justified.
>6 Absene of evidence does NOT equal proof that there is no effect. To
>assert, in a polemical utterance, "all is OK " is unjustified. There is
>considerable scope for effects on bees from influences which have not been
>scientifically studied. We do *not* know all is OK, especially where we've
>not been carefully looking.
From a scientists point of view you are, of course, correct. To call
someones assertion that all is OK a 'polemical utterance' is also fine
up to a point, but strictly from your point of view, and does sound a
little tainted by emotion. From the point of view of the person making
the statement, who is in all probability operating at a practical level
(rather than a purely scientific one), it is a perfectly reasonable
assertion, based on the balance of the evidence, as they see it.
However, if you contemplate anything for a long enough time you are sure
to find anomalies of some kind, which may or may not be linked to the
factor you are looking at. Whether these anomalies are of any
consequence whatsoever is another matter entirely, and the gist of what
has gone on in this thread and others before it is that possibly there
is some measureable field there, but of very little importance to either
us or our bees. (Actually it is important to me in one way. I get great
radio reception under the pylon, and like to be working there if there
is some big sporting occasion on! So the field definitely changes radio
reception.)
Science, of which I am a great fan incidentally, has great potential to
assist us in getting the best out of all sorts of productive systems,
bees included. Unfortunately, in its purest form, where nothing is done
or asserted until exhaustively proved, peer group reviewed, and
replicated ad nauseum, it can also be an expensive artificial obstacle,
and its failings (inability to prove an absolute negative for example)
can be exploited by interested parties to prevent implementation of
developments (GM debate is the classic example of this). Thus we have to
be cautious about extreme adherance to, or dismissal of, science, if we
are to achieve a sensible balanced result. Good old common sense is a
great thing, and from my point of view I lean towards the 'it is OK'
camp on this one, and find the arguments about 'damaging' effects of
power lines interesting, but
unlikely to influence my siting of colonies unless something dramatic
happens.
>7 Some people, some of the time, tend to confuse the man with the ball.
>One crucial aspect of the scientific method is to discuss the idea, not to
>cast aspersions on the person(s) who put forward the idea.
>
> Let us play the ball, not its carrier.
In a small group like this, with a lot of experienced respondents who
have been here a long time the distinction between the ball and the
carrier does become blurred. Points of view can often be predicted by
whoever is the respondent placing the post. I agree that simple personal
attacks are bad, and cannot say I noticed too much of that in this
thread. However, to continue the sporting analogy, an effective tackle
often takes both ball and man, and so long as it is done without malice
it is a valid strategy.
Some people (NOT you I hasten to add) have some very skewed points of
view and strange logic. Sometimes the ball carrier, or rather their
reasoning, can be a quite legitimate target, as argument based only on
facts can make precisely zero impact on them. Not the 'scientific
method' perhaps, but then this list is not restricted to scientists (who
are probably a minority here. Perhaps Aaron knows better? ), lots of
ordinary beekeepers and practical people of varying degrees of
experience are here who tend to be using a mixture of instinct,
experience and science.
--
Murray McGregor
|
