From Bill H's post>

> Here's my hypothesis.
> Here's what you'd expect to observe if the hypothesis is true.
> Here, on the other hand, is what you'd expect to observe if the hypothesis
> is false.
> Here's what we actually observed (and here are the steps we took to
> control the other variables).
> Here's what we can say (and with what degree of certainty) about the
> hypothesis in the light of these results.
> Here's the next study we'd like to do to be even more sure.
> Here are the results of which we're aware (published and unpublished) that
> might undermine our findings.
>
Here's how we have taken their criticisms (or implied criticisms) seriously
> in evaluating our own results.


In essence that is the scientific method, but  sort of skips peer review
which happens just before... here's the next study. I am teaching my
homeschooled granddaughter High School Chemistry and every lesson I ask
her, "What is the Scientific Method". I tell her that it is the best tool
to see through all the really bad science of the age we are living in.

I love all the posts about the bad papers which reminds me of what this
forum is all about- informed discussion.
We here practice the dissection of many scientific papers that come across
the transom and, unfortunately, too often show they do not meet the mark.
So there are bad studies, good studies and a lot in between. As far as
beekeeping, that is where this forum shines.
I think it has been said that we seem to be experts on that which we know
least. In essence we do not know what we need to know to be experts,
because if we did we would know when to keep our mouths shut. Plus you
learn a lot more listening than talking.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html