We have once again had a flurry of exchange on the honey bee language
controversy --- the fourth time in a little more than a year on various
networks (this time primarily on the SOCINSCT network).  Not much new seems
to have emerged, particularly since bee language proponents have yet to
address fully the list of 16 problems with the dance language hypothesis
that I posted on the Internet last January.
 
   Some points, though, beg for further comment.  However, Bruno Latour's
1987 comment (as quoted in the book, ANATOMY OF A CONTROVERSY...) applies
here:
 
    "We have to understand first how many elements can be brought to bear
on a controversy; once this is understood, the other problems will be
easier to solve."
 
   Rather than attempt to reply to the several points raised in one lengthy
message, I will post sequentially a few relatively short comments about
each point raised in the last few weeks.
 
********  FIRST COMMENT (Just what is the bee language hypothesis?):
 
   We once had a concise statement of the language hypothesis, but too much
evidence is now at variance with that original hypothesis (as outlined in
the 16 points posted in January).  Some individuals still have a deep
attachment to the idea of a "language" use by honey bees but seem to no
longer embrace any concise scientific statement of that hypothesis.
 
   Under the circumstances, Julian O'Dea's alternative
("idiothetic/mnemonic") hypothesis seems as likely as the dance language
hypothesis as an explanation for the teleological question, "Why do bees
dance?"  (He asked:  "But why has so little attention been paid to the
possibility that the bees do the dances [in order to memorize] the location
of resources?")
 
   Deep conviction to a hypothesis may reflect an unconscious commitment to
a status quo attitude of the scientific community; however, as one
scientist wrote (paraphrased):  The strength of a conviction has no bearing
on whether a scientific hypothesis is true or not.   (In that connection,
witness what happened with the "cold fusion" episode).
 
    Enlightment on that point may be found in one section of an excellent
book, as follows:  Fleck, Ludwik.  1935.  Pp. 20-51 in GENESIS AND
DEVELOPMENT OF A SCIENTIFIC FACT.   Univ. of Chicago Press.  (translated
into English and republished in 1979.  [To order (only about US$12):
1-(800) 621-2736 --- ISBN:  0-226-25325-2]
 
   Look for the SECOND COMMENT that follows shortly (why "compromise" has
little place in science).
 
                                                                        Adrian
 
 
Adrian M. Wenner                         (805) 893-2838 (UCSB office)
Ecol., Evol., & Marine Biology           (805) 893-8062  (UCSB FAX)
Univ. of Calif., Santa Barbara           (805) 963-8508 (home office & FAX)
Santa Barbara, CA  93106