BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Adrian Wenner <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 9 Jan 2000 19:44:29 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (58 lines)
Al <[log in to unmask]> wrote (in part, in reponse to Barbara Belyea's questioning
of whether issues such as scientific protocol belonged on the BEE-L
docket):

>The state of science is critical to many of the issues found on this list.
>It provides the context of every posting that deals with the subject of
>beekeeping from a scientific perspective.

--- CLIP ---

>I would also like to remind all who are concerned about the rules of this
>list, and logic and science in general, that there is a thing called "ad
>hominem" arguments or attacks.

********

   I feel that Al was right on the mark on this topic --- with his response
gratiously acknowledged later by Barbara.  We have a great deal of poor
quality science occurring in the scientific community, despite the fact
that scientists live in a sheltered environment while supported by
taxpayers.

   Many of the beekeepers I know, though, are very sharp people and can see
through pronouncements made by bee scientists who may have had insufficient
exposure to the real world of beekeeping and who have actually have had
very little education about the true process of science.  They seem not to
understand that one can easily gather supportive evidence for prevailing
notions by ignoring evidence that does not fit dogma --- as evidenced in
all fields of science (e.g., "cold fusion," "N-rays," "water with a
memory," etc.).

   We find one excellent example from the 1930s, when an entomologist
insisted that deer bot flies could travel 880 miles per hour.  That claim
was eagerly embraced by the scientific community at the time (the exotic
sells very readily).  That supposed ability of the flies became inserted
into textbooks and diagrams in scientific journals and the popular media,
with no challenge for a decade.  Just a few years ago I saw a clip of that
claim appear in a local newspaper, despite the fact that it was debunked by
simple experimental evidence decades earlier.

   Kudos also to Elizabeth Petofi for her comments.

                                                                Adrian

Adrian M. Wenner                    (805) 963-8508 (home phone)
967 Garcia Road                     (805) 893-8062  (UCSB FAX)
Santa Barbara, CA  93106

*******************************************************************************
*
*     "...it is lamentable how each man draws his own different conclusions
*                from the very same fact"
*
*          Charles Darwin, in a letter to Alfred Russel Wallace on 1 May
1857
*
*******************************************************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2