Greetings,
As with Mike Moser, I have followed the discussion about bee
research with great interest. Several people provided insightful
comments, but (to me) Mike's comments were highest on that list. At
the outset, I agree with most of Mike's input and will not address
all of the points upon which we agree.
>Mike wrote: First, anyone can do valid and important research even
>though they are not affiliated with any educational or government
>institution.
For that I often use the analogy that a good scientist (with a PhD
or not) is like a good auto mechanic. Upon learning all the
symptoms, a good mechanic considers ALL possibilities in seeking a
remedy, not just the first that comes to mind.
>Mike wrote: Some of the greatest inventions known have come from
>everyday people who asked the question "why?".
Yes, all research starts with the "why" question, but the good
scientist soon changes emphasis, rephrases, and probes the more
meaningful question "how?" "Why" questions are teleological and can
readily lead one to premature (and often all too readily acceptable
--- though not exclusive) conclusions.
>Mike wrote: For research to be valid and meaningful, one must
>adhere to scientific guidelines that are recognized the world over.
>These guidelines are a series of steps or conditions that must be
>met, and are often referred to as the Scientific Method. The basic
>steps of the scientific method can be found in most any high school
>or college science textbook.
More recent thinking favors use of the term "Scientific Process."
In 1993 I gave a lecture in New Jersey to a group of college honors
students in biology. The facilitator liked the presentation so much
that he asked me to write a short note for publication in their
national journal (BIOS). Those interested can find that essay as
item #22 on the following web site:
www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm
>Mike wrote: Don't try to make the results meet your hypothesis.
>This is a good example of "poor science".
Mike is 100% correct on that point, in my experience. Those who
attempt to "prove" their hypothesis "true" will surely conclude that
they have succeeded! The history of science is littered with
examples of that poor approach. Unfortunately, an exotic explanation
meets with quicker approval than a more mundane explanation.
>Mike wrote: Most of what we deal with is hypothesis, not theory.
We agree on that point. However, hypotheses never become fact.
Instead, in good science, hypotheses become replaced with other
hypotheses as new facts emerge. Sometimes a reasonable hypothesis
becomes replaced with a more exotic (though not necessarily a more
scientific) hypothesis that later becomes overturned. The JOURNAL OF
INSECT BEHAVIOR recently accepted for publication a manuscript of
mine that describes just such an example.
>Mike wrote: A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven over and
>over again.
Here Mike and I disagree. I have found that the notion of "proof"
remains elusive in scientific studies. Too often, the social climate
of the times may encourage acceptance of inadequate evidence for a
hypothesis; then people may readily accept a hypothesis (especially
if exotic) as "proven."
>Mike wrote: A law is a theory that has been shown to be absolutely
>true every time.
Here Mike and I agree. However, in studies of insect behavior, we
have VERY few "laws." One such "law" that I have been promoting for
decades now is the "Law of Odor-Search Behavior." That is, no animal
can find the source of odor unless it starts out downwind from that
source. Perceptive beekeepers have likely observed that as they at
the behavior of bees in flight. All searching bees come in from
downwind, flying in a zigzag fashion as they work their way upwind
toward the odor. Even sharks exhibit that behavior, as I once
observed to my dismay while conducting marine research in the
Marshall Islands.
Yes, anyone can do valid scientific research. Sometimes those
trained in the scientific community fail to appreciate that fact and
will come up with quite unacceptable explanations for their own
results. Their explanations may mesh well with what other scientists
and the public want to hear, but they may have little to do with the
real world or with what beekeepers observe in their daily activities.
Adrian
--
Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home office phone)
967 Garcia Road [log in to unmask]
Santa Barbara, CA 93103 www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm
****************************************************************************
*
* "We don't see things as they are. We see them as we are." Anais Nin
*
****************************************************************************
|
