Barry said:
> It's apparent you feel that only "qualified" people are capable of measuring
> comb and reporting truthfully. I disagree completely.
The idea here was to send samples to IMPARTIAL parties.
It is not important what one's opinion is of the need for scientific
credentials, the crucial point is to simply have someone who
has not been labeled as "pro" or "anti" small cell, and is also
"known" to many as "an authority" take a look. It should be
obvious that the boys in white lab coats would have the time,
the tools, and the access to the literature required to give such
evidence a fair evaluation.
> With as much skepticism and distaste for this topic that is displayed
> on this list by those with some sort of science background,
Skepticism, yes. "Distaste", no. Expect skeptics. A well-developed
sense of skepticism is a required item in both science and beekeeping.
But there is a difference between skepticism and "distaste". Not noticing
the difference appears to be one of the "problems" that the small-cell
proponents have created for themselves.
I am honestly trying to suggest some reasonable "first steps" that might
lead to grant applications and responses to RFPs that would result in
good quality studies on small cell.
I've been dropping hints for quite some time.
I didn't expect a thank you, but I sure didn't expect a load of grief, either.
Let me attempt to explain the high correlation between "some sort of science
background" and skepticism towards "small cell", or anything, for that matter.
Please recall that science was the first "contact sport". It started when
an ape banged two rocks together for the first time. We have much prettier
and shinier rocks now, but we still mostly just bang things and ideas against
each other until the weaker one breaks. If you don't like the banging, take the
idea off the table, since to place an idea on the table is to invite such banging.
But please don't ever again pull the lame trick of claiming that anyone
"dislikes" something just because they are asking legitimate questions
and banging on the idea a bit to see if it breaks. That's just tacky.
> it's no wonder why there is a lack of wanting to give any helping hand to
> those in similar standings (USDA or university).
"Those who post to the list do NOT include those working for USDA or
many educational institutions, since these institutions still fear that
participation in mailing lists like Bee-L may place their institution in a
"bad light". Only a tiny minority feel free to post. But many DO read the list.
(Hi, folks! Hey - It's December, so its time to
SPEND that end-of-year money. Use it, or lose it!
Anyone got an old stereo dissection microscope
they want to sell? I want to give it as a Christmas
gift to a needy beekeeper for tracheal testing and
basic anatomy work, so please e-mail or call ASAP.)
It follows that there is NO CONNECTION between views expressed on this list
and (for example) the opinion of the USDA. We can assume the USDA ARS
to be both impartial and neutral.
> Let those wanting "official reports" do what it takes to get them.
If, on the one hand, you want studies to be done, and think the prior studies
were of low quality, but on the other hand, refuse to take the initiative to
send some tangible evidence of "something interesting" to those who
might do better studies, this leaves the rational observer a tad confused.
It also raises additional latent concern about the veracity of the claim that
any such samples exist. Therefore, only physicals samples will do, and
only impartial parties will do.
> I should say right here that I am NOT trying to "build support" for small cell.
> That would be a futile exercise. The tendency is for anyone who comments
> on SC, gets the unfortunate ride of being thrown in to "that group" and gets
> a unique treatment.
What "unique treatment" might this be? If one compares the reception given to
small cell with that given to other "alternative treatments" (essential oils, FGMO,
and the various acids), one sees a fairly consistent agenda in the questions asked
by the group as a whole, and it is a rational approach:
a) Tell the group what you did (document the new approach)
b) Tell the group what you did NOT do (for example, did not also use Apistan, et al)
c) Tell the group for how long you have been doing this
d) Tell the group what your results were, both for the new approach,
and a control group that continued to be managed the "traditional" way.
These are reasonable questions. The problem is that when one gets argument
in reply, rather than facts, one is forced to shrug one's shoulders, and dismiss
the writer as unable to provide any information that might help an intelligent
person make an informed decision.
The people who first experimented with the various acids responded to initial
questions with clear and concise answers. This ADDED credibility.
Thus, more and more people are trying the various acids. No mystery there.
> The "bad news" is that Beltsville has never asked or even indicated that
> they would be interested in such samples. Your protocol is out of order.
The statement above evinces a complete lack of comprehension
of even the basic rudiments of "scientific protocol". Aside from
Mulder and Sculley of the "X Files", there are NO federal employees,
and almost no university employees who can even get permission,
let alone funding, to chase down random aprochryphal anecdotes.
(And look what happened to Mulder and Sculley - their show got cancelled!)
First, someone has to deliver some evidence. A smoking gun on a
silver patter would be nice, given current limited budgets and staffs,
but anything would be nice.
Delivering such evidence with a specific request for analysis would
allow the analysis to be done under EXISTING budgets for the analysis
of beekeeper problems/questions at beekeeper request.
> They did however, according to Keith, visit Bolling Bee and write a
> follow-up letter. That's a good first step I guess.
Yes, that is something, but is it enough to get a project going?
Dunno.
> I have no desire to move this cell size issue out of the corner on this forum.
Why this sudden change in attitude? Is it because it has been
suggested that the next step would be sending something claimed
to be "evidence" to someone who might be able to do an in-depth
analysis?
> Maybe others have a desire to "make you believe" in SC,
It would appear that this exact goal was the motivation of the post to
which I am responding. Why else would such effort be expended?
> but I've taken the position that it will have to stand on its own
Then why the impassioned pleas?
> There is so much to go on right now that all our labs could each be studying
> a unique aspect of SC for several years without duplicating anything.
Well, what IS there to go on?
In July 2001, you said:
"I'm in my second year and know of another who is in his third year now
and building up fast. So I'm very skeptical of those you are referring to that
say it works great because I'm still in the "not so great" period of converting.
In fact, it hasn't even been one year that the foundation has been available
on the market."
In:
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0107B&L=bee-l&P=R1806&D=0&m=35669
I think that your statement of July 2001 was very reasonable.
What has happened in a single year made a difference to you?
What credibility has been added by more people STARTING the
multi-year process?
> Have you given equal energy to critique those who have claimed no results,
> or is it just a given with you that their word is enough without knowing all
> the details? I see a lack of consistency.
I think that if polled, the members of the list would firmly agree that I
am equally "hard" on anyone who slips into fuzzy thinking, regardless
of what they might be thinking about. I am CONSISTENTLY a hard-nosed
son-of-a-gun. Sorry that you feel "your ox" is being gored this time around,
but when I see bull, I think hamburger, and start my grinder.
The good news is that while the group certainly is "hard on the ideas",
we try to be "soft on the people". The moderators even help on this.
> Are you offering your lab and testing facilities to do such a test?
Would you accept the results as "impartial" and "fair? Thought not.
Just who's lab WOULD you agree would be impartial and fair, up front,
before the time and money were spent? Any lab? Anywhere?
> First of all, I alone can't document the "whole story."
Then get together with a few others and collaborate.
> It doesn't surprise me that this is what you desire or need, a point-by-point,
> step-by-step, well laid out manual on how to succeed with SC, as reading
> over some of your posts to this list, they are written in the same fashion.
I am not suggesting that anyone write a "manual", but something a
little more coherent than what exists would help. Help what? Help
it to at least make it to the "stack" of legitimate avenues for research.
Help it make the list of things that MIGHT be considered for funding.
> ...the people that are "beat[ing] a path to the door" now are seen as kooks
> and fanatics.
This apparent persecution complex is a real problem in itself, but let
me again stress that the only point being critiqued (over, and over, and
over again) is the complete lack of rigor in the attempts to date made
to present small cell as a possible alternative.
This is not, and should be interpreted as, a critique of "small cell itself".
"Small cell" itself is IMPOSSIBLE to critique until someone explains
exactly what it is in terms that can both be understood, and used as
a basis for some preliminary tests.
> BTW, perhaps you would consider trying SC in your hives and report back what
> you find.
This has been said so often, it is almost a mantra - "Try it, you'll like it".
I'm still asking "Try what"? "How?" "Using what criteria?"
All the dodging and weaving in response to questions about "small cell"
reminds me of an old joke:
A man walks into a bar, and orders a dry martini.
The bartender takes out the gin, vermouth, and an eyedropper, and
makes a martini with only a single drop of vermouth.
The customer pushes the glass away without even tasting, telling the
bartender to pour it out and make him a DRY martini.
The bartender is confused at this reaction, and asks the customer
just what he means by a "dry martini", if a single drop of vermouth
is "too sweet" for his taste.
The customer explains that a DRY martini is simply a glass of gin,
over which the bartender says the word "vermouth".
The bartender follows the customer's instructions to the letter.
The customer AGAIN pushes the glass away, telling the bartender
to pour it out and make him a DRY martini.
At this point, the bartender becomes annoyed, and asks the customer
just what he might have done "wrong".
The customer replies that the bartender said the word "vermouth" too loudly.
That's the little game to which those of us asking questions are being subjected.
That's why a rational observer STILL can't tell the difference between
"small cell beekeeping" and the cult of "Reverend" Sun Yung Moon .
One cannot test a moving target.
One can hardly discuss it.
|
