> I would not be too hard on the amateur researcher.
> Research many times is initiated by experienced folks
> that are excellent observers that see something
> different and  try to find out what is going on.
>
> Most of us amateurs are pretty well ignorant about how
> to set up trials that can be replicated.

Doing scientific trials is a bit of a lofty goal for most of us.  It takes
hard work, scientific training, more than a little understanding of
statistics, plus an idea of how to handle the exceptions that may crop up.
Most of us get distracted or things go awry and don't quite finish up as
planned, if ever (and that includes the scientific pros, too!)  If you don't
have a job doing research, a grant, or a paper to write -- or even if you
do -- the project tends to become less attractive and more work than
expected at the beginning, and nagging, possibly fatal flaws become apparent
immediately after you are fully commited..

But don't worry:  the scientific method isn't the only one way of
establishing truth.  Many events, processes, and apparent facts -- ones we
encounter every day -- can be hard to test scientifically, however --
fortunately for us and for our ancestors in the pre-science eras (and
animals) -- we can understand these things well enough for practical
purposes just by employing some observation and thought.  Moreover, even if
our explanations and understandings are wrong, but we know the pattern,
things will still transpire in a familiar way.

Most personal, government, military, and corporate activities are not run by
science, but rather by (hopefully) good judgement, observation, and
instinct.  Simple observation can go a long way toward identifying trends
and probabilities, usually well enough for everyday use, and also suggest
areas that aren't as obvious and which might benefit from some science.

As for science, the unfortunate fact is that much of what passes for science
is not science, or is at best, poor science., and, moreover, even good work,
unless replicated and/or supported by other studies and put into practice,
is of limited usefulness.

Although good science, if available, is obviously a good platform for basing
decisons, there seems to be a strong tendancy in laypeople to cite studies
in contexts that do not take into consideration the limitations of the work,
and also a tendancy to speculate from the results of a single study -- or
even opinion articles -- to create hypotheses that can be extremely flimsy.
The fact that something happens and that there is some science available on
one or two points under consideration, does not prove that our theories are
correct -- or even close.

An good example, IMO, is the current small cell discussion.  Obviously there
is something happening.  What we see in the Lusby operation obviously works
for their purposes, but can it work in theory?  :)   Frankly, the theories
offered don't convince me... and -- go figure -- people on one side or
another of the debate criticise the few that have come to light so far.  No
me.   IMO, any study that anyone does -- well or poorly -- sheds a little
more light on the topic, and we can learn by reading them.  I am inclined to
take each for what it is worth, and add that to my own personal
observations.

And (going back to horses for courses) without taking anything away from the
small cell crowd, whom I respect, I really have to wonder to hear a man who
has sucessfully made his living keeping many breeds of bees in many
locations, who has read widely and who shares his knowledge freely,
chastised for not agreeing with the theories and methods of those who have
to subsidize their beekeeping.  I don't know of any self-sufficient small
cell operations.  (I bet I will soon, tho', if there are any.  <ducking and
running>).

We all benefit from an exchange of ideas, especially when evangelism and
cheer leading are left out of the mix. I suppose we all have our biases, but
I'd like to know what is really happening, and if anyone can run small cell
on a commercial basis and make anything like the crops and pollination that
we old-time large scale beekeepers require to meet our commitments.

Then I'd like to know what is really going on in 'regression' (formerly
'retrogression'). If we take out the magick, are we just selecting for a
specific strain of bee?  What are the mating preferences relating to size?
We know that there is less inter-mixing between distantly related
populations in adjacent yards than previously thought, and that it can be
slanted one-way.

allen

The trouble with facts is that there are so many of them.
            -- Samuel McChord Crothers, The Gentle Reader

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---