Firstly...

Chris Michel wrote:

"Not first with the news Chris, Just noting Brother Adam's work.

I have enjoyed Brother Adams work in the past.  I am glad to hear that
since his passing apparently you have replaced him.

I hope you will contribute to the family of knowledge as did he. Your
singular apiscentrism is, at best interesting. "

In defence of Chris Slade their is another body of opinion that Brother
Adam's evidence was based on a relatively localised search, and that there
are other sources dating from that time (post Isle of Wight disease),
particularly in the North of England, that demonstrated that not all the
local bee populations had been wiped out.

Please don't ask me to provide references right now as there are too many
bee books on my shelves and I am in the middle of essay deadlines for my
final year of a Philosophy degree - this is as much time as I can spare.
Perhaps someone with a little more time available can help out here. You
could also try contacting someone at the Bee Improvement and Bee Breeding
Association (BIBBA) http://www.bibba.com/ who are extensively involved in a
breeding programme of native stocks of apis mellifera mellifera.

Secondly...

With regard to Barbara Belyea's comments:

"If I have read the rules of this list correctly, it should be an
"informed discussion of beekeeping issues," not uninformed comments on the
state of science or other hopelessly general subjects."

Speaking as a student of philosophy as well as a beekeeper I welcome anyone
who is prepared to question accepted scientific orthodoxies, and to analyse
'statements of fact' concerning issues like: the 'social' behaviour of bees;
the mechanism of inheritable traits like disease-resistance; the evolution
of pathogens, treatment of disease vs selection for resistance, etc.
Challenging our most basic assumptions, however it may be expressed, has
value.

Remember we are only ever - if Kuhn was right - thinking within the current
paradigm. Someone has to point out the anomalies otherwise we would still be
flat-earthers (apologies to any flat-earthers out there, but that's the
problem of thinking within a paradigm for you - I can no longer comprehend
the concept of a flat earth).

Personally, I welcome these discussions and look forward to thinking through
the ideas offered even though I have not had time to contribute to this list
for some months. Here is my own small offering to the recent discussion of,
what I see as, the 'truth' status of science.

Right now our biology is predominantly governed by Neo-Darwinian theory.
Being in a Darwinian paradigm, may make it hard to comprehend Lamarckian,
Creationist, and other positions but it is still just a paradigm. That
means, necessarily, that what evolutionary biologists have to offer is not
the 'whole' truth and that some of this truth will be just plain old
'wrong'. I would therefore prefer to keep it as a working hypothesis and not
let it become my ideology. That way I can be receptive to the next
idea/theory.

Now flame me!

Madeleine Pym
[log in to unmask]