Ruth Rosin writes to Peter Borst

> You are free to treat what I said here any way you wish. But, this is as far as I am willing to pursue this whole issue.

Yes, well, you have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that you will
never stop trying to recruit adherents to your anti-science,
anti-understanding point of view. And to this day you choose to ignore
the bulk of the evidence and misinterpret what little you do accept.
No doubt you have read none of Donald Griffin's writing nor Tom
Seeley's because they are deluded fools.

SEE:

"Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness" By Donald Redfield
Griffin (2001) ISBN 0-226-30865-0

"The Wisdom of the Hive: The Social Physiology of Honey Bee Colonies"
By Thomas D. Seeley Published (1995) Harvard University Press
ISBN:0674953762

"Can an Insect Speak? The Case of the Honeybee Dance Language" By
Eileen Crist (2004) Social Studies of Science 34/1 7–43

Eileen Crist writes

The communicative nature of the dance is apparent in that dances are
never performed without an audience (von Frisch, 1967; Seeley, 1995;
Griffin, 2001).

Rosin attacked the dance language on the grounds that it contravenes a
clear-cut demarcation between human and insect realms:

The controversy between [the] . . . 'language' hypothesis and . . .
[the] olfactory hypothesis for the arrival of honey bee recruits at
field sources, is essentially a controversy between a human-level
hypothesis for an insect and an insect-level hypothesis for an insect.
Since a hypothesis which claims human-level 'language' for an insect
upsets the very foundation of behavior, and biology in general, the
burden of proof for the 'language' hypothesis is, and always was, upon
supporters of that hypothesis. (1978: 589)  [This is Ruth Rosin,
writing THIRTY years ago]

Eileen continues:

The meanings of a 'human-level hypothesis' and 'insect-level
hypothesis' are assumed to be both clear and fixed. The author [Rosin]
proceeds to make the burden of proof for a 'human-level hypothesis' an
endless task for the proponents of the dance language.

Rosin's grievances appear as an instantiation of H.M. Collins' idea of
'experimental regress', for the distinct impression is conveyed that
no experiment could establish the dance language beyond all doubt,
since a flaw might always be discerned in its design (see Rosin, 1978
etc. etc.)

Rejecting the dance language, Rosin wrote, 'maintains honeybees at a
state of ordinary insects, which may be disappointing. But then, it
also retains our old-fashioned phylogenetic system in a relatively
intact state, which is no small consolation' (1978: 600).

One might well wonder, in the post-Darwinian life sciences, what an
'old-fashioned phylogenetic system' exactly is, and why it is a
consolation to retain it (see for example, Gould, 1977: chapter 3, on
Darwin's non-hierarchical conception of evolution and phylogeny).
Rosin's critiques of the dance language are the most transparent in
showing that the dance-as-code was objectionable for disturbing a
priori hierarchical assumptions.

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************