I said:
"I think the sticky board is the unreliable one." -- and then gave my
reasoning.

Karen said:
"Belief doesn't rely on any facts, however. Science and research does. "

First, let me say that my *opinion* is based solely on my experience
working at a recognized honey bee research facility. My "belief",
that is -- what I believe -- is based entirely upon what I have seen.
Second, facts -- in the sense of data -- are entirely meaningless by
themselves. Any data set has to be interpreted. And any
interpretation is necessarily subjective, a working hypothesis.

However, those of us doing research make a concerted effort to
eliminate bias and prejudice in our thinking, in order to lend
credence to our conclusions. Researchers tend to be thoroughly
familiar with their subject. Their conclusions may carry a little
more weight than those of people who haven't studied a subject
outside of reading the paper or listening to the opinions of others.

When I say: "I think the sticky board is the unreliable one", this
statement is based on hundreds of observations of colonies using both
sticky boards and ether rolls. In the final analysis, however, my
conclusion rests mainly on the fact that a sticky board test cannot
distinguish a low number caused by a low rate of infestation and a
low number caused by a very small cluster (read: hive almost dead).

Bottom line: any method that promises to diagnose a hive *without
opening it* is bound to fail.

--

Peter Borst <[log in to unmask]>