Let me say that I've really enjoyed the thread on the dance language
controversy. I've also forwarded some of the posts on to a philosophy
professor who had been using von Frisch's work as an example of
scientific discovery. It's been a better example of scientific inquiry
and how we learn things in science than he could have anticipated.
 
 Do I understand it correctly, though, that the consensus is that bees
do not communicate with pinpoint accuracy via the dance and that
therefore it's not a "language?" It would seem to me that it might be
more precise to say that the dance is just not a very precise language.
 
(One could, for example, write a similar argument entitled "Do parents
of little league baseball players use language?" and make similar
arguments that the information communicated is extremely gross in
nature, is not followed reliably by the recipients of the information,
is affected/contradicted by the activities of other foragers on the
field, etc.)
 
 I guess the upshot to me, a layperson, is that I really don't
understand what is meant by the phrase "language" here as used by the
experts. Anyone care to fill me in?
 
 thanks! Phil Wood
 [log in to unmask]
 (all five hives are doing well so far this winter!)