Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 141 to 156 of 156
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    Jim,

    You wish to encounter an actual practitioner of "pathological science"? Just look in the mirror!

  2. #142
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,509

    Post

    Okay, I'm closing this thread until I have the time to address it, which I will. Right now, it must not continue this way.

    - Barry
    Regards, Barry

  3. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,509

    Post

    I have gone through the entire thread and edited as needed. Some messages were deleted, others had words removed and/or edited. I have decided to be as liberal as possible with this thread due to the fact that there are two very strong-willed members responsible for a lot of the postings. I left as much as possible untouched.

    That said, I won't continue to put this much time into moderating this thread. You know, Ruth is the way she is, and no one is going to change anything about her relational style. Same is true for Jim. So often, a discussion gets so far off track because people start to focus on all the "style" stuff. I appreciate the route George and Kieck took. Didn't get ruffled and kept asking questions and stayed focused. I learned from their exchange.

    Ruth, others have given you sound advice that would go a long way in getting people to understand and see your point of view. I encourage you to be softer in your delivery without sacrificing your viewpoint. BTW, just because I personally favor/agree with Wenner's stand on DL, it has no bearing on how I enforce the posting rules on this board. Everyone is on equal footing when using the board.

    As for Jim lying to you about a certain event, I'm interested in understanding this. However, it is on your shoulders to back up your claim with proof, if that's possible without it being a "he said - she said" thing. If this can't be done, then I will expect you to remove all comments referring to Jim as such.

    Bullseye Bill, thanks for the levity!

    - Barry
    Regards, Barry

  4. #144
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,624

    Post

    Here's a twist on honey bee dance language that ought to get people thinking..

    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...18/ai_19847180
    Dulcius ex asperis

  5. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    Posts
    5,159

    Post

    >Bullseye Bill, thanks for the levity!

    [img]tongue.gif[/img] I just wanna DANCE!
    Bullseye Bill in The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    www.myspace.com/dukewilliam

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > I just wanna DANCE!

    I'm sorry to point it out,
    but somehow, your dancing has
    a distinct odor about it.

    Draw your own conclusions...

  7. #147
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    Posts
    5,159

    Post

    >Draw your own conclusions...

    Either your tin foil hat is too tight or you've been drinking too much kool-aid, as usual.

    As for me, I'll just blame it on the bossa-nova

    [size="1"][ February 07, 2006, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: BULLSEYE BILL ][/size]
    Bullseye Bill in The Scenic Flint Hills , KS
    www.myspace.com/dukewilliam

  8. #148
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Monroe Ga, U.S.A.
    Posts
    124

    Post

    I have received a lot of emails about this string and Jim emailed me and said I should “moderate”….

    Bad beekeepers! Bad bad beekeepers!
    Now be nice, and go play.

    I really don’t care about DL, I really don’t. On the scale of 1-10 of importance in my life 1 being the least important and 10 being the most important. I would put DL somewhere around -100. There’s way too many other things about beekeeping that we need to figure out before we put so much time and effort into DL. That’s why when this thread started I read about the first 4 or 5 post and then lost interest very quickly.

    As far as who said what to who and when and about what. I went back and read through most of the thread. I skipped through but I know I got 4 pages read before I fell into a coma.

    So this lying thing. She said that he lied he says he didn’t. And all this goes back years(?). (You think I don’t care about DL…)

    Ok, Ruth I’m leaning a little on Jim’s side here. You have given some long elaborate post to answer Berry’s question, but I have not read any type of proof that Jim has lied. Yes it is possible that somewhere in the endless string of post I missed it. If so please show it to me again…no I don’t want to hear “he said”, I would like to see some real proof. Something that will back up what you’re saying and please, PLEASE! No long endless way too wordy post. Reply to me like you would to any uneducated country boy.

    Jim, stop trying to defend everyone else. There big beekeepers let them take care of themselves. And, you’re a big boy, I’m sure this isn’t the first time someone has said something bad to you. Remember, “sticks and stones…”

    Finally, you people do realize that this forum is for the chat room. I mean it’s here so you can post dates and times that you would like to meet people in the chat room, which is in another location altogether.

    http://www.bee-l.com/beesourcechat.htm

    Why can’t you guys go to another forum and talk about this stuff. You know one of the ones where somebody may read what you’re saying? Hey, I bet MB is up to a million posts by now and would dearly love to have you in his forum (sorry Mike it’s what you get for being top moderator). He’d answer each one of your post on this subject and would do a much better job of seeing who is right and wrong…I on the other hand would like my forum to go back to the nice peaceful forum that it once was. So if everyone would do me a great favor and leave me alone, leave this forum alone, and let this string die.(as it should, it has accomplished nothing)

    If you really want to get this off your chest and would like to chat in real time stop by the chat room, you can even open a sub-room where you can sit and chat all night and all day for all I care. It’s open 24/7/365.

    BB

  9. #149
    UBB_admin Guest

    Post

    Okay BB, we took our controversial marbles and left your playground. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

  10. #150
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Volga, SD
    Posts
    2,790

    Post

    I'll confess that I'm a little scared to start up again on this thread. I hate seeing threads digress so far away from the original topic. At the risk of setting it off again, though, I'll proceed.

    First, I have to say I'm very much intrigued by this controversy. Sure, I lean toward one side, but that doesn't mean that I won't listen to arguments for or against other explanations.

    I've heard some of the controversy over Gregor Mendel's experiments in genetics, too. If you didn't realize that his experiments are controversial at all, the debate lies in the absolute perfection of his results. Somehow, Mendel happened to select only traits that show simple forms of inheritance in pea plants. Then, his data from his experiments are virtually perfect statistically. No one else has been able to replicate his numbers. So, some people claim that he probably threw out data to show better results, and maybe even altered data to fit his hypothesis.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting or denying the claim that Mendel may have altered his data. I'm just pointing out that many other hypotheses and theories in science have their supporters and detractors, too.

    So, here's what I'm really curious about:

    First I asked for a clear definition of this hypothesis (dance language hypothesis) that we've been discussing. For me, an understanding of the issues surrounding a controversy like this begin with first defining the terms. In this case, I'd like to know exactly what this hypothesis says. Are we talking about any form of communication among bees other than simply using odors? Are we talking specifically about information conveyed through visually observing a physical sequence of behaviors (a "dance")? Or what?

    This response, "You demand that I provide you with an exact definition of the DL hypothesis, after I said that no such exact definition exists at all. Obviously I cannot give you something that does not exist...," just confuses me further. It's already been stated that I'm naive on this subject (and, I'll admit, I am; that's why I'm here -- I'm trying learn about this controversy), but how can support or reject a hypothesis that doesn't even exist?

    Next question: is the "odor hypothesis" regarded as the null hypothesis in these experiments and the "dance language hypothesis" used as the alternate hypothesis, or the other way around? In view of the ways I've learned about designing experiments (and, I'll admit, that these aren't the only ways and may not even be the best ways), the null hypotheses in both cases should be, "Bees don't use (fill in one of the hypotheses)." Then, we either reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis. If we find evidence they use odors, we reject the null hypothesis. If we find evidence they use dances, we reject the null hypothesis. I'd like an clear explanation how and why one of the two hypotheses rejects the other.

    Having said that, I can see some flaws in the designs of others' experiments that may not rule out other mechanisms while attempting to test hypotheses. To my way of thinking, then, we need to come up with better experimental designs to really address the dance language hypothesis (but we still need to define such a hypothesis first).

    As far as making claims -- by either side -- that the information necessary to understand evidence is beyond the comprehension of others on this board, I'm surprised and disappointed. Speaking as someone who works in science, I feel that all scientists should be able to relate their work to other people at virtually any level. If a scientist can't explain what he studies to the average person, he doesn't really know what he's doing in the first place. Remove the ability to relate what we do to others, and the relevance vanishes -- why should we as taxpayers support research that we can't understand, and, therefore, has no bearing on our lives?

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Monroe Ga, U.S.A.
    Posts
    124

    Big Grin

    Admin is sooo nice. Thank you!

    Now everyone dance together nice, and if you slow down maybe you won't step on each others feet.

    BB

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,509

    Post

    If there is evidence with more to say, why not post it here so the discussion can continue (in a civil manner) and not get splintered into yet another thread?

    The other thread that was in the Chat Forum was moved here also, but it is far down in the list of threads. Last month sometime?

    [size="1"][ February 11, 2006, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: Barry ][/size]
    Regards, Barry

  13. #153
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Lincolnton Ga. USA.
    Posts
    1,725

    Post

    BillyBob said:
    I really don’t care about DL, I really don’t. On the scale of 1-10 of importance in my life 1 being the least important and 10 being the most important. I would put DL somewhere around -100. There’s way too many other things about beekeeping that we need to figure out before we put so much time and effort into DL. That’s why when this thread started I read about the first 4 or 5 post and then lost interest very quickly.
    I couldn't have said it better.....just my 2 cents!!!!!!! Ding-Ding,,,,,Round 7

    [size="1"][ February 11, 2006, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: TwT ][/size]
    Ted

  14. #154
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    Barry has done yeoman like work, slogging
    though and deleting all of Ruth's more overtly
    libelous statements, so I thought I'd pop in
    here and state for the record that my future
    contributions on this issue (and any other
    statements made by Ruth) can be assumed
    to be any or all of:
    </font>
    • "Yawn"</font>
    • "Nothing new here"</font>
    • "Gee, the paper cited draws the exact
      opposite conclusion, I wonder why?
      ".</font>
    Aside from those replies, I don't really
    need to say any more, so I won't bother.
    The reader can insert them as required without
    needing me to bother to actually post them.

    There's some interesting work that I'll go over
    in a spring edition of Bee Culture that
    has some direct bearing on this subject area,
    and puts a stake through the heart of several
    misconceptions, but I need graphics to explain
    the work clearly, so when it is done, I'll toss
    into into the "reprints" section of the Bee-Quick website.

  15. #155
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    Part of the problem as I see it is that dance language researchers already have their minds made up before doing the experiments. Here’s an example:

    “The honey bee dance language, used to recruit nestmates to food sources, is regarded by many as one of the most intriguing communication systems in animals.
    What were the ecological circumstances that favoured its evolution? We examined this question by creating experimental phenotypes in which the location information of the dances was obscured. Surprisingly, in two temperate habitats, these colonies performed only insignificantly worse than colonies which were able to communicate normally. However, foraging efficiency was substantially impaired in an Asian tropical forest following this manipulation. This indicates that dance language communication about food source locations may be important in some habitats, but not in others.”

    Here the researchers attempt to explain why they got the “surprising” results they did not expect:

    “Our finding that dance information has no bearing on foraging success in the two European habitats might therefore be explained by the distribution of food sources
    in these habitats. Food source distribution might explain our results in two ways: it either influences the importance of communication directly, by determining foraging
    efficiency with and without oriented dances, or in history, by causing differing selection pressures on bees living in different habitats.”

    In the end there is still a rationalization for the dance “language”:

    “If the dance language has lost its importance for foraging in some habitats, stabilizing selection might nevertheless result from its function of communicating locations of nest sites”

    Dornhaus, A., ChittkaBehav, L.Why do honey bees dance? Ecol Sociobiol (2004) 55:395–401

  16. #156
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    Dick, I'm sorry, but you have completely
    misrepresented the work of Dornhaus and
    ChittkaBehav by taking a quote out of context.

    Here is the full text of the paper Dick cited,
    http://www.biology.qmul.ac.uk/resear...ttka_BES04.pdf

    Which, if read, clearly does NOT represent
    that "dance information has no bearing on
    foraging success
    " as a general case. They
    found specific environments where the
    dances indicated exactly what was there - a
    widespread availability of similar nectar sources,
    so many, that sending recruits to specific areas
    did not result in any specific advantage in terms
    of colony weight gain.

    On page 399 of the journal issue mentioned, the
    in context statement is:

    In such a situation, communication
    about these few, ephemeral resources might be
    essential for efficient foraging. In temperate
    habitats on the other hand, the bees’ diet
    contains a much higher portion of widely
    distributed herbs and shrubs (Heinrich 1979),
    since many trees are wind-pollinated (Whitehead
    1968). Plant individuals often have only small
    numbers of flowers with usually minute nectar
    amounts (Heinrich 1976) and longer flowering times
    (Primack 1985). Both the spatial and the temporal
    distribution of food sources might thus differ
    between tropical and temperate habitats.

    These factors may make location communication
    less worthwhile in some temperate habitats,
    and occasionally even unnecessary. However, in
    those temperate habitats with continuous forest
    cover, communicating location may be as important
    as in tropical forest (Visscher and Seeley 1982).

    Our finding that dance information has no bearing..."


    So, what they did was look at dancing versus
    colony weight gain, and they said something
    that should be obvious - that vectoring foragers
    to specific sites doesn't offer much advantage
    when the colony is surrounded by a diffuse
    planting of nectar sources of similar "value"
    to the colony.

    This is similar to saying that offering someone
    specific directions to a specific store to
    buy milk is of little value when they can pass
    multiple places that sell milk no matter WHICH
    way they drive.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads