Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 156
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    > She started a group?

    Yeah, scroll up, that's how this thread got
    started - the announcement of the formation
    of a mailing list.

    I can't wait to join, but 7.62mm rounds have
    gone way up in price recently, I guess due
    to all the unpleasantness going on, and
    I would clearly need to stock up before
    daring to join THAT discussion. [img]smile.gif[/img]

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,624

    Post

    >I just dont' think it is practical to outfit that many bees with with the necessary tinfoil hats

    But they already have antennae..
    Dulcius ex asperis

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    To DICK ALLEN,

    The only valuable comment I have encountered here so far is the information that your URLs to my post on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list can not be opened.

    several other lists, and I have just received similar complaints from the COMPARATIVE PSYCHOLOGY list of TCU; which is much more important to me, because it comprises mostly scientists working in animal behavior. I advised them to wait until I can straightened that problem.

    Now, you say you are subscribed to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list (which I had, incidentally, already left), and that the URLs "work here".

    What exactly does one need to do to make them work???

    Suppose one subscribes to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list, how does he then have to use your "tinyurls" to open my posts???

    I already sent you an URGENT message about this to your personal e-mail address!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbia, South Carolina USA
    Posts
    2,598

    Post

    Jim,

    She joined a list that already existed (I am on it too), and I must agree with her that even though it is a list that is supposed to be about animal behavior, there is precious little discussion about the topic on there. Too bad too, in my line of work such a list would have been interesting.

    She apparently was asked to move on, but I suspect that was due more to attitude than content.

    Ruth - you cannot read the posts unless you are a member. If you are a member, clicking on the tiny urls prompts you to login, once logged in, each of them opens with a click.

    Perhaps you might put your thoughts in a concise, *brief* document and ask Barry to archive it here, much like he has done for many similar controversial topics. I can't speak for him, but he has posted the Lusby stuff and Wenner’s materials.

    Then you could direct interested people to the material instead of joining a group and firing off 5 very long emails that most will simply not read - even if they might have been interested.

    Keith
    Bee Sting Honey - So Good, It Hurts!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    To kgbenson,

    Your suspicions are way off the mark!

    I was asked not to continue to post to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list the type of meesages I had posted there, and so was another list-member, because the "guidelines" (specified by the owner of the list), state in the last sentence (which I initially apparently had not even bothered to read), that the list is NOT open to discussions of issues in animal behavior; after the previous sentence states exactly the opposite (i.e. that the list is open to any information that might be of interest to people studying animal behavior).

    Re the tinyurls: Do you mean to say that if I am a member, all I need to do is click on an URL, which will tell me to log in etc? Do you mean that the tinyurls "know" what I need to login?

    Your advice that I should write a concise "brief" message, and let Barry handle the matter, is totally inacceptable. You can not write a "brief" message about a controversy that has become so unnecessarily complex and convoluted, as to drag on for almost 40 years.

    I could of course compose a very "brief" message, like so: In v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment (published in the early 20's of last century) he used a foragers'-feeder that was very close to the hive, and bees of a strain that performs round dances up to a distance of close to 100 m. from the hive. His foragers, therefore, performed only round dances. Recruits found all the dishes with the foragers' food-odor, and none of the dishes with a different food-odor, up to 1,000 m. from the hiver (the greatest distance then tested).

    Since recruits found, among others, dishes to which the foragers were not flying, and could not even have known existed, he fully justifiably concluded that they find food NOT by following foragers in flight all the way from the hive to the food, NOR by using any information about the location of any food, but by use of odor ALONE. His later, sensational DL hypothesis (which states among others, that round dances result in recruits finding food with the foragers' food odor, ONLY within the round dance range), was, therefore STILLBORN.

    I had already published that repeatedly (not necessarily in these exact words), and it got DL opponents NOWHERE! We cannot get very far without explaining what happened later, as well as why, and how it happened. And this can NOT be done briefly at all; as you will undoubtedly begin to understand if you carefully read my posts on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Erin, NY /Florence SC
    Posts
    3,361

    Post

    {The only valuable comment I have encountered here so far is the information that your URLs to my post on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOUR list can not be opened.}

    But then that really is the meesage isn't it Ruth? You don't think what anyone else has to say has any value. You keep telling us that, we hear you loud and clear. Now hear this- No one hears what you say because you haven't learned to how to turn down the rude volume. People keep saying it, you keep not hearing it and then are stumped that because no one really cares what's being said. Keep on though, we'll just keep on not caring until you find that rude volume control. Best of luck in your endeavors at any rate.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbia, South Carolina USA
    Posts
    2,598

    Post

    "Re the tinyurls: Do you mean to say that if I am a member, all I need to do is click on an URL, which will tell me to log in etc?"

    Yes, at least it does that when I click on them from any one of several machines (I just tested it)

    "Do you mean that the tinyurls "know" what I need to login?"

    No

    Tinyurls are simply there to re-direct the browser to the real url, but make it easier to post long urls to forums like this.

    Having said that, when you click on one, your browser will try to access the message, prompting the host server to ask you to log in. Once you do that, you can click on the others and the host server knows you are logged in and lets you read the messages.

    You have to be a member to see the messages.

    I did indeed read your messages and I believe they can be reduced in length by at least a third to a half. I do not see why having them posted on a forum such as this would be unacceptable. (And I certainly do not speak for Barry - he may not have the space) but it has worked for others. You might find it totally unacceptable, but in how many forums have found your present strategy acceptable? Is your goal to persuade people that your information is valuable and accurate, or to merely shout from the virtual rooftops? So far I would suggest, and you seem to admit, that you have not been very successful in getting your message aqccross. See Joels post above, I suspect he is voicing what many are thinking.

    This strategy (posting to a website and sending people over) works very well for Dee Lusby, she continually sends people to read up on her theories - and they do. Then again she does it with a simple line or two, isn't condescending and is hardly "prickly", but that's just her, she's funny that way.

    Keith "save me from crusaders" Benson

    PS: Do you ahve bees?

    [size="1"][ January 25, 2006, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: kgbenson ][/size]
    Bee Sting Honey - So Good, It Hurts!

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    >...you cannot read the posts unless you are a member...

    My apologies to everyone for the confusion caused by my URL's. I did join that list and made the URL's thinking it would allow non-list people who wanted to read what Ruth has written the opportunity to do wo without having to go through the hassle of subscribing to another email list. Apparently they only take non-members to the log-in screen. So, in order to read those posts it does look as though you will need to subscribe or as Keith mentioned maybe Barry can post them in the POV section.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    hi,

    After checking I found out that the "tinyurls" Dick Allen provided cannot be opened by any one except him, even if you subscribe to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list.

    I could, of course, post here copies of all my very long posts on the "dance language" controversy. But in view of the mostly silly comments I have received here, I doubt that anyone would care to plow all the way through even the first of these posts. However, if anyone wants copies, contact me at (rosinbio@gmail), and I will send you a copy of the first post. You can then let me know if you want to read more.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    To Benson,

    I deliberately re-subscribed to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list and tried the "tinyurls" Dick Allen provided, but the computer only offered me a chance to login in his name with his password (which I, of course, do not even know). And when I tried to substitute my username and enter my pssword, nothing happened.

    Other than that, I did not join this specific list in order to be taught how to do science, or how to present my analytical work. And I certainly did not join in order to entertain list-members; although serious scientist would undoubtedly find something morbidly hilarious in the repeated attempt of staunch DL supporters to experimentally confirm (at tremendous cost) the stillborn DL hypothesis, which died quietly more than 80 years ago. Moreover, each time they delude themselves into believing they had finally succeeded in "reviving the dead", this is immediately touted all over the world.

    You seem to deliberately view my statements through spectacles, heavily tinted with mean-spiritedness. When I repeatedly said that, in almost 40 years, DL opponents have not yet succeeded in putting the DL hypothesis to rest, I specifically explained that the "scientific establishment" has done its best to suppress our "heresy", in many different ways; and the 1973 Nobel Prize in Medicine & Physiology, is just one such example.

    You are not trying to insinuate that the Nobel Committee awarded a joint 1973 Nobel Prize to Karl von Frisch, and to the two co-founders of European Ethology, because of the tone of my critiques of the DL hypothesis, are you?. The first time I was ever able to publish anything against the DL hypothesis was in 1975! Or are you trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize carried no weight in the eyes of the scientific community?

    You will have to excuse me if I completely ignore your opinion, as well as the opinion of others like you. I shall continue to do so anyway, totally irrespective of whether you will, or you will not excuse me!

  11. #31
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,624

    Post

    Ruth, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself, your experience with bees, and how/when/why you decided to tackle this dance language controversy in the first place?

    George-
    Dulcius ex asperis

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Columbia, South Carolina USA
    Posts
    2,598

    Post

    "To Benson"

    Please call me Keith, I haven't been called Benson since high school hockey.

    "I deliberately re-subscribed to the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list and tried the "tinyurls" Dick Allen provided, but the computer only offered me a chance to login in his name with his password (which I, of course, do not even know). And when I tried to substitute my username and enter my password, nothing happened."

    Mmm - I guess I don't know what to tell you, I simply took Dick's login out and put mine in and it worked. I did this with a netscape browser. I still think a website somewhere with your arguments would be a good thing.

    "Other than that, I did not join this specific list in order to be taught how to do science, or how to present my analytical work. “

    “You seem to deliberately view my statements through spectacles, heavily tinted with mean-spiritedness.”

    Perhaps that is my response to the condescending tone of your messages. In any event I will certainly try to be less “mean-spirited”.

    “You are not trying to insinuate that the Nobel Committee awarded a joint 1973 Nobel Prize to Karl von Frisch, and to the two co-founders of European Ethology, because of the tone of my critiques of the DL hypothesis, are you?.”

    I never said that.

    “Or are you trying to suggest that the Nobel Prize carried no weight in the eyes of the scientific community?”

    I was speaking about what you have said on this and other beekeeping forums, and what you posted on the animal behavior list. More specifically I was remarking on the tone of your diatribes.

    “You will have to excuse me if I completely ignore your opinion, as well as the opinion of others like you. I shall continue to do so anyway, totally irrespective of whether you will, or you will not excuse me!”

    And therein lies the problem, you have no respect for anyone else’s opinion, and any decent communications person will tell you that not only does your audience pick up on that, but it kills any respect they may have for you. People generally listen to those who are willing to listen to them.

    Ruth, you have been posting this material, and bouncing on and off of forums for some time. I have no illusions that you will listen to what the members of this board are telling you, i would be stunned if you did not simply forge on, ineffective by your own admission. Good luck!

    Keith

    [size="1"][ January 26, 2006, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: kgbenson ][/size]
    Bee Sting Honey - So Good, It Hurts!

  13. #33

    Post

    "Other than that, I did not join this specific list in order to be taught how to do science, or how to present my analytical work. And I certainly did not join in order to entertain list-members; although serious scientist would undoubtedly find something morbidly hilarious in the repeated attempt of staunch DL supporters to experimentally confirm (at tremendous cost) the stillborn DL hypothesis, which died quietly more than 80 years ago."

    Ruth,

    That is the point - you do need to be taught how to 'do science' and any sort of serious scientist(especially those that do research on bees) realizes that as soon as you attempt to criticize the work of others to support your view instead of doing research yourself. Let your data do the talking, as they say, and present all of YOUR research (a list your empirical studies published in peer reviewed journals would be fine- sorry commentaries in American Bee Journal do not count). Moreover, give us an empirical framework by addressing the three points that I mentioned in my first post.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,401

    Post

    Hey, that's an idea - maybe Ruth can ask Barry
    to either add her documents to Adrian's portion
    of the POV section, or get her own section.

    This will allow Ruth to make her views publicly
    available and easy to find. No registration or
    log-in required to read.

    Understand that it is not that I agree with
    Ruth's opinions, I just agree that she has a
    right to express an opinion, something that is
    more difficult to do in the rough-and-tumble
    environment of a "discussion group", moreso
    when Ruth does not consider any of us her equals.

    > it got DL opponents NOWHERE!

    Argument alone never does get an idea anywhere.
    Rhetoric can't bridge the gap between contention
    and data.

    I think it is interesting that "Dance" is never
    presented as being mutually exclusive with at
    least some use of odor, the most common assumption
    being that odor (including things like "footprint
    pheromone") certainly would be used at close
    range to help a forager select individual blossoms
    of interest. "Flower fidelity", a well-known
    aspect for forager behavior implies that bees can
    and do use cues like visual appearance and odor
    to be consistent in the type of plants upon which
    they forage.

    But "odor" supporters don't want to even consider,
    let alone concede, that "odor" might coexist with
    dance, each being a mere part of the holistic
    process.

    So, even though bees can be trained to sugar
    syrup feeding stations handled with care to
    assure that they remain odorless, odor proponents
    want to dismiss these experiments as being
    nothing but examples of sloppy workmanship, and
    offer explanations of "odor plumes" or "locality
    odors", mechanisms that stretch the bounds of
    not just chemistry, but credibility itself.

    Pick any random Nobel prize, and you'll find
    someone who is convinced that they can win
    their own Nobel (or equivalent fame) by proving
    that the Nobel-winning work was wrong. It is
    a long-shot gamble, at best.

    The better way to built "street cred" so that
    one can start to get invited to the sort of
    parties where hard liquor is served, science
    issues are reviewed mano a mano, and unattached
    members of the opposite sex are in attendance, is
    to ask yourself:</font>
    1. What are the most challenging problems in your field?</font>
    2. What are the problems that, if solved, would
      yield the most benefit?</font>
    3. Are you working on one of them?</font>
    4. If not, why not?</font>

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    I shall be very brief.

    1. I DO have experience in beekeeping. My Dad was an amateur beekeeper.

    2. I became involved in the DL controversy, because it concerns the very foundations of the whole field of Behavioral Science; which I, as a scientist interested primarily in this field, consider a very IMPORTANT issue.

    3. In my book in order to do good science, you need to AVOID, experimenting on your own in order to solve a long-solved problem, which v. Frisch himself had already fully adequately solved more than 80 years ago; in his first study on honeybee-recruitment, which led him to fully justifiably conclude that honeybee -recruits use odor alone, and NO information about the location of any food. What I needed to do, instead, was to investigate, where, how, and why science, LATER, went all wrong on this issue.

    4. My posts are NOT intended for anyone who is not interested in this issue. And I intend to soon leave you again.

  16. #36

    Post

    So, you have no research of your own (or bees for that matter), no idea on what a competing hypothesis is(let alone the key components of the original DL hypothesis or your own hypothesis) and no idea how to go about designing controlled experiments that would be necessary to tease apart key elements of both hypotheses. Yet, you want people in a scientific forum (or any forum) to take you seriously - you have to be kidding. To say that you need to avoid doing your own research to do good science is prob. the most ridiculous thing that I have ever heard - so then the experiments of everyone involved with the DL hypothesis are bad science (including Wenner - you cannot have it both ways) and your opinion is the only good science out there? What I find most intriguing in all of this is that you try to engage people in discussions by claiming that there are serious flaws in the research of others but ' intend to soon leave' (i.e. run away) when the same people ask you about the science (or lack thereof) underlying your view.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    To RJ,

    I would probably be only wasting my time, and yours, trying to respond to you, because you obviously understood nothing of what I said, and, consequently, you attribute to me ideas I never had, and claims I never made.

    I never even remotely suggested that wenner's work on the DL hypothesis was bad science. In my post on the ANIMAL-BEHAVIOR list (as well as elsewhere), I explained in detail that Wenner had to unknowingly re-discover on his own, and publish (in 1967), what v. Frisch had already discovered and published in 1923, i.e. that honeybee-recruits use odor alone, and NO information about the location of any food. I also explained, in detail, how and why it so happened, that Wenner had to do it all over again.

    But why should you be concerned with such issues, which you do not even consider real science?

  18. #38
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Whitefield, Maine USA
    Posts
    6,624

    Post

    So Ruth, why are the bees dancing?
    Dulcius ex asperis

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    141

    Post

    It is true that at one time it was believed that the dances are "instinctive" (genetically pre-determined), and must, therefore, be adaptive as one whole behavior. This, together with the fact the dance involves the expenditure of a considerable amount of time & energy on the part of both "dancer" & "dance-attendant", and the conclusion that the dances can have no conceivable adaptive value except to serve in a DL which utilizes the spatial information contained in the dances, led to the conclusion that the DL must exist. This argument is known as the Teleological-Evolutionary arguiment in favor of the DL hypothesis.

    The argument is faulty, because there is no reason to believe that dancing behavior is genetically pre-determined, nor that it is one behavior. Instead, it is apparently a combination of many different, separate responses. The argument is also faulty, because the experimental evidence has shown, starting with v. Frisch's first study on honeybee-recruitment, that recruits do not use that spatial information.

    The problem of what causes the foragers to dance thus becomes a totally separate problem. Honeybees do not have a DL, irrespective of whether I can, or cannot provide an answer to that problem. But, to help discredit the Teleological-Evolutionary argument, I worked on that problem, and was able to come up with a highly plausible solution.

    For more details look up my publication in ABJ (American Bee Journal, vol. 140(2)Feb.: 98 (200).
    This, incidentally,is not exactly an easy publication for non-professionals.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,649

    Post

    Ruth, thank you for responding to Dr. Fischer’s (and other’s) probing questions and assuring us that you do indeed know what a honey bee looks like. I, for one, was unconcerned over your experience or inexperience with bees, but It seems as though some were worried sick that you had never seen one. Hopefully, that very important issue is now resolved.

    [size="1"][ January 27, 2006, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Dick Allen ][/size]

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