An ideal beekeepers' world

[mike bispham]

I disagree with your discussion methods.

Discussion methods? You? Um: ignoring any point that contradicts your fixed position; attacking ad hominem; and placing on 'ignore' any poster with the temerity to repeat such awkward points... generally deploying disruptive rhetoric in conversations between ernest people who are trying to bring the facts about what plagues small beekeepers into the open...

Peter your 'discussion' method leaves something to be desired too you know!

Its a shame. You have a lively mind, and if you dropped your fixed agenda and engaged with the basic biology you could do something useful for the world. Rather, that is, than something useful for drug companies.

Mike

[mike bispham]

These peer-reviewed reports of current scientific thinking aid our understanding of recent eye catching headlines proclaiming the dramatic demise of the honey bee, a world pollinator crisis, and the spectre of mass human starvation.

Do they reveal this lurid claim to be the nonsense that is... ?

Mike

[peterloringborst]

Peter your 'discussion' method leaves something to be desired too you know!

Its a shame. You have a lively mind, and if you dropped your fixed agenda and engaged with the basic biology you could do something useful for the world. Rather, that is, than something useful for drug companies.

Mike
__________________
Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness

What is the point of attacking me, my methods or my motivation? I don't call attention to your personal swipes at me, and if anyone has a fixed agenda, it's you. Look at your tag-line!

Do you suppose that simply by choosing not to agree with you -- that makes me: "Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness"?

Why would I or anyone take such a position -- unless they stood to make money from "Continuing sickness". I don't make money from any of this.

[Roland]

Allen Dick: We have noticed similar behavior in bee hives. The more thourally you clean them out, the harder they work. That is what my Grandfather believed, and he and his father where know for getting big honey crops.

Peter: can you link to a study that refutes this "folk" wisdom?

As for queenless hives being listless, quite the opposite, a queenless hive can make more honey for a short time because they have no brood to feed.

Roland Diehnelt
Linden Apiary, Est. 1852

[mike bispham]

What is the point of attacking me, my methods or my motivation?

The point is to draw attention to the irrational aspects of your positions. I use that word carefully. Some of your positions contradict one another. To hold two contrary positions simultaniusly is irrational - the opposition signals that one or the other - or both is wrong.

Yet when such contradictions are pointed out to you, you fail to address the illogic of your position. Instead you try to cover it by ignoring the poster, changing the subect, claiming higher authority and learning, putting the poster down etc etc.

The contradictions remain, and for as long as they remain, you will be plagued by people like me all to happy to point them out for you.

Sure I have a fixed agenda: pay attention to reality, as described by deeply established science and vast empirical experience. When reality confronts your beliefs, confront the disjuction between what you believe and what is real. Such disjunctions are the very core of science Peter. When things don't fits together that is a certain sign that there is a flaw in understanding -a green light for investigation.

The very last thing you want to be doing is changing the subject, or shooting the messenger. Address the problem like a grown up participant in a discussion, admit your errors quickly when necessary - we're all fallible.

Do you suppose that simply by choosing not to agree with you -- that makes me: "Anti-husbandry: Medication + Reproduction = Continuing Sickness"?

I've no problem whatever with your not agreeing with me. But shooting down my position without making any attempt at locating the flaw/s that you feel it embodies, or offering proper discussion, is just ya boo. Nothing has been settled, and to pretend it has, and that the discussion should therefore move on is dishonest.

The position you take is as I've described it on several occasions - it ignores both well-established theory and piles of evidence, and steams ahead on the 'understanding' that you are a scientist (by your own definition it emerges) and have authority to make claims without needing to offer justification or respond to criticism. Anyone who wants to disagree with you is, it seems, a fool; and can be ignored. You are far too important to stoop to responding - as you told us earlier today - you've 'heard it all'.

I'm pleased to hear you make no money from representing those whose interests lie in continuing bee ill-health. I was beginning to be convinced that was the only possible reason for your actions here.

Mike

[bhfury]

I think the thread has been off topic since the first thread..... Help Mod!!!!

An ideal beekeepers' world...bees would be mite resistant and brood disease resistant.
An ideal beekeepers' world...honey prices would be stable "BUY AMERICAN!!!"
An ideal beekeepers' world...pollination prices would be dependable
An ideal beekeepers' world...bees would work in damp cold weather
An ideal beekeepers' world...NOW YOUR TURN TO FINISH THIS

[devdog108]

we would all respect each others opinions......and this thread would go away...LOL

[peterloringborst]

The point is to draw attention to the irrational aspects of your positions.

I have no position. My chief aim is to promote inquiry. I am sorry if you haven't picked that up by now. If you thought about it, however, you would see that is the reason that I apparently hold multiple positions: I have no fixed position on anything.

In my opinion, the chief value of internet discussions is to approximate the omniscient or at least broadminded point of view which can see things from many (if not all) angles. If you disapprove of this wavering approach, excuse me!

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)
Essays. First Series. Self-Reliance.

[StevenG]

Ok bhfury, I'll bite!

"An ideal beekeeper's world.... from last frost in the spring to first frost in the fall, it rains only at night (so as not to wash out the nectar) and the temperature is always perfect for maximum nectar secretion." (Hey, it's my fantasy of perfection! )

[bhfury]

You're the best Steve

[mike bispham]

My chief aim is to promote inquiry.

Then set an example by demonstrating how to be an honest and earnest interlocuter. That is surely the foundation of inquiry?

I have no fixed position on anything.

Nonsense. You have a multitude of fixed positions, just like the rest of us. If your car has no fuel, will it start? No. Going to change your mind tomorrow? No. If I pour a pint of petrol in a beehive will the colony survive? No. Going to change your mind tomorrow? No.

The interesting part of DISCUSSIONS is where we have positions that might change as a result of changes of evidence or as the result of argument. Them we work out and test each-other's positions, using reason and fact. WE DON'T RUN AWAY WHEN WE CAN'T REFUTE THE OTHER POSITION. We engage, and try to learn from the engagement. We are honest and sometimes admit: 'you seem to have a point there that makes defence of my position hard'. I'm going to have to modify by belief, my position, in the light of what has been said - and so on. There is no shame in this. And

That is what you don't do - you run away. And then repeat your position as if nothing had been said. That is insulting and obstructive.

Mike

[peterloringborst]

Then set an example by demonstrating how to be an honest and earnest interlocuter.

Again, you seem to object to my method. This is how I do it.

[mike bispham]

Any reasonable person would object to this 'method' as the outcome is the obstruction of constructive discussion.

Mike

[peterloringborst]

Yeah, well, there you have it, Mike. By your lights I am neither rational nor reasonable. Seems funny, on the face of it.

[Allen Dick]

We have noticed similar behavior in bee hives. The more thourally you clean them out, the harder they work. That is what my Grandfather believed, and he and his father where know for getting big honey crops.

I think that this is true in that taking all the honey puts them into a desperation mode and that can work, unless no flow comes along and then the colony is doomed. Even a short period of such stress can lead to later colony loss, so it is a risky strategy. I played with that effect early on in beekeeping, having read about it. There were big commercial beekeepers in Saskatchewan who practiced that, but I think they are all out of business now.

Maybe times have changed and flows are not as predicable or sequential as they were when there were weeds everywhere and there were no sprays, but in my beekeeping lifetime, I have come to the conclusion that bees are worth much more than honey. I therefore take the best care of them I can, and the first step is to never let them have less than a month or so of stores (well, maybe several weeks worth sometimes) on hand.

As for queenless hives being listless, quite the opposite, a queenless hive can make more honey for a short time because they have no brood to feed.

I have seen this at some times of year, and noted that the heaviest hives in fall are sometimes queenless. I think if the hive has momentum and is on a good flow that this may be the cause. At the same time, though I read some malarkey about dequeening hives by caging queens during a flow to get more honey. I don't know if I got more honey, but I certainty got less bees. The hives did not winter. Again, the lesson is to help the bees, not hinder them.

To all those who are giving Pete such a hard time: please note that this is Peter's thread and he is, in a sense, your host. If you don't like his party, you don't have to stay in this thread or try to hijack it. There are many other threads to suit any taste. If you think your ideas are as good as Pete's, leave this thread and start your own thread, then wait and see if anyone comes.

Personally, I like Peter's style, even though we often disagree.

[mike bispham]

By your lights I am neither rational nor reasonable.

Not consistently so - and that matters greatly. Don't forget 'often obstructive to the conversation' too. And 'not always an honest interlocuter'.

In an ideal beekeepers world all participants would be all these things. They wouldn't wriggle away from awkward questions, they'd take them head on.

Mike

[peterloringborst]

Personally, I like Peter's style, even though we often disagree.

Thank you very much, Allen.

Continuing, if the question still is why can't scientists and beekeepers talk about things without getting into philosophical arguments -- can the answer really boil down to style?

I have heard style criticized the most of any of the various factors. That seems odd that one would decide that another's style is so bothersome that they are not interested in what the other has to say.

Now, I read a lot of scientific papers, and the style is very difficult. But, I persist because I am eager to learn what they know. Sometimes I get a headache after 15 minutes, but I don't think they are wrong about what they are saying because I can't understand it.

On the other hand, when I read science reporting in the popular news, like the NY Times, or whatever, I always find myself dissatisfied and seeking out the original work to find out what they actually said.

Finally, I don't get paid to write here. When I write for publication I spend many many hours researching and thinking and polishing what I say. This stuff you read here is just brainstorming. I appreciate all the ideas from all the contributors. That is my main reason for joining public forums, to get new ideas. But I warn you, people! Just because you have an idea in your own head, that doesn't mean it is a good one!

[Keith Jarrett]

To all those who are giving Pete such a hard time: please note that this is Peter's thread and he is, in a sense, your host. If you don't like his party, you don't have to stay in this thread .

WOW!

Mommy, he said some things that I don't like.

[Barry Digman]

A lively and informative thread. The drive-by sniping doesn't seem to add much though. Could we refrain from the off-topic and personal?

[peterloringborst]

The beauty of the Internet is that it connects people. The value is in the other people. If we start to believe that the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people and making ourselves into idiots.

DIGITAL MAOISM: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism By Jaron Lanier