Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

41 - 60 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
The issue with "papers" on pollen , propolis and Jelly is the "funding" In general funds are made available to a study of some "compound" that the funding party owns the patent on. so make a unique product spend 10 K on studies to then make millions. Basically the business plan for most drug companies. Also pollen and jelly and propolis are not "patentable" and, every one in this forum would sell and compete in a market if one was created. So the effort is to po po the evidence of health claims made by bee product proponents, as not proven , no studies, etc to allow them to sell their products. to add insult to injury, IF you claim health effects and give/sell the hive product, that is "prescribing with out a Doctors license" and you get to go to jail or be fined. One can offer the product, and I would not make any claims. with the internet information is out there if they seek they will find. There is a reason most of the Russian athletes take bee pollen. they also have reason to not give away the methods, we are in an odd times. You may be better off to look for a natural type Doctor and offer the products to them, to offer to their clients. they CAN prescribe and do understand the need. Or offer your card as a source.
GG
So GG, you mention “bee pollen”; from what I have read bees do nothing to the pollen when they collect it from the flower; all the goodness and added honey bee value happens in the hive, not during the collection of pollen. Deb
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,759 Posts
So GG, you mention “bee pollen”; from what I have read bees do nothing to the pollen when they collect it from the flower; all the goodness and added honey bee value happens in the hive, not during the collection of pollen. Deb
Bee pollen has almost every know long and short chain amino Acid. The hull typically has a hard outer shell, that stomach acid needs to penetrate, but our gastrit juice is capable of doing it. For many bee pollen is a "super food" Most pollen sold is for "food" Again Pollen is not patentable so I am not aware of extensive studies to prove or dis prove its value to humans. Pollen in the hive is eventually converted to bee bread or stored pollen to give it more "shelf life" as plain raw pollen,, does have much of a shelf life. Pollen would typically be dried/dehydrated and frozen to keep for any period of time for human consumption.

I think the bees add a bit of moisture to make the ball on their leg stick together, not sure if that is nectar, or stuff from the fore- gut. So do nothing is close but not 100% accurate. For several years when I was training, I would sprinkle a spoon full on a slice of honey toast. Has a "distinct" taste. I was healthy in my youth but we all were :)
GG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
286 Posts
Few more replies

Thank you Bryan for taking the time to make a thoughtful response. I MIGHT take issue on the practical value of honey as a anti-microbial. Our local hospital has been using Medihoney which is labeled 100% Manuka honey for a wound dressing. This is an external use and I am unsure if it has been used if the wound is seriously infected, but it commonly used here for open wounds and bedsores with good results. I have no idea what studies have been performed on it, but they no longer use neosporin. Thanks again. J
Medihoney is just manuka honey, and is as antimicrobrial as any other pure honey. Its efficacy is no better than the stuff normally used for treatment of minor wounds (like neosporan). One example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29279804

Its also been shown to be harmful in some patients: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24119840

You got me there Bryan but given the fact that the English language lacks a singular unisex pronoun I suppose I should have referred to said scientist as “his/her” or maybe “her/his”. :rolleyes:
"They" has been in use as a unisex pronoun since the 1500's.

The issue with "papers" on pollen , propolis and Jelly is the "funding" In general funds are made available to a study of some "compound" that the funding party owns the patent on. so make a unique product spend 10 K on studies to then make millions. Basically the business plan for most drug companies. Also pollen and jelly and propolis are not "patentable" and, every one in this forum would sell and compete in a market if one was created. So the effort is to po po the evidence of health claims made by bee product proponents, as not proven , no studies, etc to allow them to sell their products. to add insult to injury, IF you claim health effects and give/sell the hive product, that is "prescribing with out a Doctors license" and you get to go to jail or be fined. One can offer the product, and I would not make any claims. with the internet information is out there if they seek they will find. There is a reason most of the Russian athletes take bee pollen. they also have reason to not give away the methods, we are in an odd times. You may be better off to look for a natural type Doctor and offer the products to them, to offer to their clients. they CAN prescribe and do understand the need. Or offer your card as a source.
GG
None of this is true. You cannot patent a naturally existing compound (you can patent an isolation method or synthesis method though). Moreover, as a researcher I can investigate patented materials without licensure or liability, and companies have no recourse to prevent me from doing so. In fact, a major aspect of my labs work is investigating existing (both on- and off-patent) medications as well as orphan drugs for the treatment of cardiovascular disease and pneumonia. And if a product is legitimate (e.g. the company is confident that it will work), they are usually estatic to work with someone like me as, if things pan out, they end up with a larger market. Only people knowingly running a scam would not want to work with a scientist to see if there is a new potential market for their product.

And while it is true that you cannot (legally) make unsubstantiated claims that a product has health benefits without a clinical trial & certification demonstrating efficacy, enforcement of that law is piss-poor. The entire basis of the "alternative medicine" industry is the fact that the FDA (& their equivalent in other countries) is too understaffed to actually enforce the law.

As for "natural" doctors, they kill people: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/110/1/121/4064136

Thank you Bryan for the reply from the "research side"

However I disagree with this statement:
Firstly, the vast majority (internationally, ~80%) of published research is performed by independent scientists

Seriously you believe 80 percent of the studies we see in mags, news paper, TV etc is unbiased in any way?
I am a scientist, and these people are my coworkers, peers and friends. And yes, they are independent - independence is the foundation of scientific "culture", and one of the most common grounds of conflict between us and our employers.

But we don't write the stuff that appears in mags, papers and on TV. We write scientific studies that appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals. As I pointed out in my first post, the media does a horrendously bad job of reporting on science and frequently are found outright misrepresent what the studies actually show in order to create click bait. Keep in mind that according to Reuters I cured HIV back in the early 2000's...something I never did, nor ever claimed to have done.

Some of us do not have a very high regard for statistics - let's kick off by examining the choice of alpha (p-value) which is invariably set at 0.05 - which corresponds to a 5% chance that results have occurred at random. Why choose 5% ? Statisticians are loathe to admit that a p-value of 0.05 is completely arbitrary. R.A. Fischer, the father of modern statistics, plucked 0.05 out of fresh air, and it has simply stuck.
Others have already pointed out your flaws in terms of being unable to define honey (although pointing out that honey is variable in composition as somehow being proof that my statement that science is built around describing, quantifying and analysing variation was somehow wrong was...entertaining).

But lets talk stats, which you clearly do not understand. Firstly, p-values are not the end-all and be-all of statistics, and scientists are far more aware than you of their limitations. There is a reason why additional statistical measures are nearly always added in addition to p values (e.g. effect size, bootstrap values, odds ratios, etc) - they address the limitations of the p value. And there are whole other fields of stats that are very commonly used in the sciences that don't even use p-values; Baysian statistics being the most common.

Hence the well-known expression that, "There are lies, ****ed lies, and statistics", a phrase which describes perfectly the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.
Nice plagiarising of the wikipedia article. Too bad your saying is a logical fallacy; an excuse to dismiss evidence you find inconvenient because you don't understand what statistics are or how to interpret them.

EDIT: also, your definition of what a p values means was completely wrong.

Bryan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,759 Posts
No, but then again, I have not ever been stung in the hip. I am just a bit skeptical of apitherapy, but I understand the body producing it's own cortisone in response to a bee sting. Propolis is entirely different, a plant material (tree sap for the most part) that the bees use to seal cracks. Who would have thought? But, now we have glucosamine on store shelves and we all know where that comes from.;)
JWP I get the being a skeptic part, but I also have dealt with pain. So you are in a unique position to "try" Apitherapy. So take an old bee suit and cut a softball size hole to expose your hip in the area of the pain :) ya I know the neighbors may think you have spun a little out of control. Surround the hole with 1 part of Velcro, make a patch with the other part of Velcro, When you have your "dose" put the patch on. Seems you would soon know if there would be relief. If it helps then work on a go forward plan, perhaps catch 3 or 4 bees and press them to the area in the comfort of your rocking chair. Certainly running around in your Apiary which part of your back side hanging out may not be a go forward plan, it may be enlightening to see if it works. As an option one could track down an Apitherapist and proceed with a trained professional, once you get a couple treatments you will know the spot and dose and could self administer. My guess as a untrained non professional Apitherapist would be 3 stings to start. For me I look forward to the first sting of spring, the fire feeling running up my vein.....I may be biased in that I enjoy the first 6-8 sting of the day.:D good luck, fear not
GG
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,646 Posts
bee-l had a very good discussion on this back in 2015, but with new changes I can find the post being logged in, but the link won't work for you because it has my Id in the link. so if you use bee- enter the string following
Time to Fix Science's Pollution Problem
in a nut shell most of what everyone says above is true, what bee-l brings out is the influence of Money and the fact that all kinds of publications are cropping up and most of them don't have very high standards, and as one person says we the consumer don't really know which ones are creditable or not. that's why I stick with Randy O, and the others on Bee-l to let me know which ones are accurate and which one's are bull droppings. the first entry is at the bottom I think there are 8 entries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
SuiGeneris - I feel as if I have been misquoted or taken out-of-context. I am not the greatest communicator via writing but learning. What I love about beekeeping is it connects my old world of hardware/physics to biology, a portal so to speak. I loved biology as a kid but went the hardware path for money.

My statement: "Is "statistically significant" really "significant" or can it be used to influence results and sell an idea?" Maybe I should change "can" to "is". You interpreted it as "is statistically significant also biologically significant". I admit to not having a enough knowledge to judge biological significance nor studied statistics much beyond "standard deviations". I have not applied available statistical data except in system reliability - availability matters. I don't feel I can comment on the usefulness in biological research but often accept the judgement of peer reviewers. I likely incorporated statistical issues in my hardware world as tolerances and time affects thus accounted for them in the design. I have encountered the multiple variable issues and handled them via non-dimensional groups as used in fluidic analysis for example. Or I found an alternate solution.

My point was, I think, all new ideas, hypothesizes or hardware designs, have to be sold. Meaning accepted by a wide audience to be of value. Many things, especially hardware, are sold based on solid test performance with acceptance parameters - mostly pass/fail testing. In Research efforts I see an extraordinary number of various statistical packages or "names" used to sell an idea as statistically significant without explanation. ( Maybe I need to study the paper more.) But I made this claim without having investigated the composition and modeling used in the statistical packages. It is math and it has definitions (if not hidden in proprietary information). But I do note the various packages being used to sell ideas in a paper with little to no explanation in the paper. I guess it is assumed I will investigate each statistical model to understand the applicability of each method. I also have to judege how it applies to a yearly cycle or specific event of beekeeping. It reminds me of the rapid development of digital modeling of dynamic fluid flow, use of "supplied" coefficients - until my retirement I never saw one that did not have an Achilles heel. I hope they keep testing real airplanes versus computer model testing only. Single point of failure should not be allowed.

If the availability of money or budget limitations has a statistically significant effect on the test plan maybe the plan should be changed. If adequate sensors are not available, humidity for example, it should be stated or explained why it is not important and so on.

Maybe someday I will understand the statistical justification for using sugar or alcohol wash data for my IPM plan but for now I'll stick with post treatment dead-drop counts. I guess I use historical statistics imprinted in my brain as to when to treat-test-treat-stop.

BTW, I thought a lot of comments on this subject were quite good, including yours. Thanks for the effort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,044 Posts
Hi Greg,

While exact reproducibility of bee products is impossible, it is quite possible that the active chemicals which produce some effect are common to all or at least a substantial majority of a particular bee product. ........
Since you mentioned propolis, here is a cut from one of the documents I have on propolis:
PropolisSourceGeographic.jpg

What it shows is any propolis sample (AND any bee product for that matter) is unique to its geographic source (down to the micro-source, in fact).
Technically, this is a snapshot of the bee forage source flora in that exact time and place.

While there are some commonalities between samples - exactly reproducible sample is impossible.
Now, this boils down to concentration ranges/measurement tolerances/significance of concentrations/volatility for each and every chemical compound present (out of possibly thousands). Only very broad generalizations are possible - often sufficient enough.

Add to this the humans with their desire for convenience and "purity".
Did anyone ever thought of spinned honey being just a "honey product", NOT true honey.
In fact, spinned honey is a honey product, NOT true honey - the process of centrifuging honey already adulterates it.
Before anyone even tests a sample of honey, they should think HOW to collect the honey sample (most "scientists" never have a clue) - one should collect the honey samples DIRECTLY from the capped cells, while following some proper averaging technique (since the honey samples even across a single comb will not be consistent).

Mainly why I started my own bee program - to have access to true, UN-adoluterated, UN-polluted bee products in the best fashion possible - regardless of the science/pseudo-science.

I only collect about 100g per year.
:)
Run more hives.
I already harvested 300g this fall/winter - there is much, much more to harvest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Peer reviewed studies are the only documents to take seriously.

My 2 cents. I don't see any deception of this shop towel method work in process. Randy Oliver appears to be transparent and honest.
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/oxalic-shop-towel-updates/
Peer reviewed studies suffer from poor reproducibility. Partly this is due to bias on the part of researchers, partly it is due to unidentified confounding variables which differ, and partly it is because the results of the previous study were due to chance.

Generally, peer reviewed studies are better than online articles. (both are better than anonymous rants like this one). However, I don't think Randy's work is peer reviewed, and I agree it is well presented.

I agree with you that Randy Oliver's warts and all approach to presenting his experiments and results is useful. It helps keep him honest, and helps us understand the limitations of his methods.

His biggest problems are sample size, confounding variables, and diversity. Sample size is a problem because to have good confidence in the results, you need large samples if individual variation is large (which it is whenever you are experimenting with bees), Confounding variables are problems because (and this is especially true when sample size is small) things like having a successful hive robbing out a mite bomb is beyond our control, and it can significantly affect outcomes. Diversity of samples is a problem, because what works in California may not work in Wisconsin for reasons we may not understand.

So it is worthwhile to understand what he is doing, and maybe try it yourself. But your results may differ.

If you want to verify Randy's results, you should have at least 30 hives in the study group and the control group, and they should be separated enough from each other as not to interact, and they should be in sufficiently identical locations (based on having kept bees in both locations previously using the same methods and getting statistically identical results) so that comparisons are valid.

Using statistical inference really stinks. It is so weak.

If the effect is really strong (group A produces 100 LBS of honey each, with 100% survival, Group B all die) then it is easier.

You still need a good sized sample, however. I had one hive produce 60 lbs. of honey and go in to winter strong, starting from bare wood last year. The hive next to it just barely survived. Same management. Obviously, a sample of 2 isn't big enough.

This is why beekeepers are so superstitious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
Bee pollen has almost every know long and short chain amino Acid. The hull typically has a hard outer shell, that stomach acid needs to penetrate, but our gastrit juice is capable of doing it. For many bee pollen is a "super food" Most pollen sold is for "food" Again Pollen is not patentable so I am not aware of extensive studies to prove or dis prove its value to humans. Pollen in the hive is eventually converted to bee bread or stored pollen to give it more "shelf life" as plain raw pollen,, does have much of a shelf life. Pollen would typically be dried/dehydrated and frozen to keep for any period of time for human consumption.

I think the bees add a bit of moisture to make the ball on their leg stick together, not sure if that is nectar, or stuff from the fore- gut. So do nothing is close but not 100% accurate. For several years when I was training, I would sprinkle a spoon full on a slice of honey toast. Has a "distinct" taste. I was healthy in my youth but we all were :)
GG
https://www.facebook.com/NPR/videos/2792551914118970/
Do you all think this video is accurate?

Answering GG, Yes, the ? (I can’t remember the part of the leg that is used to push the pollen in) is a little sticky so the pollen doesn’t fall easily, and a minute amount helps it to stick, BUT, my question still isn’t answered. Why call it bee pollen when it is really flower pollen collected by a bee? There is no difference in the pollen composition just because a bee packed it in her pollen baskets. A honey bee did nothing to that pollen to warrant the selling of “bee pollen” being better for you. I understand the beneficial composition of pollen, and of bee bread. I get disgruntled with the fact that people sell regular flower pollen as bee pollen that claims to be more beneficial for your health.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Hi Greg,

I looked at your data on propolis, and it agrees with what I said (maybe).

While the type of tree may differ significantly, the active chemical(s) may be present in all of those tree species. After all, all of those tree species need to defend themselves against fungi, viruses, and bacteria. So it is possible they all produce similar chemicals to do that. I suggested this as a possibility in my earlier post. It is also plausible that bees would be able to detect these chemicals, because they need them.

For example, the antimicrobial property of honey apparently derives from it being a very concentrated sugar-water solution. This is true of all honey. so all honey is about equally effective as an antimicrobial agent (topical). It doesn't make much difference if it is from clover or from buckwheat. As long as it is glucose/fructose with a little water, it will work, and it can be studied on that basis. Since how it is extracted does not materially affect water concentration, it is not relevant to its antimicrobial properties.

A key part of the foregoing is that the researcher brings some understanding of the effect and how it might be caused to the experiment. If we have no idea why honey is rumored to have antimicrobial properties, then we would need not only to study the effect, but to study the variation in that effect between honeys of different provenance.

For the beneficial effects of propolis, since the specific chemicals which cause the noted effects are not well known, and their relative concentrations in propolis collected from different species are not well known, any meaningful study of its benefits (antimicrobial and anti inflammatory) would need eventually to study the effects of variation. This would be a very large study, and quite expensive.

It would be much better to identify the biochemical mechanisms involved, possibly by theoretical or in vitro methods, so that the specific chemical mechanisms could be identified. This of course would require smart people with lots of education and expensive equipment. Since there is no reasonable scheme by which the costs of doing this could be recovered, it seems unlikely that will happen.

So we are left with small studies, and mostly with testimonials of people who have tried it.

Since most products of the hive are harmless to most people, this is pretty safe. Your results may vary, because your hive may produce products which differ in relevant ways from mine. Or they may vary due to random chance. Or they may vary due to differences in processing, or because the experiments are not the same. Your athlete's foot may be different from mine.

I would have more hives, but I am geographically constrained. I probably have another 100 g or so to collect, but right now I an busy making a no lifting hive for my sister.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,759 Posts
https://www.facebook.com/NPR/videos/2792551914118970/
Do you all think this video is accurate?

Answering GG, Yes, the ? (I can’t remember the part of the leg that is used to push the pollen in) is a little sticky so the pollen doesn’t fall easily, and a minute amount helps it to stick, BUT, my question still isn’t answered. Why call it bee pollen when it is really flower pollen collected by a bee? There is no difference in the pollen composition just because a bee packed it in her pollen baskets. A honey bee did nothing to that pollen to warrant the selling of “bee pollen” being better for you. I understand the beneficial composition of pollen, and of bee bread. I get disgruntled with the fact that people sell regular flower pollen as bee pollen that claims to be more beneficial for your health.
Watched the NPR video, seems ok I guess "bee pollen" would be pollen collected by bees. Can you buy pollen collected by Man or machine? I do not know just wondering. If there is machine collected pollen then if should be stated on the package. The only pollen I have seen is stores is bee collected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9 Posts
I have a few theories with no data except anecdotal and personal experience for the theories in some of these threads. Full disclosure, my wife has a doctorate degree and teaches statistics. I took enough statistics classes to know how the statistics work and enough experience to see certain truths to know that statistics is just a mathematical tool. Just as with any tool, the way you use it is very important. I can do a lot with a hive tool that an inexperienced hand just doesn't know. I use my hive tool a lot in construction for various tasks for example.

Now onto the theories. I believe honey has antiseptic properties known and published but there may be other factors here. I had a honey client that wanted honey for a skin cancer wound. Honey will provide moisture and much of a wound healing has to do with the scab and edges. Keeping the skin from drying out too much around the scab, which honey would do if applied correctly and consistently, does help in keeping the wound/scab/skin interface from drying out too much while the wound is healing which might help in recovery. Neosporin or other topicals could do the same thing but the honey seems to bring more moisture where the wound needs it.

My wife is allergic to pollen. She can not eat broccoli (I wish I knew that excuse when I was younger), nor can she eat honey. I can have no bees at or around the house because any sting immediately sends her into a reaction. I would never suggest that she put honey (my raw honey) on a wound. Different wounds will heal differently depending how deep they are and if the skin has to replace itself from the bottom skin cells or if the wound has no bottom layers. So many variables here.

My other theory is that bee stings can help people with arthritis and maybe partly due to the kind they have. Bee stings definitely help my hands. Arthritis refers to around 200 rheumatic diseases and conditions that affect joints, including lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. (taken from https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/7621.php#types ). Bee stings may give the body something different to attack than itself as in the case of rheumatoid arthritis. (that is my theory). It might help in a lot of other ways like putting the body's response mechanisms to work. I don't really know. Apitherapy works on me but it would be deadly to my wife (yes the gets allergy shots regularly).

In any therapy or medicine one needs to listen to their own body. One of my daughters is allergic to sulpha drugs where they work on the vast majority of people.

I like to hear of other people thinking outside the box and I love scientific studies as an idea that might work but they need to be tested. The whole thing of litium salts as a treatment for varroa is an example. I am appreciative of the statistics Randy Oliver goes through to quantify results in a more scientific manner than pure anecdotal evidence. The rigors of math do give credence (if the tool is used right) to the study. It is true that it is almost if not impossible to get all the variables the same in bee studies but some studies do it better than others. A scientific study with statistics and variables controlled (at least getting all the variables that make a difference) is much better than anecdotal evidence alone. All of the variables make beekeeping an art as much as it is a science. I personally like anecdotal information but I also like scientific information too in order to help me with my art of beekeeping.

It would be nice if we had some of these scientific studies in their own archive for this site.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,278 Posts
Normally I keep quiet, but two things need to comment.

First with research: one must remember got have a problem to get grant money.
No problem with bees no grants.
Take all research with a skeptical eye.

Second: about small cell and mites.
I live in a closed environment. A island, we only have small cell bees.
We have no real problem with mites.
So if you need proof, try it.. you just might like the results.��
This 2018 paper argues that VSH behavior selected out of a nearly complete extermination is responsible in Barbados.

https://beecare.bayer.com/media-center/beenow/detail/barbados-honey-bees-know-how-to-fight-varroa

"small cell" is not mentioned and photographs show comb on plastic foundation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
So not too much to add about the scientists. I assume many are doing honest work. Lots could be said about the publishers., though. Beekeeping example: look at the ads in bee mags. Do you think they would publish early articles that contradict those ads? Or with government funded science: the agencies have agendas. There are examples all over the place where good scientists have had their work suppressed because it did not fit into the agenda.
Then there are also flaws in the scientific method: we westerners claim to be objective observers.... What is the first step in scientific method? Ask a question (that interests me!) Second step? Create a hypothesis (out of myself, not an observation). We inject ourselves into the observation before we start to observe. I think youd have to be brain dead to not see the subjectivity in that! We must fill ousrlves up with our own thoughts about the "thing" before we go into the field to observe it. (surely more objectivity could be achieved if we emptied ourselves so we could see the thing rather than our reflections or projections.)To be sure, many fascinating details have been discovered using the scientific method. It is not objective though. And when we add the editors in we get very subjective indeed. Again, plenty of peer reviewed articles may come close or even achieve great science, but what we the masses consume has usually been significantly edited. And many things which we the masses have come to believe are from articles that have since been retracted or scientifically disproved. I believe the BBC ran a story many years ago that the average scientific "fact" has a 4 year shelf life. Knowing that they also edit this can surely be taken with a grain of salt. However I would not get too attached to any idea that has been "scientifically proven".... Happy BeeKeeping everybody.
PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,683 Posts
So not too much to add about the scientists. I assume many are doing honest work. Lots could be said about the publishers., though. Beekeeping example: look at the ads in bee mags. Do you think they would publish early articles that contradict those ads? Or with government funded science: the agencies have agendas. There are examples all over the place where good scientists have had their work suppressed because it did not fit into the agenda.
Then there are also flaws in the scientific method: we westerners claim to be objective observers.... What is the first step in scientific method? Ask a question (that interests me!) Second step? Create a hypothesis (out of myself, not an observation). We inject ourselves into the observation before we start to observe. I think youd have to be brain dead to not see the subjectivity in that! We must fill ousrlves up with our own thoughts about the "thing" before we go into the field to observe it. (surely more objectivity could be achieved if we emptied ourselves so we could see the thing rather than our reflections or projections.)To be sure, many fascinating details have been discovered using the scientific method. It is not objective though. And when we add the editors in we get very subjective indeed. Again, plenty of peer reviewed articles may come close or even achieve great science, but what we the masses consume has usually been significantly edited. And many things which we the masses have come to believe are from articles that have since been retracted or scientifically disproved. I believe the BBC ran a story many years ago that the average scientific "fact" has a 4 year shelf life. Knowing that they also edit this can surely be taken with a grain of salt. However I would not get too attached to any idea that has been "scientifically proven".... Happy BeeKeeping everybody.
PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.
:thumbsup: Well stated. It’s also noteworthy that preliminary results of studies are often reported as facts well ahead of any peer review process.
Even the esteemed New England Journal of Medicine’s reporting gets skewed by a media intent on cherry-picking the sensational stuff to headline an article without fully reporting the complexity of how scientific studies can be interpreted. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5392115/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,683 Posts
This is a classical example of several common misconceptions of how scientists work, how science itself works, and science funded. There is a lot to unpack here.

Firstly, the vast majority (internationally, ~80%) of published research is performed by independent scientists (e.g. in university, research centre, or government labs) and is funded via governmental grants or funds from charities/NPO's. And when we are funded by a company or organisation that may create the appearance of a conflict, it is openly declared.

Bryan
I diligently looked for some confirmation of what you are asserting here out of genuine curiosity and this is the most recent link I could find.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...t-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50
On a side note I do find it a bit silly that I have to defend myself from a subtle accusation of sexism for choosing to use the singular pronoun "his" instead of "they" because (I guess) it has been used as a singular pronoun since the 1500's. Seriously??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,334 Posts
“PS "They" is plural. So we are still missing a singular pronoun that is not awkward for "her/his" etc. "Han" in Finnish works fine. Some people have already figured it out.[/QUOTE]”

Is it really that important? Yikes.
 
41 - 60 of 71 Posts
Top