Rant - Why I won't post on Bee-L

Off-topic discussion and public chitchat.
Post Reply
User avatar
Countryboy
Forum Regular
Posts: 605
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 9:37 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Rant - Why I won't post on Bee-L

Unread post by Countryboy »

I don't post on Bee-L, simply because of trolls who spread misinformation. I lurk but don't post. It's getting absolutely ridiculous and disgusting. It's tempting to sign up to make a post there, but somehow I doubt my post would pass moderation.
Here on BEE-L, we have regular readings from our latest scientific 'gospels', but it
pays to compare what these 'gospels' say to what we see out our own window
every so often.

It is also worth noting that the beekeepers on the ground and out in the fields can't
always concur with what respected scientists of our time claim as truth.

response:

I am sorry, but this is flab. In the scientific community there are no "gospels" and no "truth".
Flab? That's what Peter Loring Borst posts. He posts numerous academic studies that are near (or completely) worthless to me as a beekeeper. It's not uncommon for them to be completely irrelevant, such as the post on label law violations. (I still have no idea how penalties to manufacturers for improper labeling has anything to do with whether or not there is any enforcement of whether or not the label is obeyed by the end user. Folks in the real world know warnings and restrictions placed on bags are often ignored by end users, with no enforcement or penalties.) There is a big difference between raw science and applied science - and in the real world, it is only the applied science that has value. Raw science is just curiousity.

People forget that the purpose of academia is to take the least competent people, and attempt to prepare for the real world. (Competent people are already out there in the real world.) If the people in academia knew what they were doing, they would be out doing it. Academia practices raw science - the real world practices applied science.

Academia has been relegated to nothing more than political apologists and government propagandists. When the federal government started giving loans to anyone for education, it gave universities tons of money to do worthless studies, and those studies get trumpeted about as being important. If they were important, the free market would have financed them without needing any government money. The fact that government money (in the form of student loans) was needed to finance studies, shows that the free market did not feel the study offered an economic return, and was worthless. The only way the free market would have studied it is for curiousity purposes only.
Scientists overturn each other's findings on a regular basis and expect the next generation to produce a far more detailed rendering of reality than their parents could. I go to presentations several times a week and the pressure there is worse than in a coliseum. If anyone can shoot holes in your argument, they will, and you will go down like a popped balloon in front of everyone.
Real scientists are too busy to be giving presentations. You should be thankful for real scientists like Bob Harrison for sharing his scientific studies. Yet, trolls scoff at Bob Harrison or Allen Dick, because they do not recognize the true science of the real world, which is applied science.

Personally, I could care less what levels of neonicotinoids harm bees. That information is worthless to me. Bob Harrison's scientific observation that his bottom line is better if he avoids keeping bees in row crop areas is extremely scientific, and even more importantly, it is actionable. It is measured by dollars, which is how the real world measures things. Bob knows that if he keeps his bees away from row crops, it benefits his profitability - he doesn't need some academic study that fails to look at profitability. (And aside from a small percentage of hobbyist beekeepers, profitability is the most important part of beekeeping for us. it's strange that the most important thing is the one thing academia won't look at.)

The average man on the street has a name for the scientific community. We call them college educated idiots. When someone refers to a college educated idiot, everyone knows what we are talking about. It refers to someone who has book knowledge of how things are supposed to be in the real world, but they are disconnected from the real world and don't have a clue what is going on. They may know some raw science, but they don't know how to apply it. Raw science and curiousity only has value in Ivory Towers - in the real world, applied science is what is important.

Real scientists do studies financing everything out of their own pocket. They are MASTERS of their work. Those in academia will never be masters, because they are subservient to the master who is financing them. Heck, just read Jim Tew's article in the January 2012 Bee Culture. He instantly recognized that now after he has retired, it is his money that is on the line. He's not spending someone elses money anymore, and that completely changes things.

My Aunt married a guy with a PhD in entomology, specializing in honeybee studies. He was at the University at Guelph, and then in Wisconsin, and then in Pullman, Washington. He finally got his dream opportunity of being a commercial beekeeper, and he bought a 1000 hive operation in South Dakota. I know at least 4 of his teenage kids worked 12 and 14 hour days in the summer helping him. (I think a 5th worked some, but I don't know how much Maria was involved in the bees.) In 4 years, it was down to a 400 hive operation and he went belly up. The last I knew, Chuck Milne is now teaching at UNLV.

Chuck has probably forgotten more about honeybees than I will ever know, but I know more about the science of beekeeping. I have no debt, a positive cash flow, and I keep expanding my beekeeping operations - I ran 50 hives last year. That is the difference between raw science, and applied science. When Chuck got away from the Ivory Towers and faced the real world, everything fell apart even though he had plenty of labor for the number of hives he was running.

If academia understood the science of beekeeping, the science of economics, the science of praxeology, and how to tie it all together, they wouldn't be academia anymore - they would be beekeepers.

If you can't quantify a study in dollars, then it isn't a scientific study that has value outside of Ivory Towers.

I was raised to consider the source too. From what I understand, Peter Loring Borst worked for a commercial beekeeper and then had about 500 hives for a time. Now, he no longer earns a living from beekeeping, and has turned to government subsidized academia (welfare through fed student loans). This does NOT appear to be a positive direction that I want my beekeeping operations to follow.
I concur with Pete, the implications of the above are nonsense. Refuting
suppositions, opinions, and extrapolations with actual observations and
measured data is not kneejerk response--rather, it is simply being rational
and logical.
The Good Book says it is good to be charitable and generous to those who are needy, but it also portrays those who beg as being evil and sinful.

When I see beekeepers who beg for donations on their website, or ask others to help finance their experiments, it rubs me the wrong way. If there was economic benefit by doing the study, people would be asking to invest their money with them, or they would self finance every aspect of the study. The moment someone asks for financial assistance, any results they come up with are contaminated, and must be viewed with skepticism. The financier's interests suddenly are more important than profitability.

Once again, this is NOT the direction I would want my beekeeping operation to go.
The point of scientific reasoning is not to support a position, but rather
to reach an understanding of the phenomena that we observe.
That is only in the instances of using scientific reasoning to satisfy personal curiousity. This is raw science, which only has value in academia. It has no value in the real world. (If you want to say it has value, then tell me the dollar value.)
Personally, I don't care why A and B work the way they do if A+B=C when obtaining C is my goal. I don't care 'why' things work the way they work, as long as doing A+B yields me the economic return I want. I can scientifically evaluate if it worked (as opposed to 'why' it worked) by the return on my investment - and that is true science.
In the real world, I can't isolate things. I have to deal with everything all mixed together, and use applied science to deal with everything all at once to attempt to be profitable, often doing scientific studies on the fly. (And yes, my scientific results have told me more than once that I made a costly/stupid decision that I don't want to repeat.)
My favorite quote about science (I've lost the citation) is: "There are
reasons that things are the way they are. Scientists look to understand
those reasons."
Trying to understand those reasons is just curiousity. Curiousity has no economic value, and should at best be called pseudo-science. The common man understands the difference between raw and applied science and uses applied science to gain benefit from the way things are.

It takes a special kind of person to put their money where their mouth is. When guys like Bob Harrison and Allen Dick are willing to put their money in the bugs, going by what they see and experience and gut feelings, and they have made consistent profits (without needing subsidized by others) then this is the direction I want my beekeeping operation to go. Evaluating if decisions yielded consistent profitability is very easy to determine, and is very scientific. People would be well served to listen to these MASTER beekeepers, and to try to copy their successes, even if we don't understand why things worked out the way they did.

Money talks and BS walks. For whatever reason, Bee-L doesn't confront the BS'ers.
It's unfortunate that more people don't respond to the 'scientific' studies and posts about science by simply asking how the posted information will help them become better beekeepers, or help them to become more profitable. That simple question will expose what has value, and what doesn't have value in beekeeping.

Feel free to repost on Bee-L, or link to here.
B. Farmer Honey
Central Ohio
Allen Dick
Site Admin
Posts: 1824
Joined: February 25th, 2003, 10:09 pm
Location: Swalwell, Alberta
Contact:

Re: Rant - Why I won't post on Bee-L

Unread post by Allen Dick »

I thought of replying to this post earlier, but it is a rant. No sense getting into it. There are too many issues raised that would fork and fork and fork...

FWIW, I appreciate the post and it is an eloquent statement of the writer's views. I really can't argue.

Even if I don't necessarily agree with any or all of the opinions expressed, I don't necessarily disagree. I understand, but I just don't have a strong opinion on some points and others are a question of personal taste or perspective.

As for judging people, I seldom feel the need to do that. Not caring a lot about and not trying to control what others think helps a lot.

I should say one thing, though: Pete is a friend of mine. He is who he is. I find him very helpful and interesting. We disagree sometimes (often, actually) and not always politely, but to me that is just fine. In fact, that is one way I know he is my friend.
Allen Dick, RR#1 Swalwell, Alberta, Canada T0M 1Y0
51° 33'39.64"N 113°18'52.45"W
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/Allen%27s%20Beehives.kmz
Forum owner/janitor
---
Customise your experience at Honeybeeworld Forum at your User control Panel
Change the appearance and layout with your Board Preferences
Please upload your own avatar picture at Edit Avatar. It's easy!
Return to main diary page
User avatar
cam bishop
Forum Regular
Posts: 321
Joined: November 7th, 2010, 5:37 am
Location: Spencer, MA
Contact:

Re: Rant - Why I won't post on Bee-L

Unread post by cam bishop »

Actually I enjoy many of Peter's postings. And he has been very helpful when approached by email to answer individual questions. I also believe he is an accomplished beekeeper.
Cam Bishop
circle7honey.com
Millbury, MA
42°11'07.58"N 71°46'19.79"W
User avatar
Countryboy
Forum Regular
Posts: 605
Joined: November 8th, 2010, 9:37 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: Rant - Why I won't post on Bee-L

Unread post by Countryboy »

I do have to give credit where it is due. Peter made a really excellent post a month or so ago. He said that people could study every little detail of how a piano works, but still never know how to play the piano. I don't know if he realized what he said. That pretty much invalidates the studies he posts.

Don't get me wrong. Beekeepers tend to be a very good class of people. I have met a couple scoundrels who were beekeepers, but thankfully they are few and far between. However, Peter's posting style and inferiority complex make me feel that he is not someone I would spend my free time associating with.

Just to give you an idea of the kind of people beekeepers are, I recently filed for some public records from the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture. Inspections started in 1904. (I don't know exactly how the law read back then - the law making inspectors law enforcement agents who can press charges was enacted/revised in 1953.) From 1904 (or 1953) to present, the Ohio Dept. of Agriculture can not find a single record of a citation or prosecution for a violation of apiary laws.

None. That says something. Either they have never done their job enforcing the laws, or beekeepers are such a high class of citizen that we don't need the laws. Or both.
B. Farmer Honey
Central Ohio
Post Reply