Another witch burning

[user 20297]

possibly the same comic as you get most of your from.

To boast a 'scientific approach' you need to shop around and explore more than one source. You seem to have pinned your lot on Spivac and struggle to come up with much else to support your 'theories'
Condescendingly referring to Darwin whenever you're challenged is not much of a defence. Things have evolved a bit since he started to worry about the consequences of sleeping with his own cousin.

You are the OP of this thread with a reference to the "reveal" in the BBKA magazine/ "comic" of what you clearly see as a self-evident fact, that, "propolis may be beneficial to the bees ".
Two significant "players" on this forum have recently been extolling the benefits of artificially introducing propolis to their hives; as far as I know, you haven't publicly queried that or asked them for evidence to support the motives for their actions.
I get the impression that most enlightened beekeepers, of whom many are also scientists, are certain of the positive contribution that propolis can make to the wellbeing of a hive.
If you challenge someone who uses this evidence to theorise that by breeding to reduce the tendency to propolise, the result may have negative consequences for bee health, don't you have to explain what evidence you have to prove that it wouldn't?

 

[Finman]

There is a wisdom out there: you cannot win a stupid person with debating.

 

[Wilco]

You are the OP of this thread with a reference to the "reveal" in the BBKA magazine/ "comic" of what you clearly see as a self-evident fact, that, "propolis may be beneficial to the bees ".
Two significant "players" on this forum have recently been extolling the benefits of artificially introducing propolis to their hives; as far as I know, you haven't publicly queried that or asked them for evidence to support the motives for their actions.
I get the impression that most enlightened beekeepers, of whom many are also scientists, are certain of the positive contribution that propolis can make to the wellbeing of a hive.
If you challenge someone who uses this evidence to theorise that by breeding to reduce the tendency to propolise, the result may have negative consequences for bee health, don't you have to explain what evidence you have to prove that it wouldn't?

But it's not being theorised. It's being assumed and shouted from a soap box a fact when really it's not an issue for most on here.

@Finman well said.

 

[Beesnaturally]

But it's not being theorised. It's being assumed and shouted from a soap box a fact when really it's not an issue for most on here.

@Finman well said.

Eh? I've written several times today to explain the theory to you. I've even taken the trouble to break it into specific logical stages for you.

It may not be an issue for many here, but what is the harm in discussion, exploration? If it not an issue for you why question it so closely?

It seems to me that you've run out of arguments and want to cover up the fact rather than acknowledging you've learned something.

 

[Beesnaturally]

There is a wisdom out there: you cannot win a stupid person with debating.

Ain't that true. However, you can show onlookers who is stupid and who isn't. That has to be a benefit to the forum.

 

[Wilco]

Eh? I've written several times today to explain the theory to you. I've even taken the trouble to break it into specific logical stages for you.

But still provided no papers to back up the assertions and fairly wilful determination to stick to poor metaphors. The only paper which gives a tenuous support to your position was posted by someone else and as I've said, demonstrating a positive associated with x does not prove a harm if x is reduced. You've mentioned a few bits associated with scientific approach so should be aware of this and that a single paper, whilst a start, doesn't prove the case.

 

[Finman]

Ain't that true. However, you can show onlookers who is stupid and who isn't. That has to be a benefit to the forum.

It is a bessing..

 

[user 20297]

But it's not being theorised. It's being assumed and shouted from a soap box a fact when really it's not an issue for most on here.

@Finman well said.

Shouting seems to be a widely adopted approach on this forum, and we've often been asked to accept that it should be accepted that this is a forum for frank debate.
As for whether it's pointless arguing against someone who is apparently stupid, that's something that works both ways. (Both you and I excepted )

 

[Newbeeneil]

Shouting seems to be a widely adopted approach on this forum, and we've often been asked to accept that it should be accepted that this is a forum for frank debate.
As for whether it's pointless arguing against someone who is apparently stupid, that's something that works both ways. (Both you and I excepted )

Wilco has already accepted that as can be seen from his avatar

 

[Wilco]

Shouting seems to be a widely adopted approach on this forum, and we've often been asked to accept that it should be accepted that this is a forum for frank debate.
As for whether it's pointless arguing against someone who is apparently stupid, that's something that works both ways. (Both you and I excepted )

I dunno... There are one or two who have a more shouty approach but most talk- possible to have frank debate without attacking someone personally.

I wouldn't except myself, get things wrong as much as the next person.

Eh? I've written several times today to explain the theory to you. I've even taken the trouble to break it into specific logical stages for you.

It may not be an issue for many here, but what is the harm in discussion, exploration? If it not an issue for you why question it so closely?

It seems to me that you've run out of arguments and want to cover up the fact rather than acknowledging you've learned something.

@Beesnaturally in hindsight, whilst I still remain unconvinced by your position I do owe you an apology for insinuating you are stupid. I usually try to focus on rational discussion rather than personal attacks and failed to do that today- for that I am sorry. I look forward to some papers to back up your assertions at some point.

 

[user 20297]

....and another thing......I've discovered that over the last couple of years, beekeeping has prompted me to think more about nature, the environment, ecosystems, evolution, microbiology, chemistry, immunology, human nature, five-letter words, four-letter words (including "bees", than at any other time of my life.

When people such as @Beesnaturally and some other forum members past and present, start or contribute to conversations which get the grey matter singing, and which go beyond the practicalities of beekeeping, I think that the forum is at its most interesting.

It seems such a shame that this sort of subject always seems to end up or go through a phase of bad-tempered slanging.

I've just notice @Wilco 's apology....rare on here, maybe he will start a trend. In comparison with the way some people interact here, you've nothing to apologise for.
@Newbeeneil , Wilco's custom title indicates someone capable of self-deprecation; he is indeed an ultra-rarity.

 

[Wilco]

, Wilco's custom title indicates... he is indeed an ultra-rarity.

I think most of the planet are probably grateful for that.

Shamelessly edited.

 

[user 20297]

I think most of the planet are probably grateful for that.

Shamelessly edited.

Yes, you can have too much of a good thing!

 

[Finman]

....and another thing......I've discovered that over the last couple of years, beekeeping has prompted me to think more about nature, the environment, ecosystems, evolution, microbiology, chemistry, immunology, human nature, five-letter words, four-letter words (including "bees", than at any other time of my

You have basic knowledge to that. In two years. Yeah. Of course.

If I were so brilliant as you, I would not time to hang in this forum.

 

[user 20297]

You have basic knowledge to that. In two years. Yeah. Of course.

If I were so brilliant as you, I would not time to hang in this forum.

I like to show off how clever I am.
But you are so much more brilliant at beekeeping than I am, so why do you hang around?

 

[Finman]

I like to show off how clever I am.
But you are so much more brilliant at beekeeping than I am, so why do you hang around?

A good question...

We have a song " Why you skylark fly to Finland". The bird started to think and turned back to south

 

[user 20297]

A good question...

We have a song " Why you skylark fly to Finland". The bird started to think and turned back to south

A good answer.

 

[Beesnaturally]

I dunno... There are one or two who have a more shouty approach but most talk- possible to have frank debate without attacking someone personally.

I wouldn't except myself, get things wrong as much as the next person.


@Beesnaturally in hindsight, whilst I still remain unconvinced by your position I do owe you an apology for insinuating you are stupid. I usually try to focus on rational discussion rather than personal attacks and failed to do that today- for that I am sorry. I look forward to some papers to back up your assertions at some point.

Thanks for that.

For the reasons given you are unlikely to see such (unnecessary) studies. Life sciences (like all sciences, and competent breeders) rely on prior established precepts to generalise applications. You don't take insulin from a diabetic and expect them not to get Ill, and you don't need to make studies to know that.

I would strongly advise you think carefully about this for a while. The logic may seem tenuous to you now, but I think if you turn it over for a while it will become obvious.

 

[Wilco]

Thanks for that.

For the reasons given you are unlikely to see such (unnecessary) studies. Life sciences (like all sciences, and competent breeders) rely on prior established precepts to generalise applications. You don't take insulin from a diabetic and expect them not to get Ill, and you don't need to make studies to know that.

I would strongly advise you think carefully about this for a while. The logic may seem tenuous to you now, but I think if you turn it over for a while it will become obvious.

This is the industry in which I work and teach, that is not correct.

The diabetes example is a poor one for your position as firstly there are legal and ethical concerns around such an approach which do not apply to all investigations and species.

Secondly one of the things each diabetic needs is the correct dose for them. Some need a small amount, some need a lot and dosing interval varies. Additionally, too much will kill them. This analogy actually shows my position slightly better than it does yours.

We are not at the stage where there is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in this situation so it's not a precept we can generalise- by all means suggest it is consistent with your/our experience but we cannot use the current single paper to irrefutably argue that breeding against propolis is harmful to bees. Either more research is needed or I must once again ask you to please provide more papers.

 

[Beesnaturally]

This is the industry in which I work and teach, that is not correct.

The diabetes example is a poor one for your position as firstly there are legal and ethical concerns around such an approach which do not apply to all investigations and species.

Secondly one of the things each diabetic needs is the correct dose for them. Some need a small amount, some need a lot and dosing interval varies. Additionally, too much will kill them. This analogy actually shows my position slightly better than it does yours.

We are not at the stage where there is an overwhelming body of scientific evidence in this situation so it's not a precept we can generalise- by all means suggest it is consistent with your/our experience but we cannot use the current single paper to irrefutably argue that breeding against propolis is harmful to bees. Either more research is needed or I must once again ask you to please provide more papers.

Do you need a study for the hammer on foot thing too, or are you happy with that?

I agree with your thoughts about the insulin analogy, but I disagree with your claim that it supports your position better than mine.

Consider: I have spoken of how how natural selection locates, as it were, the correct 'dose' of propolis, as the requirement changes.

Would you be able to agree with the following proposition:

'The more evidence arrives showing that propolis is a beneficial antisceptic that reduces disease incidence, the more we should consider taking care to avoid breeding away from propolis making'

?