Third swarm of bees to occupy my traffic cone

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
This may not be sufficient

It also occurs to me... If you're going to re-use hives then you need some protocol to ensure that there's no chance previous occupancy can affect future appeal. There may well be no way to do that, so it might be more reliable to use only new hives throughout the experiment.

James
 
Actually, I have previously posted that under certain conditions I will change my mind. I presumably just take a lot more convincing than you do.

As I have also posted before, "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out".

James
Just out of interest James... have you ever tried dowsing ?
 
Years back as a kid, Dowsing became popular and even Woolworths seemed to sell sets of rods. I got my parents to buy some but they didn't seem to work for me and I convinced myself any reaction was just me subconsciously influencing them.
Fast forward to my late 20's and I saw a daytime TV program on a guy who made a living out of divining water sources on farmland. He would wander around the area that the landowner wanted to sink a bore hole and then if he found something he would make a prediction on how deep and it's potential flow rate.
He would bargain that he would be paid his fee if he was within 20% of the prediction(or similar).
The camera crew duly followed him around, the mobile boring rig duly drilled, the water flowed at the rate he predicted at the depth he predicted.
He was a very unassuming guy, very normal mid-fifties country farming type, and seemed genuinely embarrassed at his ability, and said repeatedly he didn't really know how it worked and he just felt it.

There's a lot off woo-woo rubbish out there being talked about many things, but for me Dowsing is something that I am convinced that some people are entirely capable of.
 
Years back as a kid, Dowsing became popular and even Woolworths seemed to sell sets of rods. I got my parents to buy some but they didn't seem to work for me and I convinced myself any reaction was just me subconsciously influencing them.
Fast forward to my late 20's and I saw a daytime TV program on a guy who made a living out of divining water sources on farmland. He would wander around the area that the landowner wanted to sink a bore hole and then if he found something he would make a prediction on how deep and it's potential flow rate.
He would bargain that he would be paid his fee if he was within 20% of the prediction(or similar).
The camera crew duly followed him around, the mobile boring rig duly drilled, the water flowed at the rate he predicted at the depth he predicted.
He was a very unassuming guy, very normal mid-fifties country farming type, and seemed genuinely embarrassed at his ability, and said repeatedly he didn't really know how it worked and he just felt it.

There's a lot off woo-woo rubbish out there being talked about many things, but for me Dowsing is something that I am convinced that some people are entirely capable of.

This discusses water dowsing (not energy line dowsing, which is what this thread is mostly about I think, and is a completely different kettle of fish - no one doubts that water exists underground, unlike energy lines)

Is there any scientific evidence for dowsing? | BBC Science Focus Magazine

(I think it's probably best not to discuss water dowsing and energy line dowsing in the same thread to be honest)
 
And yet again I have to post that there's no plausible evidence that ley lines or 'energy' lines exist. And note that whilst some people might draw a distinction between the two, Roger Patterson (since he was been mentioned) has actually written that he just prefers latter name, not that they're different. He says "In 2009 I was made aware by a fellow beekeeper, John Harding, of ley lines, that I prefer to call energy lines."

"energy in the earth's crust". Really, just no. What "energy" in the earth's crust? How does it form lines? And why/how would it make a pair of bent wires move? The answer to "How do you know energy lines exist?" seems to be "Because I can find them by dowsing" and "How do we know dowsing works?" is "Because I can find energy lines using it".

As I've pointed out repeatedly before, there are lots of solid explanations as to why people think dowsing works when it's just a figment of their imagination. No-one has ever genuinely demonstrated the existence of ley lines, nor "energy lines", nor the validity of dowsing in a manner that would stand up to scientific scrutiny. "I've tried it and it worked for me" just doesn't pass muster. Not even remotely. Nor even "A few of us have tried it and it worked for us". If you think it does then go and learn how science tests hypotheses so that we can be as sure as possible that we really know what we think we know, because it's just not that straightforward.

I'd suggest that in the instance of the traffic cone it's far more likely that the scout bees responded favourably to the existence of pheromones or wax deposits or something else like that on the inside of the cone which might be reinforced as more swarms settle there. If the cone were moved away from its current location then quite possibly they'd still find and use it unless there was then a nearer more appealing site.

There are many more plausible explanations that should be considered before inventing some woo woo that has no basis in fact.

James

Will add "Energy lines" to the list of things I will look into when i win circa £180m on the Euro millions. Proper funding for a scientific study into them. It's am ever growing list tbh and the £180m is starting to take a hit though so Roger Pattinson and his free oap's bus pass might become involved unless Netflix want to pay to follow me.
 
This discusses water dowsing (not energy line dowsing, which is what this thread is mostly about I think, and is a completely different kettle of fish - no one doubts that water exists underground, unlike energy lines)

Is there any scientific evidence for dowsing? | BBC Science Focus Magazine

(I think it's probably best not to discuss water dowsing and energy line dowsing in the same thread to be honest)

So ... what is it that the dowsing rods find when there is water under the ground ...
 
Your first paragraph demonstrates the need for the "before" test. Your knowledge of where swarms have arrived may well subconsciously affect the "dowsing response". This is one of the types of problem the scientific method is intended to compensate for.

I don't design experiments for a living and it's a genuinely difficult thing to do well, but I'd suggest you'd need to do something along these lines:

Pick a number of unfamiliar locations large enough to site a good number of bait hives and dowse them to map the "energy lines". Preferably have multiple unconnected people dowse them independently, because if the maps don't align significantly then you're already in trouble. Have someone else who has no knowledge of the map randomly place the bait hives (which must be as near identical as possible) randomly around the locations, but including the positions indicated by whatever intersections of the "energy lines" exist. In all respects other than their proximity to the "energy lines" they should be as indistinguishable as possible. Monitor the hives over the course of a season to see which are selected by swarms, and replace each used hive with a fresh one each time it is selected. Repeat the experiment over a number of years, switching the individual hives between locations at random.

Once the experiment is complete you can tally the results and see if there's any apparent preference for the hives at the intersections. Then consult a competent statistician to see how likely the result might be to have occurred at random.

There are a number of issues you'd have to decide beforehand, such as "how wide" an "energy line" or the area of intersection might be, how you can validly account for any disparity in the "energy line" maps, how you're going to obtain your swarms or if you're going to let them turn up at random. The moving of hives may ideally need to be decided beforehand. I don't know how many hives you'd need at each location, nor how many locations might be desirable. A statistician would probably need to advise. You'd need to decide if all bait hives will be the same size, in the same orientation and so on. All decisions about how the results will be analysed must be made before the experiment commences. And you have to accept that you will have no knowledge of which intersection/non-intersection hive has which swarm count until the experiment is over so that (for example) any decisions you may need to make or information you have to give to other people involved in the experiment cannot be distorted by what you know about the results so far.

Even then, there's clearly no guarantee that "energy lines" exist nor that bees or dowsing can sense them because there may be some other aspect of the landscape to which the dowsers and bees are responding, but even demonstrating the ability to reliably predict the preferences of a swarm would, I'd guess, be a very interesting result and warrant further investigation.

This may not be sufficient, but it's my best guess for the moment. As I said, I don't do this for a living, though I used to know people who did.

James
Surely better to just grid an area, have someone who dowses say where the lines are and have one bait hive per grid square, all new on identical posts. Any occupied ones while the experiment runs get taken down and replaced with a new one.

Won't be able to correct for the dowser subconsciously knowing what sites are best for swarms or picking up on scent cues etc. so these could act as confounding factors.

Alternatively grid an area, place bait hives as above, record which if any get swarms, take it all down at the end of the season and have someone else come and dowse. Still risk of confounding factors though.
 
So ... what is it that the dowsing rods find when there is water under the ground ...
Gravity driven by the magnetic earth field. Be interesting to see if they face the same direction as the water flowing through aquifers
 
Just out of interest James... have you ever tried dowsing ?

Oh yes. Found it to be totally unreliable. A digger and a big trench beats four aces and a couple of bits of bent wire when trying to find water.

But ultimately it doesn't matter what I've tried, because it's an indisputable fact that when it comes to running experiments and testing such things, humans just can't be trusted. Most people want to believe they can rely their experiences and their senses, but it's just not true. Their expectations and knowledge subconsciously affect what happens and this is completely unavoidable, which is why in the proposed experiment above the people running the experiment and the people doing the work have no knowledge of the other half. If you don't know which hives are on the claimed intersection points then you can't even subconsciously treat that set any differently from the others. If you don't know which hives are getting the swarms, you can't give away any information to other people who might unknowingly affect the result. This is the reason that "double blind" testing exists.

In the example of your dogs, if you'd drawn a map of your garden with the "energy lines" marked, then had someone with absolutely no knowledge of you come in whilst the occupants of your house (including the dogs) were not present and had them draw up a similar map, then compared the two to see if they coincided and both showed an intersection where the dogs liked to be then you might reasonably be able to claim that something interesting has happened. As it is, if you know where the dogs like to be and then test to see if there's an intersection point there, your testimony is worthless because you can't know of, and can do nothing about, any possible subconscious bias affecting what you do.

James
 
This discusses water dowsing (not energy line dowsing, which is what this thread is mostly about I think, and is a completely different kettle of fish - no one doubts that water exists underground, unlike energy lines)

Kind of amusingly, that page returns a "500 server error" for me, though I'm slightly disappointed that it's not a "404 Not Found".

James
 
Oh yes. Found it to be totally unreliable. A digger and a big trench beats four aces and a couple of bits of bent wire when trying to find water.

But ultimately it doesn't matter what I've tried, because it's an indisputable fact that when it comes to running experiments and testing such things, humans just can't be trusted. Most people want to believe they can rely their experiences and their senses, but it's just not true. Their expectations and knowledge subconsciously affect what happens and this is completely unavoidable, which is why in the proposed experiment above the people running the experiment and the people doing the work have no knowledge of the other half. If you don't know which hives are on the claimed intersection points then you can't even subconsciously treat that set any differently from the others. If you don't know which hives are getting the swarms, you can't give away any information to other people who might unknowingly affect the result. This is the reason that "double blind" testing exists.

In the example of your dogs, if you'd drawn a map of your garden with the "energy lines" marked, then had someone with absolutely no knowledge of you come in whilst the occupants of your house (including the dogs) were not present and had them draw up a similar map, then compared the two to see if they coincided and both showed an intersection where the dogs liked to be then you might reasonably be able to claim that something interesting has happened. As it is, if you know where the dogs like to be and then test to see if there's an intersection point there, your testimony is worthless because you can't know of, and can do nothing about, any possible subconscious bias affecting what you do.

James
Well, when you are in this neck of the woods I'll lend you my rods and you can try and not be convinced then ....
 
Surely better to just grid an area, have someone who dowses say where the lines are and have one bait hive per grid square, all new on identical posts. Any occupied ones while the experiment runs get taken down and replaced with a new one.

Won't be able to correct for the dowser subconsciously knowing what sites are best for swarms or picking up on scent cues etc. so these could act as confounding factors.

Alternatively grid an area, place bait hives as above, record which if any get swarms, take it all down at the end of the season and have someone else come and dowse. Still risk of confounding factors though.

Oh yes, a grid hadn't occurred to me. If it could be made to fit with the intersection points then I guess it would be just as good if not better.

I agree there could be confounding factors, but I think it would make a fair case for further investigation if the results turned out to be positive.

James
 
Can I just ask whether those of us who do dowse and use the information can actually be bothered whether anybody else believes or even be more bothered to argue the toss?
 

Latest posts

Back
Top