this a calumny, Science is not cofined to a single variable, ...
I find that accusation offensive, but nothing less than I've come to expect from someone so blinkered.
As you well know, I didn't say science was confined to a single variable - what I said was "the classic scientific method
invariably relies upon the manipulation of a single variable , yet in practice with biological systems, there may be multiple variables involved ...", and so on.
When research chemists come across the interesting use of a herb, for example - what do they immediately do ? Attempt to isolate the "active ingredient" (singular) - that's single-variable thinking in action.
Another example - to keep this vaguely on-topic - "what constitutes the ideal swarm trap ?" Most people will say a cavity of around 40 litres in size. Where does this idea come from ? From an experiment conducted by Thomas Seeley - in which he sets out to determine what size nest cavity bees prefer. Size of course, being a single variable. I have every sympathy for this approach, for biological experiments involving more than one variable would be unwieldy, difficult, and very time-consuming to conduct.
But the problem with such single-variable experiments is that they rarely present the whole truth, and in the case of Seeley's experiment - the work was fraudulent (in the Medawarian sense) precisely because Seeley had pre-determined that cavity size was the only important factor to be considered, and had duly set out to determine what that size was. The paper was written-up and published in the form which Medawar describes as fraudulent: "
the scientific paper is a fraud in the sense that it does give a totally misleading narrative of the processes of thought that go into the making of scientific discoveries."
There are many other variables which could be equally valid in the case of nest cavities: height from the ground; cavity shape; colour, entrance size; smell, and so on ... But no - that experiment focussed (as thousands of similar experiments do) exclusively upon one single variable - one which has been pre-determined to be of importance. Medawar again:
" ... all scientific work of an experimental or exploratory character starts with some expectation about the outcome of the inquiry." (You see, there is far more to Medawar's paper than just it's conclusion)
A more complete narrative was to later emerge when Seeley wrote a book which included a story about the truth of what actually happened. The experiment was conducted on a barren island, so that the bees could not be distracted by trees or other potential nesting places. That was good 'scientific' thinking, but totally divorced from reality, as such places do not allow bees to behave naturally.
And did the bees choose one size cavity over another ? No, they did not - at least not when allowed to. They flew clean away from the experimental site and set-up home in a chimney above the only building on that otherwise deserted island !
That was a golden opportunity to make an original discovery of merit - that there may be something about a chimney (size, shape, smell - who knows ?) - but it was by-passed by an agenda of prejudice (the pre-judging that cavity size was the sole factor of importance).
It was only after that chimney had been sealed, that the experiment could be continued. Is this really valid science ? Well, yes it IS - and that's my beef about much biological enquiry - because it is so often predicated upon a completely unrealistic and unnatural setting - and thus becomes a game which involves strict rules about what information can be revealed, and in what form.
I know you to be a person who is preoccupied with the single variable of heat, and issues of insulation - but again I stress - biological systems such as beehives involve multiple variables, and to complicate matters further, some of these emanate from intelligent responses of the organisms under examination.
The craft of beekeeping is an art, and lends itself very poorly to traditional scientific enquiry.
LJ
