44 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW. 



ed, or even in Angnst, bnt the giving 

 of medicated food must be resorted to 

 unless the field is yielding an abun- 

 dance for comb building. 



Sometimes tlie brood from several 



colonies may be given to a single one, 

 and that one treated later. 



Without feeding during a dearth, 

 absconding is pretty sure to take place. 



Lapeer, Mich., Jan. 30, 1903. 



fK.rs..r\.y 



BEE-KEEPERS NEED THE SCIENTIST. 



BY ARTHUR G. MILLER. 



They Should have Toleration even for Purely 

 Scientific Theorizing. 



I noted vi^ith much interest your re- 

 marks, in yours of the 15th inst., con- 

 cerning the trouble you have had in 

 trying to get all of your subscribers 

 interested in, and some of them even 

 tolerant of, the scientific side of bee- 

 keeping. It does seem strange that 

 a man should be so impatient of mat- 

 ter in which he is not immediately 

 Interested, or perhaps with which he 

 even disagrees, that he should stop 

 his paper. To use a homely phrase 

 he "cuts off his nose to spite his face." 

 Now, I am particularly impatient of 

 that class of writers who use the 

 sanctimonious style, pose as great 

 benefactors and deep investigators, 

 when, as a matter of fact, all too much 

 of their knowledge is either theory or 

 the dii'ect product of the labor of 

 others, and they have not honor 

 enough to acknowledge it. But I do 

 not cut off my subscription therefor. 

 I content myself with smiling at their 

 vagaries, and pitying their dupes. 

 Honest error is another matter; we 

 are all liable to that. 



Perhaps I can show to some, at 

 least, of the objectors, wherein science 

 will be of direct benefit to them, after 

 which they may be more tolerant of 

 discussions which seem to be fine spun 

 theories of abstract subjects; for few 

 persons are so obtuse as to spurn that 



which will directly or indirectly yield 

 them cash. 



HOW THE SCIENTIST DIFFERS FROM THB 

 ORDINARY OBSERVER. 



To begin with, an explanation of 

 "science" may be of assistance. Web- 

 ster defines it as "knowledge of prin- 

 ciples and causes; ascertained truths 

 or facts." It is the fundamental cause 

 for which the scientist searclies, and 

 it is not always possible, and most al- 

 ways difficult, to determine beyond 

 doubt when he has found it. Not in- 

 frequently some well accepted and 

 seemingly indisputable "fact" is up- 

 set and proved wrong by subsequent 

 discoveries; sometimes in studies more 

 or le«s foreign to the subject in hand. 

 But instead of being discouraged by 

 such overturning of beliefs, the true 

 scientist hails the proof of error with 

 almost as much pleasure as he does 

 proof of truth. The scientist differs 

 from the ordinary observer and stu- 

 oent in degree rather than in meth- 

 od. The former proceeds with cau- 

 tion; testing, trying and weighing each 

 slep of his experiments; makes his ob- 

 servations as abundant as possible: 

 compares the results of his work with 

 those of others, when possible; and 

 thus deduces from these what he be- 

 lieves to be "laws." The ordinary ob- 



