The Honey-Bee Language Controversy

Abstract

What role does evidence play in scientific theory debate? Bruno Latour argued that Nature cannot determine the outcome during scientific debates. His claims are examined in light of events in the honey-bee language controversy. Nobel Laureate Karl von Frisch's theory that honey-bees use a dance language to communicate the locale of food sources was challenged by Adrian Wenner, who held that bees use odour, and not the dance, to forage. A case history of the ensuing controversy was constructed through interviews with key figures in bee research, analysis of personal correspondence, and an international survey of bee scientists. The case reveals that despite evidence against the dance language theory, scientists continued to believe in it. Seven categories of reasons were identified to account for support of the theory: its fruitfulness and popularity; the attractiveness and capriciousness of honey-bees; perceived personal qualities of von Frisch and Wenner; emphasis on the weight of the evidence; citing of clincher experiments and appealing to authority; regarding the theory as fact; teleological assumptions. These reasons protected the theory from collapse. Once the controversy was over, the final version claimed that it had been settled on the basis of the evidence. The case bears out Latour's observations on scientific practice.