In article ,
martin writes:
| On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:29:45 +0200, Tim Challenger
| wrote:
|
| | I would disagree. The ants themselves to no harm but from my own
| | observations,
|
| Your claim is made by many people, but seems to be based entirely on
| prejudice ....
|
| ... seems to be based on his observations.
|
| and perhaps the observations of "many people".

Not ONE of whom has EVER provided any reason to believe that
their observations justify the conclusion. This is what the word
"prejudice" means, what I meant, and what I attempted to clarify
pointing out the meaning - to restore it, "i.e. judging the issue
before obtaining evidence".

Observations are not evidence. Observations backed up by analysis
can be evidence. HOWEVER, every single one of the ant-agonists
I have ever seen post that claim as a fact has used the following
chain of thought:

I believe that ants deter ladybirds etc. which enhance aphid
infestations.

I believe that ants transfer aphids to cause infestations.

I have observed a strong (and not denied) association between
ants and aphid infestations.

I have observed apparent conflict between ants and ladybirds
(which I have not seen reported as anything more than apparent
conflict).

I have observed ants carrying aphids.

This is all compatible with my beliefs, therefore my beliefs
are true.

That is prejudice.

I have enquired many times in many forums, and have so far not seen
any admissible evidence that ants enhance aphid infestations, let
alone cause them. I haven't even asked for CONVINCING evidence,
merely ADMISSIBLE evidence, but have so far not been shown any.
Dammit, the evidence for Saddam's control of WMD is STILL better
than the evidence for ants doing the above!

I have provided some admissible, if rather inconclusive, evidence
that ants rarely do what is claimed.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.