The real truth is, the academics do not have to be right or wrong. Its not about that. Its about whether if what they think(theorize) can be applied or be effectively applied.

For instance, years ago, an ozzie lacie keeper and now breeder, agrued that lacies need termite mounds to lay eggs in. Science showed that in nature, lacies had laid eggs in them. The reality is, we do not have termite mounds and neither does that person(unless he builds a cage around a living termite mound). So that input was useless for us to apply. Not about whether its right or wrong. For us keepers without termite mounts, that information is wrong.

Were we able to nest lacies without termite mounds, yes, no problem. Lacies have a range of methods to nest. Our task is use one that we are able to successfully supply. Not pick one we are not able to supply.

The sneeky part of this is, right or wrong is not what is(theory or not) its what can be successfully applied by the keeper. This is a very important aspect to understand.

But as you have seen, academics do not like to think of themselves as wrong for any reason, so they smoke screen and switch subjects, and theorize and all other diverions, in order to win a debate. Problem is, its not about debate, it goes back to the reality of being applied. What can be applied and show successful results is what is right. FR

[ Show Entire Thread ]