Bumblebee argument

[[File:Bumble Bee in flight.JPG|thumb|right|165px|Empiricism in action]]
{{pseudosciencenav}}
{{cquote| According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible.|||Opening narration, '''Bee Movie'''}}
The "'''bumblebee argument'''", or '''''argumentum ad bombum''''', in [[pseudoscience]], states that the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee can't fly, as it does not have the required capacity (in terms of wing area or flapping speed). Consequently, therefore, science can be shown to be in error, providing a loophole for pseudoscientific "explanations". Arguments like these are ''occasionally'' used by [[creationist]]s to claim that it's impossible for bees to be a product of evolution, though they're quite common in more general [[anti-science]] circles that like to cry "[[Science was wrong before|look at science, it knows nothing!]]"

Unfortunately (for the pseudoscientists), the laws of physics do not in any way forbid bumblebee flight; there are no papers that deny bumblebee flight, and no scientist has done so in a lecture, except, perhaps, [[ironically]]. To put it simply, it is possible to "prove" that a bumblebee cannot fly if you perform an extremely crude calculation (like forgetting to take into account things like the rate of flapping, the rotation of the wing, or the action of vortices), but a full aerodynamic calculation (to say nothing of getting all [[empirical]] and ''watching a bumblebee fly'') will show that the bumblebee's flight works perfectly well.

==Origin==
The origin of the statement is lost in the mists of time, but one version says that it was made by French entomologist {{wpl|Antoine Magnan}} in 1934, based on calculations by his assistant, an engineer.<ref>[http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/01/bumblebee_fligh.html Bumblebee flight explained] by Lindsay Beyerstein (January 22, 2006).</ref> Other versions suggest that the bumblebee could not fly according to the principles of ''fixed-wing aerodynamics''; that is to say, it must flap its wings. In some versions, said calculations were made specifically to show that they cannot be applied to insects, and scientists must figure out the proper ones. In fact, bumblebees simply flap harder than other insects, increasing the amplitude of their wing strokes to achieve more lift, and use a figure-of-eight wing motion to create low-pressure vortices to pull them up.

==The kangaroo argument==
There is a similar concept to the idea that a [[kangaroo]] can't exist because jumping would consume more energy than it could possibly get from eating. Like the bumblebee argument, it is possible to "prove" that a kangaroo can't jump if you leave out a few key variables. If you assume that a kangaroo is simply an 80-kg weight that is lifted up and dropped repeatedly, then your calculation will show that the "kangaroo" can't jump. The missing variable is that a kangaroo's leg muscles and tendons act as springs, transferring the energy from landing into the next jump.

==Notable instances==
===Mary Kay===
[[Multilevel marketing]] makeup magnate Mary Kay has been a major propagator of this bit of modern [[folklore]], using it to encourage its low-ranking sellers to continue pushing their products despite their own inability to function in a badly structured marketing environment. The story implies that you can beat marketing inexperience and a low customer base with willpower and trust in [[God]]. The quote is often attributed to Mary Kay Founder Mary Kay Ash herself.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pinktruth.com/2008/05/the-reason-why-the-bumblebee-story-is-true/|title=The Reason Why the Bumblebee Story is True|author=Raisinberry|date=May 21, 2015|work=Pink Truth: Facts, opinions and the real story behind Mary Kay Cosmetics}}</ref>

So prevalent is the Bumblebee argument in the Mary Kay Cosmetics that successful and high-ranking distributors are awarded lapel pins and pinkie rings with bee designs on them.

===''Bee Movie''===
In the 2007 animated film ''Bee Movie'', the very first words spoken are a recounting of this bogus myth: "According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don't care what humans think is impossible."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bee-movie-script-according-to-all-known-laws-of-aviation|title=Bee Movie page on Know Your Meme}}</ref> This quote has gained traction all over the Internet as part of the entire movie being considered a meme; hence, if you encounter someone saying the quote worded this way, they are more likely to be a person who is into memes, rather than a true holder of an anti-science position. It is interesting to note that ''Bee Movie'' wasn't even about bumblebees; it was about ''honey''bees.

====Mike Huckabee and the bumblebee====
[[Mike Huckabee]] has, on numerous occasions, including his 2008 presidential campaign, [[Plagiarism|plagiarized]] ''Bee Movie'':<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/dec/06/uselections2008.suzannegoldenberg1|title=Huckabee, the bumblebee, rises to the top on a wing and a prayer: The latest standard-bearer of the right plays the evangelic Christian card &mdash; and polishes his stand-up routine|author=Suzanne Goldenberg|date=6 December 2007|work=The Guardian}}</ref>
{{cquote|The fat bumblebee, whose ability to fly has baffled generations of scientists. The bumblebee, being unaware of these scientific facts, goes ahead and flies anyway and makes honey and pollinates the other plants.}}

==See also==
*[[Banana argument]] &mdash; another, even more laughable, creationist argument

==External links==
*{{wpl|Bumblebee#Flight|Wikipedia on bumblebee flight}}
*[http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_045.html The Straight Dope]
*[http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn8382-secrets-of-bee-flight-revealed.html New Scientist]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_-vxAFcQIU&feature=related A philosophical view]

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{crebox}}

[[Category:Anti-intellectualism]]
[[Category:Creationism]]
[[Category:Creationist claims]]
[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]
[[Category:Pseudoscience]]

Categories: Anti-intellectualism, Creationism, Creationist claims, Fallacious arguments, Pseudoscience