Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:17:14 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Burkhardt <burkhard@aries.scs.uiuc.edu> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3305$foo@default> Subject: Re: CP 1188
John Cavanaugh and list,
I believe that you missed the point about Perry's guidelines for a
controlled experiment. The reason why you need a controlled experiment is
to eliminate as many of the variables as possible in order to tell which
agent is the cause of the result?
> As I scientist, I am a bit ambiguous about this exchange. But
> remember folks, the fundamental concept is *EMPIRICISM*.
Recall that from empirical observations all bodies in motion will come to
rest. It was centuries before Sir Isaac Newton came along and realized
that all bodies in motion tend to stay in motion. I don't mean to give a
physics lesson, but the point is you need more than just an observation. I
doubt if one can observe an individual and tell if they have cancer in the
early and middle stages.
> If adding baking soda to my Sarrs turns them into incredible
> lean-mean-bug-eatin'-machine turbo-plants which live longer and grow
> bigger, I don't care about some BLEEPing Euro-phant's ancestry. What I do
> care about is that it work - or not - on someone else's plant first.
Once again, why waste the baking soda and effort if it really isn't
helping your plants? Perhaps Randy is talking to his plants while treating
them and that is what the plants are responding to.
> Let's have science, not an infomercial. And knock off the
> irrelevant homolies about "2 plus 2 is 4" and all that "natural" guff.
I agree, but let's not throw away our senses. The first step to being
successful at cultivating plants is to reproduce their 'natural' growing
conditions. I would like my plants to live for the 'long run', and perhaps
the baking soda treatment is helping in the immediate present, but
eventually, I'm afraid the salt buildup is going to take it's toll.
Paul Burkhardt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:09 PST