Re: Superthrive (Andrew's experiment)

From: Paul Burkhardt (burkhard@aries.scs.uiuc.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 11 1997 - 06:02:59 PDT

Next message: Dionaea@aol.com: "CP in Switzerland"
Previous message: Robert Hood: "icps NEWLETTER"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 08:02:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Paul Burkhardt <burkhard@aries.scs.uiuc.edu>
To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <aabcdefg3953$foo@default>
Subject: Re: Superthrive (Andrew's experiment)

Matt Drake wrote:

> Andrew,
> The experiment is not accurate unless all the plants were clones
> of the same age. Otherwise, you did not succeed in that aspect of the
> variable.

I don't know if this invalidates Andrew's experiment. We all have
different plants and different clones of different ages. If Superthrive is
supposed to work on *all* plants as you so believe and suggest, then why
does it matter to have the same clones in the experiment? A cross section
of plants of different ages and types would be a valid scientific
experiment as Andrew had conducted. If Superthrive is supposed to work,
then it would have been more readily noticed in a cross section than in a
group of same age clones because it is possible that Superthrive is
innocuous to certain plants.

Paul Burkhardt

Next message: Dionaea@aol.com: "CP in Switzerland"
Previous message: Robert Hood: "icps NEWLETTER"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:12 PST