The Autoflower Network's
Scientific Approach
Scientific Method
What is the Scientific Method?
In short, the
scientific method produces answers to questions posed in the form of a working
hypothesis (a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) that enables us to derive theories about what we observe in the world around us.
The power of scientific method is that it is
repeatable; helping to provide
unbiased answers to questions.
Scientific Method is a process consisting of:
- systematic observation
- measurement
- experimentation
It is followed by:
- formulation
- testing
- modification of hypothesis
What is "Bro Science?"
"Do you even grow, bro?"
You've probably heard this term tossed around in the cannabis space before, but what is it, why does it exist, and why should we care?
The term
bro science is considered to be the overconfident and uninformed sharing of anecdotes or advice presented as facts but with no scientific basis.
It's believed to have originated from the body-building community, associated with bodybuilders imparting unproven or false tactics about training and nutrition to less educated bodybuilders.
Does that make bro science inherently wrong, false, or not true because it's anecdotal? Not entirely.
The Difference Between Anecdotal and Scientific Evidence
"I think, see, or observe, therefore it must be."
Anecdotal evidence can be defined as a testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience.
The difference between anecdotal and scientific evidence is that scientific evidence is proof based on findings from systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation.
One of the main risks of relying on anecdotal evidence is that it can lead to logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. It is considered the least certain type of scientific evidence and is rarely used as validating evidence.
If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered an unsound generalization.
Why is "Bro Science" Dangerous?
"Look at what I think I know!"
Bro science tries to appeal to authority versus science. It's not meant to be helpful; it's meant to impress.
Quite often when bro science is contested; those suggesting it become combative rather than being open minded or willing to discuss, pointing to pictures of their plants or grow as proof and evidence instead of providing actual scientific evidence. While bro science isn't necessarily inherently wrong or false, it's quite often NOT right (and lacks little to any scientific basis, or "pick and choose" science.) It can be wildly misleading, while the person suggesting it tries to be as convincing as possible.
Unfortunately, it can be very hard for new growers or uneducated growers to know the difference in the suggestions (especially in open forums and social platforms.) This is very damaging to the learning process when you have to sift through information and try to discern fact from fiction.
As growers we should be helping and empowering our fellow growers to learn, to want to learn, and to keep pushing the envelope on what we know and do not, but there's a fine line between discovery and understanding versus pretending to understand and passing it off as fact.
Challenging the Information
"Criticism is the backbone of the scientific method."
Truth isn't necessarily what an expert or an authority figure declares to be true, but rather what stands the tests of evidence and criticism. To discover the truth, we should be encouraging the challenging of information (the continual questioning of processes to find a better way to do things.)
It's easy to find confirmations of our ideas if we are looking for confirmations. The idea of science as falsification suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven
false.
Challenging information is a chance for us to learn and grow; not as a way to attack another person's idea or show off.
How do I Constructively Challenge Someone's Claims?
Challenging information can seem like a challenge all in itself, especially online when we're often limited in the range of verbal and nonverbal communication cues that help us navigate discussions.
As growers striving for the truth, we need to be clear that
we are challenging the idea, not the person. The emphasis should be on the spirit of making constructive improvement, rather than opposing something because "it wasn't invented here."
Science does not have “hard facts” but rather “significant facts” that are observed.
We encourage the challenging of our ideas with questions like "what are we missing here?" or "is there a better way to do this?"
We can encourage a formal "meeting of the minds" for the challenge process, where those with different aptitudes and expertise on the topic can discuss, brainstorm, and improve on the idea, as well as informally, with one-on-one discussion, casual conversation, or social group settings (like this forum!)
In any case, it's important that we stay calm, respectful, and ultimately keep the focus on the constructive improvement of the idea, not the individual.
Establishing Credibility & Reliability of Information
The reasonable acceptance of a claim often depends on the credibility of its source.
The
credibility of individuals is generally a matter of their knowledge and experience on a topic, while maintaining honesty, accuracy, and objectivity.
The
reliability of an information source should provide a well-reasoned argument or hypothesis based on strong evidence. Widely credible sources include scholarly and peer-reviewed articles and books for example.
Our credibility goals as a cannabis community should be to base our claims on credible and reliable facts that are free from bias (personal opinion,) and to be open to the idea that our own formed ideas may be proven false if the data provided doesn't support it.
