Real Science vs Bro Science: Ohhh some of you are NOT going to like this!

[Bob's Auto's]

Each bed has about 4" of horse manure in them.

Sh!t that's a lot of shite

 

[Sour D]

I have to admit this video felt like the guest were high on sniffing their own farts (and were enjoying it). I checked out after about 2h.

It came across as a bit popmous, and they all seemed so sure of what they were saying. So ready to discredit the other side. I didn't know that Jim and Jeff are not friendly to each other. and I would bet that lady and Jeff are not friends either.

I brew my teas to farm microbes. I like to think when I add my tea to my plants it's a booster shot of life to the dirt. IME, since stopping using bottled nutes and just doing this, I like my bud better. It's more tasty this way and in the long run will be cheaper.

I felt the same way. I don't even know why she was on the show. She grows trees and landscapes. Never even touched cannabis. All the studies she talks about had nothing to do with weed. From what I've seen, the Coot is pretty much his way or the highway- whatever way that may be at the moment. To torch the broscience that has been accumulated over the last 60-70 years is bs imho.

 

[pop22]

The problem with "bro science" is there is NO science to it and 80% of it is just shit people made up to sound smart to someone else who doesn't know any better. Like the whole utterly ridiculous "flushing" myth. And what she's saying applies to plants in general. Cannabis isn't special when it comes to plant biology other than it's sexual reproduction method being rare. Roots are roots and leaves are leaves and they all work pretty much the same way.

I felt the same way. I don't even know why she was on the show. She grows trees and landscapes. Never even touched cannabis. All the studies she talks about had nothing to do with weed. From what I've seen, the Coot is pretty much his way or the highway- whatever way that may be at the moment. To torch the broscience that has been accumulated over the last 60-70 years is bs imho.

 

[WildBill]

The problem with "bro science" is there is NO science to it and 80% of it is just shit people made up to sound smart to someone else who doesn't know any better. Like the whole utterly ridiculous "flushing" myth. And what she's saying applies to plants in general. Cannabis isn't special when it comes to plant biology other than it's sexual reproduction method being rare. Roots are roots and leaves are leaves and they all work pretty much the same way.

Could the flushing come from people improperly drying the buds? Flushing never made any sence to me, ESPECIALLY with organics being used.

 

[pop22]

I too would love to hear how this myth evolved. And a dying plant sends all its remaining nutrients to the buds, it's a biological imperative. So guess where all those "flushed" nutrients go? Doesn't anyone wonder why the buds are so green on a "flushed" plant? Ahh I'll shut up, you've all heard me say this before lol!

Could the flushing come from people improperly drying the buds? Flushing never made any sense to me, ESPECIALLY with organics being used.

 

[Sour D]

The problem with "bro science" is there is NO science to it and 80% of it is just shit people made up to sound smart to someone else who doesn't know any better. Like the whole utterly ridiculous "flushing" myth. And what she's saying applies to plants in general. Cannabis isn't special when it comes to plant biology other than it's sexual reproduction method being rare. Roots are roots and leaves are leaves and they all work pretty much the same way.

I agree there is a lot of bs about broscience but there is just as much bs in "real" science. This corono deal is a perfect example. Today, most of science depends on who is paying for the research. How many times do you hear "studies show that chicken is the best food you can eat"? Couple months later "studies show that beef is the best food you can eat. At least a lot of the broscientists will say "I don't know why it works but it works for me"

 

[WildBill]

I agree there is a lot of bs about broscience but there is just as much bs in "real" science. This corono deal is a perfect example. Today, most of science depends on who is paying for the research. How many times do you hear "studies show that chicken is the best food you can eat"? Couple months later "studies show that beef is the best food you can eat. At least a lot of the broscientists will say "I don't know why it works but it works for me"

Like different reports on coffee over the MANY years I've drank it.................and the many tanker truck loads I've consumed! LOL!

 

[pop22]

Linda Chalker is no corporate shill and works for the University of Washington. Yes, science needs policing too, that's why there are peer reviews. It doesn't change the facts from studies that are conclusive. And anecdotal "evidence" is rarely accurate or even correct. Just because you see something occur, it proves nothing as you don't actually know what caused the changes, good or bad. Bro science is like saying 10,000 monkeys with typewriters could write War and Peace......... Nope!

Like different reports on coffee over the MANY years I've drank it.................and the many tanker truck loads I've consumed! LOL!

 

[pop22]

And if science wasn't of value., you'd be writing this on paper or bark and sharing it via carrier pigeon...........

 

[pop22]

Anecdotal vs Science

https://thetruthaboutforensicscience.com/anecdotal-information-vs-scientific-data-in-the-courtroom/