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

[Sour D]

Speaking of Rona bs. Anyone want to invest in designer tyvek suits? They are sure to be the next big thing. Maybe I can get the contract for the First Lady's Inauguration "gown"

 

[Sour D]

i understand this, but the collective bro knowledge gets treated like cult gospel. if any data comes about that contradicts this gospel they plug their ears and say "nah-nah-nah".

Ya can't teach an old dog new tricks

 

[Simplicio]

Science is the most accurate process devised by humans.
My rating on a scale of 1-10 is BroScience = 2, RealScience = 10.
All scientists understand that the principles they discover will get more accurate as more evidence becomes available.
Sometimes the results of a single scientific study will be inaccurately reported as the best evidence by the press, when in fact it isn't.
Coffee and butter come to mind.

Another example.
When covid-19 first happened, scientists advised us not to wear masks because they thought the health care workers needed them all.
As more evidence became available, mask wearing was seen to be of crucial importance.
So now scientists advise wearing masks.
At every stage, scientists gave the best advice available at the time.
But sometimes the best evidence available is poor, and the judgements made from the evidence will also be poor.

Were scientists wrong?
Yes and no.
Yes, because their recommendations were the best available using the given data, but no because more data showed the recommendations were wrong.

 

[pop22]

And we all need to help correct misinformation when we can rather than maintain the status quo

No cannabis forum would exist without "bro science." The research of cannabis hasn't exactly been widely supported up until recently, so as cannabis growers we've been left to our own devices to try to piece together what is, isn't, how things work, etc. As the real science catches up, it either validates that "bro science" or it corrects it, but it's in getting people to accept it that's probably the harder challenge.

 

[pop22]

The discussion has been good! Let's keep it that way.

 

[Son of Hobbes]

I don't think either is total bs but there is bs in both circles. How else do you explain the bs going on with the Rona?

As to flushing- IMHO, you need to remember that legal weed is being treated a whole lot stricter than any other food products. If you have to submit to testing and you use salt nutrients and no flush there is a real chance you will fail. If you use organics in pots, beds You will prolly be safe. If you plant in the ground- the soil could be contaminated from some previous use. If you have another farm close by you could get screwed because they are using a spray that's banned for weed but is ok on oranges.

I would have to respectfully disagree; every grow I've worked for has used synthetic nutrients and flushing has nothing to do with whether tests are passing or failing (I've been told by several facilities you have to work pretty hard to fail for heavy metals; but the first grow I worked at sure as shit failed for cadmium of all things, but he also chose to not run certain membranes on his RO system and the source water was incredibly sketchy with heavy metals (I know a shit ton about our local water supply out here.) First thing he did was call up Jack's Nutrients and told them their 3-part formula caused his grow to fail for cadmium, they said "bullshit, lots of grows use our nutrients in Colorado and never fail."

Not a single commercial grow could explain why they flush, other than "a consultant told us" or the best (and most plausible one) I've heard was "it saves us 2 weeks worth of not spending money on nutrients," and that's probably one of the best reasons right there.

Commercial growers are just home growers that are growing in scale. There isn't anything specifically magical about it, a lot of the same products we use at home are used in commercial growing. And a lot of the bro science from home growing is just STEEPED in the commercial side, because these are the same guys like you and me that have been piecing together scraps of info for decades trying to figure out what's what.

i understand this, but the collective bro knowledge gets treated like cult gospel. if any data comes about that contradicts this gospel they plug their ears and say "nah-nah-nah".

That's the internet brother. You will NEVER not have that way of thinking; but it's in places like this that we try to promote the civil discussion of said topics so we can try to get to a "generally agreed on" consensus. That's the beauty of a peer-based community, we get the collective knowledge of thousands of people. And when we can use science to back up that knowledge and everyone goes "ah yeah, this DOES make sense," that's how we start making changes in the way people think about things.

 

[Son of Hobbes]

Here's a good one right here; the other day someone asked what giving plants 48 hours of darkness before harvest actually does.

Wanna guess how many answers came back on that one? And wanna guess how many had virtually NOTHING scientific to back them up?

 

[Mañ'O'Green]

I would like to point out that much real science begins with bro-science. Observation is key in much science and bro science is observation -> conclusion. Then the real science then tries to actually explain what has been observed. The bro science may be totally wrong as to the cause of the observation but it in no way does that diminish what has been observed.

I did not listen to the podcast too long for me. The observations I have had over many years is that the soil underneath the compost piles will become the best in the garden. The logical extension of that is that good shit is leaching into the soil - Tea?

 

[Sour D]

Science is the most accurate process devised by humans.
My rating on a scale of 1-10 is BroScience = 2, RealScience = 10.
All scientists understand that the principles they discover will get more accurate as more evidence becomes available.
Sometimes the results of a single scientific study will be inaccurately reported as the best evidence by the press, when in fact it isn't.
Coffee and butter come to mind.

Another example.
When covid-19 first happened, scientists advised us not to wear masks because they thought the health care workers needed them all.
As more evidence became available, mask wearing was seen to be of crucial importance.
So now scientists advise wearing masks.
At every stage, scientists gave the best advice available at the time.
But sometimes the best evidence available is poor, and the judgements made from the evidence will also be poor.

Were scientists wrong?
Yes and no.
Yes, because their recommendations were the best available using the given data, but no because more data showed the recommendations were wrong.

I learned some years ago through ServSaf managers program that masks were just to make people feel safe.
The last 3 months I've been going to an infectious disease doctor. Up until the city started requiring masks, they weren't required in his office. I asked him about it and he said the same thing. Up until the bans, go into any grocery store and I never saw 1 nurse, fireman, policeman, emt wearing one.
Medical personnel wear them when treating patients but as soon as they are done, they take it off and will put on a new one when moving to another patient. Wearing one all day will not help you. If you come in close contact with someone who has it, you're more likely to get it.

 

[Sour D]

FWIW. When it comes to all living things, I believe a lot of scientists when they say "We just don't have enough information." As far as I'm concerned, if it works for you, go for it