'science of growing' thread?

[Episteme]

I could be a lone wolf on this one - but figured I'd float it to see if anyone else would be interested. (sorry for the mixed metaphore)

With all the various oppinions regarding every aspect of growing, I thought it might be useful to have a 'basic science' thread, maybe include Botany 101 and Chemistry101 sub-threads? Would make for an interesting couple of reference 'stickies'... As I continue to think out loud... this may lend itself nicely to a 'myth-busters' sub-thread too.

I'd be willing to draft the first sticky's provided others would be willing to contribute/critique/use.

Your thoughts?

[Episteme]

Some kind soul pointed me over to...

THE FILLABONG SHOW!

https://www.hempcultivation.com/420/...ad.php?t=73911

works for me!

[NoneOYurs]

The Fillabong show could in itself become a sub-forum-thread-area.

[Episteme]

True, The Fillabong Show would fit nicely into a 'science' sub thread. But, I don't want to step on toes here - if Fillabong is already providing the science, and he's doing a fantastic job in my oppinion, then why duplicate... unless other's also feel the need to square this off for clearer focus, and open it up to more contributors.

Either way, not too much interest thus far, so I'm just incorporating a 'pontifications' section of my journals from now on, so that I personally have a place to scribe info with varying degrees of rigour (I have a good mind for science, but lowsy retention ).

[Xgone.]

Maybe the science category could replace the theories category with a sub-forum for mj theories. Just a thought about how to arrange.

x.

[Episteme]

I agree that theory is a big part of the scientific method...

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/ph...AppendixE.html

Theory definately has it's own place in the scientific method - providing creative problem solving aspects... and would ultimately feed any scientific thread... theory has always been the seed of experimental science (sorry, couldn't resist the blatent metaphore).

Asside from experimental science, there are proven laws of nature that are well documented and don't require experimentation (eg, basic chemical and biological principles) to be drawn from.

So, I would see the science thread using a 'template' of sorts, using theories as the entry point.

Eg.

Theory (phenomenon identification and initial perceptions)

hypothesis (initial perception of 'why' a phenomenon exists)

observed evidence (your experience which leads you to believe that a theory may be true)

research (other folk's experiences and proven references to known facts)

experimental design (what factors are affecting the experiment, and how they are managed compared to a baseline 'control' for measureing the results)

results (measurable data)

Conclusion (your interpertation/oppinion of the data)


I think that this would allow for incramentalism in our understandings (rather than perpetual duplication of efforts we find ourselves in now), bringing the whole process to the next level.

Once this was better documented (yes, it would be a bit of work to get started), then we could start to improve the information tools for the grower. Making it more convenient for the novice to grasp the concepts, and the more experienced to refine their art.

I'm thinking something along the lines of an eventual program to include some the the direct and indirect relational math so that inividuals could easily calculate, measure and tweak their nutrients, temperatures, airflow, and alike.

A fue of these calculators exist already for airflow and a couple others... if you haven't used them, think RRSP/401K or morgage calculators - allows you to calculate your best tax contribution based in independent factors like income and other contributions.

This would provide a whole new level of certainty regarding our shared interest.

This would also allow those who don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of their grow to be less dependent on others for every step of the process. My only concern would be the consequence to the 'community'... eg. if we didn't question things as much, would we still be as social as we are? Dunno - maybe I'm just dreaming out loud at this pt.

[penguin]

Why compartmentalize the science off into it's own corner?

In other words, shouldn't sound science play a big role in every grow and every thread about growing?


penguin

[penguin]

Yeah, but

What kind of dirt? How much light? How much fresh air? How much water? What kind of fertilizers, at what times? What about temp and RH?

Science.....


penguin

[Episteme]

Hey Penguin

I think that science is ultimately behind all aspects of sharing information and experiences, whether tacit or explicit, on this site. Additionally, I wouldn't suggest that this would take the place of the science used to cultivate understanding throughout the site.

I find that the process of scanning all the information developed through conversations on this site is somewhat time consuming, repetative and at times conflicting... resulting in the continuation of false beliefs (eg. using birth control pills in the res, or the inability for cloning to occure in rockwool...)

For me, it is the age-old question of segregating oppinion from fact to inform decision. The root of confidence as it were.

http://www.mun.ca/phil/phil3920/dogmatic.shtml

[tangent alert]
Hence my question regarding the posssible affect on the culture of this site - if definitive information was readily available, with the capacity to drill-down into the 'why' of the matter - then what would be the instigation to casual conversation? But, I digress (again).

Maybe it's my own discomfort with abstraction, but having a place where I could archive what has been shown to be true would be of great benifit to me personally. Whether others would also benefit is what is of question - and I certain

I don't discount the possiblity that this concept may be my own insecurity with the relativity of truth - what can I say, I'm more than a little guarded when forced to rely on faith... [/tangent alert]