Moon phases

Sambucus_Nigra

westiea wrote: »

Good lord.A simple question has turned into a lecture on physics!

By all means have, but please do not, reiterate opinions endlessly.

We all garden in different ways - and thats what makes gardeners/gardens so interesting - we hopefully do not a dogmatic approach to what we do - but are open minded enough to listen and if wanted, take on new ideas to try! Experimentation is always on going in my garden - and I am sure most off us have the same approach (given time of course!)

What a narrow minded and boring place the earth would be if we all approached gardening in the same fashion -

genetically developed plants anyone?!

Aye, debate and interest stifled by one person shoving their opinion down everyone's throat....over and over. Very sad.

esuhl

Lotus-eater wrote: »

Nothing wrong with trying it. I know a few people that swear it works really well.

The problem is... people believe all sorts of nonsense. If this method has no effect, random variation will result in 50% of trials resulting in better crops that usual, while 50% will be worse. People with a positive result, who engage in unscientific/magical thinking are likely to think that this confirms their mistaken beliefs: a classic post hoc fallacy.

Even in this supposedly enlightened age, magical mumbo-jumbo is everywhere: people (such as Gillian McKeith) publish books in which they deludedly claim that blue foods are good for treating "urinary tract infections, kidney problems, {and} fevers" because of the frequency of molecular vibrations.

A shopping website I used recently stocks a ~£15 device that you plug in to your car's cigarette lighter socket. What does it do? It "stabilize(s) excessive voltage" in your car's electrical system, and "regulate(s) the density of the negative ion to fresh air", which will "increase the lifespan of the engine"... apparently. How reckless of car manufacturers to omit such an important and useful component in an attempt to save £15 on a £30,000 car, wouldn't you say?

In the hi-fi world, there are people who think it's sensible to pay $1800 for a power cable. Electricity has come into their house via hundreds of miles of cheap, industrial power lines from power stations with fluctuating outputs, but that last metre is all that counts. Even when the mains power will be transformed and smoothed with sophisticated electronics, the cable is supposed to have a noticible effect on audio quality.

And on the High Street, Boots are quite happy to sell mumbo-jumbo homeopathy "cures" to anyone willing to hand over the cash, whilst admitting that they have "no evidence to suggest they are efficacious".

People will believe anything. Look at the effectiveness of advertisements that show a (staged) correlation between the use of a product and sexual appeal. Even "new age" spiritualists would (I presume) accept that such implied claims are clearly nonsense, but how many people unconsciously buy a certain brand of deodorant in the hope that they will notice "the Lynx effect"?

For anyone interested, there's some articles on biodynamics here:
Waldorf Watch on biodynamics
The World of Fine Wine Magazine on biodynamics

Lotus-eater

esuhl wrote: »

The problem is... people believe all sorts of nonsense.
If this method has no effect, random variation will result in 50% of trials resulting in better crops that usual, while 50% will be worse.

So let them believe and/or let them try it. I don't believe in God, but it doesn't stop a whole load of people being happy in believing.


The rest of your post has nothing to do with the subject.

The wisest old gardeners I know, when I come out with some weird idea or teaching, always say "well, try it then, it might work, never worked for me and I can't see the reasoning behind it, but who's to say it won't work for you".

cootambear

esuhl wrote: »

The problem is... people believe all sorts of nonsense. If this method has no effect, random variation will result in 50% of trials resulting in better crops that usual, while 50% will be worse. People with a positive result, who engage in unscientific/magical thinking are likely to think that this confirms their mistaken beliefs: a classic post hoc fallacy.

Even in this supposedly enlightened age, magical mumbo-jumbo is everywhere: people (such as Gillian McKeith) publish books in which they deludedly claim that blue foods are good for treating "urinary tract infections, kidney problems, {and} fevers" because of the frequency of molecular vibrations.

A shopping website I used recently stocks a ~£15 device that you plug in to your car's cigarette lighter socket. What does it do? It "stabilize(s) excessive voltage" in your car's electrical system, and "regulate(s) the density of the negative ion to fresh air", which will "increase the lifespan of the engine"... apparently. How reckless of car manufacturers to omit such an important and useful component in an attempt to save £15 on a £30,000 car, wouldn't you say?

In the hi-fi world, there are people who think it's sensible to pay $1800 for a power cable. Electricity has come into their house via hundreds of miles of cheap, industrial power lines from power stations with fluctuating outputs, but that last metre is all that counts. Even when the mains power will be transformed and smoothed with sophisticated electronics, the cable is supposed to have a noticible effect on audio quality.

And on the High Street, Boots are quite happy to sell mumbo-jumbo homeopathy "cures" to anyone willing to hand over the cash, whilst admitting that they have "no evidence to suggest they are efficacious".

People will believe anything. Look at the effectiveness of advertisements that show a (staged) correlation between the use of a product and sexual appeal. Even "new age" spiritualists would (I presume) accept that such implied claims are clearly nonsense, but how many people unconsciously buy a certain brand of deodorant in the hope that they will notice "the Lynx effect"?

For anyone interested, there's some articles on biodynamics here:
Waldorf Watch on biodynamics
The World of Fine Wine Magazine on biodynamics

stop ramming things down peoples throats

zarazara

Did anyone watch the Alan Titchmarsh prog?

lostinrates

zarazara wrote: »

Did anyone watch the Alan Titchmarsh prog?

Yes, and it was undeniably a very beautiful garden...but well staffed to isn't it?

I was wondering about the not watering anything mantra that man had. doesn't it make things ...like salads...bitter?

Sambucus_Nigra

lostinrates wrote: »

Yes, and it was undeniably a very beautiful garden...but well staffed to isn't it?

I was wondering about the not watering anything mantra that man had. doesn't it make things ...like salads...bitter?

Salads go bitter when they flower. By mulching [I presume that was what was shown] the plants dig their roots deep and get their water from below......and the mulch stops water evaporating from the soil and thus keeps the water where it should be. Below ground!

lostinrates

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Salads go bitter when they flower. By mulching [I presume that was what was shown] the plants dig their roots deep and get their water from below......and the mulch stops water evaporating from the soil and thus keeps the water where it should be. Below ground!

Thanks, I do mulch but perhaps not thickly enough, I shall think about that next year. I usually batch sow (sometimes in planters not the ground) so rarely leave salads any where near long enough to flower, but find when I've been lazy about watering I get a bitter taste. Hmm. I shall definitely try the thicker mulch. But we actually have our own, pretty plentiful water supply here, and were planning to rig that up to water ...it would be a shame to waste it.

Parva

Quite amusing watching the handbags at dawn brigade. Ultimately some people will believe that its effects work for them, others will dispute it. Similarly, there have been countless experiments where people have been given real pills and placebo pills and the jury is still out on that too.

The arguments will continue to rage for many millenia after I have departed this mortal coil but I would like my epitaph to read that whilst I didn't necessarily agree with the method or theory behind them, they worked for those that used them and they believed in them.

I still see many people sporting copper bands on their wrists which were supposed to alleviate the symptoms of rheumatism amongst other things.

There's likely no scientific proof that any of the above is really true but ultimately human belief in something can make a huge difference in their perception of what they are doing will change things.

In short, live and let live! I don't believe that lucky charms work but it doesn't stop my friend winning small amounts regularly on the lottery. (Swine!)

cootambear

Parva wrote: »

Quite amusing watching the handbags at dawn brigade. Ultimately some people will believe that its effects work for them, others will dispute it. Similarly, there have been countless experiments where people have been given real pills and placebo pills and the jury is still out on that too.

The arguments will continue to rage for many millenia after I have departed this mortal coil but I would like my epitaph to read that whilst I didn't necessarily agree with the method or theory behind them, they worked for those that used them and they believed in them.

I still see many people sporting copper bands on their wrists which were supposed to alleviate the symptoms of rheumatism amongst other things.

There's likely no scientific proof that any of the above is really true but ultimately human belief in something can make a huge difference in their perception of what they are doing will change things.

In short, live and let live! I don't believe that lucky charms work but it doesn't stop my friend winning small amounts regularly on the lottery. (Swine!)

The placebo effect is powerful. If you give someone a sugar pill and tell them its a powerful painkiller, their back pain will diminish. But doctors are not supposed to lie to their patients.

So, what they do is give 50% of patients the new drug to be tested, and 50% the sugar pill (the placebo). This is done `blind` ie neither the patients nor the testers know which has been given until after the tests.

Next they compare the results. Both groups will have had a reduction in pain - the placebo effect.

But it the drug group has a significantly higher reduction in pain, then they know they are not something good.

If you read `bad science` by ben goldacre, you`ll know more about this fascinating subject than your gp.