Re: [compost_tea] Re: Just a thought . . .

From: Robert Norsen <bnbrew_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:20:52 -0800 (PST)

Butch, Tom, Littlejohn and et al Down thru history 99% of the significant advances in science started with and progressed with the infomation learned by non-scientific observation & "exploration" often by non scientific people, often by scientists. I doubt that you CAN separate purely scientific action from action in the field that preceeds and follows "scientific" work, whatever the boundary may be. IN any case if you want to isolate what is going on in the field, consider only purely scientific jargon your LIST will be a blizzard of blank..
 
With compost, the startting point is anything but measurable or definable. I dare you to find a line between practical action and science. ACT is exactly the same. NO exact item as ACT. So now you are going to apply an indefinite product to a less definite situationm agriculture,and attain an indefinte result. So reports are going to be an exact science?
 
Tell me how. Sure set up controls - that vary greatly from nearby test plots, set up test plots, - similar but not exact, run 3, run more, learn some. Do you know more from this science than the results of a few hundred farmers who experioenced a result? Use both? OK.
When you can't produce an exact way to test tell me why we should not learn from honest observation? Are many anacdotal reports less valid evidence?
 
I have worked in and around science all my life. Testing a known exact alloy for an exact property, science can define performance Start with an unknown thousands of ariables. apply to an area of as many variables. The scientist better be ready to listen to the farmer.
 
What do you think Jeff? Are we only interested in whatever some of the list call Science?
What do you think, Elaine? Is everything you learn from, teach, science?
Are the thrilling reports of bannana plantations rescued from economic failure, the palm tree rescues, the live oak tree cures, the better potatoe crops, the higher nutrient values recorded, the exciting reports from Betsy, all useless because there were no controls, no formal repeated proof, no white coated scientists recording details, making graghs, subimitting tedious reports.? Just blue jean farmers reporting results?
 
Where except at Monsanto does pure agricultural science happen ? And why there?
 
Now exit the economic aspect of ACT from the LIST. The value to farmers, the value in the food market, the identification of sources of how and where to get the supplies, the machines, the testing of the stuff involved . The list will become even more blank. Is that the objective? Bob
                               Hmmm, can see a wild thread from this
butch ragland <wilddog_202_at_yahoo.com> wrote:

Tom, don't take this as any disagreement except one.

As I read this post, this list is not the place for my
thoughts on sales or even anecdotal results unless
they want to have those reports scrutinized by those
more steeped in the scientific method. The list has
not appeared to me to be closely censored and I assume
you are not planning to start now. Yet, I think some
of us should censor ourselves for the sake of staying
closer to the purpose.

I do question whether you can speak for what farmers
want. Some, such as farmers or sales people who want a
different course should start a list which would not
have to complete with this list. Unless I have science
to report then I feel my place should be to ask
questions of those involved in basic research and who
feel they have progressed far enough to recommend
based on that research.

As interesting as Betsy's cow story was it did not
reach science and personal attacks surely do not
qualify.

If I missed the point let me know?

--- Tom Jaszewski wrote:

>
>
> "It is the list administrators' intentions to
> protect the integrety
> of the science of compost teas and their benefits by
> promoting
> science over ancedotal "evidence." "
>
> If innuendo is sufficient for some so be it, but
> don't assume all
> farmers have disdain for good science.
>
>
>
> --- In compost_tea_at_yahoogroups.com, John R
>
wrote:
> > I can't help but notice how long a thread will
> > progress before the concept of
> peer-review/scientific
> > credibility etc creeps in then takes over. Usually
> > three comments at most. I guess it is
> unsurprising, as
> > many of the regular contributors rely on the
> benefits
> > of ACT for a living.
> >
> > However I do wonder just how important this is.
>
>
>
>
>

=====
Butch Ragland
Conflict is as addictive as
cocaine, alcohol, cigarettes,etc
I'm sorry to report that
cooperation is not



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail




Yahoo! Groups Links














Received on Mon Feb 14 2005 - 17:14:19 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 07 2012 - 14:15:46 EST