Subject: Re: generalizations
From: mrc@hpuerci.atl.hp.com (Mike Chisholm)
Organization: the HP Response Center, Atlanta
Date: 24 Sep 1997 16:55:10 GMT
Message-ID: <MOD$970924.12705@rec.gardens.ecosystems>
References: <MOD$970922.22377@rec.gardens.ecosystems> <MOD$970922.26760@rec.gardens.ecosystems>


William D Hulet (whulet@uoguelph.ca) wrote:

: On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, Bill Robinson wrote:

: > Andrew Lopez made some generalizations about synthetic materials vs.
: > organic materials. Like most generalizations, I think that they are

: I wonder about the structure of this debate. Is gardening a
: cultural or a scientific enterprise? If it is cultural, then shouldn't we
: be discussing values, rules of thumb, and, ways of envisioning the world?
: If it is a science, then we should be arguing about details and evidence.

Can't it be both? How do rules of thumb come about, except by observation of
results of various techniques? Is this not "science" in it's most basic form?
I agree that it might not be good science in that we aren't necessarily
logging empirical data points and developing theories that are to be proven
wrong, but we do say, over the course of generations maybe, that "Well, great
Grandpa always planted his beans at time X, and I always have too, and I've
always had good results." Instant rule of thumb based on observation. You
might not get the best yield possible, and the "rule"(plant at time X) might
not be the real reason you get good results, but hey, that's why I say it
might not be "good" science.

: The problems that confront our society ( and our gardens ) don't
: wait until all the evidence is in. Nor is there any way that we can ever
: know if we've figured out the problem completely. (Science progresses
: through the development of theories that can be proven wrong---not by
: discovering the "ultimate truth".)

: What I'm interested in is learning new viewpoints and finding new
: questions to ask when I look at a problems. I think that it is pointless
: to discuss the relative toxicity of a specific poison when it seems
: obvious to me that the need to use poison on our garden is already a
: statement to alienation from nature. I also think that it should be
: obvious to anyone with insight that this alienation from nature is one of
: the key problems that confronts our present society.

: If I wanted to discuss the relative toxicity of one poison versus
: another I think that I'd go to another conference. Here I want to learn
: how people have found out to sidestep the whole problem. I am not a
: scientist and I don't think that science will have very much to do with
: any solutions to either problems in my garden or problems in my world.

I do think that science(the process) has value in the garden, and should not
be ignored as a valid path to gardening success. I too am trying my best to
not use synthetic chemicals in my gardening, but the newsgroup is
rec.garden.ecosystems, and whether we like it or not, the human race is very
much a part of the ecosystem, and discussion of man-made chemicals is(IMHO) a
good thing. At least it gets people to thinking. I do think that people
sometimes get too tied up in the proper definition of organic gardening.
There's a loose definition based on trying to work with nature to solve
problems, then there's the government(at least in the US) definition which
goes on to be far to wordy and convoluted to be understandable by most.
I am not a scientist either, but I think that the scientific method is valid
for most problem solving.

Uhhh, exempt "relationships" from that last sentence... ;^)

:
: > much like a growth hormone both in structure and in activity. I wouldn't
: > expect
: > the break down products to be any more toxic or less toxic than the break
: > down products of a conventional protein or carbohydrate. How about some
: > data?
: >
: > Bill

Mike C