G
greenmatter
and somehow my plants still grow.
thank you jebus ....... for IC
thank you jebus ....... for IC
-
As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.
Do (some, many) Icmag Members Have A Science Problem?
- Thread starter Cannabologist
- Start date
LayedBack
Member
Science is one of the few things that I actually sort of trust heh. Sure medical science is a bit flaky, especially at first though it's also very important. And science also helps explain the laws of our universe and how all of us came to be on this little world of ours. It kind of gives the same satisfaction to a person as a religion except with science you can actually back what you're saying up with cold hard facts. Though even the most plausible and long-standing physics theories aren't exactly safe, I do think we seem to have the basics down. At least that's what they say haha.
On the flip end of that science can also bring the world to it's knees through the atomic and hydrogen bombs. And our kind might end up in some sort of cyberpunk dystopian future if we aren't careful!
Of course what do I know, I'm just a lazy stoner who likes to read fiction novels and grow weed for the most part... Couldn't even begin to explain even the most minor scientific theories.
On the flip end of that science can also bring the world to it's knees through the atomic and hydrogen bombs. And our kind might end up in some sort of cyberpunk dystopian future if we aren't careful!
Of course what do I know, I'm just a lazy stoner who likes to read fiction novels and grow weed for the most part... Couldn't even begin to explain even the most minor scientific theories.
I was reading this thread and thinking of this the whole time and hoped I would get to post it.
Then BAM last page...
I bow to you sir.
Lol,
Don't bow to me...
I'm just barely smart enough to know when someone else can condense his thoughts into a coherent statement that I can agree with.
Sagan's particular genius is taking the esoteric idea and making it sound like plain common sense.
An uncommon gift.
I love the fact that people still read his stuff.
You probably know he was the mysterious anonymous reference in Grinspoon's Marihuana Reconsidered.
Sagan was ahead of his time but needed to say what he did when he did.
And thank science for that.
Oh and mrcreosote...
Deal with it.
You probably know he was the mysterious anonymous reference in Grinspoon's Marihuana Reconsidered.
Sagan was ahead of his time but needed to say what he did when he did.
And thank science for that.
Oh and mrcreosote...
Deal with it.
Dilbert Do
Member
My biggest gripe with the state of science today is that there is too little emphasis on replication. The whole point of documenting experiments is to allow for replication later. It's difficult to get funding to replicate an experiment (isn't sexy enough), so there are lots of new results without any independent verification. This leads to shit science lingering.
Funding affects research in astounding ways.
And while I'm here...
I don't understand the thread starters proposition which is why I dropped in.
Do some IC maggers have a problem with science?
I suppose it's possible, but the fact that they are here and not trying to grow with a 60 watt incandescent light or try planting in December (N.Lat.) suggests to me that IC maggers are, in fact, very curious types and are very much knowledge driven science advocates.
Some, perhaps, even maniacally so.
I'm grateful to em all because without them I wouldn't be growing some lip numbing fire weed.
So I'm going to say "No. We all love science. Big Time."
Doesn't matter anyway. Every time your lights go on or you feed your plants or even if you only stick seeds in the ground and walk away, your deeply involved in the science of botany whether you realize it or not.
You can't escape science, you can only deny it.
I don't understand the thread starters proposition which is why I dropped in.
Do some IC maggers have a problem with science?
I suppose it's possible, but the fact that they are here and not trying to grow with a 60 watt incandescent light or try planting in December (N.Lat.) suggests to me that IC maggers are, in fact, very curious types and are very much knowledge driven science advocates.
Some, perhaps, even maniacally so.
I'm grateful to em all because without them I wouldn't be growing some lip numbing fire weed.
So I'm going to say "No. We all love science. Big Time."
Doesn't matter anyway. Every time your lights go on or you feed your plants or even if you only stick seeds in the ground and walk away, your deeply involved in the science of botany whether you realize it or not.
You can't escape science, you can only deny it.
here's Rupert sheldrake to break some of the problem down for you all..
i encourage all to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
this talk was banned because it is too true..
i encourage all to watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
this talk was banned because it is too true..
Last edited:
the problem isn't with scientists or scientist it is with the icmag members who use science and then judge others based on it
if the anyone here had a true command of plant breeding science they would be able to actually entertain any of the other variables I have questioned in the breeder thread as they are standard components in a plant breeding certificate program
here is the curriculum for certification in plant breeding from the University of California
notice the import they put on topic such as
Population improvement vs cultivar development
GxE and decisions in population development
Genetic correlation: treatment of GxE
Selection environment: single vs multiple environments
Designs to control GxE
Curriculum: The curriculum is being developed by instructors with input from industry leaders. The following topics will be covered during each course:
Introduction to plant breeding
Plant breeding objectives
Germplasm resources and pools
Crop evolution
Reproductive systems
Statistics
Sources of variance
Analysis of variance
Expected mean squares and mean separations
Genetics
Transmission genetics
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
Inbreeding coefficients
Quantitative genetics model
Inbreeding depression and hybrid vigor
Selection theory
Principles of selection and the gain equation
Heritability and extensions to relevant selection models
Use of block corrections in selection
Recombination and population development
Selection limits
Linkage drag
Recombination in inbred lines and populations
Polyploidy
Interspecific hybridization
Population size
Establishing and monitoring goals and priorities
Population improvement vs cultivar development
Minimum standards, intermediate optima, and directional response
Breeding methods 1
Line Breeding: bulk, pedigree, backcross
Selection methods 1
Single trait selection: mass selection, line selection, multiple stage selection
Breeding methods 2
Population improvement
Inbred line development
Evaluating hybrids and combining ability
Selection methods 2
Multiple trait selection: independent culling, tandem selection, selection indices
Indirect selection methods: theory
Linkage disequilibrium
Indirect selection methods: conventional breeding
Breeding with Molecular Markers
Bases and availability of markers
Population structure
Parental selection
QTL
Bioinformatics/Databases
Marker assisted selection and backcrossing
Genome assisted breeding
Genotype by environment interactions
GxE and decisions in population development
Genetic correlation: treatment of GxE
Selection environment: single vs multiple environments
Designs to control GxE
Variance component analysis
Breeding systems
Breeding for hybrids
Genetic control of pollination: sex expression, self-incompatibility, male sterility
Breeding cultivars
Breeding clones
Breeding populations (synthetics)
Resistance breeding
Diseases
Insects
Abiotic stress
Special topics
Mutation breeding
Biotechnology (transgenic)
Mechanization
Off season nurseries
Data management
Finishing varieties
Cultivars vs hybrids
Protecting varieties and intellectual property.
if the anyone here had a true command of plant breeding science they would be able to actually entertain any of the other variables I have questioned in the breeder thread as they are standard components in a plant breeding certificate program
here is the curriculum for certification in plant breeding from the University of California
notice the import they put on topic such as
Population improvement vs cultivar development
GxE and decisions in population development
Genetic correlation: treatment of GxE
Selection environment: single vs multiple environments
Designs to control GxE
Curriculum: The curriculum is being developed by instructors with input from industry leaders. The following topics will be covered during each course:
Introduction to plant breeding
Plant breeding objectives
Germplasm resources and pools
Crop evolution
Reproductive systems
Statistics
Sources of variance
Analysis of variance
Expected mean squares and mean separations
Genetics
Transmission genetics
Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium
Inbreeding coefficients
Quantitative genetics model
Inbreeding depression and hybrid vigor
Selection theory
Principles of selection and the gain equation
Heritability and extensions to relevant selection models
Use of block corrections in selection
Recombination and population development
Selection limits
Linkage drag
Recombination in inbred lines and populations
Polyploidy
Interspecific hybridization
Population size
Establishing and monitoring goals and priorities
Population improvement vs cultivar development
Minimum standards, intermediate optima, and directional response
Breeding methods 1
Line Breeding: bulk, pedigree, backcross
Selection methods 1
Single trait selection: mass selection, line selection, multiple stage selection
Breeding methods 2
Population improvement
Inbred line development
Evaluating hybrids and combining ability
Selection methods 2
Multiple trait selection: independent culling, tandem selection, selection indices
Indirect selection methods: theory
Linkage disequilibrium
Indirect selection methods: conventional breeding
Breeding with Molecular Markers
Bases and availability of markers
Population structure
Parental selection
QTL
Bioinformatics/Databases
Marker assisted selection and backcrossing
Genome assisted breeding
Genotype by environment interactions
GxE and decisions in population development
Genetic correlation: treatment of GxE
Selection environment: single vs multiple environments
Designs to control GxE
Variance component analysis
Breeding systems
Breeding for hybrids
Genetic control of pollination: sex expression, self-incompatibility, male sterility
Breeding cultivars
Breeding clones
Breeding populations (synthetics)
Resistance breeding
Diseases
Insects
Abiotic stress
Special topics
Mutation breeding
Biotechnology (transgenic)
Mechanization
Off season nurseries
Data management
Finishing varieties
Cultivars vs hybrids
Protecting varieties and intellectual property.
dang weird, i bet you would pass with a straight A if you enrolled... why should folks invest years or decades in understanding/trying to understand some things, only to be teased and asked ridicilous questions.... folks who really want to find out, pick up books, enroll at universities, do the work and get there eventually, others refuse/reject the possibilities and rather wait for others to do the work, and talk weird to impress even more desinformed indidviduals, ...
blessss
blessss
If you think selecting cultivars based on local environmental performance has no merit whatsoever in the improvement of said cultivar then spit it out the science of why.
Don't assume because you haven't bred your own shit, found success doing so in your personal life and local markets and done so for 20 years that I haven't
There is a reason I questioned the people who use science as a sole metric for success. There is a reason no one is coming out with the science that eliminates environment from the equation.
I didn't have the luxury of seed catalogs or legality but I did have the capacity to control certain inputs and can relate the value I experienced because of it.
you know how brutal IC is? ive posted plenty of pics. plenty of "anecdotal" observations, don't you think if my work didn't have merit I would have been crucified by now?
the biggest merit is I don't need ANYONES genetics and I don't breed for money so I don't have to be afraid of being completely fucking honest
keep questioning my integrity instead of my logic as if it hasn't wasted enough bandwidth
best way to make me out as an asshole is to simply prove me wrong with science,
ive certainly haven't been afraid to put enough out there for people to do so if my logic is so faulty.
Last edited:
I can see why it was deleted from TED talks.
It's absolute rubbish. He creates strawman 'dogmas' to knock down.
Real science works only with proofs, observable or mathematical.
One can claim anything but the fact that it can't be disproved DOES NOT make it true.
Quantum mechanics are changing the way we view everything anyway so what we once viewed as a steady state universe ain't necessarily so. In this respect, all science is open-ended ie. this is what we KNOW...so far.
He's making the false claim that science isn't perfect so it's too rigid. Science HAS to be rigid with proven repeatable results or a theory that explains the variables precisely or results remain in the realm of conjecture.
We could always blame what we don't know on witchcraft as an alternative?
worry not,
it wont be a problem for much longer - the icmag members who have taken the time and trouble to learn about science and explain it to others are all getting banned at an alarming rate.
soon it will just be stoner logic, myths and tinfoil hats - and people wonder why the cannabis movement isnt taken very seriously......
chalk that up as an opportunity missed, again.
VG.
it wont be a problem for much longer - the icmag members who have taken the time and trouble to learn about science and explain it to others are all getting banned at an alarming rate.
soon it will just be stoner logic, myths and tinfoil hats - and people wonder why the cannabis movement isnt taken very seriously......
chalk that up as an opportunity missed, again.
VG.
Fucking awesome. About time.
the title of the thread has the presumption that if your for one you're completely against the other.
there is value of course in the accumulative knowledge contained in the sciences.but as the dalai lama points out every experiment is inherantly biased because the observer is biased.so perhaps a look from time to time with a "beginners mind" is apptopriate. it removes the hazard of just taking peoples word for it.
The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics 1/6
[YOUTUBEIF]Zjd26JSaq64[/YOUTUBEIF]
there is value of course in the accumulative knowledge contained in the sciences.but as the dalai lama points out every experiment is inherantly biased because the observer is biased.so perhaps a look from time to time with a "beginners mind" is apptopriate. it removes the hazard of just taking peoples word for it.
The Dalai Lama and Quantum Physics 1/6
[YOUTUBEIF]Zjd26JSaq64[/YOUTUBEIF]
Last edited:
Does it really matter that two or more people see the same thing differently? I mean so what if someone wants to explain everything thru gods and improvable mythologies or thru observable data and a knowledge of the universe based on science. If one person says the sun rises in the east and sets in the west because of the direction our planet is rotating in and it's orbit in relation to the sun and another firmly believes that the god Apollo drags it across the sky every day in his flaming chariot. Will the rising and the setting of the sun change in any way if one side convinces the other side to change their belief or if they kill each other off trying to force their views down one another's throats?
I mean it's amazing how much time, energy and emotion our species invests in fighting over how people believe things to be, knowing that things will be what they are regardless of what we believe.
I mean it's amazing how much time, energy and emotion our species invests in fighting over how people believe things to be, knowing that things will be what they are regardless of what we believe.
They are not getting banned for promoting science they are getting banned for the way they constantly disrespect anyone that questions them. They think that they can say whatever they want and then say if you don't like my delivery too bad deal with it. Imagine if a vendor treated their product like that, perfectly good seeds until the delivery, then said I don't care if they are all smashed, you got your seeds didn't you.
People who didn't follow science but did it their way
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/technical/one_straw_revolution.pdf
http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010173.hensel.pdf
Keep on growing
ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/ID/technical/one_straw_revolution.pdf
http://www.soilandhealth.org/01aglibrary/010173.hensel.pdf
Keep on growing
sounds like a little bit of "science" must have been involved in finding out the "natures perfect nutrient blend for the farm" else they couldn't state is as such? or is it a book stating some ideologies being stated as facts???
as verdant pointed it out, no wonder knowledgeable folks stop sharing infos, why WASTE time explaining things to folks, who are to lazy to figure it out on their own??? it ain't like the 80s with no internet and easy access to nearly all infos needed (books, courses, video tutorials, forums, ...). also it is very sad to see far to many growers basing their understanding of biology only on their own observations, instead of coupling those with textbook knowledge... hence, when their beliefs get debunked instead of saying thx and drawing insight out of the situation, they start running "berserk" and start posting plethora of links to books, journals and other resources, to which most time they can't even comprehend the index much less the info contained -> the real problem in cannaBIZ not only on icmag...
it's sort of, a horticultural scientist having a discussion with franco from greenhouse... pointless :/
blessss
as verdant pointed it out, no wonder knowledgeable folks stop sharing infos, why WASTE time explaining things to folks, who are to lazy to figure it out on their own??? it ain't like the 80s with no internet and easy access to nearly all infos needed (books, courses, video tutorials, forums, ...). also it is very sad to see far to many growers basing their understanding of biology only on their own observations, instead of coupling those with textbook knowledge... hence, when their beliefs get debunked instead of saying thx and drawing insight out of the situation, they start running "berserk" and start posting plethora of links to books, journals and other resources, to which most time they can't even comprehend the index much less the info contained -> the real problem in cannaBIZ not only on icmag...
it's sort of, a horticultural scientist having a discussion with franco from greenhouse... pointless :/
blessss
