Damn it's strange how so many of us have this desire to put our knowledge out to the world

[Peat_Phreak]

This just means they have a theory. The data is flawed because it's from different studies which means different strain, environment, ect.. Now a study has to be done on various strains in the same environment with various veg times by one team to prove the theory.

What they did is a meta analysis of many credible studies. This is a common practice in science. Think of it as an average of all the studies. Even tho it isn't technically an average.

This is far more credible than all the anecdotes bro scientists can provide.

 

[josefrahl]

What they did is a meta analysis of many credible studies. This is a common practice in science. Think of it as an average of all the studies. Even tho it isn't technically an average.

This is far more credible than all the anecdotes bro scientists can provide.

Yes, a common practice to develop a theory. You take their data, formulate a theory, shop it around to get a grant, and perform your own tests to prove it. When presented as real science it's what is called junk science, and is usually used in political arguments to fake facts.

 

[TSD]

It's 100% bullshit. Anyone can prove it. Plant a seed, clone it and flower right away then veg the other. I've never been able to notice any difference at all. Some might say otherwise, but I can't. It's always exactly the same.

The only thing I've ever noticed is different based on veg time, is the size of the plant when it enters flower.

 

[growsince79]

What they did is a meta analysis of many credible studies. This is a common practice in science. Think of it as an average of all the studies. Even tho it isn't technically an average.

This is far more credible than all the anecdotes bro scientists can provide.

I don't think you understand the study at all. It's bs- not science.

 

[Shaded_One]

A study is always specific to its variables… the worst thing people can do is blanket results as a factual blanket statement as has been shown time and time again in the scientific community. To many variables to make blanket statements.

eg. at over 1000ppfd green become the most photosynthetic spectrum. Low ppfd it is the least.

Eg. Par range was thought to be the only photosynthetic spectral range until other studies proved this wrong… i haven’t read a study that has not had a flaw or potential misinterpretation point in it.

tldr: data from a study while can give a general concept is not applicable to being ised as fact outside of its specific study.

Yep and sample size is a huge factor missing in a lot of these "scientific studies"

If I ask you to flip a coin 10 times and you get heads 8/10 times is the probability really 80%? Some times you need to increase your scope/sample size to get truly accurate results and I just don't see that happening on a large scale with cannabis very often or at all.

 

[growsince79]

You need to measure the THC. The study is not about the perception of getting high.

No I don't need to- I've done it more times than I can count- I know they are exactly the same. You should grow a clone with different veg times and see for yourself.

 

[TSD]

I don't think you understand the study at all. It's bs- not science.

Meta analysis is for combining double blind studies of things like side effects from new medications.... there are so many factors that effect final yield in growing... it would be near impossible to factor them all in and come up with a solid answer... it's a theory, not proof of anything really.

 

[josefrahl]

Meta analysis is for combining double blind studies of things like side effects from new medications.... there are so many factors that effect final yield in growing... it would be near impossible to factor them all in and come up with a solid answer... it's a theory, not proof of anything really.

Yeah, this is pretty much deciding the criterion after the experiment is done. Basically, they played rock-paper-scissors with a friend a bunch of times, then decided what beats what to get the most wins

 

[Aqua Man]

Id say its issues are that the conclusions are drawn over a string of a narrowly scoped individual studies and variables that are applied far to widely ignoring the impact that the extremely large differences in variables that almost certainly will change the results. Its largely based on assumptions that changing variables will not change the conclusion…. To me its a flawed summary but thats not to say it does not contain useful or factual information but rather reaches to far in its conclusion

I only skimmed through it but appears that way to me.

 

[Peat_Phreak]

I don't think you understand the study at all. It's bs- not science.

Analyzing 26 peer reviewed studies and reporting the results is a long way from being bullshit.

No I don't need to- I've done it more times than I can count- I know they are exactly the same. You should grow a clone with different veg times and see for yoursel

Now this is a good example of a BS anecdote, unless you have proof. You can prove it by doing a proper experiment, writing a paper and getting science to accept and publish your results.

 

[Moe.Red]

As someone who has actually done this testing, personally measuring THC and cannabinoids along the way, I will just state this "study" arrives at inaccurate conclusions.

Call me a bro scientist all you want Peat Phreak, but I think I am pretty far from it.

Veg time is your friend to size your plants. That's it. It does not steer the genetics of the plant.

 

[Moe.Red]

Analyzing 26 peer reviewed studies and reporting the results is a long way from being bullshit.



Now this is a good example of a BS anecdote, unless you have proof. You can prove it by doing a proper experiment, writing a paper and getting science to accept and publish your results.

You know, I don't have any trouble getting growers here to accept the studies I post. Its not like we are anti-science here. We are anti-bad science.

You gotta see that you are fighting a loosing battle here, right? This is essentially a peer review process happening in real time right here at the farm. You just don't like what your peers are telling you. Science has no place for feelings, sorry.

 

[Peat_Phreak]

I don't care if my peers choose not to believe in science. This isn't a battle. I'm not here to convince anyone. You can believe whatever you want. I believe in science. It's pretty sad that some people choose to ignore science when it doesn't support their point of view.

 

[Moe.Red]

I don't care if my peers choose not to believe in science. This isn't a battle. I'm not here to convince anyone. You can believe whatever you want. I believe in science. It's pretty sad that so many choose to ignore science when it doesn't support their point of view.

Right back at you big boy. I asked you to debate this specific paper. You said no, I have to debate it with the people who wrote it. Then you go on to continue to advocate for it.

It's like you are trying to pass yourself off as some learned scientific professional, and we are all Cro-Magnon because we find several faults in your gospel.

I'm out, nothing to be gained here only a time suck.

 

[Peat_Phreak]

Right back at you big boy. I asked you to debate this specific paper. You said no, I have to debate it with the people who wrote it. Then you go on to continue to advocate for it.

It's like you are trying to pass yourself off as some learned scientific professional, and we are all Cro-Magnon because we find several faults in your gospel.

I'm out, nothing to be gained here only a time suck.

It's because there isn't anything to debate. The only thing that can be done to refute the result of the meta analysis is for you to link some credible papers that support what you are saying. The problem with this is I don't think they exist. I've read about 6-8 papers on the topic and they all support the general result of the meta analysis.

 

[growsince79]

Analyzing 26 peer reviewed studies and reporting the results is a long way from being bullshit.



Now this is a good example of a BS anecdote, unless you have proof. You can prove it by doing a proper experiment, writing a paper and getting science to accept and publish your results.

If they didn't use identical clones grown under identical conditions- it doesn't mean shit.
You can easily prove it for yourself using clones. Anything else is bs. Start a grow diary and make a clone- I'll watch.

 

[Aqua Man]

Can i point out that its not a study… its a summary of individual studies and therefore just an interpretation with a massive amount of speculation

 

[Peat_Phreak]

Can i point out that its not a study… its a summary of individual studies and therefore just an interpretation with a massive amount of speculation

I know what it is. Since people have a problem with this meta analysis, they can read one or more of the 26 studies the analysis is based on.

 

[Moe.Red]

It's because there isn't anything to debate. The only thing that can be done to refute the result of the meta analysis is for you to link some credible papers that support what you are saying.

Ahahahahahahaha. Oh, you weren't joking. Wow.

It's like you have never heard of the scientific method. In your world it goes like this:

I'mma make a statement.

It's up to you to disprove it. By creating a study, a credible paper, and then get it peer reviewed.

You got that backwards my dude. Responsibility of proof is on the one making the claim. Pretty basic stuff here.

 

[MIGrampaUSA]

Can i point out that its not a study… its a summary of individual studies and therefore just an interpretation with a massive amount of speculation

It's what @Aqua Man posted above ...

It's more like a statistical analysis which can be subjective in how its interpreted