Peat_Phreak
- 540
- 143
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.
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.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.
The only thing I've ever noticed is different based on veg time, is the size of the plant when it enters flower.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.
I don't think you understand the study at all. It's bs- not science.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.
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.
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.You need to measure the THC. The study is not about the perception of getting high.
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.I don't think you understand the study at all. It's bs- not science.
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 winsMeta 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.
I don't think you understand the study at all. It's bs- not science.
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
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.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.
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.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.
If they didn't use identical clones grown under identical conditions- it doesn't mean shit.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.
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
Ahahahahahahaha. Oh, you weren't joking. Wow.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.
It's what @Aqua Man posted above ...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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?