The Autoflower Network's​

Scientific Approach​

OIG2.p3T62RrPRQDE6ftoGD.jpg


presented by
Autoflower.org

afn512x512.png

Scientific Method



What is the Scientific Method?


In short, the scientific method produces answers to questions posed in the form of a working hypothesis (a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) that enables us to derive theories about what we observe in the world around us.

The power of scientific method is that it is repeatable; helping to provide unbiased answers to questions.

Scientific Method is a process consisting of:
  • systematic observation
  • measurement
  • experimentation
It is followed by:
  • formulation
  • testing
  • modification of hypothesis


What is "Bro Science?"


"Do you even grow, bro?"

You've probably heard this term tossed around in the cannabis space before, but what is it, why does it exist, and why should we care?

The term bro science is considered to be the overconfident and uninformed sharing of anecdotes or advice presented as facts but with no scientific basis.

It's believed to have originated from the body-building community, associated with bodybuilders imparting unproven or false tactics about training and nutrition to less educated bodybuilders.

Does that make bro science inherently wrong, false, or not true because it's anecdotal? Not entirely.

The Difference Between Anecdotal and Scientific Evidence

"I think, see, or observe, therefore it must be."


Anecdotal evidence can be defined as a testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience.

The difference between anecdotal and scientific evidence is that scientific evidence is proof based on findings from systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation.

One of the main risks of relying on anecdotal evidence is that it can lead to logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. It is considered the least certain type of scientific evidence and is rarely used as validating evidence.

If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered an unsound generalization.


Why is "Bro Science" Dangerous?


"Look at what I think I know!"

Bro science tries to appeal to authority versus science. It's not meant to be helpful; it's meant to impress.

Quite often when bro science is contested; those suggesting it become combative rather than being open minded or willing to discuss, pointing to pictures of their plants or grow as proof and evidence instead of providing actual scientific evidence. While bro science isn't necessarily inherently wrong or false, it's quite often NOT right (and lacks little to any scientific basis, or "pick and choose" science.) It can be wildly misleading, while the person suggesting it tries to be as convincing as possible.

Unfortunately, it can be very hard for new growers or uneducated growers to know the difference in the suggestions (especially in open forums and social platforms.) This is very damaging to the learning process when you have to sift through information and try to discern fact from fiction.

As growers we should be helping and empowering our fellow growers to learn, to want to learn, and to keep pushing the envelope on what we know and do not, but there's a fine line between discovery and understanding versus pretending to understand and passing it off as fact.


Challenging the Information


"Criticism is the backbone of the scientific method."


Truth isn't necessarily what an expert or an authority figure declares to be true, but rather what stands the tests of evidence and criticism. To discover the truth, we should be encouraging the challenging of information (the continual questioning of processes to find a better way to do things.)

It's easy to find confirmations of our ideas if we are looking for confirmations. The idea of science as falsification suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.

Challenging information is a chance for us to learn and grow; not as a way to attack another person's idea or show off.


How do I Constructively Challenge Someone's Claims?



Challenging information can seem like a challenge all in itself, especially online when we're often limited in the range of verbal and nonverbal communication cues that help us navigate discussions.

As growers striving for the truth, we need to be clear that we are challenging the idea, not the person. The emphasis should be on the spirit of making constructive improvement, rather than opposing something because "it wasn't invented here."

Science does not have “hard facts” but rather “significant facts” that are observed.

We encourage the challenging of our ideas with questions like "what are we missing here?" or "is there a better way to do this?"

We can encourage a formal "meeting of the minds" for the challenge process, where those with different aptitudes and expertise on the topic can discuss, brainstorm, and improve on the idea, as well as informally, with one-on-one discussion, casual conversation, or social group settings (like this forum!)

In any case, it's important that we stay calm, respectful, and ultimately keep the focus on the constructive improvement of the idea, not the individual.


Establishing Credibility & Reliability of Information



The reasonable acceptance of a claim often depends on the credibility of its source.

The credibility of individuals is generally a matter of their knowledge and experience on a topic, while maintaining honesty, accuracy, and objectivity.

The reliability of an information source should provide a well-reasoned argument or hypothesis based on strong evidence. Widely credible sources include scholarly and peer-reviewed articles and books for example.

Our credibility goals as a cannabis community should be to base our claims on credible and reliable facts that are free from bias (personal opinion,) and to be open to the idea that our own formed ideas may be proven false if the data provided doesn't support it.
 
Last edited:

The Autoflower Network's​

Scientific Approach​


Scientific Method



What is the Scientific Method?


In short, the scientific method produces answers to questions posed in the form of a working hypothesis (a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) that enables us to derive theories about what we observe in the world around us.

The power of scientific method is that it is repeatable; helping to provide unbiased answers to questions.

Scientific Method is a process consisting of:
  • systematic observation
  • measurement
  • experimentation
It is followed by:
  • formulation
  • testing
  • modification of hypothesis


What is "Bro Science?"


"Do you even grow, bro?"

You've probably heard this term tossed around in the cannabis space before, but what is it, why does it exist, and why should we care?

The term bro science is considered to be the overconfident and uninformed sharing of anecdotes or advice presented as facts but with no scientific basis.

It's believed to have originated from the body-building community, associated with bodybuilders imparting unproven or false tactics about training and nutrition to less educated bodybuilders.

Does that make bro science inherently wrong, false, or not true because it's anecdotal? Not entirely.

The Difference Between Anecdotal and Scientific Evidence

"I think, see, or observe, therefore it must be."


Anecdotal evidence can be defined as a testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience.

The difference between anecdotal and scientific evidence is that scientific evidence is proof based on findings from systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation.

One of the main risks of relying on anecdotal evidence is that it can lead to logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. It is considered the least certain type of scientific evidence and is rarely used as validating evidence.

If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered an unsound generalization.


Why is "Bro Science" Dangerous?


"Look at what I think I know!"

Bro science tries to appeal to authority versus science. It's not meant to be helpful; it's meant to impress.

Quite often when bro science is contested; those suggesting it become combative rather than being open minded or willing to discuss, pointing to pictures of their plants or grow as proof and evidence instead of providing actual scientific evidence. While bro science isn't necessarily inherently wrong or false, it's quite often NOT right (and lacks little to any scientific basis, or "pick and choose" science.) It can be wildly misleading, while the person suggesting it tries to be as convincing as possible.

Unfortunately, it can be very hard for new growers or uneducated growers to know the difference in the suggestions (especially in open forums and social platforms.) This is very damaging to the learning process when you have to sift through information and try to discern fact from fiction.

As growers we should be helping and empowering our fellow growers to learn, to want to learn, and to keep pushing the envelope on what we know and do not, but there's a fine line between discovery and understanding versus pretending to understand and passing it off as fact.


Challenging the Information


"Criticism is the backbone of the scientific method."


Truth isn't necessarily what an expert or an authority figure declares to be true, but rather what stands the tests of evidence and criticism. To discover the truth, we should be encouraging the challenging of information (the continual questioning of processes to find a better way to do things.)

It's easy to find confirmations of our ideas if we are looking for confirmations. The idea of science as falsification suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.

Challenging information is a chance for us to learn and grow; not as a way to attack another person's idea or show off.


How do I Constructively Challenge Someone's Claims?



Challenging information can seem like a challenge all in itself, especially online when we're often limited in the range of verbal and nonverbal communication cues that help us navigate discussions.

As growers striving for the truth, we need to be clear that we are challenging the idea, not the person. The emphasis should be on the spirit of making constructive improvement, rather than opposing something because "it wasn't invented here."

Science does not have “hard facts” but rather “significant facts” that are observed.

We encourage the challenging of our ideas with questions like "what are we missing here?" or "is there a better way to do this?"

We can encourage a formal "meeting of the minds" for the challenge process, where those with different aptitudes and expertise on the topic can discuss, brainstorm, and improve on the idea, as well as informally, with one-on-one discussion, casual conversation, or social group settings (like this forum!)

In any case, it's important that we stay calm, respectful, and ultimately keep the focus on the constructive improvement of the idea, not the individual.


Establishing Credibility & Reliability of Information



The reasonable acceptance of a claim often depends on the credibility of its source.

The credibility of individuals is generally a matter of their knowledge and experience on a topic, while maintaining honesty, accuracy, and objectivity.

The reliability of an information source should provide a well-reasoned argument or hypothesis based on strong evidence. Widely credible sources include scholarly and peer-reviewed articles and books for example.

Our credibility goals as a cannabis community should be to base our claims on credible and reliable facts that are free from bias (personal opinion,) and to be open to the idea that our own formed ideas may be proven false if the data provided doesn't support it.
I'd add that structured documentation is a part of the scientific method.

Also, while Bro Science can be an ego trip, I suspect that it is usually well intended.

Reminds me of the pot roast story where the cook cuts off the roast ends before cooking because that's how she learned it. Her teacher learned it that way too, from a cook who only did it because her pan was too short.
 
Hopefully people will provide citations and links to well vetted research.

In addition to bro science there is pseudoscience such as that used by marketers. It's better if we can check the source info 😉
 
The amount of hype-space, bro-science, flashy marketing, ego-growing is wild in this hobby. While getting into all of this It took a while to figure out and remember it's just a plant. That being said it is good to have a sense of humor. Check out this mutant that sprouted during the eclipse. I named it Audrey II. I'm for simplicity and automation, and think everybody should lobby for this thread to be required reading. It does get old having bottles of "It will make mine grow better than yours" paraded around. One green, weed leafed shaped, thumbs up from me. Opinion and fact are welcome here, just don't mislabel them.
IMG_3376.JPG
 
On credibility:
It seems counterintuitive, but saying "I don't know" or "I was wrong" or "oops" increases percieved credibility, while defensive maneuvers decrease it.

Note that I wrote percieved credibility. An expert can be wrong about one thing and right about others. How they handle the mistake can enhance or destroy credibility.

If I choose to share something that seems to work for me, I should somehow make it clear that it is untested or unvetted. "I did this (details) and that happened" is reporting an observation. "I don't know W5 yet"

please call me on it if you notice.
 
Question EVERYTHING! Take nothing for granted and double check what you read! Myths still abound in the gardening world. Don't trust your own senses either because that's where anecdotal "facts" go wrong.
 

The Autoflower Network's​

Scientific Approach​


Scientific Method



What is the Scientific Method?


In short, the scientific method produces answers to questions posed in the form of a working hypothesis (a proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) that enables us to derive theories about what we observe in the world around us.

The power of scientific method is that it is repeatable; helping to provide unbiased answers to questions.

Scientific Method is a process consisting of:
  • systematic observation
  • measurement
  • experimentation
It is followed by:
  • formulation
  • testing
  • modification of hypothesis


What is "Bro Science?"


"Do you even grow, bro?"

You've probably heard this term tossed around in the cannabis space before, but what is it, why does it exist, and why should we care?

The term bro science is considered to be the overconfident and uninformed sharing of anecdotes or advice presented as facts but with no scientific basis.

It's believed to have originated from the body-building community, associated with bodybuilders imparting unproven or false tactics about training and nutrition to less educated bodybuilders.

Does that make bro science inherently wrong, false, or not true because it's anecdotal? Not entirely.

The Difference Between Anecdotal and Scientific Evidence

"I think, see, or observe, therefore it must be."


Anecdotal evidence can be defined as a testimony that something is true, false, related, or unrelated based on isolated examples of someone's personal experience.

The difference between anecdotal and scientific evidence is that scientific evidence is proof based on findings from systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation.

One of the main risks of relying on anecdotal evidence is that it can lead to logical fallacies, which are errors in reasoning that undermine the validity of an argument. It is considered the least certain type of scientific evidence and is rarely used as validating evidence.

If an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered an unsound generalization.


Why is "Bro Science" Dangerous?


"Look at what I think I know!"

Bro science tries to appeal to authority versus science. It's not meant to be helpful; it's meant to impress.

Quite often when bro science is contested; those suggesting it become combative rather than being open minded or willing to discuss, pointing to pictures of their plants or grow as proof and evidence instead of providing actual scientific evidence. While bro science isn't necessarily inherently wrong or false, it's quite often NOT right (and lacks little to any scientific basis, or "pick and choose" science.) It can be wildly misleading, while the person suggesting it tries to be as convincing as possible.

Unfortunately, it can be very hard for new growers or uneducated growers to know the difference in the suggestions (especially in open forums and social platforms.) This is very damaging to the learning process when you have to sift through information and try to discern fact from fiction.

As growers we should be helping and empowering our fellow growers to learn, to want to learn, and to keep pushing the envelope on what we know and do not, but there's a fine line between discovery and understanding versus pretending to understand and passing it off as fact.


Challenging the Information


"Criticism is the backbone of the scientific method."


Truth isn't necessarily what an expert or an authority figure declares to be true, but rather what stands the tests of evidence and criticism. To discover the truth, we should be encouraging the challenging of information (the continual questioning of processes to find a better way to do things.)

It's easy to find confirmations of our ideas if we are looking for confirmations. The idea of science as falsification suggests that for a theory to be considered scientific, it must be able to be tested and conceivably proven false.

Challenging information is a chance for us to learn and grow; not as a way to attack another person's idea or show off.


How do I Constructively Challenge Someone's Claims?



Challenging information can seem like a challenge all in itself, especially online when we're often limited in the range of verbal and nonverbal communication cues that help us navigate discussions.

As growers striving for the truth, we need to be clear that we are challenging the idea, not the person. The emphasis should be on the spirit of making constructive improvement, rather than opposing something because "it wasn't invented here."

Science does not have “hard facts” but rather “significant facts” that are observed.

We encourage the challenging of our ideas with questions like "what are we missing here?" or "is there a better way to do this?"

We can encourage a formal "meeting of the minds" for the challenge process, where those with different aptitudes and expertise on the topic can discuss, brainstorm, and improve on the idea, as well as informally, with one-on-one discussion, casual conversation, or social group settings (like this forum!)

In any case, it's important that we stay calm, respectful, and ultimately keep the focus on the constructive improvement of the idea, not the individual.


Establishing Credibility & Reliability of Information



The reasonable acceptance of a claim often depends on the credibility of its source.

The credibility of individuals is generally a matter of their knowledge and experience on a topic, while maintaining honesty, accuracy, and objectivity.

The reliability of an information source should provide a well-reasoned argument or hypothesis based on strong evidence. Widely credible sources include scholarly and peer-reviewed articles and books for example.

Our credibility goals as a cannabis community should be to base our claims on credible and reliable facts that are free from bias (personal opinion,) and to be open to the idea that our own formed ideas may be proven false if the data provided doesn't support it.
What a pleasure to read. Clear explanation....Bro science can become real science if the work is put in to test an hypothesis.
 
Question EVERYTHING! Take nothing for granted and double check what you read! Myths still abound in the gardening world. Don't trust your own senses either because that's where anecdotal "facts" go wrong.
That's me to a T! I questioned everything when I was a kid. My lazy teachers hated me for that.:rofl::rofl::rofl:
I have to prove things for myself.

Hopefully, with reclassification, there will be lots of good scientific research!

Maybe if old farts like us live long enough, we'll be able to benefit from it!
 
Man, I'm really surprised this thread just died.:face::oops1:

I don't know, the Scientific Method is so ingrained that I do it subconsciously. It is definitely is a strong driving factor in how I do things.

I absolutely love to learn how to do new things! I also love to discover new things!

My current grow has been filled with that.
This grow started out as just growing some weed and preserving someones work by making seeds. So through careful observation, documentation, being extremely methodical and advice from others, I was able to pull off the seed making in quite a stellar fashion! Timing the reversed females and the recipients is key for a successful seed making endeavor. Observation of the Mom and how and when she reacted when flipped to 12/12 was a key basis in success. So with that observation and the advice from others I was able to get the timing down to the Optimal level.

This grow has sorta morphed into proving or disproving the bro science statement, "Bigger roots make bigger fruits" in organic grows. This was not the intent, but I found myself in this situation.

In the seed making endeavor, I took quite a few clones. I finally realized that two seeded girls would make way more seeds than I could ever utilize, so I had 4 leftover. Relatively early on I thought I wanted to keep a mom, so I up potted one of the clones. After realizing I really didn't have a good place to keep her currently, I decided to grow her out. I did not have enough big pots for the other three clones that I had.

So now I have a tent with 4 clones with one in a 15 gallon pot and others in 5 gallon pots. All along the way they got the same feed and the majority of the time they were in the same tent before they all got moved into final place in the 4 by 4. Since moving, they all have been getting the exact same feed. Naturally with two different pot sizes you will get them off cycle from each other and I try to duplicate the feed from the previous feeding, but it's essentially the same feed. Naturally, being in the same tent, they were flipped to 12/12 at the same time.

Naturally, there is a size difference between the clones in the five gallon pots and the one clone in the 15 Gallon. Where the interesting part comes in, is the relationship of the size of the buds to the biomass of the plant. I think there is quite a dramatic difference in that relationship. Another interesting observation is that the girl in the large pot is leading in bud Structure formation. Early on in Bud Formation, the big girl was always leading. Now on the latter half of flowering, the big girl has led in the bulking up part of the process. What I'm talking about is the kind of almost foxtailing like structure. It starts to look like Fox tailing but fills in. In the last few days the Girls in the five gallon pots have exhibited the same structure. Now that has me thinking about maturity of the flowers. Is the big potted girl going to mature her flowers before the other girls in the five gallon pot? I think it kind of seems logical. If she leaves in formation and in structure, why not maturity? I guess we'll find that out two to three weeks.

Right now, all of this are just plain observations and subjective conclusions. Part of the scientific method is proving your observations and conclusions.

So the conclusion that bigger potted girls can mature quicker than smaller plotted girls will be based on what the microscope shows when I'm ready to chop. That's pretty simple and easy to prove.

I think proving "Bigger roots make bigger fruits" should be just as easy, but a little bit more work will be needed.
All I need to prove is that the big girl had a larger percentage of flower in relationship to the plants entire biomass. Now realistically, all I can do is weigh what is above ground and if I do them the same, the result should be quantitative.

Just from observations, I'm fairly sure that it will prove the point that bigger pots, ie bigger roots, do make bigger fruits.


Now that's at this size level of pots! What happens when the small pot is a 15 gallon and the large pot is say a 30? Naturally, with larger pots you're going to veg to the proper size before you flip. Now, in my particular case, I should have flipped the tent sooner based on the 5 gallon girls size, but that was just not possible in this case. I am really pushing the nutrients to keep the smaller potted girls happy and healthy.

I guess maybe a Bit better test in larger pots would be to veg the girl in the smaller pots to it's optimal size for that pot. I know I will come out with bigger girls in the bigger pots, but will there be that larger flower ratio to biomass of the plant. And naturally, we are talking about plants that have the genetic propensity to grow large.
Given what I've seen in this particular grow, I still think that we would see the same ratio, but maybe to a different degree. Nevertheless, I think it would still be something quite easily observable.

This is what I thought this thread was going to be about! I think it's what this thread should be about! Members throw out information with documentation and then we discussed the results.

I will definitely be back to this thread with some numbers and cold hard facts!


And yes @Mossy, I'm on the Sati!:biggrin::eyebrows::eyebrows::eyebrows::pass:
 

Test

Test
Back
Top