• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

What did you learn today?

I haven't (and am unlikely to) download and listen to the source. However, I would caution against believing the experiment as described above. It lacks (what I consider) obvious controls.

The experiment claims that after inducing a plant to grow in a direction by applying wind and light, applying only wind will cause the same effect. The most obvious controls are to repeat the experiment with plants that have not been subjected to the experimental conditions. So at a minimum, you need a plant that gets wind and light, one with light only, one with wind only, and one with no external stimulus.

Experiments are difficult because you must control all possible externalities. So much so, that published results are often criticized on the basis of controls and are often repeated with additional controls to determine if results are correct.
Suit yourself :)

[edit] just to add, after having a bit of a browse, regarding the dear woman making these claims, and her methods, from Invalid Link Removed,
Gagliano’s claims are controversial. She’s received equal amounts of attention and criticism from colleagues and the media. Her work was introduced to the public in an in-depth primer on plant intelligence that came out in The New Yorker in 2013 called, Intelligent Plant. This year, Gagliano and her plant studies were featured on the popular science show,Invalid Link Removed. Notably, however, there’s been almost no criticism of the methods or results of her peer-reviewed studies. One critique of her methodology was resolved with a clarification. [emphasis added]
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PillO
Suit yourself :)

[edit] just to add, after having a bit of a browse, regarding the dear woman making these claims, and her methods, from Invalid Link Removed,

The job of a scientist is to be skeptical and to look for what has been overlooked. The best scientists, when designing experiments, are looking for ways to make the experiment fail; that is find all the ways that the results can be biased and control for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tom Bomb
The job of a scientist is to be skeptical and to look for what has been overlooked. The best scientists, when designing experiments, are looking for ways to make the experiment fail; that is find all the ways that the results can be biased and control for them.
It's going to be a blast, in this case, I think (and so do they).
 
  • Like
Reactions: PillO
Last edited:
Happy Birthe CCC!

05AA618E-B7FF-4AE1-9514-0B9D3A83F58F.jpeg


Congress enacts huge jobs program, March 31, 1933 — POLITICO
 
smok·o
/ˈsmōkō/
noun
INFORMAL•AUSTRALIAN/NZ
  1. a rest from work for a smoke; a tea break. Smoko" (also "smoke-o" or "smoke-oh") is a term used in Australian, New Zealand and Falkland Islands English for a short, often informal break taken during work or military duty, although the term can also be used to describe any short break such as a rest or a coffee/tea break.
 
smok·o
/ˈsmōkō/
noun
INFORMAL•AUSTRALIAN/NZ
  1. a rest from work for a smoke; a tea break. Smoko" (also "smoke-o" or "smoke-oh") is a term used in Australian, New Zealand and Falkland Islands English for a short, often informal break taken during work or military duty, although the term can also be used to describe any short break such as a rest or a coffee/tea break.

From John Williamson True Blue:

Hey True Blue**, don’t say you’ve gone
Say you’ve knocked off for a smoko*
And you’ll be back later on
Hey True Blue, Hey True Blue
 
  • Like
Reactions: catcauphonic