RoyLennigan
Registered Senior Member
Did anyone else seriously try? Seems to be the more important question.
The Secret Life of Plants
- Thread starter EndLightEnd
- Start date
Did anyone else seriously try? Seems to be the more important question.
river-wind
Valued Senior Member
I have worked with trees for years, and I can certainly say that houseplants, trees, yard plants, and lab plants react to the other living things around them. They grow better with certain types of music, if the are paid attention to in a calm way (this includes "talking" to the plants). Acacia trees release pheromones which alert the surrounding trees to giraffe grazing; Elms do the same when the pathogen that causes Dutch Elm disease arrives to an area.
However, the studies in question here are not scientifically supported. The lack of structure, the assumptions about what is being measured, and the drastic anthropomorphism all undermine the credibility of the report.
If you could link in the graphs themselves, along with detailed accounts of the situations and triggers for different reactions, then we'd have something to talk about. For now, polygraph reading is as much of an art as a science as it is; trying to apply those somewhat debatable methods on a completely different form of life is not going to provide easily understood results - and thus you end up with unsubstantiated conjecture, instead of science.
However, the studies in question here are not scientifically supported. The lack of structure, the assumptions about what is being measured, and the drastic anthropomorphism all undermine the credibility of the report.
If you could link in the graphs themselves, along with detailed accounts of the situations and triggers for different reactions, then we'd have something to talk about. For now, polygraph reading is as much of an art as a science as it is; trying to apply those somewhat debatable methods on a completely different form of life is not going to provide easily understood results - and thus you end up with unsubstantiated conjecture, instead of science.
Last edited:
I understand your point. But still things like this, which would have PROFOUND implications if found true, should be tested thoroughly. However most people ignore it outright, and because of lack of genuine belief of the public that things like this MAY be possible, books are written using poor science (if at all) which only gives credit to the skeptics.
The vicious misinformation cycle continues.
read about the same experiment here. in "anomalies of nature."
http://www.mindtech.com.vu/Anomalies.html
It purports the same as your book. I have also heard other websites claiming lie detector professionals had tried testing these experiments and failed.
anyways the link should be right up your ally, as every topic deals with a scientific "mystery"
have fun.
http://www.mindtech.com.vu/Anomalies.html
It purports the same as your book. I have also heard other websites claiming lie detector professionals had tried testing these experiments and failed.
anyways the link should be right up your ally, as every topic deals with a scientific "mystery"
have fun.
kmguru
Staff member
What that means is that no sciforum member has the brains to independently come up with any new ideas that has not been published in a peer reviewed journal.
That also means, sciforum members are more follower than inventors!
The same thing happens to professors whose job depends on publishing in a peer reviewed journal and therefore anyone from industry who do not publish papers but come up with new ideas are ridiculed by these professors even if these non-professor inventors get patents.
That is life...
