"Frans W. MAES" wrote: > > Dear Fernando, > > > Arthur Carlson wrote: > > > > > > I'm afraid you will have to be meticulous if you don't want to waste > > > your time. (Leaving aside the question of whether the project is likely > > > to be a waste of time regardless of how carefully it is done.) > > I see you are getting a bit meticulous (or scientific) already, following > Arthur Carlson's advice, by sketching a real experimental protocol:
I have it more or less planned. What I described was a simplified version. When I mentioned I did not want to be too meticulous I just meant I did not want to be excessively concerned with details. I am interested in a very simple answer: "does the moon affect the plant growth and production or not?". That means (for the time being) I am not interested on HOW it works (if it really does work). I am not even interested in any explanation. I am not interested in a theory about it either. So this makes things much simpler, I guess. > > Nevertheless, you may be a bit optimistic when stating: > > > Well, if we can't see no changes in the curve > > as the days advance and the moon ages (in a > > cyclical manner) then we can conclude no influence > > exists. Otherwise, we can conclude that there is > > an influence and then decide when it is positive > > and when it is negative. > > You will most probably end up with a very noisy recording, from > which it is not possible to draw any conclusion with certainty, in this > case, to see a moon-synchronous component. In that sense you > would have wasted your time. Maybe you nevertheless had a good > time playing around, that's ok with me. You are right... and wrong. If the record is very noisy it probabily means that either the influence does not exist or, if it does exist, then it is too small. Well, if it too small, so small that I can not draw any conclusion with certainty, then for every and all practical purposes it is non-existent. My purpose is very pragmatical and not theoretical: I just want to know if it is worthwhile for a farmer to pay attention to the moon cycle. It will only be if the difference is quite measurable, unmistakable. Like, say, a 10% yield difference produced in a consistent manner. So you are right because the result maybe confusing. You are wrong because if it is confusing no additional effort or statistical calculation will be needed: the facts will have spoken by themselves (for my purpose). You are also wrong when you say: > In that sense you > would have wasted your time. Maybe you nevertheless had a good > time playing around, that's ok with me. This remindes me of play about Galileo Galilei when he was before the inquisition trying to convince the church that the planets did move. According to the play he would invite the inquisitors to use his telescope to see the planets, the stars, the moon and how they moved in the sky. The inquisitors would respond something like: "we won't look into this devilish instrument. We've read the bible, Aristotle and the priests and what you say is not to be found anywhere. We don't need your instrument to know you are wrong", so on and so forth (I am rebuilding the dialog out of my memory about 30 years after seeing the play so the words should only give a general idea about what I really heard on that occasion...) So, it seems that from time to time we should look into new ideas. Some times it is the established, official "knowledge" that is wrong, not folklore or new ideas. In the second place, it is not enough to read the bible or read Aristotle. It is necessary that we use the telescope. Only after that we can say: "it is not there". Or, perhaps, "it is there". So, whatever the result is, it is not a waiste of time. I will gain some insight into it either confirming what the ancients used to say or confirming what most agribusiness expert say about the influence of the moon. On top of that -- as you say -- I may also have some fun sowing, watering, reaping, measuring. This is a good thing by itself, isn't it? > Trying to get some return from your (time) investment, you might > even be tempted to apply one of those debuked statistical > techniques for discovering rhythmicity in noisy signals. These will - at > best - only give you an estimated period and phase relationship, at a > stated probability level <100%. Such results may or may not > convince you. You are free to believe whatever you like. No fun here. This arena is dominated by the governments, universities, pollters, polititians and drug laboratories. They have a refined technology to do this. And they print the results in expensive papers or brodcast them via the established media. I would be only an unskillful amateur among professionals. I'd have to chance and it... > More importantly, such statistical results should also convince your > neighbour, or Arthur Carlson for that sake. That's why we need a set > of rules about what we should consider "convincing evidence". This is > a major aspect of the scientific method. I agree with you. But it seems most people the call themselves "scientists" are not paying attention to this requirement, are they? > But, why not try? "The proof of the pudding is in the eating", as the > British say. Progress is made by experiment! Now we are talking the same language again! Take care. - fernando -- REDUZIR, REUSAR, RECICLAR -- Dever de todos, amor aos que virão REDUCE, REUSE, RECYCLE -- Everybody's duty, love to those who are to come Fernando Cabral Padrao iX Sistemas Abertos mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.pix.com.br Fone Direto: +55 61 329-0206 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] PABX: +55 61 329-0202 Fax: +55 61 326-3082 15º 45' 04.9" S (23 L 0196446/8256520) 47º 49' 58.6" W 19º 37' 57.0" S (23 K 0469898/7829161) 45º 17' 13.6" W
