🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7039c6ef.0207181730.e7be2b8@posting.google.com>, dh321@excite.com (David Hershey) wrote:
[snip]
> When
>Secret Life of Plants was published, legitimate botanists did test
>many of the ideas presented in the book, particularly music effects on
>plants. However, they found that music had no effect on plants so
>could not publish their results. Scientific journals usually do not
>publish negative results.

So we just have to take your word that "legitimate botanists did test
many of the ideas presented in the book"?  ;-)

But this is a potentially serious problem, and no doubt the cause of 
much duplication and waste of resources.  After all, if one bloke 
thought something was worth investigating, chances are he was not 
alone.  So if no one knows that it was a pointless exercise, then the 
next bloke, and the next, and the next... are doomed to repeat it.

Reminds me of the response someone once gave to a question about some 
of the positive pointless research that appears from time to time 
(usually with a colon in the title, and from the softer social 
sciences :-).  He/she/it replied to a question about why they bothered 
to investigate something or other by saying "So politicians can not 
say that it has not been shown that..."


Cheers, Phred.

-- 
ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID