On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:31:37 GMT, Salty Thumb
wrote:

Frogleg wrote

The clue for folk remedies is any discussion whatsoever. IF soap (of
any brand), or human hair or urine or chile solution actually worked,
there would be no discussion. It would be in all the FAQs. It would be
standard advice in gardening mags and newspaper columns.

what you just said is: because discussion, therefore folk remedy,
therefore ineffective, which just isn't a logical conclusion.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. What I meant was that when there is a
lively exchange of anecdotal material and folklore remedies for a
problem, it is pretty much a given that the "solutions" proposed are
wishful thinking. For every "I sprinkled human hair around and no
longer have a problem," there are a dozen "I tried the hair thing and
it didn't make a bit of difference." If any of these myths worked
reliably, there would be no discussion. Someone would ask how to
prevent deer (or rabbits) from eating domestic greenery, the reply
would be "Avon Skin-So-Soft on cotton balls", with 2 "yes, this works"
follow-ons.

One problem with (1st hand) anecdotal evidence is that much of it is
quite truthful. Person A may very well have had deer devouring his
rosebushes, hung up a bar of soap, and then no deer. However, there
could be several reasons for this: deer weren't terrifically hungry,
and the scent of soap was enough to discourage them; deer found better
food (rosebushes had become stubs) and moved on; human activity in
the area spooked them and they decided not to return; it was one
animal doing the damage and that one died...etc., etc. So for that
person, soap "worked." Forever after, he's going to tell everyone a
bar of Lifebuoy is magic. Even if he has a similar problem later or in
another place (with hungrier deer), and soap doesn't work, he's going
to swear the formulation of the soap has changed, and wax nostalgic
about the good ol' deer-repelling version.