Billy wrote:
songbird wrote:
Billy wrote:
...
Shooting the shit is fine, but without authority, it is just
babbling,

today's authority is sometimes
wrong. i worked for 7 people
who were authorities and they
were a lost cause. and so i
don't trust authorities blindly
and find most popular works
too light on rigor...

Great, so to counter balance lack of rigor, you offer none? What do
you use to justify your beliefs on up and down, good and bad, right
or wrong?

any study of the history of
science is rigor enough for
the basic arguement i've made
here.


because of that i have been
trying to get a hold of more
studious works lately. i was
reading a college level plant
physiology textbook a few
weeks ago and it ignored
so many topics and instead focused
on the pet topics of the various
contributors.

You were reading an anthology by various authors writing about
subjects that they supposedly would know the most?

it was a textbook called _Plant Physiology_
so i expected a broad overview of
plant physiology, but they missed a lot
of stuff that should be in a basic PP book.

i'm glad it was detailed as it was in some
parts, but it completely ignored many basic
plant phenomena. so i need to find some
other text that gets those covered.

i've quoted it below so you know
which text i'm speaking of.


don't get me wrong, it was a
good book for me to read but
it was very incomplete and i was
afraid that many students who had
this as their only plant physiology
book would be missing so much.

You expected all of plant physiology in one book? Kinda makes you
wonder what the other 40 units were all about.

a college level text should have a
broad overview of all aspects of
plant physiology even if there is not
depth of coverage of some areas it
should at least be mentioned and the
basics outlined.

here i will give you a link and
see if you agree.

http://4e.plantphys.net/categories.php?t=t

i think the following is a more
balanced work:

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyT...HEP000221.html

but i haven't read it yet. i'm putting it
on my request list at the library today.

still that looks to be also set
up for talking about only certain
kinds of plants and my interests
are in other forms which don't
seem to be covered by either of
these books. i'm going to have
to keep looking...

ah, much better:

http://www.amazon.com/Physiology-Flo.../dp/0444874984

that's on my list now. i think i'll
bump this ahead of the last since i've
already been through most of that
already.


now i am looking for other
good reads, so recommend away
and i will line some of them up
and see what they have to offer.


and logic is only as good as its premise.

if it's valid.


You quoted links?
Citation please.

only those you included, but
many i did not follow because
i was offline (as i am now).

You argue, but give no supporting authority: divine revelation,
inspired intuition, bull shit? Who knows? You offer no argument for
your denigration of organic food.

denigration? no, no way,
healthy skepticism towards
the new priesthood yes.


tossing citations back and
forth with no personal interpretation
on your part isn't a conversation.

Since we haven't done the original work, it's my authorities against
your authorities.

hold it, original work would
mean what here? nutritional
studies which include liver
function tests? long term
liver cancer rates vs
life span increases? (which
is probably available but
not really accurate enough
because it's not pre-agrichem).


tell me when you cite a
link what it means to you
and how it is lived by you.
otherwise you are a shadow
boxer.

lame

no, i just want to see if you
live what you quote.


do you garden? how do
you garden? what do you
garden?

I thought we were talking about the irrelevance of organic food. Why
are you wandering off, or are you jut trying to change the subject?

irrelevance? i don't think i've
ever said that organic gardening is
irrelevant, what i have said is that
it's wise to keep some healthy
skepticism.


songbird