Linda Chalker-Scott Myth Buster

[Asus101]

Thank you Aus so there is no need for any Uni affiliation to view the links you gave.

I can now see several links that you mention next to these articles. It has been a while since I read any of these and now I see that the most recent articles are the ones that have references. Maybe she has started listening to her critics
Good stuff.

/sigh....

Brett to get hold of that further reading you need affiliations to a uni. A reference list is useless without access to the papers so I don't know why your so hell bent on getting them.
You have missed the biggest point of all of this, the fact her work on that site is for a magazine not a journal submitted for peer review. Whats more interesting you hold more faith in a gardening Australia article than her work even though both are published as a magazine article, with one being done by an Associate Professor with many official scientific publications/grants/and students, the other a tv presenter, you then go on to claim another article is "how a paper should be" when it clearly lacks the stats to show significant results.
I think you need to step back from searching these papers, you clearly don't understand what you are reading, and can not differentiate between scientific journal submitted for peer review and a "fun" myth busting article for a common place magazine.

[Bretts]

Asus
Maybe you need to sit back and take what your ready with some more validity, as clearly your knowledge on academia needs a review. She has clearly supplied references where ever possible, and where she hasn't it is clear its a common myth never having been tested by the scientific community before. Also with the fact she is also an Associate Professor should also grant greater respect on her work.

I take everything I read with as much validity as it deserves. It has nothing to do with their being no studies. Linda states conclusions to studies without referencing them. In any journal or what so ever this would usually be referenced.
Also as I stated there seems to be a lean towards proving the myths wrong by putting her own spin on study results which I found most prevalent when she almost contradicts herself when you compare her comments in the sea weed extract article to the auxin article.
I will link these articles later if need be but got to go for now.
Oh and I am not the only one that has issues with the way some of these articles come together.
Still as I said some very interesting reading. A great place to brain storm but I personally would clarify any conclusions she claims.
Posted before I read yor above thread got to go

[Asus101]

I take everything I read with as much validity as it deserves. It has nothing to do with their being no studies. Linda states conclusions to studies without referencing them. In any journal or what so ever this would usually be referenced.

In a journal.... but... THIS IS NOT A JOURNAL!!! ITS A GARDEN MAGAZINE!!!

Also as I stated there seems to be a lean towards proving the myths wrong by putting her own spin on study results which I found most prevalent when she almost contradicts herself when you compare her comments in the sea weed extract article to the auxin article.

If she did the experiments she only has her data to go by. Seaweed and auxins are two different subjects... sure they may have some common associations but otherwise there would be considered two different subjects.

Still as I said some very interesting reading. A great place to brain storm but I personally would clarify any conclusions she claims.
Posted before I read yor above thread got to go

I would hold reservations before taking your word over hers... given the amount of time she has spent the the field compared to yours.

[Bretts]

Hi Aus I think you need to step back just a little and actually read the articles. It is not her experiments she is simply giving conclusions to what others have studied!

[Bretts]

Thank you Aus so there is no need for any Uni affiliation to view the links you gave.

I can now see several links that you mention next to these articles. It has been a while since I read any of these and now I see that the most recent articles are the ones that have references. Maybe she has started listening to her critics
Good stuff.

/sigh....

Brett to get hold of that further reading you need affiliations to a uni. A reference list is useless without access to the papers so I don't know why your so hell bent on getting them.
You have missed the biggest point of all of this, the fact her work on that site is for a magazine not a journal submitted for peer review. Whats more interesting you hold more faith in a gardening Australia article than her work even though both are published as a magazine article, with one being done by an Associate Professor with many official scientific publications/grants/and students, the other a tv presenter, you then go on to claim another article is "how a paper should be" when it clearly lacks the stats to show significant results.
I think you need to step back from searching these papers, you clearly don't understand what you are reading, and can not differentiate between scientific journal submitted for peer review and a "fun" myth busting article for a common place magazine.

Hi Asus I am no concerned about not having access to any papers but only that the study that I would have need to read to clarify her findings is not named so it is impossible to clarify her findings.
If the reason for this is the format as you say then let that be the reason. Does not matter the issue still stands there are conclusions to studies that can not be clarified with these articles.

I have clearly stated that am going out on a limb with my opinion. But so far I think my limb is kinda stronger than yours

[Asus101]

Hi Asus I am no concerned about not having access to any papers but only that the study that I would have need to read to clarify her findings is not named so it is impossible to clarify her findings.
If the reason for this is the format as you say then let that be the reason. Does not matter the issue still stands there are conclusions to studies that can not be clarified with these articles.

She isn't reviewing other people's findings, she is simply publishing her own experiments and findings based on what the myths are. If you wish to contest her findings, go to uni, get your honors, and go and get your PhD and publish your own findings.

Oh and I have just looked at a few of her articles, I have seen that she has referenced material where needed, posted abstracts of her own results, some appear to be simple break downs of other research articles, taking a myth and showing people why its a myth and what is the truth (based off research and common sense learned while spending many years in the field) without confusing people with a lot of scientific wording.. For a magazine column she has done extremely well and I personally would hold more stock in what she has written against any tv presenter.
Brett maybe you don't want to believe what she has stated because it conflicts with your own beliefs?

This is the last I will post on the matter. You clearly wont listen and just like the super thrive argument where you ostracised a member of the scientific community for going against your views, I see this argument going no where. Until you have a degree and the same extensive knowledge in the field, your arguments against her are null and void.

Cheers.

[Bretts]

Oh and I have just looked at a few of her articles,

Thought so

[Bretts]

She isn't reviewing other people's findings, she is simply publishing her own experiments and findings based on what the myths are. If you wish to contest her findings, go to uni, get your honors, and go and get your PhD and publish your own findings.

I haven't read all of the articles so maybe she has done some of her own studies on these myths but the common theme I have found in these articles is this

Linda
Scientific literature
There is a substantial body of scientific literature on the application of seaweed extracts in agriculture, in
some cases dating back nearly a century. Much of the earlier research suggested benefits from SE
treatment, but more recent results have been cautious in recommending SE use. I’ve compiled a brief
summary of these research findings:

http://www.puyallup.wsu.edu/~Linda%20Ch ... tracts.pdf

[Asus101]

Oh and I have just looked at a few of her articles,

Thought so

I do say old chum, outstanding retort...

Cheerio.

[Bretts]

The confusing thing here Aus is the last thing you did in this discusion was read some of her articles.

[Asus101]

The confusing thing here Aus is the last thing you did in this discusion was read some of her articles.

I was reading them all along, there are a large number of them so forgive me for only reading a few. At least I read before claiming she didn't add a reference list (which you still havn't admitted you where wrong and change the posts where your facts where wrong)...

Like I said before, if this is the way this argument is going to go, then I was right about you not understanding enough to get the full benefit from any of these articles (rather magazine columns). With your retorts based solely on attacking my credibility of the knowledge of what is written, it concretes my theory on you. You cant understand fully what she is saying and what you do understand clashes with your own misconceptions taken from a 60 year old TV presenter given information by a 1st year uni student who will probably turn out to be nothing more than an arts major who has nothing do do with the subject at hand.

Brett I would recommend you request this thread removed and all posts on this person also removed until you have a clearer understanding on what she is saying, her target audience and where the information was taken from. Once you work that out, pick up a PhD in Hort and spend your life proving this lady wrong. Right now your just bonsai enthusiast who is currently way over his head poking holes in articles you know nothing about.

[Rhiannon]

Nice one Rhiannon. With logic like yours it should be a steep learning curve
Can you suggest a better word a lazy writer like me could use instead ?

For a place such as this prove is just fine. I wouldn't point it out save for the fact that you mentioned what science is to you, which was impressively close to the answer of what the scientific method is that many have spent years (even lifetimes) debating over.

But if you ever find yourself in formal situation, most just refer to it as 'evidence' rather than 'proof'.

Lost of scientists get lazy with this word. Which is one reason why evolution causes such a stir. A lot of us yack on casually about it being a fact, about it being proved by experiments, but technically that's not what they mean. Using those words can get you into lots of trouble in a debate.

[Bretts]

Thanks Rhiannon.I will try to remember that one. Evidence! I do agree that using the correct word is often important when talking about such things. Might sound silly but I think it puts the brain in the right gear so to speak. Although it is just a word as you say the brain associates it with it's true definition.

[S.O.P]

I tried to contact Linda regarding some clarifications on a couple of myths but unfortunately she never responded so some gaps remain in my knowledge.

I plant trees for a living and am always trying to improve the process and was hoping she could solve some problems. Most probably a busy lady since I got an auto-response, rather than a typed email.