Is hydroponics better for the environment? I think it is.

ounevinsmoke · Mar 15, 2015

Heisenberg said:
The article reflects the scientific consensus. You realize that science designs tests which let reality be the judge? That means, the only one who could be biased is mother nature herself, because she is the one giving us the results.

https://whatdoesthesciencesay.wordpress.com/aspartame/

Aspartame is one of those substances science-deniers like to demonize, and as a result there is a lot of misinformation out there. Denialist groups know how to push the public's buttons. It's your responsibility to teach yourself to recognize when your buttons are being pushed. If you think the article is biased, then you should have more evidence than the fact that it disagrees with what you already believe. Please point out the flaws in methodology, statistical analysis, ect. Otherwise you're just giving in to cognitive dissonance.

https://theconversation.com/i-bet-its-biased-one-easy-step-to-squash-expert-opinions-14945

The rationale of the guy in the video is that science proves things by studies. From that rationale it only takes an overwhelmingly lopsided study for side A to prove its point against side B which usually happens. Science is not infallible and numbers can be skewed and corrupted for interest.
Usually science is influenced by money which is why we have huge pharmaceutical industries, but people in science fail to acknowledge this.
I have nothing against science, but for studies to be written off as heresy because they do not fit an agenda is rubbish.

Science deniers? Please... this is ridiculous. Its not my job to educate everyone on the internet. I for one dont save every article,essay, or study I read. Usually the people who do that are out to disprove nay sayers for their own agenda. Believe what you want.

If I had the resources on tap I would have shut this thread down by providing the emissions data of the factories and mining that it takes to get these NPK products, but the thread starter has not even distinguished what the opposition to hydroponics is.

You specifically are interesting specimen, to have a tea recipe stickied in the hydroponics section and give no reference as to where you derived your information as if you came up with it out of thin air and did all of the work on your own to establish that method.
I know for a fact this is not true.

ounevinsmoke · Mar 15, 2015

churchhaze said:
Be more specific. Which byproduct is found when you create which chemical?

Which byproducts are found in yara brand calcium nitrate?

In general, the reason there's byproducts is that nature has byproducts to begin with. Earth/soil is where we mined all the harmful stuff from. Where do you think harmful chemicals come from? All heavy metals, for example, come from the earth.

Lol why is it hard to believe that something synthetic is not complete as found in nature? There is synthetic cannabis you know?

ounevinsmoke · Mar 15, 2015

Heisenberg said:
Saying someone is ignorant or unqualified is not an attack on character. In fact, its one of the few times ad hominems are relevant. I'm not sure if you know much about chemistry or not, but you do seem to be forgetting one of the most basic tenants of chemistry - the dose makes the poison.

"Radishes contain a substance that can cause goiters, oranges contain a toxin that could potentially cause birth defects, carrots contain the hallucinogen myristicin; there is practically no food that doesn't contain some chemical that could harm people in large doses." - Harriet Hall M.D.

Ok then keep insulting me, haha... Arsenic in small dosages will kill you very slowly so yea I get it. The very video you put up says that these fruits and vegetables have other things inside to mitigate the other more harmful compounds. Whats is mitigating the compounds in synthetic beverages? Do I believe these things are going to kill anyone immediately. The answer is no! Do I believe its wise to nourish something with small or negligible amounts of synthetic poisons over long periods of time? The answers is no.

Excuse me for wanting to have nature run its course on a molecular level.

Heisenberg · Mar 15, 2015

ounevinsmoke said:
The rationale of the guy in the video is that science proves things by studies. From that rationale it only takes an overwhelmingly lopsided study for side A to prove its point against side B which usually happens. Science is not infallible and numbers can be skewed and corrupted for interest.
Usually science is influenced by money which is why we have huge pharmaceutical industries, but people in science fail to acknowledge this.
I have nothing against science, but for studies to be written off as heresy because they do not fit an agenda is rubbish.

Science is done one study at a time, but one study by itself means very little. That's why I said scientific consensus. Consensus means that people who do not necessarily like or want to agree with each other still agree on what the science says. Does that mean scientific consensus is never wrong? No, it means...

"When you have an actual scientifically valid reason, based on science, evidence, experimentation, and observational evidence, to think that the current scientific consensus about something is in error, then it is appropriate to challenge the scientific consensus. When you don’t, then it isn’t." - Orac

ounevinsmoke said:
You specifically are interesting specimen, to have a tea recipe stickied in the hydroponics section and give no reference as to where you derived your information as if you came up with it out of thin air and did all of the work on your own to establish that method.
I know for a fact this is not true.

Now this would be the attack on character you spoke of earlier, and used as a red herring. I state several times in my thread that the information was gleaned from experts and also people who have been in the situation and reported their trial and error. I specifically say I am not the one to thank. But what does that have to do with aspartame being safe.

You like to use scientific information when it backs you up

If I had the resources on tap I would have shut this thread down by providing the emissions data of the factories and mining that it takes to get these NPK products,

But when it disagrees, suddenly science is biased. How do we know the data you would have used to shut down the thread isn't biased?

AlphaPhase · Mar 15, 2015

The opposition is hydroponic farming vs commercial organic or even "industrial" farming. What's better for the environment. I thought that was clear as we've had some good responses about exactly that.

Outdoor weed is different because of the different light spectrum compared to indoor lighting. Also, bugs poop on buds, the plants get drenched in rain. I think you were trying to say outdoor bud is better than indoor bud, not better than hydro? Either way, I think you're smoking the wrong stuff. While some DANK buds are grown outdoor, indoor bud should be getting you way more higher. And not burning you're through. All the thc % testing you see in high times, or anywhere for that matter, are 95% indoor grown. Being in a med mj state, I can say that's just rubbish. I have some indoor I grew that I can't smoke during the day because it makes me go on an outterspace vacation.

I mentioned livestock because, well, I just think of it as part of farming really. Someone also mentioned cows fed antibiotics or something.

Hydroponic nutrients do not contain any more npk than their organic counterparts. If they did, we wwould be killing our plants

the dry salts I use I think are 12-6-9 npk value.

Heisenberg · Mar 15, 2015

ounevinsmoke said:
Excuse me for wanting to have nature run its course on a molecular level.

Do you realize the appeal to nature is a fallacy? The fact that something is natural, or that something happens in nature, says nothing about its safety or reliability.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Heisenberg · Mar 15, 2015

A consensus in science is portrayed by denialists to be a reflection of researcher opinion; it is not. A consensus is subject to the harmony of the data that researchers are looking at. A consensus means that the data is now clear enough that experts (people who may not necessarily like or want to agree with each other) can look at it and interpret it the same way. It means possible points of division have been examined and resolved, and that efforts have converged on avenues of inquiry which continue to make sense. It doesn't mean all questions have been answered, but it does mean the current data no longer reveals contradictions or ambiguity on which to base argumentation.

Scientific consensus comes from intellectually honest evaluation, and as such, it can only be challenged by intellectually honest evaluation. Since intellectual honesty undermines a denialist position, the only recourse is to treat consensus as if it is nothing more than popular vote and attack it in the way such opinions can be attacked. To place a view that is not supported by evidence and expertise on the same level as those that are, we must pretend that consensus can develop independently of the data. We pretend that consensus can result from emotion and personal ideology, which is exactly the level on which denialism operates. Those that do this are, of course, no longer opposing science, but some weird caricature of science they have invented solely to make their position look better.

Fogdog · Mar 15, 2015

churchhaze said:
The thing about population growth is that it's not sustainable. So we'll have 9B? Then will we have 11B then 16B population?

We should be looking into weapons systems and have some wars so we can get our population down some! lol

No, I'm sure the solution is to infect other planets too!! Then we'll have 16B on earth, and 5B on mars!

Oh my, I can see this posting taking us down another rabbit hole! Not going there, no way no how.

AlphaPhase · Mar 15, 2015

Lol @Fogdog that is some trippy stuff to think about

ounevinsmoke · Mar 15, 2015

Heisenberg said:
A consensus in science is portrayed by denialists to be a reflection of researcher opinion; it is not. A consensus is subject to the harmony of the data that researchers are looking at. A consensus means that the data is now clear enough that experts (people who may not necessarily like or want to agree with each other) can look at it and interpret it the same way. It means possible points of division have been examined and resolved, and that efforts have converged on avenues of inquiry which continue to make sense. It doesn't mean all questions have been answered, but it does mean the current data no longer reveals contradictions or ambiguity on which to base argumentation.

Scientific consensus comes from intellectually honest evaluation, and as such, it can only be challenged by intellectually honest evaluation. Since intellectual honesty undermines a denialist position, the only recourse is to treat consensus as if it is nothing more than popular vote and attack it in the way such opinions can be attacked. To place a view that is not supported by evidence and expertise on the same level as those that are, we must pretend that consensus can develop independently of the data. We pretend that consensus can result from emotion and personal ideology, which is exactly the level on which denialism operates. Those that do this are, of course, no longer opposing science, but some weird caricature of science they have invented solely to make their position look better.

and to the claims that science can be corrupted? You expect us to believe that science somehow operates on its own volition without the influence of our capitalist societies. Lets not forget we are on a MJ cultivation site. Please enlighten us what the consensus is on the effects of marijuana. Last time I checked MJ is still a schedule 1 narcotic.

The illusion that science operates honestly and harmoniously outside the constraints of malevolent humans is nonsense and naive.

ounevinsmoke · Mar 15, 2015

Heisenberg said:
Do you realize the appeal to nature is a fallacy? The fact that something is natural, or that something happens in nature, says nothing about its safety or reliability.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

You are literal to a point of ignorance. (Safety). Safety has to be outlined by science right? Has to have studies and what not.
At what point do we say herbal remedies are more safe than their synthetic counter parts? Who makes that decision? Science?
Common sense? Do you honestly think I will sit here and say heroine is safe because it natural?

Lets be reasonable and keep the debate above third grade level.

Heisenberg · Mar 15, 2015

ounevinsmoke said:
and to the claims that science can be corrupted? You expect us to believe that science somehow operates on its own volition without the influence of our capitalist societies. Lets not forget we are on a MJ cultivation site. Please enlighten us what the consensus is on the effects of marijuana. Last time I checked MJ is still a schedule 1 narcotic.

You seem to be confusing science with politics. Science does not decide the drug schedule.

ounevinsmoke said:
The illusion that science operates honestly and harmoniously outside the constraints of malevolent humans is nonsense and naive.

Science isn't perfect, but it has an excellent track record. When it gives us information which allows us to gain some sort of control over nature, like generating electricity from moving water, fighting infection with antibiotics, manipulating DNA to get better plants, vaccinating to give us protection from disease, these are all signs that science works despite the imperfection of the humans behind it.

As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with challenging scientific information, in fact, science demands that you do, but you need more than just the fact that something disagrees with you. You need actual evidence, not just knee-jerk accusations which allow you to preserve your position. When your digging your feet in and doing your best not to let evidence lead you along, it's a good sign you are on the wrong side of science.

Heisenberg · Mar 15, 2015

ounevinsmoke said:
You are literal to a point of ignorance. (Safety). Safety has to be outlined by science right? Has to have studies and what not.
At what point do we say herbal remedies are more safe than their synthetic counter parts? Who makes that decision? Science?
Common sense? Do you honestly think I will sit here and say heroine is safe because it natural?

Lets be reasonable and keep the debate above third grade level.

This is the point. The appeal to nature is arbitrary. Herbs are drugs and their safety must be assessed individually, just like drugs. Who makes the decision, reality, and the scientific method is the best proxy we have available to interpret reality's voice.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/herbs_are_drugs

ounevinsmoke · Mar 15, 2015

Heisenberg said:
Does that mean scientific consensus is never wrong? No, it means...

it is appropriate to challenge the scientific consensus. When you don’t, then it isn’t."

Ok?

Heisenberg said:
You like to use scientific information when it backs you up
But when it disagrees, suddenly science is biased. How do we know the data you would have used to shut down the thread isn't biased?

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.

I never said science is bias. I just pointed out the bias in articles and videos you presented. Not enough sufficient data of the opposing argument to be taken seriously. I'm not here to educate or provide the opposing data as you are apparently.

Fogdog · Mar 15, 2015

Hooboy, I'm wondering if AlphaPhase intended to kick off a discussion on the validity of science itself!
Respectfully but firmly, I say that Heisenberg reminds me of Al Gore in that I wanted to agree with them and if they'd stopped talking when their point was made I would have agreed. By the time they are through explaining how much smarter they are, I'm pissed off and don't want to give them shit. Heisenberg forgot that science requires that a person be convinced while religion, pseudoscience and ooga booga philosophies require that a person believe. Name calling, derision, high-handedness are poor ways to convince the believer (although they do feel good to do). If you really mean to convince them then suck it up, try again and don't require that they have an equal education. Its apparent that ounevinsmoke is a believer and has no problem discrediting science because sometimes science is used as a tool of the corporates to promote their agenda, which is to make as money as possible. Quite honestly I can't fault onevin in this because this sometimes is true.

Well, that make me feel better to get off my chest. Sorry about that everybody.

Heisenberg · Mar 15, 2015

ounevinsmoke said:
Ok?

Bias is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view.

I never said science is bias. I just pointed out the bias in articles and videos you presented. Not enough sufficient data of the opposing argument to be taken seriously. I'm not here to educate or provide the opposing data as you are apparently.

As I said, you've provided nothing to demonstrate bias other than the articles disagree with you. I've shown you that the overwhelming scientific evidence says aspartame is as safe as sugar. You only said you don't want to pay attention to it, and apparently the reason is that you're not here to prove people wrong. Which one of those positions appears biased to you?

ounevinsmoke · Mar 15, 2015

Heisenberg said:
This is the point. The appeal to nature is arbitrary. Herbs are drugs and their safety must be assessed individually, just like drugs. Who makes the decision, reality, and the scientific method is the best proxy we have available to interpret reality's voice.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/herbs_are_drugs

Do you have any article or any video that weigh's the use of chemical and synthetic use in agriculture vs the use of organic methods thats shows pros and cons for both sides? Evaluates the information with an educated point of view? Does not label one side alarmist and heretics, or attempt to place opposition in the pin hole of pseudoscience?

Heisenberg · Mar 15, 2015

Fogdog said:
Name calling, derision, high-handedness are poor ways to convince the believer (although they do feel good to do). If you really mean to convince them then suck it up, try again and don't require that they have an equal education.

I've not called anyone names, nor have I at anytime doubted or implied that ounevin is too dumb to understand what I am saying. This is why I have provided links, because I trust that he/she can understand the content. Additionally, ounevin is the one who keeps saying that it isn't their job to educate me, implying that I am the one who requires "equal" education.

Its apparent that ounevinsmoke is a believer and has no problem discrediting science because sometimes science is used as a tool of the corporates to promote their agenda, which is to make as money as possible. Quite honestly I can't fault onevin in this because this sometimes is true.

Indeed, it happens a lot! The problem isn't with thinking that corporations deserve skepticism, it's when we simply decide that what we agree with is right and what we don't is biased. When someone looks at a well referenced article that links to studies and reviews and takes the time to explain the science rather than just spout opinion, and the response is simply "it's biased" with no further thought, that isn't skepticism and it does nothing to counter or expose corruption.

Fogdog · Mar 15, 2015

AlphaPhase said:
The opposition is hydroponic farming vs commercial organic or even "industrial" farming. What's better for the environment. I thought that was clear as we've had some good responses about exactly that.

Outdoor weed is different because of the different light spectrum compared to indoor lighting. Also, bugs poop on buds, the plants get drenched in rain. I think you were trying to say outdoor bud is better than indoor bud, not better than hydro? Either way, I think you're smoking the wrong stuff. While some DANK buds are grown outdoor, indoor bud should be getting you way more higher. And not burning you're through. All the thc % testing you see in high times, or anywhere for that matter, are 95% indoor grown. Being in a med mj state, I can say that's just rubbish. I have some indoor I grew that I can't smoke during the day because it makes me go on an outterspace vacation.

I mentioned livestock because, well, I just think of it as part of farming really. Someone also mentioned cows fed antibiotics or something.

Hydroponic nutrients do not contain any more npk than their organic counterparts. If they did, we wwould be killing our plants the dry salts I use I think are 12-6-9 npk value.

OK, so let me put forth an counter argument to hydro. Its based on sustainability rather than the betterness of a method (OK, betterness is not real word but I like it anyway).

Way back on the fourth page of this thread, I outlined the sources of the nutrients used in hydro. Practically all inorganic NPK, are mined or derived from burning fossil fuels. Hydro that uses inorganic sources of NPK represents an unsustainable extraction process. In this manner, Hydro is no better than conventional farming. The mined minerals are converted into human food which eventually ends up in a waste stream that collects in our waterways and ocean. Eventually the resources will get scarce and we will need to change or die or make soylent green. Meanwhile the planet becomes choked with our waste products.

The foundation of organic farming is based upon creating virtuous cycle where plants, animals, insects, bacteria, fungi and humans sustain each other. In practice, not always true but organic methods bring us closer to this goal.

As far as how to grow weed is concerned, well, weed is economically a large crop but practically speaking it consumes an imperceptible amount of water and nutrients. Do whatever grows you the best, highest yielding and satisfying stuff in a manner that meshes with your ethics.

Fogdog · Mar 15, 2015

Heisenberg said:
I've not called anyone names, nor have I at anytime doubted or implied that ounevin is too dumb to understand what I am saying. This is why I have provided links, because I trust that he/she can understand the content. Additionally, ounevin is the one who keeps saying that it isn't their job to educate me, implying that I am the one who requires "equal" education.

Indeed, it happens a lot! The problem isn't with thinking that corporations deserve skepticism, it's when we simply decide that what we agree with is right and what we don't is biased. When someone looks at a well referenced article that links to studies and reviews and takes the time to explain the science rather than just spout opinion, and the response is simply "it's biased" with no further thought, that isn't skepticism and it does nothing to counter or expose corruption.

umm...high-handedness then?

Is hydroponics better for the environment? I think it is.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member