An extension agent was explaining that they offered "anecdotal"
as well as "research-based" information. In a rebuttal Dale Wilson
objected to Anecdotal being offered at all, and argued that only
research-based should be offered.
I never said any such thing. I said anecdotal information was less
reliable than documented information that has been validated in the
field. Obviously we all use anecdotal information all the time. I have
nothing against dissemination of anecdotal information, especially if
that is all you've got.
Lion replies: Much of life is unreplicable.
In the dissemination of agricultural technology, only replicable
phenomena matter.
People with pure academic interests can indulge themselves in
satisfying their curiosity with abundant repetitions...
Many real people learn by anecdotes...
Academia requires one trustworthy person do all the
repetitions...
I guess all those unreal people in academia just spend all their time
being stupid ;-)
Especially if the subject involves zero-bought-in inputs, such
as biodynamics or many organic regimens
Not very "scientific" anecdotal information is the only
information available. The drawbacks are countered by the many
anecdotal sources, which constitutes a knowledge-bank of something
actually working.
I agree. Extension personnel should disseminate the best information
they have about a given subject. If all they have is anecdotal
information, then they should disseminate that.
Your "adamancy" is that ONLY research-based information be given
Please stop misquoting and mischaracterizing what I said.
There hasn't been much from the USDA on earthworms in decades,
even though there is plenty of anecdotal books on how to raise them.
I turned up 777 papers and books on earthworms in Agricola (84-98), and
many of these items were scientific journal articles and experiment
station bulletins. This work is obviously supported by the USDA through
the land-grant University system.
Lion replies: I am hostile to the notion that since
acadamia/government/corporations refuses to research no-poison, no
chemical agriculture, that these subjects are taboo and should not be
practiced or allowed to pass the word of their successes.
Your hostility is misplaced. Many, many in public ag research are
working on things like minimum tillage systems, biocontrol, even worms.
to a large extent because they can get public money to do it. A quick
search turned up 3093 papers on IPM, and 961 on no-till. My experience
at the University was that a bias existed toward publication only of the
successes of environmentally friendly technology, because that
facilitates writing the next proposal.
That is what the extension agents were doing which you objected
to. I applaud them for doing the job
Please stop mischaracterizing what I said.
I'm truely frightened by people who feel that science knows it
all,
or even knows close to enough.
I am frightened by people who seem to stare through me, seeing in my
place, a false image they have conceited in their mind. People whose
only apparent instinct is to attack this construct of their own internal
tension. I'm frightened by those who diagnose others as hopelessly
infected, in effect, dehumanizing them. The polarization you seem to
want to promote is harmful.
Dale Wilson
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".