Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 ggr 10/10/85; site bentley.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!bentley!kwh
From: kwh@bentley.UUCP (KW Heuer)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.sci
Subject: Re: Contempt prior to Investigation
Message-ID: <631@bentley.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 12:40:26 EST
Article-I.D.: bentley.631
Posted: Wed Mar 12 12:40:26 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 14-Mar-86 06:18:53 EST
References: <358@unirot.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Liberty Corner
Lines: 41
Xref: watmath net.philosophy:4429 net.sci:580

In article <358@unirot.UUCP>, responding to an article by Matthew P. Wiener,
unirot!cjr (Charles Riordan) writes:
>Look, it's mighty clear to me you just don't want to believe. I mean, I
>have friends who can make their plants grow better by talking to them,
>but you probably don't want to believe that either....

Eventually it became obvious that this posting was a joke, but it took me
a while.  (Naive?  No, I've just seen too many "serious" postings of this
general nature; I tend to assume for as long as possible that any posting
with no smiley attached is for real.)

Seriously, though, what's known about "talking to plants"?  When I first
heard about this it was debunked as a CO2 effect (after all, when you
talk to the plants, you breathe on them), but I seem to remember the
original reports claimed a negative effect from "talking nasty" to plants.
Then I saw some TV special (about on a par with "Search for Ancient
Astronauts", I think) that described an experiment with the plants in
glass boxes to eliminate the CO2 effect.  The "talked-to" plants were
clearly doing much better.  Of course, I don't consider "having seen
it on TV" to be valid reason for believing the results.

It would seem to be fairly simple to design a good experiment here.
Partition the plants into three sets:  Talk-Nice, Talk-Nasty, Control.
(For completeness, perhaps Think-Nice and Think-Nasty as well.)  Each
plant is randomly assigned to a set, and all are given equal care by
a person (or device) who is ignorant of the particular partitioning.
Get a bunch of really nice people to volunteer to encourage the plants
in the first set to grow.  Get a bunch of really rotten folks (you may
need to draft them) to cuss out the plants in the second set.  ("Why
you filthy disgusting plant, you're wasting my time, I've got to sit
here like an idiot talking to you as part of this ridiculous voodoo
experiment when I could be doing some _real_ science and making rats
die.")  Eventually you stop, have the plants measured by someone who
is ignorant of the partition, then open the envelope and make some
correlations.

In spite of the strange wording, the above is a serious suggestion.
C'mon folks, apply the scientific method to a "pseudo-science" and see
what happens.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ihnp4!bentley!kwh), The Walking Lint.