The question was whether the old adage that talking to plants helps them grow, is true or not.
Something not considered by Cecil in his answer, and which I have long thought to have been the reason that talking to plants is ‘beneficial’, is because we exhale carbon dioxide, which is then inhaled by the plant.
There’s no need to be a nutter and actually talk of course. Im sure simply breathing would have the same effect…if what I thought is true :dubious:
But how would that explain the claims that were discussed in the column, which included exposing plants to ultrasonic sounds or recorded music, neither of which would produce carbon dioxide for the plants to inhale?
About three? Does that mean two? Four? It may seem picayune, but when an alleged experiment is described that loosely, it makes me less likely to take the alleged results of said alleged experiment as gospel.
(Actually, I think I remember reading about this stuff in the 1960s or early '70s, and it seemed pretty impressive to my childhood self. At the time, I hadn’t developed the critical thinking skills that have resulted in my current state of denial.)
What, you just stick a single wire into the plant somewhere and claim to read, well, anything? One wire does not make a circuit. I call BS on this claim. I rather think we’re not in denial, you are in wishful thinking mode.
It was an experiment by Cleve Backster, one of the leading lights in the 60’s and 70’s on Polygraph technology, still Lecturing at San Diego I believe.
It’s also discussed in “The Secret Life of Plants” a seminal book on this subject. But then a pompous ass such as yourself will know all this already - so I guess I’m wasting my breath
The big problem… as far as consciousness research in general is concerned, is repeatability. The events I’ve seen must be spontaneous. If you’ve thought them out in advance, you’ve already changed them. It all boils down to a very simple thing: repeatability and spontaneity do not go together, and as long as members of the scientific community overemphasize that aspect of scientific methodology, they’re not going to get very far in consciousness research. Cleve Backster
Why does it matter how he was dressed? Cabbages have no eyes. How did they observe his physical appearance with no sight organs? Now, if they had experimented using potatoes…
Plus, even if the polygraphs picked up something from the cabbages, why assume it was “alarm”? Polygraph results on humans are vastly misunderstood: I expect that to be even more true for results on cabbages.
Psychic plants aside, I also suspect part of the reason that plants who are talked to fare better because it encourages the person to pay more attention to how its doing. After all, you are less inclined to neglect your ferns if you think of them as living, sentient beings who need your care and affection.
Plants have also been known to give off various chemicals under a variety of circumstances–IIRC, there’s a species of plants that can attract predators of pest insects that munch on their leaves, or something like that.
Unless you are talking about a pretty well-sealed environment, this is very unlikely to have a significant effect. A human’s breath is not going to increase the local concentration of carbon dioxide in any meaningful way over that present in the general atmosphere if there is much circulation going on.
So I provide a link to a practising academic whose work has influenced some fairly major texts and you provide a sarcastic remark about a renowned fruitcake?
Hubbard got his tomatoes to grow to 15ft or something daft, Cleve Backster ran experiments that changed peoples perceptions. If you are going to try to look sardonic and clever, at least give me some facts to sheen over a vacuous post.