soil-man, activity of some insects varies with phases of the moon and in cases where the insects feasted on seeds, planting of such seeds was not done during the moon phases of high insect activity. The development of seed protecant chemicals rendered the practice obsolescent.
Many of the beliefs which are often dismissed as old wives' tales have been founded upon a kind of primitive "BMP" approach by farmers who could not afford crop failure.
I recall a memorable repartee by a farmer to an Extension Officer "... and when you can mind you' family and pay you' mortgage by growing tomatoes, then you can come back and tell ME how to grow tomatoes".

Rona, I am a master gardener at an Extension office with just such an agent!!! ROTFL
Beverly

I have never followed it and have never seen any studies that show following it makes a difference. Doesn't mean they don't exist, just that I've not seen them.

I am taking a wild stab, but it's possible that many of the things we do and think work (even when science says otherwise) are the equivalent of the placebo effect. We end up paying more attention because we tried it, we water differently, whatever - but what we did does create a better outcome, but not because (rather in spite of potentially) what we did that we think worked.

lathrus,

Is it possible that sometimes what we see may not be the placebo effect? Is it possible that what we see is a result of something we do which others call a fallacy? Is it possible that "science" isn't always right? Is it possible that we should believe what we see with our own eyes rather than always believing those who tell us we are wrong based on science? As George Carlin used to say "hhhmmmmmmm".

soil

To be scientifically supported as fact it must be able to be repeated with the same results consistently. My neighbor was a vegetable grower along the coastal shelf of California. One year he hit the market with cabbage when no one else had any. He made $200,000 that year on cabbage. For the rest of his life he could not duplicate that year. When he only had a $100,000 year he said he had lost $100,000 that year. It is easy to think a good year is normal and a bad year is abnormal, but neither is true. Al

The problem with believing what we see with our own eyes is that many of us are extremely poor observers and do not effectively relate many cause/effect relationships, which can be especially vexing when the observation flies in the face of known science. This IS often, but certainly not always, a result of the placebo effect. I've had people tell me their flowers, which had never bloomed before, bloomed only two days after applying Superthrive. We all know it's physiologically impossible for ST to have made so significant a difference in so short a time, yet the claimant shouts the success to the heavens. I've read countless other claims about tonics, fertilizers, soils, you name it.

Science may not always be correct, but I'll put my faith in it before I trust suspect anecdotes ... any day.

Al

I think the possibility that insects might having feeding habits related to moonlight is a most interesting conjecture.

I am 72 years old and came from a community of subsistence farmers. Many swore by phases of the moon or some such and argued over during long winter evenings. Some insisted they always planted at some certain moon phase or some such. But if the sky was threatening and the proper phase were a few days off they might hasten or postpone their planting and rationalize it to accommodate the weather.

Albert 135,
I loved ronalawns reply. It possibly revealed a grain of truth to something I consider a fallacy. It makes me wonder how many other fallacies might have grains of truth which may be revealed under the right conditions. For those of us who grow some of our plants to seed for next years garden, is it possible our gardens may benefit by planting according to moon phases; since we use no pesticides on our seed? It makes me wonder, but I think I will still lie in bed laughing, knowing some of my friends are out in the middle of the night planting their gardens.

Tapla,
While it is true some of us are poor observers, it is also true some of us are very good observers and only need to learn how to discern and report the truth from our observations. I think like you, I am trusting of scientific observations and revelations. My difficulty is with "known science" and its definition. I always have to ask the questions, Whose science are we talking about?, Is it real science or pseudo science? Is it scientific revelation with certifications which will pass a wiki search? Is it backyard science without controls revealing anecdotal evidence but passed on as science?

I think one of the listed fallacies was sarcastically stated as "if it was in a book, it must be real". I approach most books with almost the same skeptical thought process. If the certifications are not provided, I will usually consider the information as anecdotal. ShouldnÂt the same skeptical approach be applied to what we read on the internet and in forums?

I donÂt know what Superthrive is so it would be unfair for me to comment except to say I would probably believe a gardener who made that claim. It doesnÂt mean I will rush out and buy Superthrive. It only means I am happy she got such great results.

I am a scientific gardener who believes gardening is ½ science and ½ magic. ItÂs the magic half that keeps me in the garden.

Soil

If we're unwilling or unable to discern for ourselves what true science is, we need to trust something or someone. It's up to the individual to decide who or what that is, and whether skepticism by default is conducive to personal progress or an impairment. The more you know, the less you need to rely on skepticism to keep you out of trouble, but if you rely only on certified information, the harder you will need to dig.

In a forum setting, there will be offerings from all over the spectrum, from sound science and logic to pure fancy and conjecture. Again, the more (the collective) you know, the easier it is to decide what answers hold value for you. The less you know, the more you'll need to rely on your other powers of perception to decide who or what to take at face value, if anything.

The forever skeptic, leave too much good information lying on the table. Those who believe everyone and everything they hear end up endlessly chasing their tail. Those that find reliably accurate information they're comfortable putting their faith in seem to progress most rapidly in forum and other mentoring settings, but YMMV. Further, while I don't mind batting abstract ideas back and forth over the net, like most others, I soon weary of trying to help the chronic skeptic, so in that regard they may be shooting themselves in the foot.

I too, would be glad for the grower whose plant came to bloom 2 days after the Superthrive application - glad for the excitement it brought; but, I wouldn't believe it to have been caused by the product, and I couldn't help but be a little disappointed that she believed the ST somehow brought about something magical. Anticipating the magic of blooms 2 days after the next application is an unrealistic expectation and a disappointment in the offing.

Al

Tapla,

I always enjoy a vigorous debate and opposing points of view, but I must totally agree with your previous statement. Well said.

soil