So I have been trying to wrap my mind around a concept....
BRO-SCIENCE VS ACTUAL SCIENCE
Bro science as we call it has always been the back seat driver to actual science...or at least what I see. But hey....with actual science, things can be proven or debunked. However....why does bro science get knocked as bad as it does? If a method works, it works!!!! Note*** using as a quick example I do not know if this is proven or not.***
If Grower A has a journal that is ran properly and so forth....and he takes his plant, splits the stem 24 hours prior to harvest. But he does not do it on a plant from the same mom as the plant that had it's stem split. Now.....if you can see a noticeable or major difference in the flower and goes ahead and says " stem splitting in the last 24 hours prior to harvest increases trichome production ". This would be bro science correct?
Now Grower B is a scientist and reads GROWER A's journal , decides to test this theory out. So....now he's running 2 clones from the same mom and in the same conditions. His plants however....show a difference but aren't different in THC %'s.
So....is it safe to say bro science can be just as helpful if not better then actual science? I would see it like a Bill Gates type thing....give the hardest jobs to the laziest people to find the easiest way to do it.
Like I said...the subject is just an example and nothing more.