Proof plants like music/sound?

....enough already......

And what was the measurable effect? Even if statistically significant, it can be irrelevant. ------------------- e.g. the gravitational effect of a particle of dust is measurable and real, but not relevant to anything a human will do in their garden. Initial studies are not proof. Reading the "methedology" section is important when looking at various studies. Even the uninitiated can recognize a poorly set up study - small samples, irrational logic, poorly choosen metrics etc. Despite its corrective nature, scientific research has corruptive forces at work, too. Anything human is prone to error and corruption. There are flaws in the motivational structure of the science world most often related to money and reputation. Ninety percent of intiial studies fail to hold up to scrutiny. Context does matter... if it's a simple, straight-forward measurement with easily controlled variables or easily isolated, you can have a little more hope for a study than if the context is complicated and messy. The bulk of the 90% that fail to hold up to further scrutiny comes from the latter. e.g. Some hippy with a PhD always wants to prove some top-down nonsense that they have faith in but can't prove in a million years. I knew a lady that got a PhD in psychology and all she did was use her degree to justify a bunch of bullshit she sold to clients that was anything by scientfic. She bastardized her education to make money scamming people. She put in the work, then ignored everything she learned in favor of her long-held beliefs and personal biases. PhDs can be chumps and use their degree to justify non-scientific beliefs. It happens all the time. That's not "science." That's more of the same bullshit that failed for 400,000 years of human existence. This is what gives people out of the 'know' a bad perception of modern scientific study. -- The corruption caused by bad actors cannot be differentiated from good work by the bulk of people that often refused to put any effort into their own education, which then dooms us all to endless bullshit scams. Examples: 99.9% of dietary supplements that don't lift one finger to prove any of their claims, and long-term studies of tens of thousands of people across decades shows taking dietary supplement has no measurable impact on your health... I also knew a guy that was trying to scam rich investors for decades with some 'perpetual motion' machine, even though he refused to call it that. It's exactly what he was selling in different words. It was based on an impossibility of creating more energy than what went into the system... even involving a mechanical-to-energy conversion which alone cannot be 100% efficient, let alone greater than 100% efficient, bwahahah. The guy was a smart scumbag that sounded scienc-y. He even had a patent for his machine as an attempt to give it perceived integrity. Patents don't have to do what they promise, obviously. Can you imagine? If he really believed the device worked and kept it from the world? How many problems would be solved with endless, cheap energy? Super glad he died of renal failure related to type I diabetes. I didn't want a good kidney wasted on that scumbag. Should see plenty of parallels with all the gimmicks related to horticulture - not just growing pot. These magical things with supposedly profound effects, yet yield and other basic metrics are unaffected in any material way. They often sound science-y but are at best a bastardization or taken out of context. Lots of repeated beliefs with no effort to prove it. If it sounds too good or too profound in regard to home growing, chances are at this stage in history it's just not true.