If you and your friend grow the same cut and have them tested (or do your own controlled taste test) what will that tell you? It will tell you that one sample is better than the other, maybe. It won't tell you why. If one tests better than the other is it because one is organic and the other isn't? Or is it from some confounding factor like differences in the ratios or overall levels of nutrients in the medium, pH, DLI, spectrum, temp/humidity over the course of a day, size and health of the original clones, relative heights of growing tips, and more. Different buds from the same plant will test differently. The point being that it hard to do a controlled grow. Then if you are able to control most of the confounding factors, how big is your effect? If it is small, and I suspect it is, then you need a large sample size for your experiment to be sufficiently powered to make any conclusions. It's really not as simple as growing a couple of plants "side by side" (the gold standard of stoner science.)
People burn their plants with organic soil all the time. The idea that conventional growing is "force feeding" while organic soil lets the plant takes what it wants doesn't seem to be true.
I'm pretty sure the science says that the known macro and micro nutrients are all the plant requires to grow and be healthy. That doesn't mean the plant won't take up other compounds, it just doesn't require them to carry out all of its metabolic processes.
I don't think any scientist would disagree that there is a lot to learn but that doesn't mean that "everything is up for speculation." It also doesn't mean you can assert things without evidence. Speculation, even if it makes perfect sense, is totally logical, or is a really compelling argument, isn't evidence.