No place for Woo-woo in Permaculture October 28, 2007
Posted by Graham in : Permaculture, Science and Rationaltiy , trackbackOpen Letter to Permaculture Magazine in response to the article “Geomancy and Permaculture” by Alanna Moore
Dear Permaculture Magazine
Many thanks for the recent edition of PM54 with its many excellent and useful articles. You continue to do an excellent job of promoting quality permaculture ideas and reporting on sustainable projects around the world.
I have written before about the confusion that seems to permeate much of the alternative/environmental movement between “pre-rational” animism that rejects science and “post-rational” beliefs that include science (see PM 36 “Zone Zero Zero”) and am dismayed to see this confusion still alive and well in the article Geomancy and Permaculture by Alanna Moore.
I am well aware that this is a controversial topic and that many in the permaculture movement will consider it heresy to say this, but there is no scientific basis for Geomancy, dowsing, the existence of nature spirits or other animistic beliefs alluded to in the article, and as such, no place for these concepts in permaculture.
Permaculture is a sustainable design system which uses design principles distilled from the ecological sciences; as such, it depends for its effectiveness upon rigorous scientific testing and verifiable, refutable methods. There is no mention that I am aware of in any of the core permaculture texts- Mollison, Holmgren, Whitefield, nor in the inspirations for permaculture such as the works of Howard Odum- of the importance of “talking to the land” or communing with “subtle energies” which Moore seems to take quite literally.
Moore makes some interesting and important points about respect for natural and ancient places, the importance of preserving and protecting archaeological sites and so on, and tells the story of a developer in Scotland last year who was prevented by locals from moving an ancient stone which they believed was the “sacrosanct home” of the fairies. I dont know the site in question, but probably also would have resisted that development, and if appealing to local beliefs in fairies was a way to achieve this, I might even have been tempted to do so. But can these beliefs possibly be presented literally as the “ideal partner for permaculture design”? I would call upon all permaculture teachers, students and designers everywhere to state emphatically that they cannot.
In Moor’s article we are told:
“Before major upheavals, such as earthworks, are begun, the respectful way is to give plenty of warning to the place about what is about to happen, well ahead of, and up to, the event. The same applies to tree cutting and branch lopping. Nature is intelligent, so talk to it!”
To any professional forester, woodsman or horticulturalist, any serious or amateur permaculturalist or gardener, this must surely be considered an insult to the intelligence. Many people from a more “mainstream” set of values who might otherwise be drawn to PM for the valuable information and excellent articles (for example Julian Rose’s important contribution on small farms in Poland) will be immediately put off by the inclusion of an article on geomancy, which would be a great shame, and I am left wondering whether might we next expect a “Permaculture and Astrology” column?
The idea that trees or landscapes can understand and respond “intelligently” in the literal way that Moore implies is childish nonsense. By this I mean, like beliefs in Santa Claus, they may be fine for a child, but as we mature and grow to adults, it is necessary to discard them, painful though that may be. What the world desperately needs right now is mature and rational methods of inquiry.
Trees, animals, rocks and stones may appear to have “spirits” etc but they do not have central nervous systems, much less a neo-cortex which, uniquely to humans, gives us the capacity for language, art and conscious design.
It is true that a protracted period of site observation, including perhaps quiet time appreciating the beauty and tranquility of a site can help us in the design process, and I am all for that. But we cannot get closer to the natural world by imagining we can literally talk to the trees,or that fairies really live on the misty moors if only we develop the “sensitivity” to appreciate them.
I have been in debates of this kind for many years and have many times fallen foul of others for stating these opinions. I have even been told by one permaculture teacher that I “should not express these views” (that fairies dont exist) because I was “upsetting people with good intentions”. I am not questioning the good intentions of people who believe in fairies or geomancy, but I would like to challenge directly the validity of these beliefs, and certainly their relevance for permaculture.
A common response to this is a rejection of science and rational thought as being the source of environmental destruction, and a yearning to revert to earlier animistic beliefs, placing instinct and emotional/sensory feelings above rational thought and enquiry.
This idea is in direct contradiction to what the environmental movement owes to science. It is through science that we know about the likely effects of global warming. It is through long and hard scientific enquiry that we know the true extent of the destruction of the biosphere, the increase in resource consumption, the loss of species and the increase in pollution. It is also through science that we have the benefits of so many aspects of the modern world, unsustainable or otherwise, including computers, magazines and other information technology that help us spread our ideas. We should not take the benefits of science and then reject its methods and demands for rigorous investigation just on a whim of our feelings. Feelings are fickle and not dependable for uncovering the truth.
Unlike religion and other pre-rational beliefs, science does not claim to “know all the answers” or that science represents an alternative “religion” of sorts, as is often claimed;rather, science demands a method of enquiry based on evidence. If new evidence is verified to contradict established views, then those views or beliefs must change.
The James Randi Educational Foundation is offering $1million to anyone who can provide verifiable, repeatable proof of dowsing or other “paranormal” beliefs under controlled environments. This is a serious challenge; many have tried, none have won the prize so far.
If any permaculturalists out there believe in dowsing I would encourage them to take up Randi’s challenge. Think of how useful that money would be for developing permaculture education and training.
Many will object to what I am saying on the grounds that I should not challenge other’s personal beliefs which are after all essentially harmless, but I disagree, especially as in this case, beliefs in geomancy are billed as “the ideal partner for permaculture design”.
I I were to argue that racism is the “perfect partner to permaculture design” on the grounds that, after meditation and a suitable period of communing with nature I have discovered that black people are of inferior intelligence to white- as James Watson has recently argued- I would be rightly criticized on the grounds that there is no evidence for these beliefs.
It may seem unfair to compare geomancy with racism, since the first seems harmless and victimless. However, I want to make the wider point about how we actually come to our beliefs in the first place, and what is acceptable to question and what is considered heresy. For this, we need consistency in the approach, be it in investigating “subtle earth energies”, racism, or the projected yield of walnuts. The controversial scientist Richard Dawkins has made a similar point in discussions on religion: the tolerance of “moderate” religion in public discourse may seem harmless on the surface, but promotes the idea that irrational beliefs with no supporting evidence should be taken seriously, which in turn provides background support for more extremist views.
In the same way, everything we do in permaculture must be consistently subjected to the same rigorous investigation, based on the scientific method. This does not mean that science claims absolute certainty; what is required is refutability and reference to the best available evidence.
Another objection to the scientific approach is that science cannot disprove things like geomancy. Once again, what is required here is consistency of argument: if you promote geomancy on the shaky grounds that it cannot be “disproved” then what about racism? Why not just invent any belief that happens to suit you- “There is no such thing as anthropocentric climate change- the fairies have told me” or “Oil was a gift to us from the Mother. Once it is gone, She will look after us with another gift” (I have actually had someone tell me this with all seriousness). We do not have to have absolute disproof of something in order to reject it; rather, a significant degree of verifiable evidence is required before we should consider it.
It is tragic perhaps that we can save neither ourselves nor the environment by talking to the fairies or wishful thinking. What is needed if we are to create a sustainable future and find our place in nature is critical thinking and open debate, with design solutions based on evidence.
To promote geomancy in the context you have done in Permaculture Magazine is as a matter of fact a subversion of permaculture, which may Im afraid do considerable harm to its prospects of wider acceptance.
Regards
Graham Strouts
Course Co-ordinator
Practical Sustainabilty
Kinsale Further Education Centre
Co. Cork
Ireland
Comments»
Fantastically well said Graham. I too was enjoying reading through my new copy of Permaculture magazine until I was presented with the double page Geomancy nonsense. I nearly cancelled my subscription by return phone call. Here’s hoping that your comprehensive explanation of the reasons why there is no place for this in permaculture are listened to by the editors. I encourage others who have read this post and agree with your thought to add their names to the comments by way of a petition.
Thank you Graham, for common sense.
It’s a sad state of affairs when some people are simply not satisfied with the wonders of our natural world; with, for instance, the magnificence of life and death, or the staggering complexities of food-webs and weather cycles. Instead they insist on making up extra stuff on top.
Is it not enough that a wizened, gnarled hawthorn tree has achieved great age and is now host to numerous mosses and lichens, insects and birds, without having to insist that there’s a faery living in it too?Can we not be happy that a poppy plant can make the most wonderful red colour just from chemicals it finds in the grey soil, or that a perfect honeybee emerges from it’s cell just 3 weeks after a tiny egg was laid in there?
Grow up people, it’s time to get real - and reality is great!
Tim
Whilst I agree in essence with the thrust of Graham’s letter, I believe myself to be even more critical in relation to the philosophical underpinning of articles such as that espoused by Ms Moore.
I believe that the imagination in tandem with a strong scientific methodology are equally valid and an either/or scenario is unhelpful. We should avoid being absolutist on these matters.
Dialectical Materialism - Marxism as it’s popularly known - is the critical tool to advance the philosophical diagnostic for the scientific method and that is derived from the analysis of matter in motion. What Graham is criticising is the Idealist perspective, which is the dominant philosophical outlook underpinning the Capitalist economic system. Dr Mae Wan Ho and colleagues - http://www.i-sis.org.uk/index.php - is where we can find a more intelligent and seriously scientific as contrasted with mere advocacy, that is prevalent within both the commercial and academic sectors.
The fact that PM has allowed such an article to be printed is indicative of the editorial policy and notwithstanding the concerns raised by Graham will, I believe, do little to dissuade the publishers to continue to give over column inches to articles of this kind. Perhaps it’s time to establish a more scientifically rigorous/practical/political publication…
Thanks for an excellent response Graham. I’m a permaculture newbie and have been a subscriber to the magazine for a couple of years now and every so often an article comes along that makes me wonder why I keep reading it. The article on geomancy was one of them and came in the first issue after I renewed my subscription. If it had come in the previous issue I probably would not have bothered.
I was intending to write a short note to the editors but was off enjoying the second module of the design course and haven’t had a chance yet.
I appreciate that many who have an interest in permaculture may also have an interest in geomancy, crystals, fairies or other more esoteric subjects and they have that right just as I have a right not to. On my course these subjects are frequently a source of discussion between some participants and out of politeness I tend to say little or nothing during these moments of distraction. My fear is that having these treated as a part of the subject will make it impossible for the permaculture movement to be taken seriously.
An incisive critique Graham, and well taken to task. That line about geomancy being “the ideal partner for permaculture design” is clearly absurd. I haven’t yet had my Permaculture Magazine (everyone else seems to get theirs before me!) so I haven’t read the article in question, but while broadly being in agreement with your piece, two things left me slightly unsettled.
Firstly, I think that to state “Permaculture is a sustainable design system which uses design principles distilled from the ecological sciences; as such, it depends for its effectiveness upon rigorous scientific testing and verifiable, refutable methods” is to perhaps see scientific rigour where it doesn’t exist. Yes permaculture is based on observations from science, and yes it is the application of insights from ecology. As such it is inherently rooted in scientific rigour.
However, as someone who has pored over academic databases looking for refereed papers on permaculture, I can tell you there are very few, indeed almost none. Permaculture has actually done very little of this. Aside from people like Peter Harper measuring everything in his garden and weighing his rubbish, very few of us do anything even vaguely resembling quantitative scientific research. Where in any of the permaculture magazines are anything resembling refereed academic papers?
Do you document the yields from all the plants growing in Kinsale or at Derrydubh, alongside control samples and perhaps compare them with those grown in other conditions? What is the starting hypothesis of this research? In truth, the permaculture movement has done very little “rigorous scientific testing” rarely ever uses “verifiable, refutable methods”.
Aside from Martin Crawford at ART, I know of no permaculture projects that do. I think to present permaculture as being above making generalisations made in Moore’s article and to accuse the geomancers of letting letting their passions run before their quantitative research is a bit overegging the pudding.
However, having spent the last 2 years in academia, I have to say that I think that “rigorous scientific testing” is not the be all and end all. Yes we need to be able to show that the results of our approach work, but in fact permaculture has been rubbish at this… can permaculture feed the world? Where are the yield figures? Very little exist. While we need more, at the same time they are not a substitute for enthusiasm and engagement, something academia largely fails to generate.
Mollison and Holmgren were a rare thing among academics, passionate, practical people with a big idea. They created permaculture as a concept, not as an academically researched model, backed up with data. They created an idea, a model, a hypothesis, one that the subsequent movement has not dedicated a great deal of time to trying to scientifically validate or refute. In standing up and accusing others of making assertions that are not based on science, we in the permaculture movement are also standing on pretty shaky ground. I would strongly warn against heading for the moral high ground here.
Also, science is not a neutral dispassionate thing. Yes, without science we would not be aware of climate change and peak oil, but we also wouldn’t have GM crops, nanotech and so on. Science is far too in obeyance of vested interests and reliant on them for funding (many university departments are sponsored by corporations now) to be able to challenge some of these things. Scientific rigour is essential, but only if it asks the right questions and is looking in the right direction, and also if it is underpinned with some kind of ethics.
Lastly, while it is easy to mock those who believe in fairies, I think at the same time that to assert that what we see and directly experience and can scientifically measure is all there is and that anything outside that is fringe and wacky is a dangerous path to go down. If I am quiet and still and have spent a long time in nature, I do experience Nature as more than just the sum of its parts. I would recommend Stephan Harding’s book “Animate Earth”, which sets out the Gaia hypothesis in a very scientific way, but also argues that it is more than just a collection of processes. I don’t experience the world as being full of fairies and godesses, but at the same time I do feel it as a living, breathing organism… something science is just starting to catch up with…
I am reminded of Sylvia Plath, when she wrote “what I fear most, I think, is the death of the imagination. When the sky outside is merely pink, and the rooftops merely black; that photographic mind which paradoxically tells the truth, but the worthless truth, about the world. It is that synthesising spirit, that ’shaping’ force, which prolifically sprouts and makes up its own worlds with more inventiveness than God which I desire. If I sit still and don’t do anything, the world goes on beating like a slack drum, without meaning. We must be moving, working, making dreams to run toward; the poverty of life without dreams is too horrible to imagine, it is that kind of madness which is worst”.
You guys have all read Dawkins (I’m just starting my first one) so I am probably a bit behind on all this. However, while I see greatly the need for it, I think we have to be careful about assuming that science is somehow an impartial lens through which all is revealed. What I love about permaculture is that it is about learning through experience and through experimentation. Few of us have done load stress tests on cob walls yet we know they are firm and strong. Few of us record the yields from our different strains of runner beans, yet we know which are the best varieties for our gardens. Academic rigour and scientific evaluation may well be an essential partner to passion, enthusiasm and have-a-go pioneering experimentation, but they are certainly no substitute. One only has to look at some of the mind numbing semi-autistic stuff people to PhDs on to get a sense of how far much of academia has grown from what really matters at this pivotal point at the end of the Oil Age.
Thanks Rob for your comments. You make an excellent point that permaculture has indeed largely failed to provide the scientific research necessary to demonstrate its effectiveness.
I think that there are a few more good examples than you mention however- i would point to the work of David Jacke and his book “Edible Forest Gardens” as one superb piece of science-based permaculture.
This, however, is precisely my point: what is urgently needed is MORE scientific research; I feel you muddy the waters rather by emphasising the “people in glass houses…” aspect: it is not about that at all.
The essential point is this: the scientific method should be used whenever possible to validate trials. It is a tool like any other- it can be used badly or well. Let’s all agree that we will strive to use it as well as we can. It will never be perfect, but that is no reason to throw it out randomly.
I may not have measured the yield but I do know that beans grow well in good soil, that I have less weeds if I mulch, etc.. There is also obviously a vast body of genuine scientific research that permaculture borrows from soil biology, botany, chemistry, arboriculture etc etc. which allows us to do what we do.
Im glad you are reading Dawkins because he addresses at length in several of his books the other issues you raise, the concern that science is cold, dry, emotionless and will lead to a totally boring world with no passion or zest.
Dawkins’ genius is his ability to translate the sometimes difficult concepts and discoveries of science to the layman, and what emerges from this is a universe far, far more colourful, extraordinary and amazing -as described by science- that anything imagined by either traditional religion or New Age beliefs.
As Tim Rowe states in his comment above, who needs fairies when you have the real world, especially when it can be revealed to be even more wonderful under the microscope?
If nature fills you with strong emotions this is not in any way in conflict with science as a method of understanding the world. Remember that the Gaia hypothesis was created by Lovelock, a scientist, but he insists it was purely a metaphor: of course the world is more than a sum of its parts, but that doesnt mean it is sentient or has wishes and intentionality as we do. It is this projection of human attributes onto the non-human world that needs to be challenged and which has no place in permaculture and should be left behind in kindergarten.
What this widespread belief in fairies etc indicates is that very few people have any real appreciation or understanding of science; and in a world that really is facing the precipice, I find that deeply troubling.
Hi Graham,
Thought provoking article you posted.
Re dowsing…does this include water ‘divining’? I have witnessed a number
of people divine for water over the years and I have seen some impressive
results. One demonstration was at a building site at which I was working,
where a man with no prior knowledge of the site successfully located a
very good water supply. There was no reason to suspect it was in the
location chosen. The supply discovered was a ‘gusher’ not simply the water
one might strike if one digs down to the water table. The diviner, who
considered his skill a gift and didn’t charge for his services, simply
selected a piece of forked branch of a nearby ‘sally’ (willow) and went to
work. My building colleague and I both tried it too with mixed results. I
didn’t feel anything happening to the stick but I did feel extremely weird
(kind of unwell and heart pounding). Several water diviners have said to
me that dowsing is not good for the heart, which is interesting as I
suffer from a heart arrhythmia.
So while science has no explanation of why water divining works, it’s hard
to deny fist hand evidence. (its a bit more complicated that faith
healing, which could be the explanation for homeopathy for example,
because you can’t ‘will’ a water source to appear!). While one can
certainly not rule out chance (extremely unlikely when one looks at the
probability of hitting a good water source as a random event) or some
ability on the part of the diviner to ‘read’ the ground, it’s certainly a
hard thing to prove one way or another.
I have also witnessed water divining on other occasions, using various
implements or aids varying from pieces of wood to coat hangers! While I am
sympathetic to the thrust of your article, I wouldn’t like to see a world
where people like water diviners are ridiculed or castigated.
Its not a question of trying to win a million euro bet, if that was
important I’d be doing the lotto every week!
Your article does raise a lot of interesting points which I hope will be
discussed further. It’s all very well apologising to a tree before we cut
it down, but how does one apologise for the detrimental effects of ones
consumerist lifestyle (flying, driving a car, reading newspapers, using
computers, wearing clothes derived from monocultural plantations of cotton
or from petrochemicals, eating meat or pulses produced on land formerly
rainforest, etc)? It’s a bit too late to be apologising once the
rainforest is cut down, the last polar bear has died or the climate has
gone west.
Regards,
Andy Wilson
Editor, Sustainability Magazine
Thanks Andy
You make some interesting points. Should we apologize to the oil well every time we fill our car? to the land that the road was built on? And that raises the question as to how far do we go back? When was the first act of human destruction on the planet?
Re. water divining, I think many people will report similar stories to your own. The point is certainly not to ridicule or castigate anyone, but to use critical thinking to establish the validity of what we believe.
I cant see any real difficulty in principle to assessing the validity of water divining using the scientific method. It is merely a question of setting up a controlled experiment, using a number of people, some diviners some not, in various sites, some with their water sources known , others not, with proper controls etc.. Surely this is the way to establish the validity or not of something- and studies like this must surely have been done.
The million dollar bet is neither here nor there- just that, if water divining is for real, why doesnt someone win it?
Surely if you believe it works you would give it better odds than winning the lotto?
For anyone who has read more than 5 peak oil books and less than one Dawkins book - I suggest that you alter your reading priority list as a matter of urgency! (PS I’m at one peak oil book and 5 Dawkins…)
In 2004 a scientific study was undertaken in Kassel, Germany, under the direction of the Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften (GWUP) [Society for the Scientific Investigation of the Parasciences]. The three-day test of some 30 well known and experienced dowsers involved plastic pipes through which a large flow of water could be controlled and directed. The pipes were buried 50 centimeters under a level field. On the surface, the position of each pipe was marked with a colored stripe, so all the dowsers had to do was tell whether there was water running through the pipe. All the dowsers signed a statement agreeing this was a fair test of their abilities and that they expected a 100 percent success rate. However, the results were no better than what would have been expected by chance.
There was a $10,000 prize. No-one won it. The full report is here:
http://www.phact.org/e/z/kassel.htm
Peer reviewed, established science is one of the few ways we have of freeing ourselves from centuries of irrational beliefs that can be both harmful and dangerous, or at the very least a waste of time and money…
Now don’t even get me started on homeopathy, astrology or religion! (Although if any more good people I know try to recommend homeopathic remedies for our children or dog I’m going to scream!)
Hi Graham I should have mentioned before how much I enjoy your blog.
Regarding studies on divining. There was a large study conducted in Germany of water divinging. The majority were classed as low skill / no skill no better at finding water than random selection. A small number were recognised as having high skill and did have better results than chance. Subsequent analysis of the data suggests that those who carried out the study didn’t really plan it very well and the method was skewed toward giving a positive result. When I brought this up with a proponent of divining I was told that it was flawed as a metal pipe was used and it affects the ability of many diviners. None of the diviners tested seemed to consider this a problem when the study was offered to them.
I’m sure there is something in water divining, possibly an instinctive ability to read the land, the twig, sticks or bent bits of wire are maybe just props they need to overcome their own resistance to their abilities. I’m also sure that there are places in the country which seem special but again I suspect aspect, geology, plants, weather and water are the key drivers rather than the faerie.
More generally the issue and what I think is critical for permaculture is not the collection of evidence, although this is important and should be addressed, but how we react when evidence becomes available that challenges our world view. Do we place obstacles to the acceptance of truth (is that a steel pipe - we don’t do steel pipes), or do we try and learn from the experience and improve our models and methods.
In my opinion this is the fundamental reason to keep notions like geomancy out of core permaculture thinking, in letting in faith we start to squeeze out doubt
‘in letting in faith we start to squeeze out doubt’
exactly George, that’s what ‘religion’ is for. it made me feel a bit queasy seeing that article in my favorite mag. its all very well ‘changing the paradigm’* but descending into superstition is a step too far! not to mention that ‘ordinary’ people think we are a bunch of tree hugging druids already!
*other cliches are available
[...] A technical problem with posting comments on Zone5, probably caused by faeries playing mischief, has now been sorted. Please join the lively debate re “Woo-Woo in Permaculture” [...]
So what about crop circles then Graham?
Rob
Well, what about them? What would you like to tell us about them? Do you think, like many apparently feel about water divining, that they should be exempt from investigation using the scientific method? What other interesting phenomenon should be exempt from this process- climate change perhaps? The environmental impact of the Growth Economy?Should we withhold judgment until more evidence appears? If no more evidence appears, does that in itself prove that they are the work of aliens/faerys/Mother Earth showing her anger or whatever is the current hypothesis? Should the meaning of Crop Circles be taught on permaculture courses?
Answers on a postcard please!
I throw crop circles into this discussion somewhat flippantly, but also to make an important point. Here is a real, tangible phenomena anyone can go and see and examine. Last one I saw in the UK before I moved to Ireland featured 96 individual circles, and appeared in broad daylight between 5pm and 5.45pm next to a busy main road. No-one saw anything. (You can see a picture of it at http://myoneisbig.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!1A209BEB36E037E6!190.entry, it is the top one…).
I spent hours in it examining it, and the way the plants were bent and swirled, twisted and sculpted, was stunning. I would bet my life that it could not be made, in 45 minutes, by lads with garden rollers. I have no idea how it was made, I don’t hypothesise fairies or aliens or Earth Mothers or whatever, just that it is something genuinely odd, that I can’t explain.
There have been scientists who have been researching it, who have had peer reviewed papers such as
http://www.bltresearch.com/semi-molten.html published,
and who have used scientific methods to explore what is happening here http://www.bltresearch.com/plantab.html
Their conclusions? Changes to the plants inside the formations that are similar to their having been microwaved, as well as other changes that cannot be explained by mechanical flattening or wind damage.
I have no idea how the formation I stood in then got there, I don’t believe in fairies, nature spirits or goddesses. However, I also know that Doug and Dave and their garden rollers had nothing to do with it. So, I would argue, I am left with something genuinely inexplicable .
Most scientists say, and this is the point of my bringing up crop circles, that they are all made by people, because they must be. While in some ways science can be rigorous and groundbreaking, it can also be stiflingly conservative and entrenched. Crop circles are an interesting example, because they can be examined and explored, yet a simple explanation is frustratingly elusive. My point is that perhaps scientific exploration of these kinds of things might reveal that, as quantuum physics is finding, perhaps the world doesn’t work always in the mechanistic way we think it does and there are things out there still to learn.
I have no fixed idea on this, I am just always wary of certainty. Of course I don’t feel that looking at things like crop circles should be exempt from investigation using the scientific method. On the contrary, where, apart from the papers referred to above, is the research going on into something that could offer some extraordinary insights into all kinds of things? We should of course be rigorous, but there is a danger I think in becoming fixated on the scientific principle that anything that doesn’t fit that neat system, what statisticians might call ‘outliers’, are discarded. Perhaps though, closer exploration of things that don’t fit neatly into boxes could yield new insights and discoveries?
By the way, I certainly never taught the meaning of crop circles on permaculture courses, but I did use pictures of some of them in my session on pattern, as the geometry of them is extraordinary, and they demonstrate that whoever designed them has an amazing understanding of pattern and form, which fits very neatly in with the study of pattern in permaculture design. The question inevitably comes up “what’s your theory as to how they are made?”, to which I always answer that I don’t have a clue, other than that a good few of them aren’t made people (some of course are). I’d love to know though. Perhaps you could enlighten me Graham?!
Thanks Rob for your interesting comment on crop circles.
I know nothing about them. I have never seen one, although my father (who was scientifically trained) has and i gave him a book on the subject a few years ago.
since they seem to be predominantly a phenomenon of large-scale industrial monoculture in lowland England I am wondering if it may be that with the collapse of modern farming over the next few years we will see the end of crop circles without any valid explanation being provided; or do you think they will mutate into some new form that will plague the patchwork of edible forest gardens that we hope to see propogated across the country in the post-peak world?
James Randi has this to say:
http://www.randi.org/encyclopedia/crop%20circles.html
I dont know if this convinces you, but I would advise extreme caution: many “experts” have been duped before by pranks, some of which have been staged by skeptics who wish to demonstrate just how easy it is to fool even the scientific community. This applies to all sorts of so-called “paranormal” phenomena.
That humans have an extreme ability to believe what they want to believe and switch off their critical faculties should not be doubted viz: the Third Reich; Religion; widespread belief across the world in the benefits of the Industrial Growth system.
They may be a genuine phenomenon worthy of further study, but I am personally not going to give them much time unless there is reason to believe they can help us survive the coming collapse of the human system. I love this bit on the Randi site:
“The fact that these figures are so easily made and have deceived the experts reduces the matter of the crop circles to whether or not one chooses to believe in a capricious and rather juvenile action performed by a highly advanced extraterrestrial civilization, or what amounts to little more than an involved schoolboy prank carried out by quite ordinary folks.”
I appreciate your sober and scientific approach to investigating this subject but I take issue with some of your comments that give a completely lopsided view of science.
“Most scientists say, and this is the point of my bringing up crop circles, that they are all made by people, because they must be. While in some ways science can be rigorous and groundbreaking, it can also be stiflingly conservative and entrenched”
On the contrary, the danger is mainly from the other end of this equation, especially within the environmental movement which seems to have a built-in prejudice against science: the far more common result is the assumption that unexplained phenomena “must be” caused by supernatural beings like gods or faerys.
Surely the possiblity remains that crop circles are indeed man-made; however unlikely this may be, the alternative hypotheses seem even more unlikely. That doesnt mean that we can discount any theory, but that we should be wary, as any good scientist would be, of jumping to conclusions: the correct response is to withhold judgment until more evidence presents itself.
It is simply incorrect to associate scientific research with a preference for certainty and closed-mindedness over discovering new things; if that were the case, all the amazing things we are still learning about- the planet’s climate history for example, the origins of the universe- not to mention all the technology of the modern world that we all benefit from- would not exist.
While scientists are perfectly capable of being wrong, the kind of narrow-minded bigotry, chauvinistic certainty and oppressive stifling of the imagination that you allude to is in my opinion far more prevalent amongst that lamentably large section of the eco-culture (including, alas, permacultre) than the scientific community.
Also, I simply cannot understand the common argument against science that it has been in some ways invalidated by quantum physics; quantum physics itself has come out of the scientific method, and if there are exciting new discoveries to be made that will transform our understanding of the universe, they will surely come from the application of this same method of investigation, not by wishful thinking.
The Laws of Thermodynamics still stand and, as Odum has shown, will determine also the fate of human economies and cultures; the discovery quantum physics has not changed that reality one bit as far as I can see.
“Wishful thinking” is not the same as unexplained phenomena Graham. The scientific method is not being invalidated here, on the contrary it is reinforced by the conclusions drawn by those who are incapable of using it or refuse to. Rob’s example of the Crop circles is simply illustrating a phenomenon that, as yet, has not been thoroughly explained. To label this as being of the paranormal ilk repeats the mistake of those who speculate on it’s cause without evidence to support it. Dare I say, cynically, there is little research as there’s no obvious economic imperative at stake. It’s not the phenomenon in itself that is in dispute, rather the explanation of its cause.
The only absolute is change and this is matter in motion. Even a cursory glance amongst the scientific community will show that there is a whole lot more at stake than scientific objectivity. Almost every major scientific report ever produced is contradicted by another at some point, which suggests the “reality” is a little more elusive than we perhaps would think or ‘like’. But this is a natural phenomenon, the dialectic in operation and is fundamental to matter.
Reductionist science, wihout beginning from the interconnectedness of all natural phenomena and without the philosophical guidance to underpin it, is doomed under the current ideological and economic system to deliver a straitjacket to opportunity. It is only when the economic and political material conditions exist to allow a sytems thinking education to take place, will the scientific method realise its full potential.
While the information on studies on water divining quoted above are interesting, I’m not sure it invalidates the practice. Some people do have an ability to find sources that others would not, so something must work (even if has nothing to do with a piece of sally).
Presumably some of the posters here have strong opinions on biodynamic horticulture too, as this uses both astrological and homoeopathic principles!
One thing that troubles me here is that there seems to be a dearth of scientific evidence that permaculture ‘works’. Or am I missing something?
Is permaculture it a science or does it simply aspire to becoming one? What about statements like (found in the Permaculture bible, sorry Handbook) ‘work with nature rather than against it’? How exactly does one define ‘working with nature’? Or ‘working against’ nature for that matter? Or how does one define ‘nature’? Is this a scientific term?
One suspects that it would take trials lasting a number of decades to ‘prove’ what ‘works’ and what doesn’t, particularly ( for example) with regard to speculation about as yet untested new /introduced varieties or species.
Take walnuts and sweet chestnuts. It is well proven they crop well in the extreme south of Britain and Ireland, but entirely speculative that new varieties will perform well in more northerly parts of these islands, and in particular in the northern areas which also have high rainfall.
The answer of course is to do trials, and full credit to people like Paul and Jacinta at Woodkearne Nurseries in Co. Cork for their dedicated work on nuts. However, it will be a long time - decades - and will require trials in many places before it is clear whether new varieties can significantly overcome previous barriers of latitude and climate. It would be prudent to sound a note of caution. Unfortunately research being carried out in places like Devon and Cork may not provide clear indications of the potential for growing nuts in climates more representative of the average for Britain or Ireland
One of my criticisms of the Permaculture handbook was that it didn’t spell out clearly enough the limitations of chestnuts and walnuts as potential food crops. The yields quoted were taken from high yielding regions of the world (I checked) and should be viewed as best case scenarios or simply unachievable in locations like Britain or Ireland. Realistic yields might be as little as one tenth of the quantities quoted, even in locations where regular harvests occurred. Elsewhere, yields might well be zero.
A quick examination of European (Eurostat) data on the yields per ha of hazelnut/cobnuts illustrates the massive difference in yields in producer countries. The differences would be even more pronounced with chestnuts and walnuts.
I say this as a very enthusiastic ‘nut man’ … I planted named varieties of walnuts and many varieties of cob and filbert on land in Antrim in the mid 1980’s long before the word ‘permaculture’ became common currency. I would however tend to put my money on the Corylus (hazel) species, not ealnuts and chestnuts as potentially significant food crops in my own climatic zone and location ( coastal, mid- west of Ireland).
I would have a real difficulty with anyone attempting to pass off the section on nuts in the Permaculture Handbook off as ’scientific’.
Of course one swallow does not make a summer but it is shows how important it is to distinguish between enthusiasm and hard data when the aim is to inform and educate.
I see no point in permaculture attempting to pass itself off as ’scientific’ unless it is prepared to adopt the same stringent trials and tests as those demanded (by some posters here) or carried out on biodynamic horticulture, water divining etc, and to use accurate information.
Otherwise the arguments expressed against ‘unscientific’ practices might just look like begrudgery.
James Randi’s assessment of crop circles is a great example of what I am talking about. Here is a man who has decided in advance that crop circles are faked and so picks the evidence to fit his case. From the link you have shown there is no link to any peer reviewed research or indeed any research or references of any kind, nor indeed that Randi even got out from behind his desk and went to even look at one. It is precisely my point, “they can’t be a genuine phenomenon so they’re not”. Where is the rigorous assessment in that?
The examples he uses to prove his point are stories from the tabloid media who regularly run their crop circle hoaxing stories. The story of Doug and Dave has been widely discredited, they only ever actually proved that they had made a handful of circles, the ones they made for the media were rubbish. Randi’s arguments are astonishingly flimsy, based on heresay and not addressing any of the phenomenon’s more baffling characteristics. Laughable, if that is put up as a through scientific debunking.
I agree with you absolutely that we need to be more rigorous, that we need to prove our arguments, and that particular sections of the green movement are just as guilty of ignoring that or selecting data to prove their points. My concern is that we throw the baby out with the bathwater; that if we take Randi’s position of sitting smugly behind a desk, picking newspaper articles of dubious provenance to argue a case he has already decided the outcome of, that serves no-one (apart from Randi).
Permaculture breaks new ground and tries new things out. It acts outside the constraints of the mainstream farming research establishment, and due to this has been able to be very experimental. Yes, it would of course be much stronger if it documented, tested and reported its work and finding. Of course. My concern is that the scientific establishment which your original piece so lauded too often takes the Randi approach rather than the permaculture one. If it got out from behind its desk more often and asked “what if” a bit more, as permaculture does, we might find insights into things that would otherwise elude us. By linking to Randi, you have offered a great insight into all that is worst about science, rather than offering a paragon of scientific practice.
Andy
Thanks for your information and views on nut-growing in cool temperate areas. You are absolutely right- it will take a long time to verify and do substantial trials on which varieties are best for this part of the world- something that may never in fact be done satisfactorily because of the rapidly changing climate. Nevertheless, this is exactly the kind of work that should be central to the permaculture project, using appropriate research methods and collecting evidence- and I think it is a valid point that permaculture needs more of this, so thankyou again for making this contribution.
As to the broader question of whether permaculture itself is a science or whether it aspires to be one, I refer you once again to my original article:
“Permaculture is a sustainable design system which uses design principles distilled from the ecological sciences; as such, it depends for its effectiveness upon rigorous scientific testing and verifiable, refutable methods”.
If these methods and the required rigour are found wanting, they need to be corrected.
Permaculture is also more than a science- it is in Holmgren’s words “an international grassroots movement of practitioners, organisations and designers;” and “an empowering response to environmental and social crises”.
Now, you may object that the last two definitions are not “scientific” but that would be beside the point, like accusing a professional physicist of being non-scientific because he also like listening to music and painting.
It is well understood that a lot of early permaculture was aspirational and inspirational and now in its more mature phase needs tightening up with proper research and field trials. That is the challenge ahead of us- one that will always be there, a process and a journey, not a fixed “here we are -everything’s sorted now”.
So while I agree with what you actually say, the reasoning behind your conclusions I find entirely backwards. You seem to be saying that, because you can find holes in permaculture- it is not perfect and there is a lot of work to be done- that this in some ways lessens the need for rigorous research; as if to say-”You permaculture lot aren’t very good at being scientific so why should anyone else be?” Also, that you think permaculture should be prepared to undergo the rigor that it demands of dowsing etc- of course it should! That is entirely the point of my original article, that we need MORE rigor and application of the scientific method, not less. This whole debate is really very, very straightforward and I am resisting any attempt to confuse or subvert it: either you demand scientific rigor for all phenomena, or you are happy to rely on anecdotes and “feelings”; the essential quality we are looking for here is “consistency of approach”.
The whole point is, there is a world of difference between assessing what varieties of walnuts do well and talking to the trees before pruning them.
I am also surprised that since you are involved in the debate you have not revealed to the readers here that you yourself rejected Moore’s article which was also submitted to “Sustainability Magazine” -and I believe I am correct in saying that this was at least in part due to the references to fairies. It would be interesting to know why you rejected the article and whether you still feel you were justified in doing so.
Rob
With reference to your last comment, I hope we can agree at this point that rigorous research is required to investigate any phenomenon, be it nut trees or dowsing or crop circles etc.. you may be correct that Randi has not done a good job; however, I would defend his stance on the grounds that as I said before, “paranormal” explanations are by their very nature extremely unlikely- I do not see any reason at this stage to throw out as a reasonable hypothesis that the ability of fraudsters to construct elaborate and impressive crop circles is improving over time. If the universe were completely random with bizarre other-worldly things happening here and there, I do not believe we would be able to function in it the way we clearly are able to. That in itself is not “proof” but it is very good circumstantial evidence!
Like Andy Wilson’s comments, your reasoning is also entirely backwards: it is not (usually) the “scientific” side of this debate that makes armchair assumptions and follows pre-conceived assumptions: the reasoning goes like this: “We dont know what the explanation for such-and-such is; therefore, it MUST be something paranormal”. Often that is also the only excuse for belief in God. Believe me, I have had this debate with people literally hundreds of times- at least once or twice a week on average- and that is nearly always the only justification for their beliefs.
Again, it is SIMPLY NOT TRUE that science in general are closed-minded and blindly prejudicial, sitting behind a desk and not asking “what if?” , as I hope you will agree once you have read a bit more Dawkins! Of course I do have sympathies with this view because that closed-mindedness obviously does exist as you are discovering in your own work, but clearly science as a whole is not like that otherwise we wouldnt have Gaia theory, the extraordinary insights about the world that climate science has brought us, the Quantum understandings so beloved -but mis-understood- by the New Age movement etc..
Another very important point that I want to explore in some forthcoming posts is this: there are many professional and well-organised fraudsters out there who are only too well aware that the environmental movement in particular is an absolutely prime target for their scams-
we should all be very wary of anything claiming to have a “paranormal” explanation.
Graham,
“With all that science, can you tell me how light enters the soul?” –Henry David Thoreau
Regards
John McDonagh
I think we always have to remember that, even if there is an objective reality, it can only ever be five senses deep. So it probably isn’t as simple as ‘if I can’t see, hear it, etc,… it doesn’t exist’, supposedly this argument was used by the medical establishment to deny the existence of germs. Also many ‘eutopias’ founded on solely rational principles such as The USSR have failed to fully cater for human needs.
However, as mentioned in earlier posts, the rational scientitifc method has brought the human race numerous benefits as well as enhancing the wonder of the natural world. But if you deny this critical method you can open youreself up to believing in absolutley ANYTHING!
The environmental movement has been plagued for too long by the ‘ new age’ airy fairy movement. I think the timing for environmental issues to be acted on is getting too critical. Time to leave the bullshit behind.
I’m probably more on board with John McDonagh’s Thoreau quote, to be honest, and perhaps it’s the single-mindedness of tone in your article as well as so many of the comments here more than the content that puts me off a bit, because I’m the first one to run the other way when someone claims to be “channeling ascended masters who rule our destiny from other realms.” One thing you write here, though, gave me pause: “Trees, animals, rocks and stones may appear to have “spirits” etc but they do not have central nervous systems, much less a neo-cortex which, uniquely to humans, gives us the capacity for language, art and conscious design.” Animals don’t have central nervous systems? Come again? As for having “the capacity for [creating or using] language, art and conscious design”—primates, birds, and elephants—just to name a few animals—all do precisely that. I’d cite some specifics, but the examples are so ubiquitous that it’s not even necessary. Recognizing other species and respecting them for who they truly are in the real world is good science, too.
Good point Marina
My mistake- of course animals have central nervous systems!
And yes there are some amazing and fascinating examples of what can only be called “culture” in animals, language and tool making. One is the story of Alex, the Parrot that was studied for many years in the University of Arizona who was shown to have a remarkable vocabulary and ability to express abstract concepts in English.
Once again, what is notable with your argument- and this happens all the time- is that the “scientific approach” is dissed as being stuffy or having the wrong “tone” and we are then given an example that this same method has revealed- science- to prove the point. Animal behaviour and animals’ abilities to think, have concepts etc. is itself something that needs to be studied using the scientific method, and I claim that it is science that has revealed to us the true majesty of the natural world, and will lead to us taking action to protect and respect it “for what it truly is”- not the fantasy of children. Talking parrots is one thing; talking tree something entirely different.
Eoin
Thanks for your strident remarks- but Im afraid some people may not like your tone.
However, you seem to perpetuate a myth about science that is very common in this kind of debate and needs correcting.
Science emphatically does not assume that only information available to the 5 senses is valid- absolutely the opposite. Science is precisely that uniquely human realm which has been able to create tools- extensions of our senses- that really are able to make unseen worlds and realms visible.
Dawkins in “The God Delusion” expresses it this way in the last chapter, “The Mother of All Burkas”. If the one-inch slit in the muslim woman’s burkha represented the range of light waves that are visible to the human eye, how long above and below the eye-slit would the black cloth be to proportionately represent the rest of the INvisible spectrum? It would apparently be so long that it is difficult to convey- many, many miles. So science not only has revealed how little our senses perceive, but has acquired the tools and techniques to describe this in precise detail.
Dawkins says:
“What science does for us is widen the window. It opens up so wide that the imprisoning black garment slips away almost completely, exposing our senses to airy and exhilarating freedom”.
Sorry, probably was a bit aggresive, didin’t mean to insult anyone, it’s just a bit of a hobby horse. I think the paranormal stuff has been very damaging to the credibility of the environmental movement, aswell as providing a playground for a number of charlatans. So its probably led to me closing the old noggin!