Biodynamics: Why Believe What Steiner said? September 21, 2009
Posted by Graham in : Gardens, Permaculture, Science and Rationaltiy , trackbackIt is hard to know how best to respond to Judith Hoad’s article in the current edition of the IOFGA magazine Organic Matters in which she admonishes me for being “blinkered” in rejecting biodynamics, the esoteric practice of farming proposed by Rudolph Steiner, whose philosophy of anthroposophy has also lead to the creation of the independent Steiner-Waldorf schools and the Camphill communities.
“Unorthodoxies have their orthodoxies too:” she writes- “Graham Strouts, who heads the permaculture course in Kinsale, has learned and teaches techniques dependent on observations of phenomena in the natural world to replicate them in the human constructed world.- forest gardens are an example of this. (Permaculture is still regarded by some people as wild unorthodoxy). “However, he is blinkered when he slags off Biodynamic gardening as hocus pocus. Although some would regard Biodynamics as Astrology for plants and animals, what’s wrong with that? Years- lifetimes- of detailed observation of cosmic bodies and terrestrial plant and animal behaviour have formalized cultivation techniques.”
The first thing I would say is that to refer to something I may have said on hearsay without any reference, or context, or including any of the reasons I may have given to argue my case, is not just rude and bad practice, but misleading and pointless.
Also, to make a point of singling me out and highlighting the fact that I teach the permaculture course in Kinsale does rather come over as an attempt to discredit what I teach there.
What right does Hoad have to comment in such a way on the content of a course she has not herself attended ? Where and when-and why- did I “slag off” biodynamics? I hereby demand a public apology, both from Hoad and the editors of Organic Matters for publishing such an ignorant and irresponsible article, which I should say is almost unintelligible and tells us nothing about either permaculture or biodynamics.
(I had not actually read the IOFGA magazine before and in my naivety was shocked to see that this, the voice of the Irish organics movement, is so riddled with superstition and nature spirits- more evidence that organics itself has only the flimsiest of scientific foundations.)
It does however give me an opportunity to express here unequivocally why I would not cover Biodynamics in a course on permaculture, and especially why such pseudoscience has no more place in public education than would have Islam or discourses on the Flying Spaghetti monster.
Evidence vs guesswork in weather forecasting
Judith Hoad is a member of the Irish Association of Master Medical Herbalists and is listed there as a
Herbalist and Vibrational Medicine Practitioner (Shen Tao Acupressure, Flower and Gem Essences).
She begins with an account of a radio debate between RTE’s weather forecaster Evelyn Cusack where “…in tones nothing short of strident arrogance she railed at and interrupted two men with different ways of understanding the weather.”
That was not my experience of hearing the debate in which the rather foolish RTE pitted an experienced and highly qualified physicist against a west Kerry farmer who claims to forecast the weather by observing cloud formations on Mount Brandon; and a New Zealander who claims he can forecast the weatheranywhere in the world using the moon.
I actually thought Evelyn did admirably well to keep her calm against these characters who seemed only dimly connected to reality, insisting as she should that it is the sun, not the moon, that is the main factor in determining weather.
Hoad’s article is full of classic New Age anti-science arguments. She claims for example that science is narrow because it wont accept “alternative” ways of finding things out:
“So, when Cusack was confronted with two weather forecasters, each using different techniques from hers and from one another’s, she got out the equivalent of the meteorologist’s Holy Water and screeched the prayers of Exocism!”
My goodness Judith! If there is any screeching going on, it does rather sound like it is coming form your good self; however, all Evelyn was guilty of doing in my recollection was calmly pointing to the evidence.
Warming to her task of dismissing science and sending us back to the middle ages, Hoad turns her attention to my own attempts to keep a rational perspective alive in my permaculture classes, which leads to the question:
Why on earth should we believe what Steiner said?
According to the Biodynamic Agricultural Association of Ireland, biodynamics is
Biodynamic agriculture springs from a spiritual worldview known as Anthroposophy (from the Greek anthropos, meaning human being; sophia, wisdom). The Austrian philosopher and seer, Rudolf Steiner; extended conventional science by integrating clear thinking with precise observation of sense-perceptible and spiritual phenomena. Anthroposophy offers an account of the spiritual evolution of the Earth as a living being, and of the physical and super-sensible constitution of the human being and the kingdoms of nature.
Biodynamics is a spiritual belief and practice which essentially relies on the testimony of one person, Rudolph Steiner, who concocted his strange theories not from scientific observation and practice but from inner “spiritual” revelations. Unlike science, Steiner did not verify his observations in any way, and his followers take what he said entirely on faith.
As such Biodynamics- along with everything else Steiner promoted- should be understood as religion, and should not be taught in public schools as having any kind of scientific basis. To fail to address this issue as part of my course would be a failure of the responsibility that I take very seriously to check the validity of what I teach and as far as possible back up any information I give with evidence.
It is true, in permaculture we like to experiment, but no one would suggest that, just because its founder Bill Mollison said something we should unquestioningly believe it. Permaculture is rooted in the ecological and physical sciences and should be tested and refined in practice. Some things that may be suggested as practical may turn out not to be; in accordance with scientific method, rather than believe for the sake of it, we need to be ready to abandon ideas that dont withstand the test of time.
Not so with spiritual or religious beliefs which, although they may morph and adapt to the pressures from secular society, have no internal process of verification and are just supposed to be taken on trust.
To explain the difference between real science and pseudoscience like biodynamics it might be useful to compare the work of Steiner with that of his near contemporary Albert Einstein.
Einstein: 1879-1955
Rudolph Steiner 1861-1925
Einstein is widely regarded within science as being the father of modern physics and of having made one of the in not THE- greatest individual contribution to science ever. He was a genius whose theories have stood the test of time. He is almost universally admired and I cannot think I have ever read anyone say anything ill of the man.
Among many other discoveries, Einstein developed a theory of gravity that included the startling observation that space and time are a continuum, and that gravity is a kind of warp in the space-time continuum.
This is best explained by Marcus Chown, in his essential book Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You,as being a bit like placing a heavy object like a lead sphere in the middle of a trampoline; the trampoline represents the space-time continuum, which is warped by the mass of a planet say, causing an orange orbiting around the edge of the trampoline to be pulled towards the heavy object in the middle- it looks like the big sphere is actually pulling the orange towards it but in fact it is an indirect effect caused by the space-time warp.
Astonishing!
This, remember, is an example of science accepting a revolutionary idea which was not only counter-intuitive- just as was, say Galileo’s calculations that it is the earth that orbits the sun and not what common sense tells us, that the sun orbits the earth- but that had been completely missed by all the mystics and visionaries who brought us information from some other “mysterious” and unverifiable method.
Evolution would be another example, some would say an even more revolutionary one, because it provided an alternative to the established view that there had to be an intelligent designer in the universe to create everything with its apparent order, and especially to come up with something as intricate as humanity.
So if science was “blinkered” it would hardly have accepted these, or countless other revolutionary ideas would they Judith?
So why didnt Steiner figure that out? (One could also ask the same question of every shaman, mystic or guru who ever lived: the greatest ideas have been discovered by science, not by mystics.)
In contrast to Einstein, Steiner was not a scientist, but a mystic and a philosopher who did not subject his views to any kind of peer review or scientific testing. His “method” was to simply make pronouncements, and for his followers- both then and now- His word appears sufficient. Like the words of Jesus, they may have been reinterpreted by his followers, but they have not been shown to work in practice.
A very good way to distinguish real science from ideologies and superstitions is the question of fallibility. The wikipedia entry on Einstein lists numerous mistakes that he made, thatare well established, some of which he even acknowledged during his life time.
Did Steiner make any mistakes? It’s a bit like asking, did Jesus? Did God? People who claim access to unseen “spiritual” realms such as Steiner are assumed infallible; how could divinely inspired knowledge possibly be mistaken?
As with the alternative therapies that Hoad sells, “evidence” simply does not come into the picture, and it is noteworthy that Judith does not even attempt to provide any. The “alternative” way of knowing is nothing more than conjecture and personal opinion. What makes science what it is is careful, precise measurement and repeated checking with peer review. The observations of casual or folk weather forecasters are a start, and they are all we had until modern times; but we know from the actual results that they are not as accurate and are based on a false understanding of physics.
What are the specific claims of biodynamics and why doesn’t science accept them? they are surely no more revolutionary for their time than the views of Einstein, but they have not been demonstrated to be correct.
One important part of biodynamics is moon planting.
The astrological system on which it is based predates Steiner of course, but the absence of any methodology for actually demonstrating that it works might explain why there are several different moon planting systems which dont all agree with each other. This doesnt make any differenc to those who swear by it- one person might plant carrots on someone elses’ leaf day, to a believer it all works just as well.
Hoad repeats the same mistake that I hear from everyone I have ever discussed this with- that because the moon affects the tides, and we and plants also contain a lot of water, it “makes sense” that the moon should also affect plant growth.
This kind of simplistic thinking reminds me of the Monty Python witch test: to discover whether a suspected witch is a real one, find out if she floats;
since ducks float, and also wood, if she weighs as much as a duck, she must be made of wood and therefore a witch…
The Monty Python Witch-If she is made of wood she must be a witch...!
BURN HER!!
Actually, I struggle to see why this would seem so logical anyway- the glass of water in front of me does not appear to rise and fall with the tides, nor does, fortunately, the water that makes up my body.
Anything might seem reasonable, and this indeed could be the impetus for scientific study; however, it is well understood that the gravitational effect of objects near a plant- the gardener, for example, or the wheelbarrow- would have a gravitational pull millions of times greater than that of the moon on a small object like a seed. This is because the moon is so far away relative to the wheelbarrow:
“The suggestion of similarity between the planet and our bodies fails on two counts: first, only the “surface” of the earth has a 80:20 ratio and gravity involves the attraction of a total mass, not just surface composition. Second, the moon only causes tides in great unbounded bodies of water such as the oceans and even in large land-locked lakes the influence is negligible. In comparison, the water contained in the human body is quite insignificant.
A comparison of other tide-raising objects by which we are surrounded, emphasizes the point even more dramatically. Using the principles of classical mechanics, it can be shown that a mother weighing 55 kg and holding a child at a distance of 15 cms or so, will exert 12 million times more tidal-force on her child than the full moon in whose shadow she stands. When the other large masses by which we are surrounded are taken into consideration, then it can be seen that the effect of the moon is of no concern.” (From Investigator No. 81)
Vincente Santos, in his review of biodynamic wines, concluded after reading Steiner’s original work that
His (Steiner’s) philosophy is so backwards, and so completely ignores anything contrary to it, that at the end it remains totally unsupported – no true foundation for the dogmatic regulations and theory is ever laid.
Steiner was ignorant of modern science, and certainly shows no connection whatsoever to the real science being done at the same time by the likes of Einstein; he does no experimental work to check his theories.
Studies that have been done dont seem to have separated ordinary organic techniques from the biodynamic preperations etc, so it is hard to tell if biodynamics actually adds anything measurable; the literature around the subject is replete with mention of nature spirits and earth energies, so perhaps it would be naive to expect a testable hypothesis.
Professor Linda Chalker-Scott of Washington State University writes:
These processes were not developed through scientific methodology, but rather through Steiner’s own self-described meditation and clairvoyance. In fact, Steiner declared that these spiritualisticallydetermined methods did not need to be confirmed through traditional scientific testing, but were “true and correct” unto themselves (Kirchmann, 1994). The rejection of scientific objectivity in favor of a subjective, mystical approach means that many of Steiner’s biodynamic recommendations cannot be tested and validated by traditional methods. In practical terms, this means any effect attributed to biodynamic preparations is a matter of belief, not of fact.
and concludes
• Biodynamic agriculture originally consisted of a mystical, and therefore unscientific, alternative approach to agriculture • Recent addition of organic methodology to biodynamics has resulted in a confused mingling of objective practices with subjective beliefs • Scientific testing of biodynamic preparations is limited and no evidence exists that addition of these preparations improves plant or soil quality in organically managed landscapes • Many organic practices are scientifically testable and can result in improved soil and plant health parameters • The academic world needs to address the explosion of pseudoscientific beliefs and help nonacademicians become more discerning learners
People will continue to practice biodynamics, and that is their right if they wish. Look, they will say, the quality of these vegetables is fantastic, and they may well be right- but there remains no evidence that the magic potions or “preperations”, nor the moon planting, is responsible.
I have known many biodynamic gardeners and they are amongst the best and the most dedicated of that profession. Perhaps the meditative process of stirring the preperations at dawn; perhaps the ideological commitment to their craft, the extra tiome they may spend in their fields may all contribute to their success.
There is however no need to resort to such esoteric practices to be a successful grower, and any qualitative difference will be marginal compared to the results that can be obtained from any good gardener who cares about what they do.
What’s wrong with Astrology and Biodynamics? They are just superstitions, and as a teacher in a public college funded by voters and tax payers, I feel I have an obligation to stick to what can be demonstrated scientifically, and I have a responsibility to the students to cover material that will actually work and help them grow their own vegetables.
Increasingly, Biodynamics is offered as a kind of “Organics Plus” symbol. I have even had someone starting up a market garden tell me in all seriousness “Oh, we are going for the biodynamic label for higher premiums; there is no need to believe in all that Steiner nonsense”.
Indeed, there is not.
Comments»
I have no doubt that biodynamics works; anything that instills such reverence for the mysteries of life would work.
It is the “no doubt” bit that worries me Matt; it is surely more healthy to have some honest doubt.
“anything that instills such reverence for the mysteries of life would work.”
Many positions and points of view might do this- including, IMO, science. They dont all agree with each other- which is why we need a method to ascertain what works and what doesnt.
Claiming that you have “no doubt” that something works puts you in the same category as any guru or spiritual teacher who claims infallibility. Isnt that a rather arrogant position to hold? Isnt it rather contradictory, ie you have “no doubt” that there are “mysteries”?! Surely mysteries are by definition some thing we should have doubt about?
When you say biodynamics “works” what exactly do you mean? In what way does it work or can it be seen to work?
If you dont have verifiable evidence, why on earth should anyone believe you?
I would like you to design a scientific experiment to demonstrate whether or not the different treatments used in biodynamics work. For instance; the application of the various preparations, to soil and compost and sowing things on leaf, root, flower, or fruit days. I have often thought about how to do this but I don’t know enough about scientific methods or statistics to design it well enough. I know a lot of people who believe in it and I would like to know if it works or not.
thanks so much for the distillation of ideas that have been running through my head too. i feel that if biodynamics works then the people involved should be open to scientific experimentation. surely if such methods work then extra scientific results will only bolster support of biodynamic methods. i often get rather wound up by what you call “blinkered” thinking. i mean if somebody could prove that biodynamics works then i would gladly incorporate such methods into the daily rhythms of my life but until such rigorous testing is done i am afraid that the “special” benefits will only be reaped by the few. like receiving the rapture from (insert deity here). now that is just selfish. surely the folk who embrace such ideas are all for spreading the ideas far and wide. and as such should let biodynamics be tested vigorously and if they are right and their belief is a truth then we all benefit. we all want to help our fellows here on planet earth, yes?
Storm in a teacup perhaps?Just shows how important it is to keep an open mind,all of us!
A fine commentary Graham – biodynamics was a term I’d heard thrown around a bit but never ‘understood’, if it can be understood at all in any rational sense.
This isn’t the first time on this blog that you’ve had to deal with someone who has claimed that science is just “one way” of looking at an issue, and suggesting that we should be open to “alternative” or “holisitc” methods rather than just “reductive” science.
And as you’ve noted before, this is just new age poppycock from those who wish to promote ideas or products that have no basis in evidence. Science is not some exclusive, technical process that only people in lab coats carry out with expensive equipment in some separate reductive world – it is, at its heart, the process, of subjecting ideas to rational analysis, testing and re-testing and re-re-testing them, and basing our ideas about the world on solid, thorough evidence.
In the interests of disclosure I should probably note that I am in the middle of writing a series of articles for Organic Matters magazine on green building & renovation.
Hi Madeleine
I applaud your interest in testing BD scientifically, but it wont be very easy.
Did you follow the link in the text to Jackie French’s investigations?:
http://www.undeceivingourselves.com/S-plan.htm
She tested the moon-planting aspect thus:
“Finally I dug six long rows and planted two bean seeds in each row every day over a three-month period. If the Moon planting theory worked then the bean seeds planted on the optimum days should do better than the ones planted either side. They didn’t. Of the seeds planted in the first month, those planted after the Moon-planted seeds flowered earlier and were more productive. In the second month the effect was similar but not as marked. In the third month the beans flowered in an almost perfect gradation — the earlier they were planted, the earlier they flowered and fruited. Planting by the Moon seemed to have no effect whatsoever on beans.”
Id be interested to hear what you think about her “rational” explanation for people thinking moon planting works- that they wait for the right moon day which tends to be a better time to plant simply because it is later and therefore warmer.
This test would at least be easy to replicate. If the moon planting doesnt work, doesnt that pretty much hang it for BD as a whole?
To test the other aspects of BD like the preparations, the first thing would be to establish a clear hypothesis: what is the claim of BD that these preparations actually do? You could weigh the vegetables to compare yield (although it would be difficult to control all the other variables to a high standard) but if the claim is long-term soil health that would be very hard to test (because of the long-term nature of the trial, and because there are so many variables in soil health).
The main difficulty i see is that for the results to be meaningful, they would have to demonstrate a substantial and consistent benefit over and above best practice otherwise. There are so many things the gardener has to be good at to get good results anyway, how to distinguish the improvements you might get from BD over and above these?
Peer review and double blinds would be essential to ensure impartiality- otherwise even the most scrupulous investigator might unconsciously bring in their own bias.
So while I would encourage you to try a proper test, I dont think “evidence” one way or the other has anything to do with why people actually practice BD
I was hoping you would design the experiment. Most of my ideas around testing involve 10 inch pots, with bought compost, sand, or peat in them, for consistancy, It is the statistal significance part that beats me. If I grow w pots of radishes, under the same conditions, and the mean yield is x, but varies varies by y% You can say the yield is x+or-y/w% I think? So, If I grow a pots of radishes and wave my magic cow horn over them (otherwise treating them the same as the w pots) and their mean yield is b and varies by c%. Would you accept that if b is greater than x by more than y/w and c/a, that my magic cow horn works?
I couldn’t comment on the bean experiment as I don’t think 2 beans is a large enough sample statistically, bean plant yield varies quite a lot. She doesn’t actually give the yields or the dates of first harvest, or even indicate that she measured the harvest in any way. She seems to have just eyeballed the situation which is fine for the first stage of an experiment, but isn’t conclusive.
Biodynamics? I smell an anthroposophical-Steiner-Waldorf rat…
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles.html#biodynamic
http://www.social-ecology.org/author/peter-staudenmaier/
Wonderful blog and love your superhut! The rational Greens urgently need to separate themselves from the ’spiritual’ ones.
Hi Madeline and Graham, just to also welcome the request from Madeline to design an experiment. As Graham mentions designing good experiments is not easy. There’s a useful primer with lots of links on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_of_experiments
Science undergraduates on good courses spend significant time learning how to do this. Even good well intentioned scientists get it wrong sometimes. The beauty of the system is that you show how you did it and then others can check to see if it was a good study and repeat it if necessary. For example, Ben Goldacre is excellent at spotting flaws in studies (e.g. see here….).
A question that often comes up is – I believe in X – I want YOU to prove to me that it’s not true if you are going to dismiss my belief. This unfortunately is the wrong way round. For example I could say that I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which Graham links to above). You say to me that’s rubbish. I say to you, give me solid evidence that there is no flying spaghetti monster! At this point, unless you have access to a lot of expensive telescopes and money, you won’t be able to produce this evidence. And of course the problem with beliefs is I could make up an infinite amount of new beliefs for you to test. So, if I have a belief then it really is up to me to show some good evidence for it to you.
This leads to hypotheses. Let’s say I have a belief that by weeing on my brocolli plants I get more brocolli. As I know that there is nitrogen in my pee and that broccoli grows more with increased nitrogen it is reasonable to assume that there might be a link. At this point testing the hypothesis becomes more interesting.
But let’s say I have a belief that reciting Keats (and I mean specifically Keats) to my apples makes them ripen earlier. There is no currently existing branch of knowledge that would suggest a plausible hypothesis for Keats poetry to make apples ripen earlier. This does note mean the hypothesis cannot be tested, but it does put the onus on me to come up with some evidence. To find a completely new branch of physics or biology is very rare and to test the infinite number of possible beliefs I could dream up is clearly not possible.
Steiner’s pronouncements come into the latter example above. Unfortunately for the organic movement, Biodynamics was taken as part of organics from a very early stage and so it is now so embedded in the literature and organic psyche (as Graham says as ‘Organic plus’) that to extricate it seems a painful process for those who believe in it.
In my experience people who believe that there is something more spiritual to the universe – that there are powers that affect us every day that science just can’t / doesn’t know about – are very open to believing in biodynamics (and by extension other pseudoscience).
Those who don’t feel the need to believe in things for which there is no evidence find it easier to dismiss biodynamics.
So I wholeheartedly encourage some experimentation. If anyone really truly believes that Steiner’s preparations increase yields / increase crop health then please work away but do get some help designing the experiment – it’s a shame to do lots of work and find the experiment was invalid. For example a good place to start might be preparation 501. Instead of stirring “for an hour and whirling it in different directions every second minute” I suggest making an alternative preparation with the same ingredients that is only stirred for 5 minutes. Then carry out an experiment to see if the incidence of fungal disease on the plants is less on the real 501 sprayed plants. You will of course need a control and a large enough sample size.
Madeleine
good ideas for your experiment, especially the idea of pots and compost.
“So, If I grow a pots of radishes and wave my magic cow horn over them (otherwise treating them the same as the w pots) and their mean yield is b and varies by c%. Would you accept that if b is greater than x by more than y/w and c/a, that my magic cow horn works?”
No! It would take a lot more than that and Tom above has explained why: for BD to be true, pretty much everything else we know in science would have to be thrown out or called into question. There is so much overwhelming evidence for the basic tenets of scientific knowledge that pretty much nearly anything would be more likely than it is all wrong. So, even if you got a positive result, it is overwhelmingly more likely that there is some level of bias in the experiment, or that it was just chance.
There is no way science is going to accept an entirely new way of understanding the universe on the basis of one or two trials; so for science to accept that BD works the trial would have to be repeated many times all over the world over a lengthy period of time while the methodology was scrutinized by all the best brains on the planet.
This is basically why most people would not be that interested in investing time and energy into such trials other than as a curiosity.
However, least we are accused of being “closed” to new ideas (Steiner is of course not a new idea, and as I was at pains to point out in the post, science would have been far more likely to reject Einstein than Steiner given the state of knowledge at the time) I encourage you to do your trial, but I would stress again the need for it to be blinded, ie the person weighing the harvest would not know which group had had the BD preparation.
Also, the person preparing the pots and sowing the seeds would have to not know which were going to be treated and which were the control.
You could add in a third group to allow more comparisons and get more useful results if you combined it with a test for biochar; or urine; or seaweed extract etc.
So then group A) is BD only; group B) BD and urine (or whatever); C) urine only; D) control
That might actually even out some of the variables (eg if the urine only did better than the BD only, even if BD did better than the control it would show that any improvement from BD is marginal compared with other, easier applications).
You will still be contributing to the data, but it would be way to soon to claim any kind of proof.
Also, there are so many possible variations in the groups eg one set of pots might catch the sun a little earlier, might be in a slightly colder position, may not be watered quite so much, all of which we already can be sure could well influence the result. The depth of sowing the seeds etc..
Like I say, unless there is a dramatic difference which works every time- which actually overcomes other variables- it would be very hard to attribute it to BD in any case.
Remember this: if you are able to prove BD really works in a measurable way, you will win every Nobel prize going and change the course of human history. Go Mads!!
Re the Moon planting experiment: fair points, but she actually said she put two beans in each of 6 rows every day for a 3-month period,- a total of 12 beans every day- and she states that “the earlier they were planted, the earlier they flowered and fruited”. Surely if moon planting had an effect that was easily recognizable (most BD people in my experience simply state that they think it works, based on simple observation) this would be sufficient, although you are right to say we need to see the yields as well.
- personally I think that would be a good trial to do, partly because it is replicating hers. Then you could add in the other data of yields.
Just to pick up on Tom’s points re beliefs, I think whatever about the difficulty of getting a scientifically verifiable positive result, this is still more likely than convincing most believers that BD doesnt work- no matter how many negative results, no matter how well designed the trial, most BD practitioners, like Matt above, have no doubt it works regardless of such results.
Science, they will say, is flawed, is biased, or is not capable of measuring what BD actually does. (So if you test negative for yield, most will still insist it improves long-term soil health etc, which as I say would be more difficult to measure.)
And that is the real difference between science and religion.
Well its easy enough to get around bias by getting a third party to carry out the treatment but not tell you till afterwards which group they treated. You two write such long things, I haven’t got the attention span to read it all. Please try and be to the point. By having a large enough staistical sample you could at least give the statistical chance of there being an effect. I would like to develop a test system not only because it would be interesting to test biodynamic treatments but also to test such things as liquid manures, composting versus non composting of organic material, and adding charcoal to soil. I don’t particularly ‘believe or not believe’ in biodynamics. Its a bit like the Lisbon Treaty, there are a lot of good things i it but also a lot of incomprehensiible mumbo jumbo which may or may not actually make sense to someone.
Hamish:
Thanks for your support, really appreciated;
great links, yes I have also looked at other Waldorf expose websites, there is a lot of darkness behind the fluffy image of Steiner schools, it does really worry me that they seem to be unquestioningly accepted as a standard piece of “alternative” culture; many people would be shocked to even hear criticism of them.
“The rational Greens urgently need to separate themselves from the ’spiritual’ ones.”
Well, this is a strong statement, one which perhaps in my naivety I have been avoiding for a long time, thinking instead that the power of rational argument might make a difference (see the debate on Transition culture:
http://transitionculture.org/2009/09/02/2012-and-the-return-of-the-alarmingly-gullible/
But maybe it is just time to jump ship altogether and have an explicity “rational/skepticl environmentalism. I certainly believe that underneath these differences (of evidence vs faith) are fundamentally irreconcilable differences in values, politics etc..
Dear Graham, there has been a lot of interest in your blog from the scientific community re twitter. I’ve been asked about biodynamics/environmentalism since I posted a link to this but I’m not the expert, you are. Please get in touch. we really need to protect these initiatives, so urgently needed.
Hi Graham,
Enjoyed your permaculture course (2007).
As far as this argument goes, it sounds to me like a battle between the left brain and the right brain — a mediator is needed.
You should try reading Rudolf Steiner: Agriculture: An Introductory Reader (Compiled by Richard T. Smith). A lot of things he says make sense to me, anyway. And I read nothing about “waving a magic cow horn over plants”! He does talk aout the benefits of putting manure in a cow horn and burying it under the earth for a year to pick up the earth’s energy, then diluting it and spraying it on your field to invigorate the soil.
He also speaks about adding yarrow, stinging nettles, dandelions and camomile (strong potash and calcium contents) to manure for various enhancements. And he speaks of using Equisetum arvense (horsetail) – which has a very high silicon content and is also rich in potassium aluminum manganese and bioflavonoids – to combat rust or similar plant diseases.
These are just a few of the “scientific” things that I found interesting in the book and it is well worth the read.
And I don’t think that you can say that permaculture is purely scientific. If anything it was founded upon principles that went against the grain of contemporary agriculture technques. Don’t forget Fukuoka’s “One-Straw Revoluton.”
I see no reason why biodynamics can not be used together with permaculture ideas in gardening.
Hi Jack
Actually I have read Steiner’s “Agriculture Course”- I participated in a biodynamic study group some years ago and worked alongside biodynamic growers.
There is nothing scientific in Steiner’s work because none of it was tested scienctifically. Even today there is no scientific evidence that it works, which is hardly surprising as the whole project of anthroposophy is inherently unscientific.
Biodynamics is based on Steiner’s bizarre view of astrology, in his version the planets do not even orbit the sun!
There are a few quotes from “Agriculture Course ” on this site:
http://sites.google.com/site/waldorfwatch/biodynamics
if you think Steiner was in any way scientific you know nothing about science- which is a great pity.
You are wrong about permaculture- it is indeed based on established scientific theory, which means that although it is experimental it does not take flights of fancy or engage in religious or pseudo-scientific ideologies.
Mollison was quite explicit about this:
http://permacultureireland.org/
and Holmgren’s work is clearly rooted in ecological systems theory.
It is essential that as permaculturalists we work to increase the public understanding of science and hold to the scientific methods that have taught us all we know of value about ecology.
When you say permaculture and biodynamics can be used together, you are saying that reason and unreason have no conflict with each other.
Hi Graham, I am somewhat surprised at the strident Dawkins-esque tone of your contributions, but then obviously I don’t know you very well, above and beyond your work of rehabilitating my orchard which you did with great integrity and diligence. And thank you for that. But as for the above… well, it’s only a matter of time I figure before you dismiss homoeopathy, crop circles, ESP, resonance, butterfly effect, chaos theory, fuzzy logic, hundredth monkey, synchronicity, intuition and, ultimately, MEANING itself, which of course has no Scientific relevance since – despite a deep-seated fixation on ‘evidence’ – Science (permit me to point out the capital ‘S’) is based on the principle of randomness going all the way back to random collisions of particles and filtering through to random genetic modulations. Hmmm…. Does the Scientific mind never boggle?
Hi Dhara
Good to hear from you, it must be nearly 18 years since I worked on your orchard?
I take exception to the “strident Dawkins-esque tone” slur – my tone is clearly less “strident” than that of Hoad’s whom I am above responding to.
All I have done is assessed the verifiable evidence as it stands and explored some of the issues surrounding BD; it would have been more helpful if you had actually asdressed some of these issues rather than making vague statements about science.
It looks like you get your understandings of science more from Deepak Chopra than real scientists who actually do science.
You have an impressive list of New Age myths that you presumably buy into unquestioningly, without discernment.
I have addressed many of them of course- put “health” into the search box, and have a look at this forum:
http://transitiontowns.org/forum/topic/transition-timeline-feedback
Homeopathy is an obvious scam; crop circles are a form of cultural art; the hundredth monkey is a complete myth Im afraid! Meaning is something we have to make for ourselves Dhara, not blindly following any ideologies.
The perpetuation of these dangerous myths is dependent on people failing to understand science; you perpetuate the misinformation by suggesting science is just another belief system; it is not, Dhara, it is a method of inquiry. Either things work and do what they say on the tin or they do not.
“Science (permit me to point out the capital ‘S’) is based on the principle of randomness going all the way back to random collisions of particles and filtering through to random genetic modulations. Hmmm…. Does the Scientific mind never boggle?”
Well my mind is somewhat boggled by this comment! Are you saying that rather than looking honestly at the evidence we should just make stuff up?
I recommend Dawkins’ “Unweaving the Rainbow” or better still Chown’s “Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You” if you want to know something of the boggling nature of real science.
As I consistently argue here Dhara in these days of climate change and other environmental issues that may threaten the future of our civilization, it behoves us all to do our utmost to give an honest and accurate appraisal of science and evidence. I am confident you have the integrity to join me in this Dhara.
Hi Graham,
This is never going to be a easy corner to defend, but I urge you to keep on going!
Ultimately we live in a society where as the grip of organised religion weakens, many people are left floating in a universe they fail to comprehend. Consequently they try to make sense by subscribing to something that looks or sounds different, but feels the same.
It is a great shame, because for me this planet (and the universe it inhabits) is such an incredible place; offering so much investigation and exploration that there is no need to grasp onto small ideas that do nothing but keep us locked into infertile comfort zones.
I have met quite a few practitioners of bio-dynamics and they are just like everyone else in the world; fundamentally good people who are looking for answers. All I would ask them to do is to see that science is not the blind tool of a technocratic conspiracy, but is one of humankind’s greatest achievements: an incredibly fair system that helps all of us in the way we ask the questions and the way we interpret the answers. How difficult can that be to understand?
Thanks for continuing to write on this subject.
Mark
Really appreciate the comment Mark, thanks.
“there is a lot of darkness behind the fluffy image of Steiner schools”
Since I believe in the spiritual realm I don’t dismiss biodynamic out of hand. It doesn’t mean it isn’t valid, the demons have knowledge too. But it does cast great suspicion on it and it is likely very spiritually dangerous.
To the people attempting to rubbish rationality and science – these things are your friends. They help you figure out what really works. They do not take the mystery out of life. If anything, they enhance mystery and wonder. The more we learn, the more amazing we discover the universe is.
Science simply asks: “Does it work? Let’s test it!” If you attack that, then go happily waste your time and money on the infinite ideas and techniques available for your garden.
While you’re at it, step away from your computer, because sound, scientific thinking is what brought you the wonders of technology like computers and the internet.
No need to turn off our brain and accept things without testing them. That’s a recipe for disaster on many fronts.
To Graham:
THANK YOU for writing this way on this topic. It is so disheartening to hear otherwise smart and influential people spout on about the veracity of this stuff – it chases away the doctors, engineers, thinkers, scientists, and other smart people from our important movement, and from Permaculture.
Hello Graham,
I’m going to give a talk tomorrow at Kilkenny Castle on “Superstition and Environmentalism” (the theme of the event is Superstition). I thought it a perfect opportunity in which to bring up the dangers of superstition (and I’ll quote Hume on this!) on the promotion and utilisation of green techniques – wish me luck!
Pop in on your way home for a cup of tea at mine and Lea’s sometime!