It 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.
Again I think I am really wasting my time here.
Yes I’m aware of toxicology and I do think people need to be more aware of the toxins and poisons they are putting into thier body. Fact: there is more mercury in a can of tuna than in the MMR shot. Studies have been done on vaccine overload but what about the preservatives. The same vaccine made by different companies contain different preservatives, (even different strains) it takes one decision based on cost effectiveness to take lives. Ireland and Europe in general have so far had the resources to opt for quality over price, what if this changes?
I’m not really not trying to discuss if BD is scientific or not, or even if it works. All I am saying is I can not see the harm it’s getting people to grow things, believing the moon affects vegetables is not the same as believing that an entire race needs to be erradicated from the planet and believing in one does not lead to another. It is the same if an alternative practitioner gets some one to magically feel better by waving a wand and convincing them to eat less sugar and salt, drink more water and stay off the drink for a week. As long as that practioner has stayed within the law and urged that person to see a doctor if they haven’t already. Do I believe in the wand? I have my doubts but I never say never. Science would call it the placebo effect, I say wonderful, why don’t we find out more about that, but although a few studies have been done, the profit potential of something like that is never going to make it subject for intensive research. I have homeopath friends that feel that there are individuals out there who are not out for thier patients best interests and would certainly report anyone claiming during a consultation that medical advice should not be sought after.
‘Skeptism’ as a movement is about trying to be the Simon Cowell of science, it is all about being nasty under the guise of calling a spade a spade. Anybdy who needs to call another human being a moron to make a point has already lost their point with me. Please don’t tell me that Skepticism is not biased take a look at counterknowledge.com it has it’s own little tab for Scientology, what about all the other religions? And what do we have there? “Jett Travolta: It is time for the authorities to take Scientology’s quackery seriously” in this gem of literature the author quotes the Hollywood Interupted, (always my first call for sound evidence) and then makes the statement Scientology doesn’t “believe in” autism, and eschews conventional medicine” Conventional medicine can not define autism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism, (It’s actually a spectrum of disorders) or even understand it fully, conventional medicine may work for some children but not for others. Anti-convulsive and anti-seizure medication have horrible side effects and do not always work on eplileptics never mind a child who has a rare and misunderstood disease or disorder. How many eplileptics have died hitting their heads during a seizure, even when on medication? That this person even offers a medical opionion from a picture without being a doctor is doing exactly what he is supposed to be fighting against. I know Scientologists, when thier legs break they go to a hospital, if they have a headache they take a parcetamol if they are depressed they prefer to look for the reason rather than pop a pill. Psychiatry needs to understand the things it is trying to cure first before it starts throwing medication at it. Do I agree with scientology’s anti psychiarty stance? No. Do I think that the American authorities should take Jett Travolta’s death seriously, Yes – as seriously as every child dying from neglect in America and what about the ones they are actively killing in an illegal occupation of Iraq and Afganistan. Notice not much counterknowledge about that, no we stick to the easy topics.
Skepticism the word:” A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind” is very different, for me it implies critical thinking. Critical thinking is not just about taking the avalible evidence into consideration it is about looking at the big picture and asking questions like why is there no evidence for this, why hasn’t somebody applied the scientific method here? Is there another better way we can do this? What information is being omitted and why? What is the intention of the person providing the information? Life isn’t black and white, emotions and personal experience form part of every human being and affects all that they do. Trying to fragment them does not make dicussion easier.
“All I am saying is I can not see the harm it’s getting people to grow things, believing the moon affects vegetables is not the same as believing that an entire race needs to be eradicated from the planet and believing in one does not lead to another.”
Ive detailed several reasons why such irrational beliefs are harmful, both in the post and my replies to your comments; you choose to ignore them. There may not be a direct route from Moon Planting to genocide, but the more people are unwilling to question beliefs like moon planting, or magic wands, or countless other new age beliefs, the easier it will be to manipulate people to believe all sorts of other more noxious things; this is obviously a dangerous slippery slope which needs to be countered- as you might say “for balance”- because they are spreading in influence and power. These points have been made several time already here, by Nick and myself, you are in denial because your sympathies are obviously with the fairy-believers (or possibly the fairies).
Think of it this way: what possible benefit is it for people to believe things which they cannot possibly believe without being completely ignorant of science? What kind of society would you rather live in- one dominated by uneducated submissive sheep who have no ability to question whatever the current superstitious faith going around is; or critical thinkers who will think around issues from all angles and double check the evidence before making possibly life-or-death decisions? Would you vote for someone who believes, seriously, in fairies? Maybe you would, but in that case I wouldnt vote for you either!
“As long as that practioner has stayed within the law and urged that person to see a doctor if they haven’t already”
well that’s a very interesting qualification Traci isnt it because as you know full well, many alternative practitioners strangely neglect to give proper medical advice, except perhaps in the small print for legal reasons, and the whole field of CAM is inherently anti- evidence-based medicine which it tends to refer to as “slash burn and poison” in fact CAM is only being a little more careful about the small print now because of some high profile legal cases which havnt gone so well for them (oh those nasty nasty skeptics); as you know full well, CAM only thrives in an anti-science atmosphere that breeds mistrust in medical science and does indeed lead to very serious harm, but you appear to prefer to turn a blind eye to all this. (Let us not forget, science has been wrong before, what about Thalidomide science boy? Which means that it is quite OK to make up any old bollocks about how the human body works, so long as you can get people to pay.)
You are missing completely, or ignoring, or glossing over the whole point of this post which is a response to an article written partly about me, even though I was not contacted and only found out by accident. You think I have no right to respond, because to do so is “just an ego trip”. You are trying to make out that I am some big ugly bully gratuitously having a go at some poor innocent old lady for harmlessly going about her business doing a bit of moon planting just like her grandma did in the old days.
You are deliberately ignoring that this it the national magazine of IOFGA, the certification body for Organic Standards. So it is quite influential, and represents a large number of people, quite possibly a majority of organic growers, who even if they dont actually follow BD, they are not exactly coming forth in droves to challenge it, or even point out for the sake of discussion Steiner’s racism etc.. And this is the real point: people who believe these things are not only anti-science- which as I repeat is very harmful to society- but they rely on the fact that people who challenge their beliefs will be called “nasty” by people like you. That’s how ideas spread, that’s how they gain more influence and power, because people like you Traci do their damndest to intimidate people like me.
Judith Hoad is a well-respected and influential author, teacher of herbalism and renouned “wise woman” of Ireland; she is a role model for many young women especially who are also being drawn into a cult behind which is a racist ideology. People who promote BD are unwittingly doing the work of the Anthroposophists for them. You are correct of course that young impressionable BD farmers are mainly unaware of what Anthroposophy really means, but if they find out, they are not likely to challenge it becasue they know very well that that would undermine their own beliefs as well.
The current head of the Soil Association is an Anthroposophist, so they are really quite dominant in the Organic Movement. I am trying to challenge this, draw attention to it; you are defending it.
“‘Skeptism’ as a movement is about trying to be the Simon Cowell of science, it is all about being nasty under the guise of calling a spade a spade. Anybody who needs to call another human being a moron to make a point has already lost their point with me.”
Who is calling anyone a moron? This is an extraordinarily ill-thought-out and unsubstantiated statement. “It’s all about being nasty…” Traci, if you cannot fully substantiate this statement, then maybe it is you who is being nasty?
For the nth time Traci I am asking you, what is your problem with me pointing out the fallacies of Hoad’s arguments and drawing people’s attention to the absurdity and danger of Steiner’s beliefs? Presumably you think it is perfectly acceptable for people who, not just happen to believe whacky things, but who actively promote these ideas as if they are true, which may very often involve manipulation of the naive and unwary; often for profit- easy money you might say “there’s one born every minute”- to be extraordinarily nasty should anyone dare to question their beliefs- just look at the comments Skepticat recieves.
I, like many skeptics who dare question people’s beliefs, have received death threats, legal threats and been called a moron many times. But if I dare respond, for you that is just an “ego-trip”. Your whole stance is unashamedly hypocritical.
Like countless other woo-woo apologists all you can say is “you’re being really, really nasty to these poor, innocent peddlers of lies and false information, just get off their backs Mr. Big Ego” and to show your sophistication you throw in the nobel-Prize worthy “science has been wrong before you know”.
So thanks for all your comments Traci, you have made a valiant attempt at a contribution to the general slide of humanity into ignorance.
Traci,
Many websites and blogs, such as Counterknowledge, do not always tackle the major religions because there are a great many other websites that do. Furthermore, the major religions have been around for centuries and have been subjected to critical analysis by philosophers (both theistic and atheistic) through the ages and there is already an established network of writers and commentators. The Abrahamic religions have, too, managed to accommodate science at different times in their histories by selectively ignoring the ante-science content of their holy books. But, as Islam, Chritianity and Judaism have, over the last fifty years, been radicalised by right-wing political traditionalists, opposition to them has been growing very strongly; the net also reflects this tendancy very well.
Anthroposophy, Scientology and many New-Age cults are, it seems to me, replacing and displacing the old religions with hybrids borrowing elements from past religions and adopting newer positions in opposition to modern science and, while they are small compared to the old religions, their potential to be politically destructive is every bit as real – sharing, as they do, their bigotry with the older religions.
Activists can not cover everything (there is not enough time) so we all pick our topics and subjects relative to our own personal circumstances, experiences, knowledge and interests. It is, it seems to me, perfectly valid to criticise Anthroposophy simply because it is growing very fast and is already exercising its in-built racist and ante-science agenda to the detriment of rational debate and enfranchisement.
I defend strongly the right for people to express their beliefs and also defend strongly the right for all beliefs to be criticised. If one argues that rationality is not a sufficient tool for discussion and communication then all discussion becomes worthless and there is only brute force left as an arbiter of power; that is what rationalists are attempting to avoid and it is an essential project.
Nick
Nick I have just read you blog on the burqa and it is refreshing to see someone who injects a little common sense into the whole debate.
I’m of the idea at the moment that the way that all groups and organisations have evolved is not benifiting society, you can not judge an individual by the organisation and you can not judge an organisation by an individual that is part of it. It seems to me that the more groups we create the more we absolve our responsibility. We outsource our food production and the education of our children – things we used to do as a community and wonder why we are left feeling empty and try replace it with all these other group activities.
An example of this is the BP Oil spill. Easy to lynch BP and point fingers and cry about pelicans and dolphins, not so easy to look at yourself and say: ‘I am part of the problem, I helped create this, what am I going to do about it?’
Humanity at the monent is so focused on what it wants and doesn’t want, it has forgotten what it needs and therefore can’t even begin to address it’s rights.
Constructive critiscm is necessary, but demonising a sect and elevating it to cult status is only going to make it more attractive to people looking to absolve the responsibilty of thier negative feelings and turn them into actions. Someone having a racist thought is not the same as racist action with intention. Many different people from different religions rationalise any racist leanings in thier different groups or religions in vastly different ways, I find that the main thing they have in common is that they themselves are not racist and are not planning to be but are just too lazy to look for another group or religion that fits in with thier ideas. On the otherside of the coin I have met people from religions that preach equality of all races that hold racist personal beliefs, both are not ideal situations but cannot be compared to someone acting on thier beliefs with intent. I would also critisise each belief here but calling either a dangerous prejudice is until it manifests into an action is exaggeration.
Once again I would like to point out that science is not an entity it is a tool operarated by human beings. Humans practising science have been responsible for many amazing scientific discoveries in medicine and technology that have been very benificial to humankind they have also made mistakes. Humans practising science have also managed to invent technologies that have only one purpose to kill other humans. It may well be that if the resources used for researching weapons was spent on medical science we would have vaccines that were 100% safe and we would understand more about autism Questioning certain aspects of science in an incident specific way and the intention of the humans practising it is not being anti-science.
Activism is all very well but generally it is against something which means that it is discriminating, granted if it’s against puppy killers you’ve got my support but lets call a spade a spade and be rational…. Once you’ve conquered that thing what’s next? Me I prefer to look for truth in everything and hope that coexisting with compassion and empathy we can learn as individuals to respect each other. Maybe the groups and the woo will fall away because they become superfluous, maybe the supreme being will appear or maybe the aliens will save us who cares as long as we are all happy.
@Graham, no don’t take it out on the faeries, they didn’t do anything to deserve it! How did you find out I am one of the dreaded evil Faerie believers? Did you Facebook me?
You got me!
All of this posting has been a channeling of the Galactic Federation of Faeries, none of the facts can be verified by Wikipedia, (which also incidently has been known to be wrong that’s why universities don’t accept it as a valid source of information, now I’m burning your bible) or any other source especially ‘skeptic’ sources who always tell the truth and never indulge in rumour or hearsay. Science is your friend he is always looking out for your best interests, he is all knowing, tells no lies, never makes mistakes.
I’m so sorry it seems that you don’t actually have to use the word ‘moron’ to make a point: “you have made a valiant attempt at a contribution to the general slide of humanity into ignorance.” is so much beter. Go onto Counterknowledge.com, (wich is a site lauded by the ‘skeptism’ movement) and put in the word ‘moron’ in the little ‘search the site’ button. It’s a favourite word of the ‘World Famous Skeptic’ Damian Thompson. Substantiated enough?
For the nth time I’m not defending Judith Hoad, Anthroposophy or faeries by making the personal observation that the Pot calling the Kettle ‘blinkered’ is not defamation. Personaly I would like to see the current head of the Soil Association judged on his ability to do his job, not discriminated against because of his religion. People ‘practise’ religion they ‘are’ human beings.
Unfortunately for you most of the world’s population believes in something that hasn’t been supported by science yet, telling them that they are ignorant is going to burn bridges, finding something within thier beliefs that you can identify with maybe – a few more positive responses.
My poor husband is about to apply for the internet widower’s pension and I’m missing a beautiful sunset and this is not fun anymore, besides all my Farmville plants are dead and it’s 4 days away from full moon when me and da Faeries go dancing around da Faery tree in Cruchan Wood and drink holy water from snt Bridgid’s well.
Glad you accept that Anthroposophy is a religion, that people believe in Steiner’s racism etc not because they actually think there is evidence for it, but ecause it is a religious conviction. As to the head of the SA doing his job, I think it rather begs the question as to what his job actually is/should be: obviously if he defines it as promoting BD then that is what he will do. He’s the boss after all! And they do seem to promote quite a lot of BD courses. But again you are missing the point that people like yourself, while happy to spend lots of time missing sunsets etc to speak out against those nasty skeptics (Ive never heard of Damian Thompson BTW, nor have I ever looked at CounterKnowledge, nor do I care actually) will not speak out against racist ideologies.
Just on Anthroposophy and vaccines here is another opinion: (its through Google translate)
http://bit.ly/9BVu22
“But the point is that some of these children can not tolerate the vaccine because they just are “weakened in advance. And the way we handle it is to vaccinate children around them, so they should not be exposed to infection through healthier children steinerianske transformation. Flock Vaccine we call it and it’s something we do in solidarity with the weakest children (and because measles can actually be quite dramatic effects, even for the “healthy” children who do not die from it).
For years, San Diego, anthroposophists and other “alternative” entities undermined this policy. Now to the degree that the most vulnerable children among us are at risk of having to pay the price for it. I do honestly not that these people can see themselves in the mirror without blushing with shame. But they probably think that this kryptofascistiske mindset is fine, we suppose. “
Re. Wikipaedia: http://bit.ly/a7VQup
I don’t speak out against racist ideaologies because I feel in this world when so much racist action is happening – that it is racist action I speak out against. Personally I’m not into thought policing, it’s a bit of a waste of time as far am I am concerned. Trying to predict someone’s actions from what they believe leads to preemtive attacks on whole countries, this is how people die, lots of them way more than measels. Movements; groups; religions all the same to me – Lables. You’ve proven my point – by painting yourself with the ‘Skeptic’ brush you are assumed to have the same oppinions as other people that call themselves skeptics after all you all ‘follow the evidence’ same as they profess to do but you distance yourself from counterknowledge.com or Damien Thompson. Movements; groups; religions change thier priorities, you must believe this because of your softening attitude to Monsanto the company that helped bring the world Agent Orange! Just look at this picture http://www.camphill-hermanus.org.za/school/school.html is that enough evidence that people applying SOME of Steiner’s ideas are not racist and are doing good work. Baby – Out – with – Bathwater.
Still on this whole vaccine thing? Wish you would actually read what I wrote. Was not talking about vaccine overload I was talking preservatives, each has been tested, but the interaction with all the other preservatives has not. Also from a toxicity point of view, if the preservatives are not sufficiently regulated how do you know that in the course of all the vaccines made by different companies taken in the first 2 years of a babies’ life a toxicity level is not going to be exceeded? Not enough studies have been done on the effects of said preservatives as far as chronic ailments are concerned. As I said before I am not an ‘anti-vaccer’, ( I find the term juvinile) vaccines although not perfect by any means are all that we have right now, but they are not 100% safe and that is why it is not manditory so it’s people have to the right to refuse. As far as the ‘herd’ or ‘flock’ – we are not animals. Even if there is less than 1% chance that a chance that a child could die, I would never expect another woman to sacrifice her child for mine, if she chooses to vaccinate her child it should be for her child’s best interests not anyone elses. I’m prepared to give measels it’s due but it is not the main killer of children under 5 is it? Again I’d like to point out that not every person that is interested in Stiener’s teachings or part there of is an ‘anti-vaccer’ so why scaremongering? What does farming have to do with vaccines? Many people I know would happily let the moon tell them when to grow thier carrots, but leave things like medical care for thier children up to thier logic, not commenting either way, but acknowledging a fact.
If you are going to make up a word please provide the meaning because even Google got lost on kryptofascistiske. I see the word facist in it are you for or against? Your outspokeness against racism puts you against it but your whole ‘what’s best for the hive rules’ and ‘Corporations are your friend and your government wouldn’t ever lie to you’ attitude makes me wonder.
I think we need to start holding people as individuals responsible for thier deeds and not thier beliefs despite the lables they chose to hide behind. Trying to pontificate about what may happen IF a person chooses to act on a particular belief is farting in a tornado of a great many things that already happening.
“You’ve proven my point – by painting yourself with the ‘Skeptic’ brush you are assumed to have the same oppinions as other people that call themselves skeptics after all you all ‘follow the evidence’ same as they profess to do but you distance yourself from counterknowledge.com or Damien Thompson. ” Obviously skeptics have lots of different opinions, they do not form part of any kind of organised religion or group, although they might be expected to share certain concerns and approaches to evidence. Im not distancing myself from Damien Thompson, Ive just never heard of him. Obviously I am not saying all people interested in Steiner are racist, nor are they all anti-vaccination; some are however, and like yourself, such people are very likely to speak out against people like me who draw attention to these issues, while they are unlikely (I dont know of any examples) to speak out against Steiner’s racism; nor are people who follow BD likely to speak out against the misinformation from anti-vaccers, just as alternative therapists are not likely to ignore the evidence against their own practice, but condemn other CAM practitioners for not following the evidence. Governments certainly may lie; but you cant just assume a corporation or a gvt. is lying, you need evidence. There is already abundant evidence that people are swayed by anti-vaccer campaigns, which is resulting in a return of measles. People are not just innocently holding their beliefs, they actively promote them, which clearly has actual, real effects in the real world; and more to the point here, they spend a lot of time trying to discredit those like myself who challenge what they say; otherwise neither Hoad nor yourself would be so concerned about what I have written concerning BD. But you are very concerned about it it seems.
Would you two please go outside and PLANT SOMETHING already?
“Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics… even if you win, you’re still retarded.”
Sorry about that Greg- didnt realise anyone else was listening!
A way of looking at the vaccine “debate”: http://youtu.be/RfdZTZQvuCo
Good enough for me Greg, anyway it’s full moon tonight!
Scince we’re You tubing I wil leave you with this 
Namaste
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC7ANGMy0yo&feature=player_embedded
Greg, you might like to read this:
http://www.cortland.edu/ids/sasc/vol1_issue2/Disability%20Humor%20Final.htm
Nick