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.
63 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!
Graham,
many thanks for this interesting set of posts. I am also very concerned about the social and political consequences of Anthroposophy and Biodynamics. Anthroposophists are in key positions within the green movement, banking, the Transition Town movement, The Soil Association and as education advisers to the UK’s Libcon coalition government. Given Anthroposophy’s ghastly racist agenda, there’s a distinct possibility that many who don’t fit the Anthro’s ideals will be disenfranchised. You might be interested in my blog at http://nicknakorn.wordpress.com where I am airing some personal experiences of being made unwelcome in my locale by my local environmental groups and the local Green Party.
regards, Nick
Graham, I don’t think your reference is right about the gravitational affect of a mother vs. the moon.
By my calculations, the moon exerts 2.03x the influence on a 5 kg child than a 75 kg mother at 0.015m.
While the moon may be 10^8 times further away, its 10^22 times more massive!
Why is it so important to you to discredit biodynamics? It seems to be your way or no way. Biodynamics is essentially organic sustainable farming that respects the earth it is practised on – sure there is a certain amount of Woo Woo envolved but who asking you to accept it? Isn’t a bit of Woo Woo bettter than intensive crop farming with no heed to the land that is used? Looks to me like you are looking for division rather cohesiveness. Working with the earth rather than against it is very spiritual, just because you chooose to pursue it in an atheistic way with science as your god doesn’t give you the right to judge other human beings, especially when they are doing considerably less harm to the enviroment than conventional farming. Seems as if you have spent alot of time trying to disprove something that cannot be proven, why? Because some woman that you don’t even respect misquoted you, seems like a bit of an ego trip there. 50 years ago things like acupuncture and eastern medicine were deemed dangerous occult practices, but as time goes on there seems more and more scientific proof that these ancient practices where grounded in fact. Science is a tool – the intent it is used with has a monumental bearing on the outcome of it’s experiments. You made the point that biodynamics can not be proven better than ordinary organic farming – can it be proven worse? You yourself are not prepared to take on that scientific research – why because it would not profit you in any way and you have already determined with your logic that it can not be so. The two biggest stumbling blocks facing scientists today. Your hero Albert Einstien was wrong far more than he was right – check Wikipedia, and that’s what made him great – he pursued avenues of thought that up and till then could only be imagined and showed them to be fact without deciding before hand what was probable or not. Just because you do not believe something doesn’t mean it isn’t so. It interests me that condemn biodynamics outright which seems innocuous at it’s worst but seem to be going soft on GM technology. Curious.
Hi Traci, thanks for your comment:
” Why is it so important to you to discredit biodynamics?”
I think Ive explained well enough in the post why it is important to challenge the claims made for biodynamics, and other pseudo-science. By the same token, could I not ask you why you object? You do believe in free speech I hope! Maybe you dont like you beliefs being challenged- which is of course exactly my intention.
” It seems to be your way or no way. Biodynamics is essentially organic sustainable farming that respects the earth it is practised on – sure there is a certain amount of Woo Woo envolved but who asking you to accept it? Isn’t a bit of Woo Woo bettter than intensive crop farming with no heed to the land that is used?”
Can I take it you agree there is no evidence that BD actually works? That it is indeed woo? I cant really see BD as a farming method that can be compared with other methods in that sense, because it doesnt actually do anything- it is essentially a ritual, not a farming method or technique.
“Looks to me like you are looking for division rather cohesiveness. Working with the earth rather than against it is very spiritual, just because you chooose to pursue it in an atheistic way with science as your god doesn’t give you the right to judge other human beings, especially when they are doing considerably less harm to the enviroment than conventional farming.”
I’m not judging other human beings, Im judging ideas, beliefs, and claims; does Judith Hoad have the right to judge me as “blinkered” etc just because she doesnt agree with me?
” Seems as if you have spent alot of time trying to disprove something that cannot be proven, why?”
If it cannot be proven how can we know whether it is true or not?
“Because some woman that you don’t even respect misquoted you, seems like a bit of an ego trip there.”
Maybe I dont respect the fact that she made judgments of me personally, trying to discredit me, because she didnt agree with what I (allegedly) had said.
“50 years ago things like acupuncture and eastern medicine were deemed dangerous occult practices, but as time goes on there seems more and more scientific proof that these ancient practices where grounded in fact.”
I dont think so!! In fact the opposite- acupuncture and most “eastern medicine” are completely discredited by modern understandings of medicine and biology, and there is little if any evidence they work. To accept ancient systems like acupuncture would be to abandon many of the gains made by modern science and medicine and revert to Medieval beliefs- how do you feel about witch-burning?
“Science is a tool – the intent it is used with has a monumental bearing on the outcome of it’s experiments.”
Yes, science is a tool- but in one sense it could be defined as a method of overcoming our tendency for confirmation bias- the whole methodology of science is designed to overcome “false positives”- that is why we need science. We should not just believe hunches, or ascribe accuracy to “intuition” much less claims of clairvoyance, Steiner’s preferred method. If BD did what is claimed for it it should be easy to provide scientific evidence.
“You made the point that biodynamics can not be proven better than ordinary organic farming – can it be proven worse?”
Science isnt really about “proving” things, but about collecting evidence one way or another. Not only is there no good evidence for BD, but the proponents of BD are not engaged on scientific process, they just “believe” unquestioningly. That is why it is important to question and challenge the claims made for it- those who might unquestioningly accept one part of Steiner’s views may be less inclined to challenge his other views, the racism for example.
“You yourself are not prepared to take on that scientific research – why because it would not profit you in any way and you have already determined with your logic that it can not be so. The two biggest stumbling blocks facing scientists today. “
In my view there has been enough research done, and there is no reason to believe in it. It is clearly a religion, like eating wafers in a church. There are much more worthy and interesting things to investigate that are not associated with racist cults. Maybe you think it worth putting resources into testing scientifically human sacrifice to help the crops grow?
” Your hero Albert Einstien was wrong far more than he was right – check Wikipedia, and that’s what made him great – he pursued avenues of thought that up and till then could only be imagined and showed them to be fact without deciding before hand what was probable or not. “
Exactly the point I am making in the post- Einstein made a lot of hypothesis, some have bee validated experimentally, some not; were there things Steiner said that are accepted to be untrue? His racism maybe? Moon planting perhaps? Or do his disciples slavishly follow whatever he said and make personal attacks on those who dare challenge him?
“Just because you do not believe something doesn’t mean it isn’t so.”
-and just because lots of people do believe something, does not a belief prove either!
“It interests me that condemn biodynamics outright which seems innocuous at it’s worst but seem to be going soft on GM technology. Curious.”
I have discussed GM on Skepteco- http://www.skepteco.wordpress.com as it happens, most of the claims made by the anti-GE lobby seem to be false. Fears are unfounded. GE probably has a lot to offer, especially organic agriculture as it is a biological approach rather than a chemical one. I am not, per se for or against either BD or GE- but I am pro freedom of speech, evidence, honesty, science. Pseudo scientific beliefs such as BD tend to go hand-in-hand with pseudo-scientific beliefs in things that really do matter, like improving technology to help feed people through GE; ignorance is a terrible thing, so I am just trying to shed some light on the subject.
First of all I don’t have a set of beliefs, I have a range of ideas that are constantly evolving. I know and have researched various people who experiment with various methods; some who combine ancient and spiritual methods of growing with newer organic methods: most seem to be focused one goal saving humanity and convincing people that we as a race need to play a more pro – active role in our nutrition and condition of this planet. Many of the ancient wisdoms handed down through generations of indigeonous tribes are about planting and growing sustainabily with respect for the land. Is this pseudo-science until modern science finally gets round to re-inventing the wheel?
My original question stands: What would you rather see? Organic farming being practiced by varying methods be they Biodynamics, Anastasia,the ancient methods of the Cherokee Indians and Faries telling them to love thier plants; or modern farming that concentrates wholy on crop yeild and profit.
Dogma it seems is not confined to religion, you seem to fuction on the premise that if something isn’t probable it isn’t possible. Doesn’t seem to be much room for an open mind, which is your perogative and freedom of speech is your right, but you are complaining about someone making a judgement against you, and you retaliate by making a judgement against all people who practice biodynamics. It has been my experience that people who practice it have an understanding that the information has very little to do with Rudolf Steiner as a person, ( a whole nother realm of Woo for you) so do not aspire to any of his personal beliefs – understand that he was a normal human being with the social conditioning of his time trying to make sense of information he did not understand. Most have also done extensive research on modern permaculture and are not afraid of blending ideas from different sources. To paint them as some sort weird cult is naive.
Modern technology has it’s place but lets face it, in the last few decades it seems to have done more damage than good, not because it is in any way intrinsically bad but because the intention behind it has been for profit not for the betterment of humankind. Monsanto has it’s track record, it has never acted in the bests interest of general humanity, I do not judge as it was not created for this and we as people must take responsiblity for our own greed as we have given them power. Our priorities as a race have to change if we are ever to survive. So as much as I would like to believe that anything Monsanto does will benifit me my research tells me different and I’m not talking conspiracy theories of evil intent here, I’m talking cold hard evidence that they cut corners and don’t investigate their products and the effect on the enviroment fully.
On a practical level we need to coexist to survive – to respect each other and the earth we live on. I hope that we are evolving as a species; in many cultures today there is a push towards respecting the earth as living entity and that working with nature is proving to be more benificial than trying to adapt it to us. People are aproaching this in many different ways, some chose not to be slaves to science, others want tried and tested proof – both have pure intentions as I’m sure you do. Wasting time on theistic and non theistic debate is fruitless. Do you want to be right or do you want to survive?
Painting everyone who practices alternative methods with the ‘ignorance’ brush is counter-productive to creating a society interested in sustainability, often it is spiritual enlightenment that instills the realisation that we need to change or we will make ourselves obselete, this does not change the intention in anyway. Personally I hope there is something more, I have had experiences that point to that being so but nothing I can put in a beaker and lable. So I don’t and don’t worship anything but don’t begrudge people that do and are better humans for it.
Traci: “Many of the ancient wisdoms handed down through generations of indigeonous tribes are about planting and growing sustainabily with respect for the land. Is this pseudo-science until modern science finally gets round to re-inventing the wheel?”
Can you give some specific examples? Human sacrifice perhaps? While it is true that many ancient cultures had very sophisticated farming methods, they did not have the benefit of science; in the long run, many of those cultures also proved to be unsustainable.
Biodynamics however is not an ancient technique, but was made up in the 19thCentury by a charlatan who never tested anything scientifically, instead expecting his followers to simply believe what he said unquestioningly.
Science has come a long way since then. If you give some examples, we can see whether they have been tested and found to work or not. Some practices no doubt do indeed have some use; many , it turns out, do not. It is not a matter of opinion, but of evidence.
“What would you rather see? Organic farming being practiced by varying methods be they Biodynamics, Anastasia,the ancient methods of the Cherokee Indians and Faries telling them to love thier plants; or modern farming that concentrates wholy on crop yeild and profit.”
I would rather see, first of all, people being fed: nearly all the world’s food is currently being produced with industrial methods; organics cannot feed the world of 6.7 billion and rising;
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/26/attention_whole_foods_shoppers?page=0,2
BD as a farming “method” contributes nothing at all. I would rather see people being more informed by science, getting accurate information, education and knowledge; and i would rather see mystical woo reduced to a historical footnote, rather than playing an increasingly influential role in society.
“you seem to fuction on the premise that if something isn’t probable it isn’t possible. “
Not correct-
If there is no verifiable evidence for something, then it is important to be clear, open and honest about this, so that people are not given the false impression that something has been “proved” to work; Also, there is no theoretical basis known in science that could support moon planting or BD “preparations”; if they were correct, much of modern science- which has overwhelming experimental data to support it- would be wrong. On the other hand, there is also abundant evidence that people are very capable of believing things that are not true; of being subject to confirmation bias; of suffering from delusions which they believe so strongly they are prepared to kill and die for. Which is more likely? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you open your mind too much, your brains will fall out- which is why it is important to be skeptical.
“It has been my experience that people who practice it have an understanding that the information has very little to do with Rudolf Steiner as a person, ( a whole nother realm of Woo for you) so do not aspire to any of his personal beliefs – understand that he was a normal human being with the social conditioning of his time trying to make sense of information he did not understand. “
Firstly, in science we have to learn not to rely on our “personal experience”- we are all naturally biased. That is why we need science, to validate facts. Secondly, I think many anthroposophists will be shocked to hear what you say about Steiner- they believe every word he said. Can we take it then, that you will join me in denouncing Anthroposophy, and Steiner, as the cultish pseudo-science they are? And why believe anything else Steiner said if he was so wrong about race? Actually, it would be really helpful if you made a clear statement about your own views on this: was Steiner wrong about his mystic racist views? If so, given there is no evidence for anything he said, maybe you should question the rest as well.
“Most have also done extensive research on modern permaculture and are not afraid of blending ideas from different sources. To paint them as some sort weird cult is naive.”
The important thing is, that these ideas are based on science rather than just being made up or randomly put together like a sort of ideological mix-and-match. Personally, I think practicing animal sacrifice and sympathetic magic as a way of gardening is pretty weird; the cultish status of BD is evidenced by the vitriolic attacks made against people like myself who dare to question.
“Modern technology has it’s place but lets face it, in the last few decades it seems to have done more damage than good, not because it is in any way intrinsically bad but because the intention behind it has been for profit not for the betterment of humankind.”
So let’s support the good bits and work to make technology more equitable and sustainable, and not throw the baby out with the bathwater. This effort is hugely hampered by people’s credulity over things like BD, which contributes to a profound misunderstanding about science.
“So as much as I would like to believe that anything Monsanto does will benifit me my research tells me different and I’m not talking conspiracy theories of evil intent here, I’m talking cold hard evidence that they cut corners and don’t investigate their products and the effect on the enviroment fully.”
Maybe if you provide some of that evidence it would be easier to accept what you say- I cant just take your word for it, nor should anyone else. I dont think Monsanto are perfect- however, a lot of the anti-GE lobby tell lies about them, and misrepresent the science of GE in exactly the same way people misrepresent the evidence for BD. Be skeptical!
http://zone5.org/2010/03/whole-earth-discipline/
“I hope that we are evolving as a species; in many cultures today there is a push towards respecting the earth as living entity and that working with nature is proving to be more benificial than trying to adapt it to us.”
We have been “adapting nature” to suit us ever since we started playing with fire. Again, you need to provide evidence that “working with nature” is more beneficial- I have nothing against the concept, but what does it actually mean?
“People are aproaching this in many different ways, some chose not to be slaves to science, others want tried and tested proof – both have pure intentions as I’m sure you do.”
It is hard to understand this sentence. What is the difference between “science” and “tried and tested proof” in your view? I think you are mistaken about science- it is a method, something you DO, not a belief system. The difference is, if new evidence emerges, in science have to accept this and change. In ideology, people continue to believe things for which there is no evidence- this is because the belief is not dependent on it being true in the first place. I dont see how you can be a “slave to science”- but you can be a slave to ideologies and beliefs.
“Wasting time on theistic and non theistic debate is fruitless. Do you want to be right or do you want to survive?”
Why engage in this debate yourself then? It is not about me being right, but finding out what is right. Believe me, if there was good evidence that BD worked, I would be out there campaigning for it. I want to know what really does work, so that I can survive, and I am concerned that credulity about things like BD are spreading, and thereby limiting the ability of all of us to survive and make the right decisions.
“Painting everyone who practices alternative methods with the ‘ignorance’ brush is counter-productive to creating a society interested in sustainability, often it is spiritual enlightenment that instills the realisation that we need to change or we will make ourselves obselete, this does not change the intention in anyway.”
In the modern world, if people from the wealthiest societies that have ever existed reject science and believe in moon planting, that is ignorance pure and simple.
Of course, anyone is welcome to believe whatever they want to personally, but if they promote unsubstantiated beliefs; if they write stuff that is incorrect, that misrepresent the evidence, or encourages others to accept pseudoscience unquestioningly, then we have a moral obligation to respond and challenge it.
“Spiritual enlightenment” is just another fake notion of narcissism; there is really no such thing. It is only science that is telling us anything useful about our potential fate and the planet- the science of climate change, the science of biodiversity, ecology etc.. We have no chance of surviving if we fail to understand science, and that means first and foremost rejecting made-up twaddle like BD.
I agree that modern technology has undoubtedly been responsible for many of the problems we suffer today in respect of the power-relations between scientists, technologists and the military industrial complex. But the answers to our problems should not be honed to a set of polar choices between ‘business as usual’ and spiritualism; particularly when the spiritualism on offer replicates the colonial mindset that has driven the military industrial complex.
Just like the damaging colonial systems of old, Steiner’s philosophy is hugely divisive, racist and tribal; his schema appeals to atomistic self-revelation yet is grounded in white supremacists beliefs. If the woo of Biodynamics was simply a set of innocent and playful rituals used as a metaphor for the wonder and awe we feel when observing nature, not many people would object. But Anthroposophy is not such an innocent animal.
Science, like any tool, can be used for good or ill and thus the assumption that it can not be a force for good is to conflate the idea of human ethics and the laws of nature – in other words, such a position makes one’s view of the universe an entirely anthropocentric and dangerous proposition. Science has often been put to terrible purpose but, equally, it has been science that has uncovered the workings of physics, biology and chemistry; that has alerted us to the dangers of diminishing biodiversity; that has allowed us to understand climate change and has provided us with the means to put right the ravages of centuries of political ineptitude.
Paradoxically, though, the technical aspects of solving our pressing global problems such as poverty, climate change, peak oil and so-on are not the difficulty. The difficulty is a political system that continues to reward tribalism, greed and cultural exceptionalism; what one might call growth-oriented global capitalism has become the ‘accepted’ form of white, liberal consensus on economic and almost all other issues. Biodynamics is just another market sector controlled from within the power-elite and its claims to represent some higher truth are as fraudulent as its claims to scientific validity. I do not oppose growth-oriented capitalism because of some ideological preference but because the evidence shows it is not sustainable.
Three days ago, I was unfortunate enough to suffer anaphylactic shock as a result of reacting to an unknown (to me) allergen in some restaurant food. Whether or not the substance I reacted to was created by science or was ‘naturally’ occurring and whether or not it was my ‘modern’ lifestyle that contributed to my body’s reaction, there is no doubt that it was my proximity to a modern hospital that saved my life. If we wish to save the human species from terrible suffering and if we wish to create a sustainable environment in which all plants and animals can thrive, we must use the best tools at our disposal. Adding woo takes us further in the wrong direction and bolsters the mystical notions held by the incumbent power-brokers. I, for one, don’t wish to encourage them further.
Best wishes
Nick
Traci -
You are engaging in various false and misleading debating methods. You’re twisting words, making ad hominem attacks, and setting up straw man arguments. Your statements are personal attacks on Graham who is doing a huge service to the permaculture movement by debunking unfounded and unscientific beliefs. These beliefs damage the movement.
You present false-choices: industrial agriculture or unfounded mystic agriculture? How about agriculture based on testing what works while making sure long term sustainability and health is assured.
The way you write and the arguments you present indicate that you are uninformed and unschooled in the scientific method as well as various issues in sustainable agriculture. All science wants to say is “that’s interesting let’s test it to see if it works”.
Part of the reason this movement hasn’t made better progress is that it attracts people like you who tell smart, analytical people that they should just “believe”. Emotional arguments don’t inform us about what really works. This turns off countless engineers, scientists and law makers who could’ve moved permaculture forward in the last 30 years.
If we don’t use our brains to evaluate things, we waste a lot of time spraying fairy water when Venus is in left ascension, rather than paying attention to the nutrients and microbes that real science tells us make the real difference in how our plants and soil will do.
Comment emailed from Traci:
“Interesting that you accuse anti – GMO activists of scaremongering against Monsanto, but then you equate ancient indigenous farming practices and biodynamic with human sacrifice.
“While it is true that many ancient cultures had very sophisticated farming methods, they did not have the benefit of science” I beg to differ there is much evidence that they had a very good understanding of geometry and astronomy, (would they be considered ‘scientific’ enough for you?), if you would like an example let’s talk close to your home the ancient Celts, I am presently reading ‘PI in the sky’ by Michael Poyender, interesting reading, it seems that many ancient artifacts and scrawlings seem to have some basis in geometry and astronomy. Astrology and astronomy were archaically one and the same discipline (Latin: astrologia), and were only gradually recognized as separate in western 17th century philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology_and_astronomy
“In the long run, many of those cultures also proved to be unsustainable.” Mmmm, how so? Many of these cultures had their methods interrupted by arrival of ‘civilization’, ( Aborigines, Native Americans and many African tribes) so the question of if their methods were ultimately sustainable or not has become largely moot.
“Firstly, in science we have to learn not to rely on our “personal experience”- we are all naturally biased. That is why we need science, to validate facts.” And then in a previous post: “-and just because lots of people do believe something, does not a belief prove either!” Intriguing logic. Let us take a random fact: The moon’s distance from the earth, center to center. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth-Moon.PNG according to this it is 384 405 km. I have verified this from a few sources; 384403 kilometers/238857 miles are some other numbers I’ve come up with. Would you agree this is a scientific fact? Now, have you or I ever measured this personally? How can we be sure that the correct scientific methods were used? You have to have a certain amount of faith that this figure is correct, in fact you have to have a certain amount of faith that all of the scientific knowledge that you have learned, (not experienced) is in fact knowledge at all. After all in was widely believed that the earth was flat at one stage, and they thought they had evidence too. Yes we are naturally biased, I have seen anti and pro GMO activists using the same scientific data and ‘facts’ to fight their corner – take for interest’s sake your comment that the terminator gene was never marketed – Monsanto can tell you what it’s intention was doing this and you can choose to believe this explanation because it is rational, but if you take into account Monsanto’s history you cannot blame someone for doubting the intentions behind this ‘fact’. Human beings carry out scientific experiments and it has not been unheard that there are times that their bias might interfere in the outcome of an experiment, we can’t judge because we aren’t present we have to have faith that they did not let their bias influence any part of the experiment. Also much scientific knowledge is also based on theory, even in mathematics you have inconsistencies: see Gödel and his Incompleteness Theorems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems and some have suggested that the Riemann Hypothesis (one of the biggest mysteries in mathematics) is not provable but is nonetheless true, further than that we delve in to the realms of epistemology. The point I’m trying to make is that some times what we think is rational is based on knowledge that has been accepted because it is widely believed, not because we ourselves can actually prove it.
“Biodynamics however is not an ancient technique, but was made up in the 19thCentury by a charlatan who never tested anything scientifically, instead expecting his followers to simply believe what he said unquestioningly.” There are people who believe that Steiner inadvertently or with some help accessed some higher level of consciousness, (he maintained the information came from the spirit world) and received information that he could not make complete sense of, it is interesting that there is a correlation between this and information supposedly passed from ancestors in altered states in certain tribes all over the world. I’m not arguing that his social programming did or did not interfere with the information, just that I can see the benefit of researching this in an objective way if that is possible. Switching on a lamp in 1600 would have been considered witchcraft or people simply would not have believed an account of it, maybe accessing higher levels of consciousness which is now considered witchcraft or impossible might be viewed differently in the future? “Was Steiner wrong about his mystic racist views? If so, given there is no evidence for anything he said, maybe you should question the rest as well.”Does the fact that some consider Darwin a racist nullify the theory of evolution? I was racist in my younger years without even believing I was does that colour any of my views now? People have been socially programmed for centuries to follow and worship someone or something, to attribute this factor specifically to Anthroposophy is rather laughable. I know people that worship Christopher Dawkins.
“I would rather see, first of all, people being fed: nearly all the world’s food is currently being produced with industrial methods; organics cannot feed the world of 6.7 billion and rising.” Not really an answer to the question I was asking are you studying to be a politicianJ? But on this statement please read this:
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html
Hunger and poverty are not ever only going to be fixed by science, there are many other different factors to be addressed, a change of priorities a need for kinship and compassion, a need for people to see what unites them not what divides them.
“In the modern world, if people from the wealthiest societies that have ever existed reject science and believe in moon planting, that is ignorance pure and simple.” Now who’s being racist and classist? It’s interesting that you associate wealth with science. Can only wealthy societies engage in social reform, some would argue that that is the problem more than the solution?
“”Spiritual enlightenment” is just another fake notion of narcissism; there is really no such thing.” And your arrogance that there can be no consciousness above your own and your narrow interpretation of science; pseudo-science and knowledge is not narcissism? Einstein believed in a higher power, should we bin his theories?
“BD as farming “method” contributes nothing at all.
I would rather see people being more informed by science, getting accurate information, education and knowledge;” If you take the ‘woo’ out of BD you have essentially organic farming, in my opinion and many share this that are not Anthrosophosists or heathen cannibals, that this is better than intensive crop farming, think I may have made this point before. Accurate information, education and knowledge are a whole other debate.
“I would rather see mystical woo reduced to a historical footnote, rather than playing an increasingly influential role in society.” How? Should we shoot the philosophers and artists? Is the study of ancient cultures or even history not beneficial to you, or even why people believe things?
I suppose it’s the difference of believing everything is possible until proven impossible or believing everything is impossible till proven possible. I want to live in a world where different human beings coexist peacefully and interact with a mutual respect for one another, to achieve this I think it is more beneficial to find things than unite humanity than to concentrate on the divisions. In an objective study of different culture’s ‘woo’ there seem to be some interesting correlations, greats amounts of disinformation and misinformation, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water… “
Traci:
You speak as if you are the first person to consider these issues of epistemology. They were discussed extensively in ancient Greece and a basic understanding of these issues is essential in all science.
It all comes down to the same thing: there is evidence for some things (size of the moon); and no evidence for others (moon planting).
More than that, the kind of “belief” or “faith” is completely different: it is true of course that I cannot personally validate the exact size of the moon; however, there is no reason to doubt the science on this; the “doubting” is itself fundamental to the scientific process.
On the other hand there is no reason at all to believe Steiner.
Scientists do not believe the size of the moon is such and such as an article of faith, or because some guru told them so, but because the evidence is overwhelming, and can indeed be confirmed with enough work from multiple lines of inquiries; there is also a strong predictive capacity for successful scientific theories.
To repeat: people do not believe in Steiner because they think there is good peer-reviewed evidence for his “theories”; they believe, unquestioningly, mindlessly, as a religion.
If new evidence in science arises- for example, Relativity refined previous ways of measuring big distances and made them far moire accurate- then scientists will change their “beliefs” (theory) accordingly. It is not true however that scientific “beliefs” (theory) change dramatically or randomly; science actually makes steady progress. Quantum theory did not overturn Newtonian physics, merely made it far more accurate.
“Einstein believed in a higher power, should we bin his theories?”
Why should we? (Depending on what you mean by “Higher Power” I dont think he had any such beliefs, certainly not in nebulous concepts like “enlightenment”)
His theories are accepted for no other reason than that there is very strong evidence to support them; as you have already pointed out, agreeing with my original post, those that have not been supported with evidence are not “believed”. No such process applies to Steiner- people just believe him regardless of the evidence.
In science, we are always open to the possibility of being wrong, and scientific progress is based on falsifiability, the complete opposite of the way that religious belief is held.
For further discussion on this see for example, “Breaking the Spell” by Daniel Dennett.
Re sustainability of ancient cultures, see Jared Diamonds’ “Collapse”. As an example, consider the Anasazi:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Pueblo_Peoples
See also Leakey, “The Sixth Extinction” and Wells, “Pandora’s Seed” for the best evidence on ancient peoples: early humans hunted to extinction every large animal they could find, and eventually, combined with other factors, this may have played a role of propelling them into farming.
Tip: try to avoid pseudo-science like Pinder. Anyone can write any made-up rubbish and make money publishing it; that is why we need peer-review.
see Paalberg for discussion on global food issues:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/04/26/attention_whole_foods_shoppers?page=0,2
“…I think it is more beneficial to find things than unite humanity than to concentrate on the divisions.”
so why are you concentrating on (and creating) divisions?
Namaste Greg. For some reason my last post did not post. True I’m not a scientist, but I do have a fair understanding of the english language you might want to research the the term ad hominem especially ad hominem tu quoque . I have not personally ‘attacked’ anyone rather I’m doing the opposite and trying to advocate having an open mind. Not once have I said I have said I agree with the original blog that he wrote in reply to. I engaged in this debate because I have a great deal of respect for the work he accomplishes and I have an idea that his ultimate goal is the same as mine, if I disagreed with him on principle I wouldn’t have bothered to engage. If anything I have more respect for him now that he has bothered to engage in debate with me even though I think you may have pointed out – no expert on permaculture. You on the other hand have wasted an entire post insulting me as person, I do not take this personally as you can’t pretend to know me or my level of education or even my complete views on this subject or any subject in 2 posts.
As I have said before I do not have a set set of ridgid beliefs, I have ideas and I’m quite open to changing my ideas that is why I engage in discussion, because I’m hoping to learn something not prove I’m right. I’m not advocating Anthroposophy or worshiping Rudolf Stiener or any other cult. I feel dogma in any form is counter- productive. There is evidence that Darwin and Newton were racist, does this affect how you view thier theories? Science tells us that there are differences between races, it’s a philosohical question to wether they are equal or not.
“All science wants to say is “that’s interesting let’s test it to see if it works”.” Science is not an enitity, a human has to ask the question and have enough interest to pursue the answer using the scientific method.
“You present false-choices: industrial agriculture or unfounded mystic agriculture?” How is that a false choice, please inform me? Pure science is a wonderful notion but some times you have to deal in practalities. If someone bought a piece of ground with the intent to farm what would be better for the enviroment from the two choices given? Today, now not in the future.
I am not doubting the efficacy of science as a tool or the scientic method I’m just pointing out that since humans humans practice and implement it all it can ever do is reduce bias not eliminate it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
“Part of the reason this movement hasn’t made better progress is that it attracts people like you who tell smart, analytical people that they should just “believe”. Emotional arguments don’t inform us about what really works.” Please show me where I have ever told anyone what to “believe” In fact I would be quite an advocate of the opposite. Humans are emotional beings so separating emotion from any arguement is impossible unless it is your plan to lobotmise the right side of everyone’s brain? The fact that this is such a emotional topic astounds me, considering the actual percentage of food being produced people practising biodynics and parts there of versus the food being produced soaked in fertiliser and pesticides. If it is on the rise then the socialogical question has to be asked why are people forsaking science for the woo if it has no benifit? How can it discredit something if it has no merit, why give it power by calling it ‘dangerous’ if you believe it does not work.
“This turns off countless engineers, scientists and law makers who could’ve moved permaculture forward in the last 30 years.” Some would argue that these countless engineers, scientists and law makers weren’t interested until there was sufficient proof, that permaculture was commercially viable. Engineers, scientists and law makers are not always out for humanities best interests. The scientists and engineers who create weapons know what they are for.
My whole arguement has been about balance, how can you on hand be prepared to be so forgiving of Monsanto, then suspend all obejectivity on alternative farming methods.
We have come so far technologically as a species, but are we really better off that we were 100; 200; 300 years ago? Less than 10% of the earths population have autonomy over more than 90% of the earths arable land so actually the whole arguement is moot. http://www.foodfirst.org/es/node/1480 Can science really solve the earths problems?
Anyway I feel like I’m repeating myself here if I haven’t made my point by now, I’m never going to. I really am sorry if I have offended anyone it was not my intention.
Dear Traci,
Concerning your comment:
“There is evidence that Darwin and Newton were racist, does this affect how you view thier theories? Science tells us that there are differences between races, it’s a philosohical question to wether they are equal or not.”
As I’ve not been well, forgive me from quoting from my blog rather than writing directly:
Race is a social construct. The colour of one’s skin, differences in the proportions of some physical features and the geographical location of one’s birth or the birth of one’s ancestors are common signifiers for people who believe in race and have been promoted by the power-elites of many societies throughout history. And before the advent of science, such distinctions were largely believed by powerful societies to correlate absolutely with a range of character traits to which moral and ethical values were attached and notions of comparative intelligence ascribed; those in power seeing themselves as racially superior to their subordinates and their enemies. The human genome project has, however, torn notions of race to shreds. Study after study has shown that genetic variation between ‘races’ is no more prevalent than genetic variation within ‘races’. The variations that old-fashioned racists have observed and catalogued are simply the variations we can see. In other words, two white Englishmen are often as different genetically from each other as a white Englishman and a black Ethiopian – it just so happens that some differences are immediately visible when comparing the latter pair while the former pair share external appearance while differing in other ways.
Dark skin colour, in the tropics and near the equator where sunshine is bright and plentiful, allows the absorption of light and the production of vitamin D whilst preventing damage to the underlying skin from ultra-violet radiation. In less sunny locations, dark skin colour blocks out so much light that vitamin D production falls away and a lighter skin colours tend to proliferate. Ascribing intellectual, ethical or moral values to a person’s ‘method’ of producing vitamin D is clearly irrational. Yet, even when the facts are known, racists persist in their attitudes in order to preserve the mystical and idealized fictions that improve the status of the cohort to which they belong.
From: Mystic Shadows of Colour at http://nicknakorn.wordpress.com
In my view, the existence of racism is not a philosophical question at all, it is a political and ethical question.
Nick
Sorry Graham I only saw that you put on my post now, thank you for posting it.
“So why are you concentrating on (and creating) divisions?” It was not my intention at all actually my intention was the opposite. I was never trying to intimate or insinuate my knowledge on permaculture or anything else is more than yours or anyones else. I rely on my personal experience because I can relate to different people individualy with compassion and not try stuff them into some pre concieved little box with a neat little lable, please note that by my stating this as my intention I am not making the assumption that you are doing the opposite. “The only thing I know for sure is that I know nothing at all” Socrates.
Having no evidence is not the same as having evidence to the contrary. The only thing I’m trying to understand is if you don’t believe the Stiener farming methods, ( I think I have made this fairly clear NOT Anthrosophy as a whole) don’t improve organic farming, (proven by science) but there is no evidence that it harms the enviroment, ( not proven yet possibly because it has no effect because it is just fantasy or maybe some on just haven’t invented the right experiment yet, who cares) why do you view it as dangerous? I’m sorry I just don’t understand that what you think is a load of bollocks can discredit your work. If you did believe that bioynamics was dark witchcraft, I’d understand better and tell you to let go of your dogmatic beliefs, but you profess to have none and believe only what is rational, so why the contempt? Why do you give it power by even addressing it, if you believe it to have none.
I’ll leave you with this: If your ultimate goal is to get your child to do her homework. If she’ll only do it with a pink pen because she believes she is more capable that way, do you critisize and laugh at her innocuous belief or do you let her get on with it and hope one day you can instill enough confidence in her that she does not need the pink pen or her belief in it and that she will realise that she has been capable of doing her homework on her own all along.
Thank you for all your links and suggested reading, some I have read , some I will endeavor to. I hope you realise that for some leaving behind dogma and social conditioning is a slow process, sometimes replacing old dogma with new dogma is part of the process of realising that dogma does not serve, it creates subservience, that people are different, have different mindsets and this does not have to be exclusionary. For me spiritually has nothing to do with all sort of organised religious faith it is about beauty and gratitude. Thank you for taking the the time and patience to engage, I respect and appreciate your work that is why I challenge you I wouldn’t bother otherwise. Namaste
Traci You dont seem to realise how self-contradictory and biased you are. You imply science and rationalism are “dogmatic”, accept there is no evidence for BD, and then claim you are defending it “for balance”. Here is how the scales of balance weigh: There is plenty of contrary evidence to “disprove” or discount BD; there is no evidence to support it.
You are saying, “enough sense now, what about a load of nonsense -for balance?” You suggest to me that I should just shrug and say, “so what if people still believe it”, ie “What’s the harm?”
but equally, as I have already said, if you take a completely neutral position- evidence or making stuff up, who cares?- why are you engaging in this debate yourself?
I have already explained, both in the post and comments, what the harm is, and I feel you should be able to work this out yourself.
Irrational beliefs are not innocuous; they spread like diseases and ultimately could infect whole cultures; as they grow in influence they assume political power. And their most powerful weapon is the falsity that they are harmless, that they are just “private beliefs”. They are not- they are political.
Follow the links provided; read my more recent post:
http://zone5.org/2010/07/stirring-crazy-permaculture-biodynamics-and-compost-teas/
Read Nick’s blog and follow his links.
“I’m sorry I just don’t understand that what you think is a load of bollocks can discredit your work.”
I have already explained that, as has Greg above; you cannot give any credence to religious and superstitious views like BD without also attacking or misrepresenting science; to those who may have a scientific outlook, who might actually have something useful to offer (BD has nothing useful to offer) when they see Permaculture is associated with mystic woo they will naturally run a mile.
If you take the view as you seem to that ideas for which there is no evidence, and which contradict the established theories of science, are equally valid and should therefore go unchallenged, then you also are attacking science and undermining people’s understanding of the hard-won truths of science.
You are also consistently defending Judith Hoad who has defamed me in an Organic journal, and thereby directly tried to discredit the work I do, as well as attacking the Met office!! She clearly believes that science is the problem and we would be better off with Medieval folk magic. The problem is, science has worked pretty well; magic doesnt.
The same kind of belief systems operate within alternative therapies, which also dont work; what’s the harm?- people reject proper medicine and seek out quacks who can do nothing for them. They reject vaccination, which is leading to a new Measles epidemic. This in particular has been associated with Anthroposophy:
http://counterknowledge.com/2009/01/measels-outbreaks-not-just-a-british-tragedy-but-a-european-one-as-well/
Some anthroposophists- and others in the anti-science establishment- hold measles parties believing that measles is good for their kids and will strengthen their immune systems. Maybe you are one of those people Traci, that’s why you are defending the likes of quacks like Hoad and asking “what’s the harm”.
One of the dangerous effects of this slide into ignorance and superstition, which you are also promoting here, is the ideological objection to GE (which is not of course limited to Anthroposophists). That is why ideology is so dangerous Traci, because it leads to real actions and real effects and amage in the REAL world- but of course, for many of these people, the world is not “real” after all so it really doesnt matter does it? It’s all just a matter of opinion…
It is true of course that many who practice BD are not Antrhoposophists, and may be ignorant of the basis of Steiner’s ideology. When I point out to them what else Steiner said, they do not feign shock and move to distance themselves from it; rather, they tend to look to ways of rationalizing it.
Most Steiner schools and Camphills (where BD is practiced) do have Anthroposophists involved who do actually believe every word Steiner said; they believe in racist karma and act according those their beliefs.
So show me some examples of “innocent” BD practitioners who campaign to expose the racism and reactionary nature of the cult of Anthroposophy and limit its influence. You wont find any, but you will find plenty to rally to your own cause who vigorously attack people like me for ” dogmatic rationalism” and being “blinkered”.
In this debate Traci you have spent all your time attacking me for presenting the evidence, which you clearly feel is much more important than attacking Steiner’s racism. It is very clear where your sympathies lie.
You might feel, along with Hoad, that we would be better off in a world dominated by brainwashing, ignorance and superstition, or that these things should carry equal eight with science, in which case we will never agree but I will continue to try to expose the harm you are contributing to.
Coincidentally, Stu over at ‘Biodynamics is a Hoax’ (http://biodynamicshoax.wordpress.com/2010/08/14/steiner-people-with-cancer-should-be-forbidden-to-eat-tomatoes/) and a thread on Richard Dawkins ( http://richarddawkins.net/discussions/499343-germ-theory-deniers) have both recently mentioned the dangers of promoting magic instead of science and I offer this sad gem to further illustrate the point:
http://www.cancerchecklist.com/ingrid.html
My brother in law died of cancer partly because he took advice from alternative practitioners and ignored the science-based therapies offered by the hospital, his ‘alternative therapist’ advised raw vegetables instead of radiotherapy or chemotherapies.
Nick
Graham, put aside your massive ego for ten minutes, not once have I said I agree personally with Judith Hoad, Biodynamics or any other alternative farming method that hasn’t been scientifically proven yet. In fact I have said very little about my personal ideas as I don’t think they are pertinent to this ‘discussion’. She called you ‘blinkered’ and said you slagged of biodynamics as hocus pocus, thats not defamation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation You already agreed that biodynamics is hocus pocus so that leaves ‘blinkered’ wich is a personal observation not slander. Methinks someone doth protest too much. Judith Hoad must be having a right giggle at you right now, she certainly not pushing pins into her little Graham doll, since you’ve managed to make yourself look like a fundamental christian on a wich hunt.
Never have I said science and rationalism were dogmatic, I said that humans practice science and use rationalism, they are not an entities, so all it can ever do is reduce bias not eliminate it. I have never ‘attacked’ you personally (I don’t even know you)only your vehemency against biodynamic and Stiener, (did anyone tell you that he’s dead?) it seems out of place with the rest of your ideas – seems like a personal vendetta to me, again only an observation I don’t know you, and I’m not or did not intend ever to judge you as a person if you feel that I did I apologise. You wax lyrical about freedom of speech, but then talk about ‘ideology’ as dangerous.
You have a problem with racism, I have a problem with bigotry. We all are bigots to varying degrees, some choose to acknowledge it and take responsiblity others are blind, it is often what you most dislike about yourself that inspires extreme emotionin you about others.
You say magic doesn’t work but believing in magic leads to actions and real effects (and you call me self-contradictory). I still don’t get it, maybe I’m just not intelligent enough. Go back to sleep world the science guys have it all covered, carry on watching Eastenders – everything is OK!
Ha! Ha! The old vaccine goad, what’s your worry? Let all the people that don’t believe in vaccines die out from measels, your children can’t get because they can get it because they’ve been vaccinated. Not that simple is it? So let’s not tack it on the end of another discussion. Again equating everyone who has a concern about vaccines with people who attend measel parties – fuzzy logic!
What is your vision for the future, once you’ve exposed the magic that does not work anyway? What are you going to do if there are still people than instist on holding on to some mystery burn them at the stake, or take away thier land and refuse to feed them?
You are right, I have spent far to much time here trying to push the dangerous notion of coexsiting, and far too much thinking in general, I must get back to facebook – my plants are dying in farmville!!!!
Disclaimer: The only knowledge I have of you, is whats written on this site – I do not deem to judge your being by your words
Traci: “Ha! Ha! The old vaccine goad, what’s your worry? Let all the people that don’t believe in vaccines die out from measels, your children can’t get because they can get it because they’ve been vaccinated. Not that simple is it? So let’s not tack it on the end of another discussion. Again equating everyone who has a concern about vaccines with people who attend measel parties – fuzzy logic!”
It is troubling to hear such a complacent view. One of the issues of not vaccinating is the need for herd immunity- some children may not be vaccinated for various reasons- babies under the age of 6mnths for example- but if there is measles in the community- which there will be if less than 95% are vaccinated- those babies may catch measles, which can have complications including death. See the link in my last comment.
“You say magic doesn’t work but believing in magic leads to actions and real effects (and you call me self-contradictory). I still don’t get it, maybe I’m just not intelligent enough. Go back to sleep world the science guys have it all covered, carry on watching Eastenders – everything is OK!”
The magic doesnt work but belief in magic often means the rejection of science, which can mean misinformation, bad advice, bad choices, dangerous actions which can harm others, not just those with the beliefs.
To rectify this we need to do two things: promote a proper understanding of science; and challenge pseudoscience, both of which I hope to contribute to in a small way here. For science to be effective, more people need to engage in it, not just go back to sleep!
Traci,
I don’t fully understand your comment:
“You have a problem with racism, I have a problem with bigotry. We all are bigots to varying degrees, some choose to acknowledge it and take responsiblity others are blind, it is often what you most dislike about yourself that inspires extreme emotionin you about others.”
One might see racism as a subset of bigotry as are homophobia, sexism and so-on. I think many people are emotional about racism because they are fed up with being attacked and discriminated against; many too are upset by having to witness such acts and live in a society where violence and discrimination against the ‘other’ is widespread – in those respects don’t we all have a problem with racism unless we support it or don’t oppose it?. Not opposing racism contributes to normalising racist values and making them acceptable.
Perhaps you would like to join with me in denouncing the racism in Steiner’s work publically under your full name as such a stance would certainly add to those concerned about that particular form of bigotry.
Nick
…and Traci, just to help me understand your point of view, it would in fact be very useful to know whether you are an anti-vaccer, or whether you are indeed one of those people who think it would be good for children to get measles. Thanks.
@ Nick, if you followed the dictionary link, you would see you are quite correct – rascism is a subset of bigotory, (that is why I put it there, maybe I should copy and paste the whole definition the next time.) OK, alright! I Traci Gardiner denounce Bigotory of all types; Oh no I just denounced bigotory so people will think I’m bigoted against the bigots! But’s OK if they are just a little bigoted, like against religion and superstion, those people are just plain dumb; no I’ll just go for the big stuff like skin colour and bone structure. Did I ever say I was advocating or denying rasicm? I’m from South Africa, Stieners views are like a blip on the radar, If you think it’s about black and white there’ ask a Xhosa and a Zulu why they hate each other. Are you anti-semetic? The Jews believe they are the only race going to heaven denouncing racism is denouncing Jews! See the minefeild?
@ Graham ‘complacent view’? I didn’t give you my view, the Ha! H!a denoted following sarcasm, (really I’m loosing my touch) The ‘not that simple’ refered to the bit after the Ha! Ha! ie: I feel the vaccination debate is a little bit more complex few paragraphs you carelessly tacked onto the end of a discussion of farming methods, because thats what Iwas still discussing – It’s You ‘all that are discussing the woo or not to woo or believe woo dangerous and if fairies are racist theory. Am I an anti-vaccer? No I don’t oppose the concept don’t deny the small pox victory. Do I have concerns about specific vaccines and thier ingredients, how close together they are administered and many other specific concerns, ( no not the MMR causing Autism )? Hell ya! Concerns that I have discussed with my doctor and my health care professional, done my own research on and finally come to a decision concerning my child personally and specifically. The only thing I advocate is fully informed consent, knowing that there are other options besides taking or not taking the vaccine, taking into account your childs history of reactions to specific vaccines, I respect whatever decision a parent makes after they are fully informed and hope that they will respect mine enough not to throw me a suprise measels paty for my child half year birthday if I hadn’t specifically requested it . Sacrificing my child for the sake of the ‘herd’ is a ludicrous concept to me as a human being. This is round and round the bush is boring me…..
P.S I am very sorry for the loss of your brother -in -law, I have experienced loved ones going through chemotheraphy and radiotheraphy, it is harrowing to watch and must be horrifing to go through and no doctor can ever promise a 100% sucsess. I have loved ones that have benifited from either or a combination of these and I have had loved ones that died inspite of them. If your brother-in-law felt the need to consult an alternative practioner after hearing the doctors diagnosis, shouldn’t you respect him and his decision? If he consulted the alternative practioner and they advised him against seeking medical advice and made a promise of full recovery, which are illegal in Ireland I would see it as a violation of his right to be fully informed.
Traci,
thanks for your kind comments concerning my brother in law.
I am puzzled, though, by your very general denouncement of bigotry; it gives the impression that you are avoiding saying specifically that you think Steiner’s schema is racist and should be opposed. Given the European history of Anthroposophy and it’s role in the 2nd World War, I don’t think that it is merely a blip on the radar; it is a warning of how far Anthroposophist are prepared to go in support of their racist agenda. My knowledge of modern South Africa is not great but I was, of course, very aware of the situation prior to Appartheid being abolished.
Am I anti-semetic? No, certainly not. Where did you get that idea? Am I against the racism displayed in the Abrahamic religions? Yes, that is quite legitimate. These issues are only a minefield if one conflates prejudice against persons, historical perspective and evidence. It seems to me that the racism displayed by Christianity, Islam and Judaism are all legitimate topics for debate and public censure.
Like many activists, I choose to fight the racism on my doorstep in addition to supporting anti-racist movements elsewhwere.
Nick
This is a good blog post, relevant to skepticism, how to make arguments and vaccines:
http://www.skepticat.org/2010/08/dont-be-skeptical-of-skeptics/
Traci: “I respect whatever decision a parent makes after they are fully informed …”
But what if they are not fully informed? What if in fact they have been conned by anti-vaccer quacks who use spurious arguments like “science has been wrong before” “science is biased and run by Big Corporations” “science is just another religion” etc.. Are you going to speak out against them or go out of your way to defend them?
What are you doing to ensure that people are in fact properly informed? And why are you taking such exception to my stance here?
The reason I am asking is because all I am trying to do is to make sure people are properly informed, and have the tools to think critically about claims that are made- in this case claims by anthroposophists, and Judith Hoad, who is a quack anti-vaccer:
“BIRTHS: two homebirths, one in hospital and two miscarriages…promotes natural birth and advises against vaccination. “
http://www.wisewomanireland.com/workshops.htm
@ Nick, I was not being personal I was trying to make a point that if you are going to denounce racism in Anthrosophy, you are going to have to denounce racism in all forms, because Anthrosophy is certainly not the only religion or social group to have racist roots. To be fair you are then going to go after all groups that have ever had any racist values included in thier dogma. I picked Jews because they are easy targets, history aside, I have many Jewish friends who are not personally racist and who are wonderful people but I don’t see many black faces entering synagogues, and then there is Gaza and the whole Palestine situation, If I held that againtst evey Jew I met I would be considered anti- semetic, I don’t but it doesn’t mean I condone racism in any way. Steiner Schools in South Africa are refered to as Waldorf schools to distance themselves from anthroposophy and the rascim in Steiners’s teaching. Interesting that many, ( not all) accepted students of colour in the times of apartheid, they were allowed to as they were considered private schools. Granted this was not always as philanthropic as it sounds because the fees in Waldorf Schools were exhorbitant for this very reason. Waldorf schools in South Africa embrace all cultures often celbrating many different religious festivals, but the practising of any one religion is left up to the parents. The schools are far from perfect and need to be judged individualy, but in terms of racism they were streets ahead of other education systems in South Africa. Of course I’ve heard horror stories about certain German Steiner Schools, but does that negate the good that certain Waldorf Schools in SA did? I come from a multi racial, multi cultural and multi denominational family, so even adressing bigotory or discriminationon my own doorstep is interesting to say the least. My uncle married a beautiful Afgani woman, she converted from Muslim for her own reasons, some of her family members have disowned her. would happily see her sentenced to death, does she hold it against all Muslims? No she has many forward thinking Muslim friends, she has encouraged her children to study the Quran if they have wanted to, by doing this she does not condone a young man blowing himself and women and children up. This is why I try, ( It’s not always possible) not to let a person’s lable, self imposed or otherwise interefere with me getting to know them as a person. I grew up in SA thinking I wasn’t racist, thinking my family were liberal, one of our close friends sent time in prison for marrying an Indian, our full time maid got christmas day off. We were told in school that the people of coulor wanted Apartheid (literal translation ‘separation’), that they wanted to rather live in huts with no electrcity because they weren’t as developed as us. I never questioned this, I wasn’t taught to. In 1992 when our history books were rewritten and our schools started letting in children of colour that were as or more intelligent than us you can only imagine the cognitive dissonance that set in, I was lucky I was very young but for previous generations it was incredibly difficult and huge amounts of guilt, because although the situation was very visable from overseas it was largely hidden from us, not that is any excuse it’s just how it was.
@Graham: Loved the blog post: Girl Skeptic shows she’s tougher than Boy Skeptics and kicks poor Defector ex Skeptic in the nuts one more time to get special ‘Best Skeptic’ Badge. I had no idea there was a community of skeptics, do you have a special handshake or are you skeptical of that sort of thing? ( Sorry I could not resist!) All very academic, not all that practical.
I don’t think all ‘anti-vaccer’ claims are invalid – science has been wrong before – it has with a vaccine, specifically the MMR and the Urabe strain, thankfully not in Ireland’s vaccines anymore, but still in use in other countries. Why was it used even though the Jeryl Lynn strain was safer? Because it was cheaper.
Both sides use fear mongering, Measels is not the Bubonic plague and pharmaceutical companies are not intending to create dangerous products , best to have some perspective. Organisations such as the WHO are not as altruistic as they seem and don’t offer all the information they should, on the otherside any alternative practioner has the right to give you their oppinion, but the responsibilty to tell you to discuss it with your doctor if you are consulting with them in person, this is the law.
I don’t think the debate should be about jab or not to jab, it should be can’t science find a better way of healing or immunising the body without adding poison to it? But there is no profit in it so the amount of scientists engaged in looking out for that are considerably less than the ones looking for a vaccine for cancer because that will be more profitable. Do I blame pharmacuetical companies for this? That would be the easy option, we need to take responsibilty for our own greed and change ourselves first before we can expect change from the men in suits.
What am I doing about it? Well what I don’t do is call some one a stupid moron because they saw a you tube video of Jenny Mcarthty blubbering about how the MMR causes autism because she is anuneducated bimbo and changes her story 3 times in every interview. I would tell her she should firstly speak to her doctor to discuss her options about each vaccine, it is amazing how many people feel that they cannot approach their doctors for the fear that they appear stupid, there are no stupid questions as far as a doctor is concerned that is what they are there for – because not everyone has the time to go to medical school, if your doctor does not understand that find a new one. Then I would direct them if they were interested to a range of sites that focus on facts rather than oppinion. Jenny Mcarthy is an easy target for sneering academics but she is a mother with a child that has a sickness that even science doesn’t fully understand yet, to view her with anything more negative than sympathy is infantile.
I was brought up as a Jehovah’s Witness. When I was 10 I was told by some well meaning individual that my mother didn’t love me because if I was invovled in a car accident my mother would let me die rather than let me have a blood transfusion. It’s not so simple, in SA where the incidence of trauma is high Jehovah’s Witnesses carry around details of doctors who have experience in teatments using medical alternatives to blood transfusions such as blood expanders, they have the utmost respect for the medical community are often part of it. If all else fails and there is still a need for one the elders of the church leave the decision up to the parents, if a court order is obtained it is respected. I am not a JW anymore but would let my child recieve a blood transfusion in South Africa? How do they test most of the blood for HIV and other diseases there? Donor screening with a questionaire. http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/pr2000-25.html A more ideal choice would be for you or a family member with matching blood type to provide blood for your child. No some hospitals don’t allow this as their insurance wont cover your child if they were to contract something from they blood that you gave, only if your child were to contract something from the hospital’s blood – how poetic.
I don’t agree with the no blood theory and many others of the JW’s, do I veiw them as a dangerous cult. No. Many of the medical alternatives to transfusions they have been campaigning for years have inspired research into bloodless technologies http://www.noblood.org/ I don’t regret growing up as a Jehovah’s Witness it taught me a bucket load about why people discriminate and gave me a healthy disrespect for authority.
Why I disagree on your stance here: First of all I must apologise on one point – I reread your original post as I felt we’d gone so far off topic I couldn’t remember what point I was trying to make I must admit I had missed this point in my first reading. “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.” I agree with that 100%, as a teacher employed by the state, personal ideas that have no basis in fact should be left at the door along with predjudices of any kind, I would like to see that in all education systems.
As a respected figure in the movement towards a more sustainable way of living, I did believe that your stance on biodynamics was very harsh considering it’s actual effect on the enviroment. I have a better understanding of your reasoning now that I have discovered this entire skeptical community, I do feel it is a bit extreme and exclusionary. People within a group often have vastly different intentions and core values, have different levels of education- to judge them by thier lable even one they have chosen for themselves is archaic. I understand that science is my friend but because it is a tool operated by humans and groups of humans, and it’s results are interpreted by humans it is never going to be perfect. I have never met a full blooded Athroposophist, but I do know and know of many people experimenting with biodynamics and Steiner/Waldorf education methods that aren’t racist at all and don’t think Steiner’s racism is inherent in what they are doing or even aware of it.
Personally I don’t think I could function without a higher purpose, do I need that purpose to be defined right now? I think trying to define it means me excluding or being blind to ideas that may be benificial to me. My view has been described as ‘monumental fence sitting’ but whats another lable? At this point I feel that coexisting is the best option for humanity.
Traci:
“All very academic, not all that practical.”
But of course skepticism is practical- it provides a method of assessing the evidence for claims being made about really important things like vaccines; it informs about the scientific process which is good for society in many ways, and , I would argue, for democracy and people’s engagement and participation in society.
“I don’t think all ‘anti-vaccer’ claims are invalid – science has been wrong before…”
But Steiner- or BD-vaccers- have never been wrong, yes?” see:Par. No.4 : http://www.skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia95.html
“…it should be can’t science find a better way of healing or immunising the body without adding poison to it?”
But isnt this exactly the kind of scaremongering we should be trying to avoid? I put “poison” in my body every time i drink coffee or eat sugar. Potatoes have toxins in them, as have many of our foods. Toxicology is all about the dose. Al these questions come down to who do you trust and what is the best way to find out things? Science is always the best we have got- guessing or making things up is really no use in comparison.
“People within a group often have vastly different intentions and core values, have different levels of education- to judge them by thier lable even one they have chosen for themselves is archaic.”
I dont judge people as a group or by their label; I am judging- or assessing the evidence for- specific beliefs and claims being made; and I am caling people to account for claiming there is evidence where there isnt, and for misrepresenting science.
Maybe you missed this also from the original post:
“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 “preparations”, 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.”
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
Post a Comment