Tom Glasgow
Thomas W Glasgow
You've reviewed the scientific/academic papers or the reports in the popular press?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Biodynamics is a Hoax
- Thread starter Lyle Fass
- Start date
originally posted by Tom Glasgow:
You've reviewed the scientific/academic papers or the reports in the popular press?originally posted by Lee Short:
When you consider how hair splitting evaluation can get in Burgundy and the extent to which uncontrolled variables are constantly present, I often wonder how anything of genuine accuracy is ever arrived at. That is the main reason I think the BD debate is much like terroir debates, it will not be conclusively proven to be superior to satisfy the skeptics. My personal view is that when it comes to the long term sustainability of a high quality of life for humans, deft symbiosis with nature is how that is achieved and that to me means not using synthetic concentrated substances in agriculture. Our infatuation with our short term solutions seems to always backfire on us over the long term.
Exactly. Which I why I find the more dogmatic claims on either side to be misguided.
None of the BD defenders that I have seen has stated a belief in the mystical mechanisms that Steiner put forward*. Rather, they are stating their belief that the jury is still out on whether the physical treatments suggested by BD have any efficacy, and expressing doubt in the supposed infallibility of the scientific method when applied to problems with an endless string of independent variables, only a select few of which are controlled for in any given experiment. This is the same sort of scientific investigation that first told us that sugar was a greatly unhealthy food that must be avoided...then a few years later, it turns out that sugar wasn't the culprit, it was butter and we should eat margarine instead...then a few more years down the road, it was margarine that was bad for us and butter that was healthy in moderate quantities. It's almost enough to make a man 'skeptical' that the scientific method is the infallible precision instrument that some evidently view it as, when applied to problems that have more than five or six independent variables.
*Though I'm sure such defenders must exist, I have yet to see a proof of their existence.
So did you miss a math geek joke, or are you sticking up for the infallibility of the scientific studies?
Oliver McCrum
Oliver McCrum
Did any of you catch the wave of homeopathic 'suicides' in the UK? Publicly downing whole bottles of medication at the same time...but nothing happens!
Jeff Grossman
Jeff Grossman
Pshaw. He's not trying to heal us; he's hoping to overflow the database so we can move to another website.originally posted by Thor:
Obviously, the logical conclusion is that the most effective argument is an empty post.
...and now we see the real genius of Coad's current status. He's not actually on hiatus, he's just posting hundreds of homeopathic messages.
Christian Miller (CMM)
Christian Miller
Are you thinking of particular papers or experiments where key variables were neither controlled for nor acknowledged?...the supposed infallibility of the scientific method when applied to problems with an endless string of independent variables, only a select few of which are controlled for in any given experiment.
Does biodynamic growing have so many elements with such enormous synergy that its impact can't be measured by normal agricultural experimental methods?
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
originally posted by Thor:
Obviously, the logical conclusion is that the most effective argument is an empty post.
...and now we see the real genius of Coad's current status. He's not actually on hiatus, he's just posting hundreds of homeopathic messages.
It was the logical conclusion of the path I walked.
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
So what's the point of homeopathy - saving money? Minimizing side effects?
Oswaldo Costa
Oswaldo Costa
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by Thor:
Obviously, the logical conclusion is that the most effective argument is an empty post.
...and now we see the real genius of Coad's current status. He's not actually on hiatus, he's just posting hundreds of homeopathic messages.
It was the logical conclusion of the path I walked.
Walked into the sunset to the strains of From Nothingness to Eternity.
originally posted by Christian Miller (CMM):
Are you thinking of particular papers or experiments where key variables were neither controlled for nor acknowledged?...the supposed infallibility of the scientific method when applied to problems with an endless string of independent variables, only a select few of which are controlled for in any given experiment.
Does biodynamic growing have so many elements with such enormous synergy that its impact can't be measured by normal agricultural experimental methods?
I read a select few of the medical science papers involved in some of the above controversies, and they certainly had many (infinitely many, in fact) variables that were neither controlled nor acknowledged. They were rife with assumptions about which variables were important, and which were not. Clearly those who ran the original experiments did not believe that the uncontrolled variables, taken collectively, were important. Later experiments strongly suggest that they were wrong about this. It is in fact quite routine for new studies to conclude "hey, this variable is important after all."
I can't say that I have read any of the BioD papers, and perhaps modern agricultural science is vastly better than modern medical science at controlling all variables that are important, whether obvious or not. But there's really no way for them to be sure of their conclusions. Given the recent history of science involving complex systems, I do not have faith in the perfect minds of those running the experiments and I do not believe that such faith is warranted.
I have no problem with those who are skeptical about the claims of BioD (treated as a unified mystical whole). I certainly have no problem with skepticism towards marketing claims. Much of the problem here is that BioD is often being bashed as if it were a unified entity, and that each individual BioD proponent is being held accountable for any claim made by any BioD proponent (read the hoax blog if you don't believe that this is the case). My real problem when it is aggressively asserted that the omniscient scientists have determined once and for all that no element whatsoever of BioD has any actual effectiveness. There's simply no way to have such absolute certainty.
Dy-no-mize!It was the logical conclusion of the path I walked.
Oliver McCrum
Oliver McCrum
I have to say that some of Stu Smith's quotations from Steiner are pretty damning. If Steiner invented the whole 'theory' why would anyone take it seriously?
Ian Fitzsimmons
Ian Fitzsimmons
I think the fly in the ointment of an out-of-hand rejection of something so completely batty-sounding is that some good vintners (more than one or two) feel they get good results from following this approach. Some informed wine drinkers agree with them.
Perhaps it is the similarities between BD and some aspects of organic farming the produces this effect; perhaps it is divine intervention. Perhaps it is just more fun to do organic farming when you are acting out a myth, so workers do a better job under a BD regime than under a normal organic one. Perhaps it is a mass hallucination. Perhaps BD ag accidentally captures some cause-and-effect relationships that improve primary production but aren't understood. It's intriguing.
Perhaps it is the similarities between BD and some aspects of organic farming the produces this effect; perhaps it is divine intervention. Perhaps it is just more fun to do organic farming when you are acting out a myth, so workers do a better job under a BD regime than under a normal organic one. Perhaps it is a mass hallucination. Perhaps BD ag accidentally captures some cause-and-effect relationships that improve primary production but aren't understood. It's intriguing.
Oliver McCrum
Oliver McCrum
I agree that it's intriguing.
It's weird that people expect it to be taken seriously given how it came about; it has the form of a religious belief, which is not odd given Steiner's predilections. Comparison with homeopathy seems apt.
It's weird that people expect it to be taken seriously given how it came about; it has the form of a religious belief, which is not odd given Steiner's predilections. Comparison with homeopathy seems apt.
Claude Kolm
Claude Kolm
When I was in grad school in NYC a few generations ago, the Rudolf Steiner (Waldorf) school, a couple of doors down the street from my school, was considered one of the best private schools in Manhattan. A quick google indicates that's still the case. I don't know exactly what the curriculum is/was other than it was sort of touchy-feely, but apparently not excessively so or that reputation wouldn't have been maintained. Anyone else have any more insight into the school?
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
I expect that a lot of winemakers, particularly those who really believe in it, improve their winemaking by biodynamics. I expect the explanation will lie in the advantages of organic practices and the increased attention to the vineyard that biodynamic practices involve. I don't like to offend deeply held beliefs when they aren't proselytizing, and some years ago, I tended to shrug off the silliness more. But when the argument from design becomes as intelligent design an argument about what should get taught in biology class, and when biodynamics is picked up by Cambie, Parker and others, as a means of selling the practice, it gets to be time to show some fang. I doubt that anything I say will do anything. But a lot of skepticism from consumers may well do a lot of good. After all, an allied step is homeopathic medicine, which no doubt does aid some patients.
Yes, I agree, Herr Professor.
Oliver McCrum
Oliver McCrum
I think there's a great deal of doubt about whether homeopathic medicine aids patients, for the reason Joe mentioned above. Unless we're talking about the placebo effect.
Some BD treatments certainly rise above the level of the homeopathic.
Thun's recommendations, for instance, suggest use of plant extracts that could mean additions of as much as ppb levels in some cases.
Too, if the treatments are microbially active (as, for instance, the horn manure prep or Thun's barrel prep), then minute amounts could theoretically yield greater changes down the road.
Not to say that I believe in BD farming.
About the closest I've come to it is to put my daughter in a Steiner pre-school. Though I didn't know that the education was Woldorf-based at the time. I chose the school because of all the schools we visited this one had kids who smiled and laughed the most. And it had a garden tended by the children (though, oddly enough, the garden wasn't farmed biodynamically).
Thun's recommendations, for instance, suggest use of plant extracts that could mean additions of as much as ppb levels in some cases.
Too, if the treatments are microbially active (as, for instance, the horn manure prep or Thun's barrel prep), then minute amounts could theoretically yield greater changes down the road.
Not to say that I believe in BD farming.
About the closest I've come to it is to put my daughter in a Steiner pre-school. Though I didn't know that the education was Woldorf-based at the time. I chose the school because of all the schools we visited this one had kids who smiled and laughed the most. And it had a garden tended by the children (though, oddly enough, the garden wasn't farmed biodynamically).
Yes, I've wondered about that.originally posted by Bruce G.:
Some BD treatments certainly rise above the level of the homeopathic.
Thun's recommendations, for instance, suggest use of plant extracts that could mean additions of as much as ppb levels in some cases.
Too, if the treatments are microbially active (as, for instance, the horn manure prep or Thun's barrel prep), then minute amounts could theoretically yield greater changes down the road.
If you were seeding them into a fertile but sterile environment they could really take over. But if one or two bugs land in a habitat teeming with billions, I doubt they get a foothold.
That is really funny.originally posted by Bruce G.:
(though, oddly enough, the garden wasn't farmed biodynamically).
originally posted by SFJoe:
Yes, I've wondered about that.
If you were seeding them into a fertile but sterile environment they could really take over. But if one or two bugs land in a habitat teeming with billions, I doubt they get a foothold.
Bourguignon was supposedly extremely impressed with the level of mibrobial activity in the horn manure prep. Does it all work out to more than a bug or two in a big, steaming pile of BS?
I don't know, Joe.
I'm pretty laissez faire about what other people do, especially if they're committed to a regime (any regime) that ties their hands re: the types and amounts of dickering around they can do in the vyd and/or cellar.
I just don't get the idea that use of BD is a threat to our way of life, bound to throw us back into the Dark Ages. Most of the BDers I know (mostly European) seem rather shy when discussing BD, only picking up some strength when they see that the audience isn't going to laugh at them. I haven't yet met any who seemed to demand that everyone agree with their ideas.
Haven't had the pleasure of spending time with Joly, though.... is he all that emphatic in his delivery?