Biodynamics is a Hoax

Yeah, he's one of those "skeptics" who has ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE of which, I would suggest, maybe we should be a little skeptical. If he was a little less dogmatic and suggested that we should be skeptical of Steiner's claims until some evidence is forthcoming -- I could understand that. But, no, he has absolute knowledge that Steiner is WRONG. Of course, he has produced no more evidence for his claim than Steiner did.

Kind of amusing, really.

Full Disclosure: posted under the influence of some yummy Pinon brut.
 
It's too bad, because I think having this discussion wouldn't be a bad thing for the wine world, but his tone is so off-putting that even his more effective criticisms will be (and have been) roundly dismissed by many. Ultimately, I don't see how this blog helps anyone.
 
originally posted by Lee Short:
Yeah, he's one of those "skeptics" who has ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE of which, I would suggest, maybe we should be a little skeptical. If he was a little less dogmatic and suggested that we should be skeptical of Steiner's claims until some evidence is forthcoming -- I could understand that. But, no, he has absolute knowledge that Steiner is WRONG. Of course, he has produced no more evidence for his claim than Steiner did.
Click to expand...
So, where do you stand on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you waiting for someone to produce some evidence that it's not real before you become skeptical?

A lot of Steiner's statements are self-evidently bullshit and there really can't be any serious debate about that. The examples on the blog are good but I'm pretty sure I've seen others that are even worse. The only reason anyone is willing to indulge them at all is because a lot of practitioners of biodynamics happen to make stupendous wines, including the best in the world (DRC). So, there is probably some truth to biodynamics, but that doesn't mean that there isn't also a lot of bullshit. Sometimes it's rational to indulge the bullshit to get at the truth, but bullshit it remains.
 
The tone is way off for what purports to be a rational inquiry. I don't believe a lot of what Steiner said, but I don't care. Go after Monsanto if you want a real villain.

I suspect biodynamics ran over his dog.
 
Many people who practice biodynamics say they don't believe a word of it -- but they find that it works. I'm in agreement with the first part of the statement and to a surprising extent with the second part.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
So, where do you stand on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you waiting for someone to produce some evidence that it's not real before you become skeptical?
Click to expand...
I know too many out-of-work pirates to remain unmoved.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
originally posted by Lee Short:
Yeah, he's one of those "skeptics" who has ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE of which, I would suggest, maybe we should be a little skeptical. If he was a little less dogmatic and suggested that we should be skeptical of Steiner's claims until some evidence is forthcoming -- I could understand that. But, no, he has absolute knowledge that Steiner is WRONG. Of course, he has produced no more evidence for his claim than Steiner did.
Click to expand...
So, where do you stand on the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Are you waiting for someone to produce some evidence that it's not real before you become skeptical?
Click to expand...

"Skeptical" is different than "aggressively hostile, and full of dogmatic certitude."

I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to which of these is exhibited by the author of the linked blog.
 
Looking at the website, I see that the creator proudly boasts of his UC Davis credentials from the 1970s -- the same people who told us that phylloxera could not exist in California and that the French who advised against planting on A x R in CA based on studies that had been conducted in France in the 1920s were just mystics who believed in terroir, which Davis had proved doesn't exist. Isn't it great that science is empirical and not dogmatic?
 
originally posted by Claude Kolm:
Many people who practice biodynamics say they don't believe a word of it -- but they find that it works.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is one of the fascinating aspects of the whole controversy. Nonetheless, both the loyalty to, and vociferous dislike of, biodynamics is profoundly irritating in the absence of controlled trials.
 
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
a lot of practitioners of biodynamics happen to make stupendous wines, including the best in the world (DRC).
Click to expand...
For the moment, DRC is not the best example to cite. Although there have been small experiments for some time, the complete conversion is only very recent and Aubert de Villaine may have given conflicting explanations about whether the conversion was for convenience or out of belief that biodynamie gives superior wine (i.e., his explanation to me doesn't match what I've read elsewhere).
 
Do any of the resident chemists have any thoughts on what kind of effect biodynamic preparations may even have on a finished wine? Especially when compared to one that comes from an organic vineyard, not a "conventional," UC Davis-type one?
 
One of the commenters on the blog claimed to be a farmer and that the net effect of biodynamic agriculture for him was that soil nutrients were depleted in about 7 years and then production plummeted.
 
Whatever one thinks of biodynamics, the term "hoax" is rudely misused. No one speaks English anymore!

I think I'm going to start a website called Natural Wine Is a Tablecloth.
 
originally posted by Jeff Grossman:
One of the commenters on the blog claimed to be a farmer and that the net effect of biodynamic agriculture for him was that soil nutrients were depleted in about 7 years and then production plummeted.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the same guy says he doesn't buy organic any more because he finally has seen through the con. Chemical based agriculture...that's where good long term soil building is at!
 
Apparently it's the move from conventional to organic that makes the biggest difference, and I think it remains inconclusive that going from organic to biodynamic produces significant improvements. So the benefit of BD may all come from the organic subset contained within the greater biodynamic set, perhaps helped by the greater rigor with which it is applied under the latter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top