Biodynamics is a Hoax

originally posted by Bruce G.:

Haven't had the pleasure of spending time with Joly, though.... is he all that emphatic in his delivery?
Click to expand...
It's hard to overstate the degree to which that's so. And when the guy goes on about how the shape of the barrel is the most natural, because it's the shape of the egg which is the shape of life you want to punch his lights out. Or at least I do.

My account of the shape of eggs has a lot of Darwin in it and goes in a different direction.

Look, as the expression goes, some of my best friends.... And many of my favorite wines.

Willi Brundlmayer told me once that he stopped mentioning he was in BD because he previously got lots of visitors in sandals who wanted to talk for an hour about astrology and then didn't buy any wine.
 
I was at lunch with Steve Edmunds today and he said something to the effect of "I don't know why all these people are dead set against biodynamics because science hasn't yet proven it. Isn't that the most interesting part of it?" And that was a fantastic outlook on it, I thought. Why not become part of the experiment rather than be grumpy about it on the internet?
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
I was at lunch with Steve Edmunds today and he said something to the effect of "I don't know why all these people are dead set against biodynamics because science hasn't yet proven it. Isn't that the most interesting part of it?" And that was a fantastic outlook on it, I thought. Why not become part of the experiment rather than be grumpy about it on the internet?
Click to expand...

Depends which part. There are experiments that aren't worth doing.

"The Earth, round or flat?"

"Objects in motion, do they really stay in motion or do they run off on their own?"

These are experiments that might have been relevant a few hundred years ago, but it's pretty hard to persuade a modern astronomer or a physicist to "get real, dude, open your mind and think broadly about the possibilities...." You don't recontest settled questions unless you have compelling new data or a good new theory. Aspects of BD (not the whole thing) are in complete conflict with everyone's understanding of physics and chemistry. My prediction is that you will wait a very, very long time for science to get around to proving it.

I'm a big believer in people's freedom to practice the religion of their choice. But my cousin Joe the priest isn't trying to get his local college's chemistry department to prove transubstantiation. I think BD is best understood as a religion rather than something that can be expected to pass empirical tests, or at least the more outre parts of it should be viewed that way. The organic farming thing seems uncontroversial to me.

Grumpy on the Internet despite this superlative Puzelat in my glass,

Joe
 
I think what he meant was, what can we (meaning he and other winemakers) glean from bio-dynamics that works, rather than wring their hands over whether it works, since I think the real work of proving that bio-d doesn't wreck vineyards or cause your hands to fall off has been done.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Those two statements just flow so naturally into one another.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:
I think BD is best understood as a religion rather than something that can be expected to pass empirical tests, or at least the more outre parts of it should be viewed that way.
Click to expand...

I can live with this.
But religion, of course, can have a positive impact.
And I say this as some who used to be an attend-mass-only-on-Easter-Sunday-and-Christmas-Eve kinda Catholic, now reformed to a attend-mass-only-on-Easter-Sunday-and-Christmas-Eve-and-then-only-if-I'm-spending-those-holidays-with-my-folks kinda Catholic.

I would love for someone with serious science chops and a relatively neutral stance to start picking BD apart and testing those elements that theoretically have a chance in hell (again, religion rears its head) of actually working.
Silica is a very important element in plant growth... hence, testing 501 prep on plant life using various treatment levels would be interesting. Same with horn manure... would be enlightening to see what effect(s) if any this prep might have on: the microbiological population of what's in the horn when it is dug up, what's in the compost pile after treatment and maturation, and what's in the soil of a farm treated with this preparation long term. Similarly, it would be worthwhile to look at the effect of lunar cycles on the vine... seems relatively uncontroversial to say that the moon can impact living organisms in very profound ways. How so the vineyard?
 
I was at lunch with Steve Edmunds today and he said something to the effect of "I don't know why all these people are dead set against biodynamics because science hasn't yet proven it. Isn't that the most interesting part of it?" And that was a fantastic outlook on it, I thought. Why not become part of the experiment rather than be grumpy about it on the internet?
Click to expand...
Look, I love Steve, and may he never change. He's welcome at my table to bicker about those horrid, over-manipulated orange wines and that soul-destroying molecular gastronomy anytime (that's a joke just for Steve).

(NB: this has been edited after the original form proved confusing.) But is what's really interesting about perpetual motion machines that science proves they can't exist? Really? Is Fermat's "Last Theorem" interesting beyond most other mathematical theories because he was almost certainly unable (despite his claim to the contrary) to prove it correct, because it took mathematics that didn't exist in his time to prove it, or because of the actual search for its proof? The latter, for sure.

The contention is flawed because no one has ever demonstrated the superiority of fundamental tenets of biodynamic agriculture in a controlled setting. Once that has been done -- and I'm dubious, but I very much welcome efforts towards contradiction -- then we can move on to the question of how and why biodynamic agriculture has anything to do with it. Until that moment, we're discussing how the most interesting thing about crop circles and Uri Geller is that science can't explain either. Well, no: the "most interesting" thing about both is that they're frauds that have been exposed by extant science and people who understand it.

I don't disallow that there could be something to some portions of the fairly broad category of techniques that compose biodynamic agriculture. But there's a very big leap from adding X quantity of Y compound to enhance soil to a demonstration of the efficacy of biodynamic agriculture.

I think what he meant was, what can we (meaning he and other winemakers) glean from bio-dynamics that works, rather than wring their hands over whether it works, since I think the real work of proving that bio-d doesn't wreck vineyards or cause your hands to fall off has been done.
Click to expand...
What we can glean from it is, first, support for the assertion that anything that's biodynamic "works." Hand-wringing isn't required. But triple-jumping over the assumptions to get to the conclusion isn't helpful either.
 
A big hole (among many) in my education, I admit.
Click to expand...
If you can, treat yourself. I find that nothing destroys an open mind about biodynamie more quickly and thoroughly than a few hours with Joly.
 
originally posted by Cory Cartwright:
I think the real work of proving that bio-d doesn't wreck vineyards or cause your hands to fall off has been done.
Click to expand...

There is a nice historical analogy here, too. Homeopathy was a big advance over existing medicine in the mid-19th century because if you gave essentially infinitely diluted treatments, you got placebos, and placebos didn't kill you, they generated a nice placebo effect which is a real and potent thing in quite a few conditions and so on. This was a huge improvement over . Now, I know I'd take the penicillin instead of the homeopathic placebo if I had pneumonia, but I'd take the homeopathic placebo over the arsenic or the eye of newt or what have you of premodern medicine.

The organic farming part of BD is great. The degree to which BD improves on that is hard to see, but I agree that it is very unlikely to cause harm.

And, btw, Timothy Leary is outside, looking in.
 
originally posted by Thor:

I think what he meant was, what can we (meaning he and other winemakers) glean from bio-dynamics that works, rather than wring their hands over whether it works, since I think the real work of proving that bio-d doesn't wreck vineyards or cause your hands to fall off has been done.
Click to expand...
What we can glean from it is, first, support for the assertion that anything that's biodynamic "works." Hand-wringing isn't required. But triple-jumping over the assumptions to get to the conclusion isn't helpful either.
Click to expand...
I believe that what I'm trying to say is the real assumptions will most likely come from the practitioners, rather than Steiner himself. If X number of practitioners say Y about, say, soil quality (rather than the more outlandish claims) then someone will have an assumption to test. I may be putting words in Steve's mouth, but I believe that is the heart of what he is getting at.
 
originally posted by SFJoe:

Depends which part. There are experiments that aren't worth doing.

"The Earth, round or flat?"

"Objects in motion, do they really stay in motion or do they run off on their own?"

These are experiments that might have been relevant a few hundred years ago, but it's pretty hard to persuade a modern astronomer or a physicist to "get real, dude, open your mind and think broadly about the possibilities...." You don't recontest settled questions unless you have compelling new data or a good new theory. Aspects of BD (not the whole thing) are in complete conflict with everyone's understanding of physics and chemistry. My prediction is that you will wait a very, very long time for science to get around to proving it.

I'm a big believer in people's freedom to practice the religion of their choice. But my cousin Joe the priest isn't trying to get his local college's chemistry department to prove transubstantiation. I think BD is best understood as a religion rather than something that can be expected to pass empirical tests, or at least the more outre parts of it should be viewed that way. The organic farming thing seems uncontroversial to me.

Grumpy on the Internet despite this superlative Puzelat in my glass,

Joe
Click to expand...

Really well said, Joe. Unfortunately there are instances where there are lots of dollars spent and time wasted on these "Earth, round or flat?" type questions. For example, the US government spent $2.5 billion doing controlled experiments into alternative medicine treatments. The result was that nearly none of the alternative treatments worked: MSNBC STORY

Now some of those may have been worth investigating, but $2.5 billion? Found nothing? Likely a lot of the money was spent to find that the earth is still round.

What's worse is the money and effort spent on all the controversy about vaccines causing autism. First it was the thimerisol preservative. They removed thimerisol, and autism rates stayed the same. Now they contend it's the combination of childhood vaccines that cause it. In spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and the retraction and discrediting of the original papar suggesting the link, the vaccine/autism people won't let go. There are still lots of dollars that could be going to legitimate autism research going to prove that vaccines don't cause it.

Why is that?

John
 
I believe that what I'm trying to say is the real assumptions will most likely come from the practitioners, rather than Steiner himself.
Click to expand...
Are the practitioners scientists? If they're not, are they practicing science? If not, how is this not faith-based agriculture?

Steve may be saying what you suggest, but a lot of those assumptions have been tested and found wanting.

I'm a fan of mystery in wine, so I guess I'm also a fan of mystery in winemaking. I kind of like the relative ubiquity of "we don't really understand all of this" in the water-to-wine assembly line. But I don't believe this requires me to accept claims that have been disproven. Biodynamics may "work" much like making wine by hanging Lindsay Lohan effigies from each vine and playing Vixen during fermentation may "work," but neither is a substantiation of efficacy, nor even proof of concept.

To grossly overextend an analogy, a person of faith may believe in the importance of the ritual of transubstantiation without believing that one is eating actual flesh and drinking actual blood. But "no, really, it's blood" requires something more than cant to convince the unfaithful, I'm afraid.
 
I wonder if anything has ever been shown to be even reasonably true that originated entirely in someone's mind, with no real observation of the world? Anything physical, I mean.
 
originally posted by Oliver McCrum:
I wonder if anything has ever been shown to be even reasonably true that originated entirely in someone's mind, with no real observation of the world? Anything physical, I mean.
Click to expand...

I think Einstein got pretty close with his "thought experiments." At the time it was pretty hard if not impossible to test some of his theories, but as technology improved testing showed him to be correct.

John
 
originally posted by Oliver McCrum:
I wonder if anything has ever been shown to be even reasonably true that originated entirely in someone's mind, with no real observation of the world? Anything physical, I mean.
Click to expand...
Tough dichotomy. People's minds spend a lot of time in the real world before they originate ideas.

But astrophysics is a decent place to look for the sort of thing you seek. Not a lot of black holes on my block in NYC.
 
originally posted by Thor:
Is Fermat's "Last Theorem" interesting because it doesn't exist in his mathematics, or because he was almost certainly wrong?
Click to expand...
Thor -- I'm not following you. Surely, you know that Andrew Wiles did prove Fermat's last theorem back in 1993-94. So can you string me along to the point you're trying to make and how you get there?
 
Thor -- I'm not following you. Surely, you know that Andrew Wiles did prove Fermat's last theorem back in 1993-94. So can you string me along to the point you're trying to make and how you get there?
Click to expand...
The means by which the conjecture was proved could not have been known to Fermat because it didn't exist in his time. So he was either: 1) right in a way no one else has been able to identify; 2) lying; 3) wrong. I think studied opinion is pretty firmly for the third option, but I was Course 6.1, not Course 18, so maybe I'm wrong as well.

My suggestion was that the most interesting lens through which to view this outcome is not the ever-eternal mystery that is Fermat's margin-exploding and nonexistent proof, much like the "interesting" -- Mr. Edmunds' word, remember -- thing about biodynamics isn't that science disproves or throws its hands up in exasperation at a pile of it, but rather what is demonstrable about it. On this Steve and I almost certainly disagree, and fair enough. For me, anything that would prove N+1 efficacy of biodynamic over organic would be what's actually interesting.
 
originally posted by Thor:
Thor -- I'm not following you. Surely, you know that Andrew Wiles did prove Fermat's last theorem back in 1993-94. So can you string me along to the point you're trying to make and how you get there?
Click to expand...
The means by which the conjecture was proved could not have been known to Fermat because it didn't exist in his time. So he was either: 1) right in a way no one else has been able to identify; 2) lying; 3) wrong. I think studied opinion is pretty firmly for the third option, but I was Course 6.1, not Course 18, so maybe I'm wrong as well.
Click to expand...
I see no problem with hypothesis 1, hypothesis 2 sounds out of character, and hypothesis 3 is always a possibility but who can say with any confidence? In fact, assuming that you have named all possibilities, 1 & 3 essentially are flipsides, so if you assume not 1, then you assume 3 -- not consistent with an open mind.
 
I see no problem with hypothesis 1
Click to expand...
Mathematicians do.

hypothesis 2 sounds out of character
Click to expand...
Drinking buddies, were you?

hypothesis 3 is always a possibility but who can say with any confidence?
Click to expand...
This has been pretty thoroughly answered by the people who can.

not consistent with an open mind
Click to expand...
Did you know that Europa is made of cheese, and populated by tiny unicorns? I mean, who can say with any confidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top