Pseduoscience?

Even to contemplate these methods and subjects seriously is to risk being labelled 'unscientific', 'pseudo-scientific', or even 'antiscientific'. There are few more serious modern condemnations to be thrown at those who consider themselves in the business of advancing knowledge. In fact a little net-search reveals that this condemnation is accompanied with words like ‘retard' and 'gullible moron’, and that’s before we get to the religious sites! Hey ho! So be it. Academic suicide and the flames of Hell, here we come.

To undertake work in an ideal scientific mode, we should have the following in place:-

1. A clearly stated expression of what knowledge is and how our work stands in relation to that foundation
2. The question we wish to address
3. A clear statement of our hypothesis relative to that question
4. A clear statement of any assumptions which underlay our work
5. A literature search so we can glean what others have investigated and concluded in relation to our hypothesis
6. We should test our hypothesis in an iterative process of experimentation, analysis and contemplation of the emerging results, and adjusted experimentation.
7. We should see if our hypothesis can be given an answer and to what degree of certainty.
8. We must make sure that the experiment and conclusion have indeed been in conformity with our understanding of what knowledge is.
9. We can then go on to see if there are any consequences of our findings,

So what does Considera consider is its relation is to these questions?

1. A clearly stated expression of what knowledge is and how our work stands in relation to that foundation. The theory of knowledge (paradigm, or epistemology) which informs the work is that clearly elucidated by Dr Rudolf Steiner in his books 'Truth and Science', 'A Philosophy Of Freedom', and 'A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World View'. (These publications are available via bookstores or as html documents at the Rudolf Steiner Archive.) It is at home in the school of 'objective idealism'. Interested people are particularly pointed to the chapters on inorganic and organic Nature in 'A Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World View' in which the nature of proof and belief are examined. This examination of what methods and capacities are relevant to the different aspects of the world is at least as relevant now as it was in 1886.
2. The question we wish to address. Does the variation manifest in the organic world (plants animals and humans) show any correlation with the celestial arrangement at crucial moments of change?
3. A clear statement of our hypothesis relative to that question. For star-planting have adopted the hypothesis that a crucial point in a plant's 'biography' is the time it is put into its final growing place and medium. This is when the seed is sown and, if it needs transplanting, also when the seedling is planted out. As a null hypothesis - Ho; the planting time has no correlation with the plants' characteristics.
4. A clear statement of any assumptions which underlay our work
   - We assume that there are rhythms manifest in plant life, synchronised with or in the same periodicity as the rhythms of the movement and positions of the planets and stars.
   - We assume that there are overlapping influential cosmic rhythms that can be differentiated.
   - We assume that we can gather enough results for these patterns to be extracted in their various influences from observation of plant life, and we hope to deomonstrate statistical significance.
   - We assume that the plants can be regarded as bio-assays that give us an indication of the activity of these influences at the time of planting.
5. A literature search so we can glean what others have investigated and concluded in relation to our hypothesis. See the research section and the original literature.
6. We should test our hypothesis in an iterative process of experimentation, analysis and contemplation of the emerging results, and adjusted experimentation. Well, this is where you guys come in. We all do the experiments and send them in. If any change in the experimental procedure or if new experiments are required we will try to agree them on the forum and publish the new procedures on this site.
7. We should see if our hypothesis can be given an answer and to what degree of certainty. This is a function of the accuracy of our software and the appropriateness of the questions we ask it to perform.
8. We must make sure that the experiment and conclusion have indeed been in conformity with our understanding of what knowledge is. The experiment is, I believe, in conformity with the epistemology. Forging any conclusions in the same spirit will have to wait for the patterns to emerge.
9. We can then go on to see if there are any consequences of our findings .  We will indeed consider any consequences of the results and conclusion. Indeed we will do this, in a very unscientific rush of enthusiasm, before the results are in...

My own attitude, derived from some exposure to natal chart readings for humans, was a long standing assumption that astrology is ... let us be polite ... fundamentally flawed. 'It just can't be true. It has enough variables to 'prove' whatever astrologers wish!' Or the Barnum Principle - saying things so vague and general that could apply to everyone. And maybe that is right - but it's not a scientific attitude; it's no good 'disproving' mystical conjecture (or 'proving' scientific principles) unscientifically!

My new-found caution comes from several sides; one is contemplating the persistence and thorough pervasion of astrology through history and across many diverse cultures. Another is from reading Rudolf Steiner's work and particularly his Agricultural course in which he postulates the closer correspondence of plant life and the heavens. Finally I have come across astrological gardeners who seem not only sane, but ahead of the game. When ones skepticism (I thought it was certainty) is eroded by such effective thinkers as Jung, Steiner, Whitmont, et al then an opportunity to test it needs to be grasped.

We won't and can’t teach growers how to grow their plants, but we can collect results from sufficient plantings undertaken with a minimum of variation so that any influence from outside the obvious mundane parameters can emerge. It is ‘given’ that the established, indispensable conditions must be available to the plant, We hope that statistically significant differences can then emerge corresponding to the other variables.

A target that Considera has not set is that of finding a mechanism by which the stars and plants correspond. Perhaps it is cause and effect, but that is not clear. If anyone finds the 'smoking gun' then please do get in touch. We're looking for it!

To follow up on any of these points why not join the forum.