Hoax?
Posted: 30 Dec 2012, 21:44
http://biodynamicshoax.wordpress.com/20 ... /#comments
Considera says:
October 29, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Dear Stuart
I think what you are doing is based on good questions and a pretty sound instinct. There are those who talk something up when and because there is little authentic knowledge behind their hyperbole. Everyone knows someone like this and BD wine experts do not seem to be exempt.
I have been accumulating results of using the BD preparations and other BD practices for some years, partially to bring standard scientific peer scrutiny to the practice and partially to enable a fuller picture of the preparations to emerge so that there is a chance of being successful with their use. (See, for instance, http://www.considera.org/501 ) All the information is cited to its source. There is a mixture of anecdote and formal trials. Some evidence is more convincing, whilst other stuff does not add significant weight to the debate.
However, I do think that there is some stuff that is genuinely noteworthy. Perhaps the most recent is not from the BD stable and for that reason is less tainted by suggestions of faith in Rudolf Steiner’s every utterance. This is the result of tests by the Entomological Research Institute of Faisalabad, who work with the Cotton Research Institute and a few Government bodies to evaluate new candidates for registration as effective and approved ‘pesticides’. In 2008 and 2009 this ‘candidate’ was tested against the usual neonicotinoid and a water control for dealing with mealy bug. The control set the bench mark against which the other two preparations were tested for mortality of adult and nymph mealy bugs. Both gave relative mortality ratings within 72 hours of around 99%. I have the exact figures if you are interested. The candidate that kept up with the neonicotinoid was homeopathic, way way beyond the Avagadro threshold (200C – 500C).
As I said, the candidate – now called ‘Ventage’ in Pakistan – is not a BD prep but if it is robust research (the evaluating institutions are well regarded) then it seems to be an instance of disinterested testimony upon a subject which is not considered susceptible to the placebo effect. There are several such studies. You can read the extensive literature via the ‘Resources’ tab and considera.org showing both ‘in vitro’ and field studies. You can also find out about the thousands of hectares of pip and stone fruit in New Zealand – some BD, some organic, but much that is neither – which uses potentised BD preps to keep frosts off the flowering trees, or to stop fruit from splitting in the maturation phase etc etc. Perhaps this is some of the evidence for which you have been asking
Bringing this research back to BD it suggests that the extreme dilution of the preparations might not be so mad after all, and that anyone who suggested this in 1924 might not necessarily be behind the scientific curve but, at least conceivably, ahead of it.
One could leave it there and see if the research stands up to scrutiny and the tests of time and the market place. One could say that the boot is now on the other foot and the burden of proof is no longer on the shoulders of those who use such potentisation – homeopaths and biodynamic practitioners. However, that would daft because, having gathered this information, only the brain-dead would not have their own questions.
OK – so then there’s a whole heap of questions that would follow, such as: ‘How the hell does this function then?’ I have spent years worrying at this one and I have to admit that if BD is right then our modern science will have re-evaluate some of its assumptions. The primary assumption that would need to be dug up and checked over would be that life is a special case of matter. I think that our culture assumes that life will ultimately be explained by physics. Physics is the basic discipline of our culture. This has rescued us from the superstitious and intellectually slovenly.
If that assumption is indeed the one underpinning our current orthodoxy, and if the research mentioned above is robust and does challenge the orthodoxy, is there a likely alternative that doesn’t rely on faith? (Richard Dawkins, a clear thinker and seemingly sincere seeker after truth, said that if homeopathy is a genuine discipline then he would need to discover the new law of physics that it has uncovered.) I think there is – possibly. I think we can take our rational mind into these areas.
One of the routes I am taking is, oddly enough, geometry in the slipstream of George Adams and Nick Thomas. Adams invited us to consider 3D space in a way that seems to have been left relatively unexplored. He points out that we have followed Euclid and co into thinking of space as made up of points (atoms etc) but 3D space can equally be considered in terms of planes. (Stick with me here – it may be worth it.) So a straight line is the shortest distance between two points (don’t throw in great circles and relativity here – it is not helpful yet). But clearly it is also the intersection of two planes – ie the floor and the wall. Three points define a plane and three planes define a point (wall, wall and floor for example.) This interchanging of points and planes was known as a geometricians oddity for centuries, and called the principle of duality. ie that every form in 3D space, the one hard wired into our semi-circular canals, can be understood as well from the point of view of planes as from the point of view of points. So what? Our culture has followed the former – centres of gravity, electrical and magnetic poles etc. However, it would be just as legitimate to consider planes as the ultimate building block. (Actually it seems to work best if both are considered. For instance, Nick Thomas’ work uses this perspective to offer good mathematically generated explanations for some of the enigmas of quantum physics such as the single photon experiments. But back to the agriculture …)
The contention I (and Adams – see his 1961 address to the British Homeopathic Society) am working on is that the process of potentisation can be understood from this planar perspective. Just create a vortex in water (stir some a clear sided jug) and drop in some ink to reveal how the body of the water is moving and you will see the planes there. Furthermore, I would follow Adams with his postulate that the forces from the periphery inwards, the planar forces that work in ‘counterspace’, are active in living tissues. Their activity distinguishes the living from that which is just matter. Our culture is superb at the point-wise understanding which is appropriate to dead stuff, but the lack of a robust and genuine approach to life and all its manifestations is symptomatic of only considering one side of space. Our culture is great at mechanisms but crap at organisms and this is part of the reason. Seen in this light is no accident that the ecological decline goes hand in hand with our technological mastery, but you are a farmer and you know the issues that arise if we treat our land just a like a test tube or a machine.
This is not very satisfying in this inadequate late-night spiel but I think that if you look into this, many questions that I suspect will arise in the modern mind are addressed.
If this long string of ‘ifs’ is a valid trail then BD finds some intellectual legitimacy. The practice is another thing. My experience is that it is no guarantee of success. Just because you can imagine space inside out, or if you can suspend disbelief long enough to spread insignificant amounts of horn manure around your fields doesn’t make you a good grower. But I think it behoves you, Stu, is disprove BD scientifically or chill a bit. It’s not consistent to unscientifically dismiss something as not being scientific. Sure there’s ‘believers’, there’s those trying to get a market premium, and all sorts of sharks out there. This does not need a well-funded research team to demonstrate to anyone. But I’m leaving the door open to the possibility that RS was on to something, and if he was it’s very important cutting-edge science too. I’m still up for investigating whether Steiner was adding some really important tools to those already in the bag of a conscientious farmer.
For that reason I applaud your blog if only because I hear you calling for less noisy and pious BS and more robust thinking and trials.
Hmm – sorry it got so long.
Considera says:
October 29, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Dear Stuart
I think what you are doing is based on good questions and a pretty sound instinct. There are those who talk something up when and because there is little authentic knowledge behind their hyperbole. Everyone knows someone like this and BD wine experts do not seem to be exempt.
I have been accumulating results of using the BD preparations and other BD practices for some years, partially to bring standard scientific peer scrutiny to the practice and partially to enable a fuller picture of the preparations to emerge so that there is a chance of being successful with their use. (See, for instance, http://www.considera.org/501 ) All the information is cited to its source. There is a mixture of anecdote and formal trials. Some evidence is more convincing, whilst other stuff does not add significant weight to the debate.
However, I do think that there is some stuff that is genuinely noteworthy. Perhaps the most recent is not from the BD stable and for that reason is less tainted by suggestions of faith in Rudolf Steiner’s every utterance. This is the result of tests by the Entomological Research Institute of Faisalabad, who work with the Cotton Research Institute and a few Government bodies to evaluate new candidates for registration as effective and approved ‘pesticides’. In 2008 and 2009 this ‘candidate’ was tested against the usual neonicotinoid and a water control for dealing with mealy bug. The control set the bench mark against which the other two preparations were tested for mortality of adult and nymph mealy bugs. Both gave relative mortality ratings within 72 hours of around 99%. I have the exact figures if you are interested. The candidate that kept up with the neonicotinoid was homeopathic, way way beyond the Avagadro threshold (200C – 500C).
As I said, the candidate – now called ‘Ventage’ in Pakistan – is not a BD prep but if it is robust research (the evaluating institutions are well regarded) then it seems to be an instance of disinterested testimony upon a subject which is not considered susceptible to the placebo effect. There are several such studies. You can read the extensive literature via the ‘Resources’ tab and considera.org showing both ‘in vitro’ and field studies. You can also find out about the thousands of hectares of pip and stone fruit in New Zealand – some BD, some organic, but much that is neither – which uses potentised BD preps to keep frosts off the flowering trees, or to stop fruit from splitting in the maturation phase etc etc. Perhaps this is some of the evidence for which you have been asking
Bringing this research back to BD it suggests that the extreme dilution of the preparations might not be so mad after all, and that anyone who suggested this in 1924 might not necessarily be behind the scientific curve but, at least conceivably, ahead of it.
One could leave it there and see if the research stands up to scrutiny and the tests of time and the market place. One could say that the boot is now on the other foot and the burden of proof is no longer on the shoulders of those who use such potentisation – homeopaths and biodynamic practitioners. However, that would daft because, having gathered this information, only the brain-dead would not have their own questions.
OK – so then there’s a whole heap of questions that would follow, such as: ‘How the hell does this function then?’ I have spent years worrying at this one and I have to admit that if BD is right then our modern science will have re-evaluate some of its assumptions. The primary assumption that would need to be dug up and checked over would be that life is a special case of matter. I think that our culture assumes that life will ultimately be explained by physics. Physics is the basic discipline of our culture. This has rescued us from the superstitious and intellectually slovenly.
If that assumption is indeed the one underpinning our current orthodoxy, and if the research mentioned above is robust and does challenge the orthodoxy, is there a likely alternative that doesn’t rely on faith? (Richard Dawkins, a clear thinker and seemingly sincere seeker after truth, said that if homeopathy is a genuine discipline then he would need to discover the new law of physics that it has uncovered.) I think there is – possibly. I think we can take our rational mind into these areas.
One of the routes I am taking is, oddly enough, geometry in the slipstream of George Adams and Nick Thomas. Adams invited us to consider 3D space in a way that seems to have been left relatively unexplored. He points out that we have followed Euclid and co into thinking of space as made up of points (atoms etc) but 3D space can equally be considered in terms of planes. (Stick with me here – it may be worth it.) So a straight line is the shortest distance between two points (don’t throw in great circles and relativity here – it is not helpful yet). But clearly it is also the intersection of two planes – ie the floor and the wall. Three points define a plane and three planes define a point (wall, wall and floor for example.) This interchanging of points and planes was known as a geometricians oddity for centuries, and called the principle of duality. ie that every form in 3D space, the one hard wired into our semi-circular canals, can be understood as well from the point of view of planes as from the point of view of points. So what? Our culture has followed the former – centres of gravity, electrical and magnetic poles etc. However, it would be just as legitimate to consider planes as the ultimate building block. (Actually it seems to work best if both are considered. For instance, Nick Thomas’ work uses this perspective to offer good mathematically generated explanations for some of the enigmas of quantum physics such as the single photon experiments. But back to the agriculture …)
The contention I (and Adams – see his 1961 address to the British Homeopathic Society) am working on is that the process of potentisation can be understood from this planar perspective. Just create a vortex in water (stir some a clear sided jug) and drop in some ink to reveal how the body of the water is moving and you will see the planes there. Furthermore, I would follow Adams with his postulate that the forces from the periphery inwards, the planar forces that work in ‘counterspace’, are active in living tissues. Their activity distinguishes the living from that which is just matter. Our culture is superb at the point-wise understanding which is appropriate to dead stuff, but the lack of a robust and genuine approach to life and all its manifestations is symptomatic of only considering one side of space. Our culture is great at mechanisms but crap at organisms and this is part of the reason. Seen in this light is no accident that the ecological decline goes hand in hand with our technological mastery, but you are a farmer and you know the issues that arise if we treat our land just a like a test tube or a machine.
This is not very satisfying in this inadequate late-night spiel but I think that if you look into this, many questions that I suspect will arise in the modern mind are addressed.
If this long string of ‘ifs’ is a valid trail then BD finds some intellectual legitimacy. The practice is another thing. My experience is that it is no guarantee of success. Just because you can imagine space inside out, or if you can suspend disbelief long enough to spread insignificant amounts of horn manure around your fields doesn’t make you a good grower. But I think it behoves you, Stu, is disprove BD scientifically or chill a bit. It’s not consistent to unscientifically dismiss something as not being scientific. Sure there’s ‘believers’, there’s those trying to get a market premium, and all sorts of sharks out there. This does not need a well-funded research team to demonstrate to anyone. But I’m leaving the door open to the possibility that RS was on to something, and if he was it’s very important cutting-edge science too. I’m still up for investigating whether Steiner was adding some really important tools to those already in the bag of a conscientious farmer.
For that reason I applaud your blog if only because I hear you calling for less noisy and pious BS and more robust thinking and trials.
Hmm – sorry it got so long.