Video (in German): All mumbo-jumbo or solution to current problems?
"Follow the science!» is a common motto of our time. Only what can be scientifically proven deserves to be taken seriously. But what is scientific? Certainly not anthroposophy, some claim without ever having studied it.
However, today's world can only be truly understood by those who develop appropriate mental, intellectual and artistic research methods that go beyond the paradigms of the measurable, countable and weighable that apply in natural science.
As living beings, plants, animals and humans require procedures that include the living, mental and spiritual spheres so that they can be recognized and promoted according to their own nature. To this end, anthroposophy develops methods of knowledge that our world urgently needs and whose fruitfulness is proven, for example, in the practice of biodynamic agriculture, anthroposophic medicine, education, curative education, natural and social science. With the series of lectures, we would like to present an expansion of the understanding of science through anthroposophy from various specialist areas."
An Extension of Science?
Re: An Extension of Science?
The Scientific Nature of biodynamic Agriculture
Jean-Michel Florin
“Biodynamics is anti-scientific, even a reaction against the Enlightenment and would lead us back into the dark Middle Ages, when people believed in magic powers”; recently this statement, intending to disqualify biodynamics, could be found frequently in various media outlets. This often involves the attempt to separate it from the stream which it co-founded, the stream of organic agriculture and agrarian ecology. Even the term in English ‘organic’ derives from the concept of the farm organism.1 In order to counter the accusation of being unscientific, the scientific status of biodynamic agriculture will be examined more closely in this article.
As a first step the relationship between biodynamics and science needs clarification. This means distinguishing two aspects of what is generally described as science. With the first aspect science is considered as a method of working, which fulfils a set of criteria: transparency, reproducibility etc. Using this method of working, phenomena can be observed and be ‘objectively’ described. Here it is worth reminding ourselves that with anthroposophy Rudolf Steiner wanted to lay the foundations for a scientific approach to the spirit, far removed from any kind of revelations that people needed to believe in blindly. As far as biodynamic agriculture is concerned, biodynamic research
had begun before Rudolf Steiner’s Agriculture Course for the farmers: for one thing, with the preparatory work of Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, and, for another, with the work of Eugen Kolisko on foot-and-mouth disease. Rudolf Steiner insisted that the farmers and estate owners participating in the Course should found an experimental circle in order to carry out field trials before the glad news of biodynamic cultivation was spread. This was started immediately. Beyond this, the task consisted in interpreting the results obtained. A number of researchers show that any interpretation of scientific facts is never completely ‘objective’. It always takes place in a context, in a paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn calls it. Bruno Latour, the French philosopher who has recently died, demonstrates this in his book «Nous n’avons jamais été modernes». Like every other approach to the world, research always develops in a certain context, which influences the so-called ‘objective’ interpretations. And thus we come closer to the necessity in the present paradigm of opening doors for new perspectives.
With the second aspect, science counts as the “new religion”.3 This is totally self-contradictory, because the promise of science, which appeared on the scene in the Age of Enlightenment, consisted in freeing people from the obligation of believing blindly in the revelations of authority figures. The Corona time and the manner in which, in a whole number of countries, experts turned into high priests who told the governments and citizens what was to be done is an example of the abuse of science. From this viewpoint (science=new religion) biodynamics may be considered unscientific, since it does not (yet) fit into the prevailing general interpretation of the phenomenaof matter and life. Thus, the application of substances in infinitesimal doses is criticised regularly, as it is impossible to imagine that a substance which has disappeared from a solution, can still have an effect.
In this connection, from the founding days of biodynamics, the necessity of broadening the scientific approach was evident. The Goethean approach, for example, is such a broadening, which includes observation of the context as well as the qualitative aspects of the phenomena observed. Thus, various ‘qualitative’ methods have been developed, some of which the scientific community validates nowadays (morphogenetic methods and likewise the copper chloride crystallisation). My lecture on biodynamic quality on Goetheanum TV 4 gives an overview of the various methods which are used to capture the physical-material, vital, sensory, individual and the ethical levels of a living product.
This prerequisite is necessary in order to have grounds to enable the relationship between biodynamic agriculture and science to be explained and the critics to be answered. Here there are three aspects to consider. Firstly, are there research results that validate the effect of specific biodynamic practices? This question may be answered yes , whereby it needs to be noted that the results are not always absolutely reproducible, but are broadly comprehensible, since it is a matter of research on a living organism.5 Secondly, how can the biodynamic practices be explained in the context of current scientific knowledge (out of the current paradigm)? We must admit that a lot of the mechanisms of their working are not yet fully explicable, even if a series of studies shows interesting ways forward.6 Here the above-mentioned necessity of extending the scientific approach in order to have the methods and concepts available so that we understand the biodynamic phenomena better. Thirdly, how is the relationship between the biodynamic movement and academic research? Since the 1970s Germany and Switzerland have carried out pioneer work in this area, but now the international community is interested in biodynamic agriculture. Particularly the conversion of numerous vineyards, some of them renowned, whose wine has improved in quality, has extended the reach of biodynamics in the media. Thus, research is developing further in Italy, France, the USA etc. Contrary to the media reports in European countries, the interest of researchers in biodynamics is growing, something confirmed by the rising number of papers published of academic research work on biodynamics, as the graph shows.
It is interesting to see that, whereas for a long time academic research on biodynamic agriculture mainly took place in the agronomics departments, nowadays various social science departments are opening up to it. They approach it with completely different questions, which have more to do with the foundations of biodynamic agriculture and less with examining the effectiveness of its agronomic practices. As social scientists are more used to including various world-views, it is easier for them to examine biodynamic agriculture with an open-minded approach. In France and French-speaking Switzerland the work of the famous anthropologist, Philippe Descola, forms a theoretical basis for several of these enquiries.
How does the Agriculture Section encounter these research developments concretely? With a committee of researchers, who represent several organisations, the Section has organised two research conferences7, which each made a meeting and conversation possible among more than 150 researchers from 15 to 20 countresearchries. Most recently, the need arose to develop research communication that orientates itself towards the work done by the association “Biodynamie recherche”. Thus, on the Section’s website summaries of the latest academic research on biodynamics are to be found.8 People expressed the need to strengthen the links among researchers so that communication makes the work more straightforward, makes common projects possible and, finally, improves the quality of publications.
________
1 See the contribution to the Theme of the Year 23/24, p. 26.
2 Compare Rudolf Steiner, Agriculture Course, GA 327, Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Basel 2022, pp 217-238.
3 See the lecture by Matthias Rang, Are we making a religion out of science? https://goetheanum.tv/programs/machen-w ... yId=100786
4 See lecture of Jean-Michel Florin (2022), Biodynamic Quality – does it really exist? https://goetheanum.tv/programs/die-biod ... in-peschke
5 Compare Edita Juknevičienė et al. (2021), Effekt von biodynamischen Präparaten auf das Wachstum und die Fruchtfleischquelität von Kürbissen, (Effect of biodynamic preparations on the growth and the quality of the flesh of squashes/pumpkins) https://www.sektion-landwirtschaft.org/ ... a-maxima-d
6 Alessandro Piccolo et al. (2012), Molecular properties of a fermented manure preparation used as field spray in biodynamic agriculture, https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 012-1022-x
7 See https://www.sektion-landwirtschaft.org/ ... s/research
8 Compare ibidem.
Jean-Michel Florin
“Biodynamics is anti-scientific, even a reaction against the Enlightenment and would lead us back into the dark Middle Ages, when people believed in magic powers”; recently this statement, intending to disqualify biodynamics, could be found frequently in various media outlets. This often involves the attempt to separate it from the stream which it co-founded, the stream of organic agriculture and agrarian ecology. Even the term in English ‘organic’ derives from the concept of the farm organism.1 In order to counter the accusation of being unscientific, the scientific status of biodynamic agriculture will be examined more closely in this article.
As a first step the relationship between biodynamics and science needs clarification. This means distinguishing two aspects of what is generally described as science. With the first aspect science is considered as a method of working, which fulfils a set of criteria: transparency, reproducibility etc. Using this method of working, phenomena can be observed and be ‘objectively’ described. Here it is worth reminding ourselves that with anthroposophy Rudolf Steiner wanted to lay the foundations for a scientific approach to the spirit, far removed from any kind of revelations that people needed to believe in blindly. As far as biodynamic agriculture is concerned, biodynamic research
had begun before Rudolf Steiner’s Agriculture Course for the farmers: for one thing, with the preparatory work of Dr. Ehrenfried Pfeiffer, and, for another, with the work of Eugen Kolisko on foot-and-mouth disease. Rudolf Steiner insisted that the farmers and estate owners participating in the Course should found an experimental circle in order to carry out field trials before the glad news of biodynamic cultivation was spread. This was started immediately. Beyond this, the task consisted in interpreting the results obtained. A number of researchers show that any interpretation of scientific facts is never completely ‘objective’. It always takes place in a context, in a paradigm, as Thomas Kuhn calls it. Bruno Latour, the French philosopher who has recently died, demonstrates this in his book «Nous n’avons jamais été modernes». Like every other approach to the world, research always develops in a certain context, which influences the so-called ‘objective’ interpretations. And thus we come closer to the necessity in the present paradigm of opening doors for new perspectives.
With the second aspect, science counts as the “new religion”.3 This is totally self-contradictory, because the promise of science, which appeared on the scene in the Age of Enlightenment, consisted in freeing people from the obligation of believing blindly in the revelations of authority figures. The Corona time and the manner in which, in a whole number of countries, experts turned into high priests who told the governments and citizens what was to be done is an example of the abuse of science. From this viewpoint (science=new religion) biodynamics may be considered unscientific, since it does not (yet) fit into the prevailing general interpretation of the phenomenaof matter and life. Thus, the application of substances in infinitesimal doses is criticised regularly, as it is impossible to imagine that a substance which has disappeared from a solution, can still have an effect.
In this connection, from the founding days of biodynamics, the necessity of broadening the scientific approach was evident. The Goethean approach, for example, is such a broadening, which includes observation of the context as well as the qualitative aspects of the phenomena observed. Thus, various ‘qualitative’ methods have been developed, some of which the scientific community validates nowadays (morphogenetic methods and likewise the copper chloride crystallisation). My lecture on biodynamic quality on Goetheanum TV 4 gives an overview of the various methods which are used to capture the physical-material, vital, sensory, individual and the ethical levels of a living product.
This prerequisite is necessary in order to have grounds to enable the relationship between biodynamic agriculture and science to be explained and the critics to be answered. Here there are three aspects to consider. Firstly, are there research results that validate the effect of specific biodynamic practices? This question may be answered yes , whereby it needs to be noted that the results are not always absolutely reproducible, but are broadly comprehensible, since it is a matter of research on a living organism.5 Secondly, how can the biodynamic practices be explained in the context of current scientific knowledge (out of the current paradigm)? We must admit that a lot of the mechanisms of their working are not yet fully explicable, even if a series of studies shows interesting ways forward.6 Here the above-mentioned necessity of extending the scientific approach in order to have the methods and concepts available so that we understand the biodynamic phenomena better. Thirdly, how is the relationship between the biodynamic movement and academic research? Since the 1970s Germany and Switzerland have carried out pioneer work in this area, but now the international community is interested in biodynamic agriculture. Particularly the conversion of numerous vineyards, some of them renowned, whose wine has improved in quality, has extended the reach of biodynamics in the media. Thus, research is developing further in Italy, France, the USA etc. Contrary to the media reports in European countries, the interest of researchers in biodynamics is growing, something confirmed by the rising number of papers published of academic research work on biodynamics, as the graph shows.
- Screenshot 2023-01-09 at 15.30.55.jpg (162.6 KiB) Viewed 902 times
How does the Agriculture Section encounter these research developments concretely? With a committee of researchers, who represent several organisations, the Section has organised two research conferences7, which each made a meeting and conversation possible among more than 150 researchers from 15 to 20 countresearchries. Most recently, the need arose to develop research communication that orientates itself towards the work done by the association “Biodynamie recherche”. Thus, on the Section’s website summaries of the latest academic research on biodynamics are to be found.8 People expressed the need to strengthen the links among researchers so that communication makes the work more straightforward, makes common projects possible and, finally, improves the quality of publications.
________
1 See the contribution to the Theme of the Year 23/24, p. 26.
2 Compare Rudolf Steiner, Agriculture Course, GA 327, Rudolf Steiner Verlag, Basel 2022, pp 217-238.
3 See the lecture by Matthias Rang, Are we making a religion out of science? https://goetheanum.tv/programs/machen-w ... yId=100786
4 See lecture of Jean-Michel Florin (2022), Biodynamic Quality – does it really exist? https://goetheanum.tv/programs/die-biod ... in-peschke
5 Compare Edita Juknevičienė et al. (2021), Effekt von biodynamischen Präparaten auf das Wachstum und die Fruchtfleischquelität von Kürbissen, (Effect of biodynamic preparations on the growth and the quality of the flesh of squashes/pumpkins) https://www.sektion-landwirtschaft.org/ ... a-maxima-d
6 Alessandro Piccolo et al. (2012), Molecular properties of a fermented manure preparation used as field spray in biodynamic agriculture, https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 012-1022-x
7 See https://www.sektion-landwirtschaft.org/ ... s/research
8 Compare ibidem.