Page 1 of 3

Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 6:23pm
by Peter Cargasacchi
Has anyone seen the Biodynamics is a hoax blog? flirtysmile

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 6:27pm
by Todd F r e n c h
You have GOT to be a featured contributor, Carg!

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 6:33pm
by Jon Troutman
I actually sat down today with Stu Smith today and yapped his ear off a little bit about his new blog. Really interesting dude. I'm not sure I'm in the "BioD is a Hoax" camp, but he raises a good argument and will hold his ground 'til the cows come home... or until they end up dead and buried in a vineyard ;)

http://content.corkd.com/2010/06/14/bio ... rd-winery/

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 6:34pm
by Roberto Rogness
Aztec and Inca astronomers (and Greeks and Chinese before them) thought that the moon literally ATE the sun every time an eclipse occurred yet they could also predict them years or even decades in advance as they got the MATH right even though their underlying cosmology was complete crap.

Even raving lunatics have a point once in a while, just look at politics!

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 6:47pm
by GregT
Roberto - raving lunatics may may get to the right place, accidentally or not.

Their driving makes the trip extra fun! I mean come on, this is great stuff:

"the fact is that the foodstuffs taken in through the stomach do not build up our bones, muscles, and other tissues – they only build up our head. Everything that enters the body by way of the digestive organs, and is then metabolized and distributed, only provides materials to be deposited in the head, . . . the substances we need for building up our limbs or our metabolic organs – the long bones in our legs or arms, or our intestines, for instance – those substances do not come from the food taken in by way of our mouth and stomach; instead they are absorbed from our whole environment by means of our breathing, and even via our sensory organs. . . "

I bookmarked the site. Thanks Peter!

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 7:19pm
by Berry Crawford
Roberto Rogness wrote:Aztec and Inca astronomers (and Greeks and Chinese before them) thought that the moon literally ATE the sun every time an eclipse occurred yet they could also predict them years or even decades in advance as they got the MATH right even though their underlying cosmology was complete crap.


Nice!!

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 7:43pm
by Roberto Rogness
Thank you verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry much! I'll be here all week. Remember to tip the veal and try your waitress....

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 7:52pm
by Berry Crawford
Roberto Rogness wrote:Thank you verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry much! I'll be here all week. Remember to tip the veal and try your waitress....


Can I try the waitress?

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 7:56pm
by Roberto Rogness
That's an old Dexter Poindexter line (but he surely stole it from some Borscht Belt comic).

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 14th 2010, 7:59pm
by Berry Crawford
Roberto Rogness wrote:That's an old Dexter Poindexter line (but he surely stole it from some Borscht Belt comic).


I should still get some credit for comming up with it on my feet like that

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 9:57am
by Roy Piper
I once read many of Steiner's lectures. They were compiled into a series of books. Much of his talks had nothing to do with farming. He covered all sorts of topics. Essentially, you could ask him anything. The quickest way to lose faith in BD is to read his lectures on other things. Here is what he said to someone who asked about "The Sun."[tease.gif]

"The sun's rays, as we actually see them, are not reality, but if we consider the sun as it really is, it is not really physical matter, it is in fact spiritual, a hollowed out form created in space.Everything around the sun is denser than the sun, and the Sun is thinner than anything around it, and that is why you see it. It is an illusion to think that the Sun is something in space."

[tease.gif]

And after I read what REALLY causes a good vintage, I can stop worrying about topping my wines or simple things like fermentation...

"As you know, there are good and bad years for wine. But the good years really come because the Earth has got hungry. It then leaves its fertility more to the sun, and the sun gives the wine its quality. Now, when the Earth has had a good wine year, you can be pretty certain that a comet will appear soon after, for the Earth has been hungry and needs food again and other things. You then get poor wine years. If there is another good year, another comet will follow. The Earth's state concerning it's substance is definitely connected with the way in which comets appear or do not appear."
neener

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 10:02am
by Lyle Fass
He is too hostile and dogmatic to be taken seriously.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 10:39am
by Bob Hunnicutt
Bd is similar to religion in that it's based on faith. Never argue with the True Believers.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 10:45am
by G. D y e r
Lyle Fass wrote:He is too hostile and dogmatic to be taken seriously.


Who, Rudolph Steiner? [berserker.gif]

If you're talking about Smith, I've read about him in Conaway's books on Napa. He's certainly of an ultra-rational libertarian mindset. While that type of thinking may be too dogmatic when it comes to land use (one man building a vineyard into a mountain is quite different than an army of bulldozers and helicopters reshaping the hillside with no conscience of quite literally the downstream consequences), this is exactly the type of thinking that puts pseudo-science in its place.

I have no qualms with saying that BioD producers are more likely to produce wines that are interesting and that I'd like to drink. But I also have no qualms with saying their beliefs are inconsistent with a great many scientifically proven theories. For example, BioD's understanding of gravitation, tides and lunar cycles is embarrassing at best.

While I cannot discount that light from the moon may affect plant physiology, the justification for racking wine based on the lunar cycle is idiotic. BioD claims that the moon's gravity is stronger on a full/new moon. Not true. Yes, the tides are higher and lower, but this has to do with the gradients of the moon's and the sun's gravitational fields being in alignment. The sun's gravitational force is actually much stronger (~1/r^2) than the moon's, but the gradient (~1/r^3) is what's most important for tides. Because the moon is much closer, its gradient is felt most strongly though the sun has an effect that is not exactly small in comparison to the moon.

Anyway, the point is the gradient is tiny over the length of a barrel. Totally irrelevant, and the BioD folks claim it is the gravitational force anyway, which is essentially constant in magnitude. This silliness doesn't prevent them from making great wine. But it is not responsible for great wine, either.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 11:26am
by jcoley3
Lyle Fass wrote:He is too hostile and dogmatic to be taken seriously.


Assuming your're talking about the blog's author, can you point out specific instances where he is wrong, and therefore should not be taken seriously?

You may not like his tone, but that has nothing to do with whether or not his arguments should be taken seriously. Dismissing someone as Unserious because they are "hostile and dogmatic" seems to be the 21st century ad hominem way for people not to actually engage an argument.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 11:30am
by jcoley3
G. D y e r wrote:Anyway, the point is the gradient is tiny over the length of a barrel. Totally irrelevant, and the BioD folks claim it is the gravitational force anyway, which is essentially constant in magnitude. This silliness doesn't prevent them from making great wine. But it is not responsible for great wine, either.


A couple of years ago a well-regarded winemaker posted his suspicion that a night of mediocre Burgundies was caused by the full moon. I remember exactly one full moon later counting up at least a dozen positive Burgundy tasting notes on the same board.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 1:23pm
by John Davis
I really don't know about BD. Always seemed like a little bit of hocus-pocus to me. But, that said, I have also always thought that if someone is willing to go to that extreme in the vineyard they are probably going to go to extremes to ensure quality in the winery, too. So, if they're over-zealous, retentive in the vineyard and winery, that completely dedicated to their craft, they probably make really good freakin' juice, too. Crazy? Maybe, but if the quality is in the bottle I really don't care.

JD

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 1:30pm
by Roberto Rogness
Fusion guitarist Eric Johnson SWEARS he can hear the difference in different brands of 9 volt batteries in his effects boxes. I think he is nuts but that sort of attention to the details of tone are why he sounds like that and I don't.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 1:46pm
by Nikolaj Krarup
An incredible hostile rude and mean article.
Steiner has made great contributions in many fields. To simply disregard his work and methods, and call him nuts is completely wrong IMO. I'll admit some of it seems pretty much out there, but the fact is that his methods works, both regarding argriculture, waldorf schools and in the field of helping disadvantaged people.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 1:51pm
by Sarah Warner
Ha ha. I know the blogger. Judged with him.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 2:57pm
by john holdredge
christopher colombus
galileo
copernicus


the world is filled with people who believed what we could not see.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:05pm
by Roberto Rogness
You want crazy talk, have someone try and explain string theory (physics) to you....

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:06pm
by Lyle Fass
jcoley3 wrote:
G. D y e r wrote:Anyway, the point is the gradient is tiny over the length of a barrel. Totally irrelevant, and the BioD folks claim it is the gravitational force anyway, which is essentially constant in magnitude. This silliness doesn't prevent them from making great wine. But it is not responsible for great wine, either.


A couple of years ago a well-regarded winemaker posted his suspicion that a night of mediocre Burgundies was caused by the full moon. I remember exactly one full moon later counting up at least a dozen positive Burgundy tasting notes on the same board.


I don't argue with professional arguers. This guy is right out of the Monty Python sketch with John Cleese when Terry Jones wants to buy an argument. I refuse to argue with people who have a negative tone. Arguments need to be rational. This guy is clearly not.

And biodynamics is like any religion, the fundamentalist aspect is always too severe (Joly), but some people in the middle (Leflaive, Leroy, Wittman) make great wines. Who the f*ck knows why? But I am sure creating a living, breathing ecosystem in the soil cannot hurt.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:11pm
by G. D y e r
john holdredge wrote:christopher colombus
galileo
copernicus


the world is filled with people who believed what we could not see.


This is a poor comparison, though. And especially ironic that two of the figures you note had a very good sense of gravitation as it related to heavenly bodies. The problem here is that BioD makes assertions with zero experimental evidence that are in complete disagreement with theories that have been scientifically vetted.

Take the theory of evolution. Steiner proposes instead the moon shines up some animals' butts and the sun shines in the face of others. Or something along those lines as I can't be bothered to decipher the precise form of this nonsense.

The three figures you mention were not contradicting well-founded science. In fact, they were largely contradicting religion. BioD is an attempt to move backwards to faith-based pseudo-science. It is the opposite of Columbus, Galileo and Copernicus.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:15pm
by Lyle Fass
FYI. Dumb-ass name for a blog. Complete misuse of the word hoax. Another reason I can't engage over there.

hoax - something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:22pm
by G. D y e r
Roberto Rogness wrote:You want crazy talk, have someone try and explain string theory (physics) to you....


String theory is an interesting comparison as the hypotheses have a basis in mathematical formalism. But I think most if not all of the hypotheses, if you wanted to do an experiment, would require energy/mass scales far beyond what we can create in a lab.

BioD, meanwhile, has hypotheses based on conjecture, but many of them could be tested systematically. Assertion seems to be enough to convince many people, though.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:25pm
by G. D y e r
Lyle Fass wrote:And biodynamics is like any religion, the fundamentalist aspect is always too severe (Joly), but some people in the middle (Leflaive, Leroy, Wittman) make great wines. Who the f*ck knows why? But I am sure creating a living, breathing ecosystem in the soil cannot hurt.


The last line is something that appeals from a rationalist/scientific perspective, though. It's not the mythology that affects the wine, but the creation of a balanced system of viticulture. The question then is what are the BioD practitioners doing that is beneficial. I want to see the science separated from the mythology because there probably is something there.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:31pm
by G. D y e r
Along these lines, Tablas Creek had a post on sensitive crystallization where 'stuff' is extrapolated from crystal structure. I don't disagree that a reproducible structure has meaning, but anyone who has looked at a phase diagram has a sense that the structure has everything to do with chemical concentrations and growing conditions.

My reply:
The part of this post on sensitive crystallization is a bit harder to get a grip on. On one hand, the reproducibility of the patterns does suggest they are specific to a given wine. But how does one assign meaning to that? I often find tartrate crystals in wines that are like fine dust, stick-like, like salt crystals, etc. This should be related to the concentrations of various compounds in solution, pH, temperature, etc. But here we are supposed to accept that different structure correspond to abstract qualities. Has anyone seriously attempted to correlate the wine chemistry to the crystalline forms? I think this would be more informative than assertions about fruit and minerality.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:33pm
by jcoley3
john holdredge wrote:christopher colombus
galileo
copernicus


the world is filled with people who believed what we could not see.


Belief and proof are two different things. Many children may believe that Santa leaves presents under the Christmas tree on December 25th, but I suspect they would have a hard time proving it.

People have wanted to believe in magic for centuries - that does not make them any of the great scientists or explorers you list.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:38pm
by Lyle Fass
jcoley3 wrote:
john holdredge wrote:christopher colombus
galileo
copernicus


the world is filled with people who believed what we could not see.




People have wanted to believe in magic for centuries


They still do. It's called religion.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:45pm
by jcoley3
Lyle Fass wrote: Arguments need to be rational.


Steiner and Joly are rational? It seems like you're demanding reasonableness from one side of the argument, but don't object to the high-flying romantic conjecture of the other.

Lyle fass wrote:And biodynamics is like any religion, the fundamentalist aspect is always too severe (Joly), but some people in the middle (Leflaive, Leroy, Wittman) make great wines. Who the f*ck knows why? But I am sure creating a living, breathing ecosystem in the soil cannot hurt.


I like the three "middle" wineries quite well. Have had some execrable wines from Joly. The fundamentalist aspect of any religion often creeps me out - wine religion or otherwise.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 3:48pm
by jcoley3
Lyle Fass wrote:They still do. It's called religion.


Sure. Certain aspects of biodynamics remind me of some of the rituals you read about in 'The Golden Bough,' which describes how people believed that certain kinds of sacrifices to the Gods would (for example) bring the men home safely from the hunt. It gives people the idea that they have more control over the natural world than they do. I find it amazing that we can fly men to the moon, yet we know so little about why or how wine ages. The natural world is mysterious, despite science, but Steiner's explanations sound romantic and make little sense.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 4:11pm
by Roy Piper
Roberto Rogness wrote:Fusion guitarist Eric Johnson SWEARS he can hear the difference in different brands of 9 volt batteries in his effects boxes. I think he is nuts but that sort of attention to the details of tone are why he sounds like that and I don't.


This is where "blind" testing would come in handy.

In the book "Winemaker's Dance," Mark Herold said that when he was at Phelps, blind tasting tests showed no difference in either cold soaking or extended maceration with regards to wine quality. Despite this, Phelps continued to do both.

Also, Mondavi planted a section of ToKalon at various densities (4x4, meter-meter, 8x8, Lyre, etc) many years ago and then treated the vines the same, picked the grapes at the same time, fermented apart the same way, etc. Later, they did a blind tasting with winemakers and winegrowers and statistically, as a group there was NO gain in quality from one planting density to the other. Yet each person left that tasting with their own belief systems about what density worked best, and acted on that preference.

Anecdotal evidence/experience is the life blood of winemaking.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 5:43pm
by M. Dildine
john holdredge wrote:christopher colombus
galileo
copernicus


the world is filled with people who believed what we could not see.


+1

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 6:03pm
by Cris Whetstone
Lyle Fass wrote:I don't argue with professional arguers. This guy is right out of the Monty Python sketch with John Cleese when Terry Jones wants to buy an argument. I refuse to argue with people who have a negative tone. Arguments need to be rational. This guy is clearly not.

And biodynamics is like any religion, the fundamentalist aspect is always too severe (Joly), but some people in the middle (Leflaive, Leroy, Wittman) make great wines. Who the f*ck knows why? But I am sure creating a living, breathing ecosystem in the soil cannot hurt.

I think you've summed it all up pretty well actually Lyle. On the one hand you talk about a need for rationality. On the other you want to link religion and the understanding of ecosystems. This is precisely where people find fault with BioD and call it religion or even a hoax. Being rational seems to not be part of the equation.

I also don't think we can hold up some wineries and say that since they make good wines so there is something to this BioD thing. That is a classic non sequitur.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 8:18pm
by GregT
This is better than the Colbert Report:

the Sun is thinner than anything around it, and that is why you see it. It is an illusion to think that the Sun is something in space.

For me however, I'm just happy to know why we have birds. Steiner says:

Let us just look at what the bird, for instance, has become on the earth. During this time (Sun condition) the bird was still a sort of air-sack; it consisted of nothing but air, a mass of air floating along. Then during this time (Moon condition) it became watery, a thickened watery thing, and it hovered as a kind of cloud -- not like our clouds, though, but already containing a form. What for us are only formless water structures were at that time forms. There was a skeleton form, but it was fluid. But now came the mineral element, and this was incorporated into what was only water structure. Carbonate of lime, phosphatic lime, and so on formed along the skeleton, creating solid bones. So at first we have the air-bird, then the water-bird, and at last the solid earth-bird.

Due to the different epochs of origin for humans and birds, their response to the appearance of minerals during the embryonic state is dramatically different. The bird embryo, not ready to assimilate the minerals, pushes it away and it becomes a mineral-based shell surrounding the embryo. The human embryo has marrow-filled bones, unlike the air-filled bones which allow birds to fly, and the marrow is able to absorb minerals from the mother which will later in the gestation process be utilized to build up the hard bones of the human baby. Here we can see definitively why humans are not born inside eggs and how this fact points to human evolution pre-dating bird evolution contrary to what the blinder-wearing Darwinians would have everyone believe.

This could not be the same in the case of the human being. Man could not simply incorporate into himself what only arose as mineral during his embryonic period. The bird could do this - and why? You see, the bird acquired its air form here (Sun condition); it then lived through the water condition. It is essential for it not to let the mineral come too close to it during its germinal state. If the mineral came to it too soon, then it would just become a mineral and harden. The bird while it is developing is still somewhat watery and fluid; the mineral, however, tries to approach. What does the bird do? Well, it pushes it off, it makes something around itself, it makes the eggshell around itself! That is the mineral element. The eggshell remains as long as the bird, must protect itself inwardly from the mineral; that is, as long as it must stay fluid. The reason for this is that the bird originated only during the second condition of the earth. If it had been there during the first condition, it would now be much more sensitive to warmth than it actually is. Since it was not there at that time, it can now form the hard eggshell around itself.


So there you have it. Science? Steiner takes it head-on. Good and hard apparently.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 8:30pm
by Brigitte Armenier
Thanks Lyle, and incidentally I think you will agree with me that Andrei Tarkovsky's premature death robbed us of a potentially groundbreaking film on Rudolf Steiner! And in regards to Biodynamics:

M. Turinek, S. Grobelnik-Mlakar, M. Bavec and F. Bavec (2009). Biodynamic agriculture research progress and priorities. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24 , pp 146-154

Abstract
Biodynamic (BD) agriculture became the subject of research efforts during the past decades, whereas a part of the scientific community looks at the BD method with skepticism and marks it as dogmatic. Nevertheless, as explored in this review, a fair share of the available peer-reviewed research results of controlled field experiments as well as case studies show effects of BD preparations on yield, soil quality and biodiversity. Moreover, BD preparations express a positive environmental impact in terms of energy use and efficiency. However, the underlying natural science mechanistic principle of BD preparations is still under investigation. In addition, quality determination methods, based on holistic approaches, are increasingly being investigated and recognized. BD farming strives, as manifested in several publications, to positively impact cultural landscape design as well. Summarized data showed that further research is needed and thus encouraged in the field of food quality comparison/determination, food safety, environmental performance (e.g., footprints), and on the effects of BD farming practices on farm animals.
(Accepted February 20 2009)

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 15th 2010, 9:09pm
by davetong
Biodynamics is bullshit, but if the wine tastes good who really cares?
It's not like they are sacrificing virgins or exploiting child labour.

Basically anyone who wants to go through all that palaver must be serious about wanting to make the best wine they possibly can.
And if that involves burying cow horns while naked under a full moon or whatever they are prepared to do it.
They may be nuts, but let's see what they come up with.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:07am
by john holdredge
G. D y e r wrote:
john holdredge wrote:christopher colombus
galileo
copernicus


the world is filled with people who believed what we could not see.


This is a poor comparison, though. And especially ironic that two of the figures you note had a very good sense of gravitation as it related to heavenly bodies. The problem here is that BioD makes assertions with zero experimental evidence that are in complete disagreement with theories that have been scientifically vetted.

Take the theory of evolution. Steiner proposes instead the moon shines up some animals' butts and the sun shines in the face of others. Or something along those lines as I can't be bothered to decipher the precise form of this nonsense.

The three figures you mention were not contradicting well-founded science. In fact, they were largely contradicting religion. BioD is an attempt to move backwards to faith-based pseudo-science. It is the opposite of Columbus, Galileo and Copernicus.


In a literal sense you may be right- but the fact is that "science" doesnt begin to explain the mysteries of nature- and while I dont necessarily think burying a cow horn full of shit at mignight makes a better wine, I do know that you feel a very different energy when walking your vineyard at night. The whole idea of making wine (for me anyways) is trying to unravel the mysteries of nature. Not to decry science, but wine is about the spirit of a place. Science cant explain that energy- its something you simply feel- and for me, the notion of being better connected to the land is somethong BD (direct and indirectly) promotes. Just because you can't see it, or science can't explain it, doesn't mean it isnt there.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:14am
by David K o l i n
john holdredge wrote:
G. D y e r wrote:
john holdredge wrote:christopher colombus
galileo
copernicus


the world is filled with people who believed what we could not see.


This is a poor comparison, though. And especially ironic that two of the figures you note had a very good sense of gravitation as it related to heavenly bodies. The problem here is that BioD makes assertions with zero experimental evidence that are in complete disagreement with theories that have been scientifically vetted.

Take the theory of evolution. Steiner proposes instead the moon shines up some animals' butts and the sun shines in the face of others. Or something along those lines as I can't be bothered to decipher the precise form of this nonsense.

The three figures you mention were not contradicting well-founded science. In fact, they were largely contradicting religion. BioD is an attempt to move backwards to faith-based pseudo-science. It is the opposite of Columbus, Galileo and Copernicus.


In a literal sense you may be right- but the fact is that "science" doesnt begin to explain the mysteries of nature- and while I dont necessarily think burying a cow horn full of shit at mignight makes a better wine, I do know that you feel a very different energy when walking your vineyard at night. The whole idea of making wine (for me anyways) is trying to unravel the mysteries of nature. Not to decry science, but wine is about the spirit of a place. Science cant explain that energy- its something you simply feel- and for me, the notion of being better connected to the land is somethong BD (direct and indirectly) promotes. Just because you can't see it, or science can't explain it, doesn't mean it isnt there.


Ah, but science was the fundamental basis of the beliefs of each of Columbus, Galileo and Copernicus - their beliefs were based on what they COULD see (and, in the case of the last two, measure), not what they couldn't.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:18am
by Scott G r u n e r
Biodynamics may be a hoax, but many of the outcomes are positives..and seems better than extreme chemical farming to me. Reminds me of christianity- I don't believe in it either, but it is *generally* a good thing when people live by christian ideals... except the zealots of course..

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:20am
by Rick Gregory
eh.... I'm mostly in Lyle's camp. Anyone who starts a site that's bent on debunking one thing and is so negative in tone tends to be uninteresting. As several of you have stated already, BD in its strict form isn't close to rational and mostly BS, but the care that people put forth if they adopt some BD principles is likely reflected throughout their winemaking and I can't see a downside of that.

I remember a story someone on eBob told years ago about planting some vegetables. His neighbor swore by planting by the moon.... which seemed irrational. So he planted when he wanted to and things like soil temp were in the range needed. She planted as she always had... and her vegetables were fine, his were ravaged by bugs and didn't do well. The plots were right next to one another. Is there a scientific explanation? Of course. Did she know it? Of course not. But she knew what worked and that was what mattered.

Other fields have this as well. High end audio long ago ventured down this path. The mainstream mags measured everything (google Julian Hirsch sometime.... ) and at one point they crowed that vendors had finally gotten harmonic distortion so low it was inaudible! yay!!! Except those components had a hard, bright edge when listend to - turns out a different kind of distortion was happening as a result of the techniques used to conquer the harmonic distortion everyone had been focused on. Even now we don't really have a good idea of why some combinations of components produce a very open, 3D soundstage and, within that, performers who seem to BE there while others don't. In wine terms... what produces complexity? Why do some wines have intense, bewitching noses while others are simply fruit?

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:28am
by Frank Drew
john holdredge wrote:christopher colombus
galileo
copernicus


the world is filled with people who believed what we could not see.


Well, Columbus "believed" he was sailing to India.

Of course, one main difference between organized religion and BD is that BD never hurt anyone.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:30am
by Guillaume Deschamps
Lyle Fass wrote:FYI. Dumb-ass name for a blog. Complete misuse of the word hoax. Another reason I can't engage over there.

hoax - something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage


That seems like a perfect use for this word if you think that a) there is no correlation between this theory and the production of good wine and b) people are making significant money from selling BioD products to wine growers.

If you think the opposite I can understand it's a tough pill to swallow.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:30am
by Lyle Fass
Cris Whetstone wrote:
Lyle Fass wrote:I don't argue with professional arguers. This guy is right out of the Monty Python sketch with John Cleese when Terry Jones wants to buy an argument. I refuse to argue with people who have a negative tone. Arguments need to be rational. This guy is clearly not.

And biodynamics is like any religion, the fundamentalist aspect is always too severe (Joly), but some people in the middle (Leflaive, Leroy, Wittman) make great wines. Who the f*ck knows why? But I am sure creating a living, breathing ecosystem in the soil cannot hurt.

I think you've summed it all up pretty well actually Lyle. On the one hand you talk about a need for rationality. On the other you want to link religion and the understanding of ecosystems. This is precisely where people find fault with BioD and call it religion or even a hoax. Being rational seems to not be part of the equation.

I also don't think we can hold up some wineries and say that since they make good wines so there is something to this BioD thing. That is a classic non sequitur.


Where did I link religion to ecosystems? I talked about treatments to the soils that help create biodiversity. That's science. Not loonyism.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:31am
by Lyle Fass
Guillaume Deschamps wrote:
Lyle Fass wrote:FYI. Dumb-ass name for a blog. Complete misuse of the word hoax. Another reason I can't engage over there.

hoax - something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage


That seems like a perfect use for this word if you think that a) there is no correlation between this theory and the production of good wine and b) people are making significant money from selling BioD products to wine growers.

If you think the opposite I can understand it's a tough pill to swallow.


Then you could call religion a hoax and politics. I believe that is is not a conspiracy. That's what a hoax is, an elaborate conspiracy. It's the improper use of the word. Is Judaism a hoax? Is Islam a hoax? Same thing....

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:38am
by Rick Gregory
Guillaume Deschamps wrote:
Lyle Fass wrote:FYI. Dumb-ass name for a blog. Complete misuse of the word hoax. Another reason I can't engage over there.

hoax - something intended to deceive; deliberate trickery intended to gain an advantage


That seems like a perfect use for this word if you think that a) there is no correlation between this theory and the production of good wine and b) people are making significant money from selling BioD products to wine growers.
w.


Not unless you are asserting that the people pushing BD don't believe in its advantages. By the quoted definition it's not possible for people who believe in something to perpetrate a hoax. It may be provably wrong, but hoax goes to the intentions of the proponents not the accuracy of their claims.

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:44am
by David Wright
Rick Gregory wrote:I remember a story someone on eBob told years ago about planting some vegetables. His neighbor swore by planting by the moon.... which seemed irrational. So he planted when he wanted to and things like soil temp were in the range needed. She planted as she always had... and her vegetables were fine, his were ravaged by bugs and didn't do well.

Sounds like Brother Fleming...

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:45am
by Bill Bøykin
GregT wrote:the Sun is thinner than anything around it, and that is why you see it. It is an illusion to think that the Sun is something in space.

For me however, I'm just happy to know why we have birds.
[i] So there you have it. Science? Steiner takes it head-on. Good and hard apparently.


This is great!How can you argue with such reasonable and cogent yet wonderfully moldy solipsisms?

Reminds me of Zeno's Law........

Re: Biodynamics is a hoax blog.

PostPosted: June 16th 2010, 10:46am
by Rick Gregory
David Wright wrote:
Rick Gregory wrote:I remember a story someone on eBob told years ago about planting some vegetables. His neighbor swore by planting by the moon.... which seemed irrational. So he planted when he wanted to and things like soil temp were in the range needed. She planted as she always had... and her vegetables were fine, his were ravaged by bugs and didn't do well.

Sounds like Brother Fleming...



You know, I had a parenthetical comment to that effect, but wasn't sure.