Has anyone seen the Biodynamics is a hoax blog?
You have GOT to be a featured contributor, Carg!
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/biodynamics-is-a-hoax-according-to-stu-smith-of-smith-madrone-vineyard-winery/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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!
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!
Thank you verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry much! I’ll be here all week. Remember to tip the veal and try your waitress…
Can I try the waitress?
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
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.”
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.”
He is too hostile and dogmatic to be taken seriously.
Bd is similar to religion in that it’s based on faith. Never argue with the True Believers.
Who, Rudolph Steiner?
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Ha ha. I know the blogger. Judged with him.