Talk:Biodynamic agriculture/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Biodynamic agriculture. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Biased POV
I have made two minor edits to neutralised two heavily opinionated claims and they were reverted in less than a minute. I don't have the time to play editing games of course, so someone responsible please check this matter.
#"it is more akin to sympathetic magic" is a point of view, whatever the context. It should read "someone has characterised it as more akin to sympatheric magic" and the reader can look to the cited work for more.
- "it is a pseudoscience" is a POV. Even if I'm not a user of these methods, many thousands of farmers are, and they don't find it a pseudoscience. Just keep it simple, intelligent readers can make their own opinions, they don't need us to draw conclusions for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.105.154 (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- It's obvious pseudoscience. WP:PSCI policy requires us to be up-front about that and we shan't give the false impression this is just an odd viewpoint with the "some people ..." wording, per WP:ASSERT. Alexbrn (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say that it's not pseudoscience (nor that it is) I'm just asking that you refrain from forcing your own opinion into it. I retain that "it is more akin to sympathetic magic" should be changed to something like "it is has been described as more akin to sympathetic magic" and "it is a pseudoscience" should be changed to "some scientists described it as pseudoscience". I don't think the audience is as interested in your personal opinion as you seem to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.105.154 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- That's right: Wikipedia is not interested in his opinion, or yours, or mine. We have rules for stating that something is pseudoscience, and the statement complies with these rules. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- It is not necessary to attribute statements that represent the scientific consensus view. In fact, to do so violates WP:NPOV. It would be like saying "according to Neil deGrasse Tyson, the earth is billions of years old". Attributing the statement gives the false impression that this is less than a universally held view. Guy (Help!) 12:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- I didn't say that it's not pseudoscience (nor that it is) I'm just asking that you refrain from forcing your own opinion into it. I retain that "it is more akin to sympathetic magic" should be changed to something like "it is has been described as more akin to sympathetic magic" and "it is a pseudoscience" should be changed to "some scientists described it as pseudoscience". I don't think the audience is as interested in your personal opinion as you seem to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.216.105.154 (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- A Google Scholar search gives more than 10,000 hits, nearly all of which are fully reliable sources which treat the topic in a straightforwardly scientific manner. Adding the term pseudoscience brings that down to 140 hits, or 1% of the total, and a quick survey reveals that most of these either do not connect biodynamics to pseudoscience (the terms occur in two different contexts in the source) or if they do, use nuanced wording such as that suggested above ("some have characterized it as pseudoscience). Clean Copytalk 11:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PROFRINGE. The only pertinent sources wrt pseudoscience are those which consider the pseudoscience classification. Advocacy based on a Google search is not relevant. In case anybody's wondering, burying crystals in the ground to harness cosmic forces is, in fact, pseudoscientific (at best). Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PROFRINGE does not support the contention that "the only pertinent sources wrt pseudoscience are those which consider the pseudoscience classification." An WP:RS article on a subject which does not mention pseudoscience is not inherently advocacy. For example, there are a number of RS articles about the economics of biodynamic agriculture, and wine in particular, which do not go into detail about the beleifs associated with the system.Dialectric (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PROFRINGE applies to the general move to play-down the pseudoscience. A source on economics is okay for content on economics, but not for playing down the pseudoscience aspect of BDA. No actual source (on economics or otherwise) has been proposed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- If the theme is generally taken seriously by academics, then it is a violation of WP:NPOV to solely use the few sources where this is cast into doubt. Clean Copytalk 20:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PSCI applies; that it's pseudoscience must be prominent. As to other sources, I'm hearing lots of words but seeing no sources: a section (e.g.) on the economics of biodynamic agriculture could be good. So add it - but it's not an excuse to whitewash the article. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- If the theme is generally taken seriously by academics, then it is a violation of WP:NPOV to solely use the few sources where this is cast into doubt. Clean Copytalk 20:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PROFRINGE applies to the general move to play-down the pseudoscience. A source on economics is okay for content on economics, but not for playing down the pseudoscience aspect of BDA. No actual source (on economics or otherwise) has been proposed. Alexbrn (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PROFRINGE does not support the contention that "the only pertinent sources wrt pseudoscience are those which consider the pseudoscience classification." An WP:RS article on a subject which does not mention pseudoscience is not inherently advocacy. For example, there are a number of RS articles about the economics of biodynamic agriculture, and wine in particular, which do not go into detail about the beleifs associated with the system.Dialectric (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- WP:PROFRINGE. The only pertinent sources wrt pseudoscience are those which consider the pseudoscience classification. Advocacy based on a Google search is not relevant. In case anybody's wondering, burying crystals in the ground to harness cosmic forces is, in fact, pseudoscientific (at best). Alexbrn (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- A Google Scholar search gives more than 10,000 hits, nearly all of which are fully reliable sources which treat the topic in a straightforwardly scientific manner. Adding the term pseudoscience brings that down to 140 hits, or 1% of the total, and a quick survey reveals that most of these either do not connect biodynamics to pseudoscience (the terms occur in two different contexts in the source) or if they do, use nuanced wording such as that suggested above ("some have characterized it as pseudoscience). Clean Copytalk 11:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
To cut the cruft, Steiner wanted his adepts to believe that biodynamic agriculture is cutting edge technology based upon spiritual science (higher knowledge revealed through archangels and principalities), but scholars of religion have no qualms to qualify it as magic. For the same reason some fundamentalist Christian websites warn believers that homeopathy is not quackery, but directly from the Devil. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Not claiming to be scientific
Biodynamic agriculture is not claiming to be scientifically based. It is not pseudoscience because it doesn’t claim to be scientific. It is comprised of policies and practices that some farmers use and the results speak for themselves. It follows the same base practices as organic certification farming, and then adds some extras practices. That’s all. There is no reason to call it pseudoscience. If it claimed to be a scientific method we could have that argument. But it doesn’t claim to be so why judge it according to a scientific standard? 2603:800C:2500:F58:A5CC:7CD5:E757:1783 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
the results speak for themselves
← what results? Bon courage (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)- See Organic farming#Sri Lanka. Can biodynamic agriculture feed 4 billion people? Sri Lanka could not avoid a crash of agricultural production, where were the Anthroposophists then? The Sri Lankan government would have accepted help from Lucifer and Ahriman, if these could feed their country. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
- I think you may be misunderstanding what "pseudoscience" means. It doesn't need to be currently claimed to be science, since Rudolf Steiner claimed it was a direct result of his "spiritual science." He claimed it had basis in "scientific reasoning" of his own design. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 21:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)