Viewing post #505099 by RickCorey

You are viewing a single post made by RickCorey in the thread called Secrets of the Soil.
Image
Oct 29, 2013 11:42 AM CST
Name: Rick Corey
Everett WA 98204 (Zone 8a)
Sunset Zone 5. Koppen Csb. Eco 2f
Frugal Gardener Garden Procrastinator I helped beta test the first seed swap Plant and/or Seed Trader Seed Starter Region: Pacific Northwest
Photo Contest Winner: 2014 Avid Green Pages Reviewer Garden Ideas: Master Level Garden Sages I was one of the first 300 contributors to the plant database! I helped plan and beta test the plant database.
hazelnut,

I didn't mean at all to imply that you were credulous or didn't have scientific training. Not at all, and I apologize if I came across that way.
I was just disappointed in that book because it appeared very interesting at first, and then turned out to make no distinction between purely speculative magic and provable, practical advice. If the authors don't make that distinction, then I'll only read it as occult speculation, and it was not to my taste as a book about spirituality.

>> "throwing out the baby" is too often the case in science.

I agree that "bad" scientists are often quick to assume that anything unproved is untrue. But that's the opposite of "good" science. When you don't know, you DON'T know. One century's dogma is next century's joke, and vice-versa.

I put the book down when one author baldly claimed "do this because it works" and it was just an earth-magic ritual.

If that author had said "meditate on your fields with images of fertility, while surrounding yourself with symbols that represent growth and health to you, because I (the author) believe we have poorly understood subconscious powers related to visualization or prayer" or even "invoke the Goddess to empower your soil and gardening efforts", I would have kept reading with interest.

>> good science is science that stretches a little around the borders and incorporates imagination meshed with scientific method.

I agree in this sense: that is how new ideas arise and old beliefs are transcended. The inertia of the scientific establishment is huge, and probably only young Turks have enough energy to overthrow old paradigms.

But (in my opinion), then the new ideas need to be proven and made repeatable or at least predictable. I think that's the scientific method: First iamgine your way out of the old box, then make the new box more specific and prove things about it.

Interestingly, we tend not to believe surprising experimental results until someone proposes a mechanism that seems plausible to us. I'm not sure whether I think that's "good skepticism" or "bad skepticism" over all. Especially since the proposed mechanism that helps "old school" people in a field to accept the evidence and investigate further is quite likely to turn out to be hokum once the new phenomenon IS understood.

We need mechanisms to keep the threshold fairly high for radical changes: I forget the exact quote, but "very radical claims need very strong proof".

>> its not good science because its so short-sighted

You may be right about that, but I make this distinction because I'm sympathetic to most scientists but few managers and politicians: GE is great science or technology because it enables many kinds of research and plant breeding.

But current and future use of GE may possibly be bad public policy if it's used recklessly, decreases available crop genetic diversity, turns out to "run amok" and let trans-species genes start jumping freely through wild populations, or (least likely) RoundUp or RoundUp's replacements ever become more toxic or used to greater excess than the available pre-GE herbicides and insecticides.

Mainly I'm saying that I think of science as good or bad within it's own terms and goals: acquiring knowledge. Greedy companies and politicians hot for campaign donations use or abuse technology derived from scientific discoveries. All the harm is done in boardrooms and courtrooms by lobbyists, executives and politicians (then the marketplace and farms play out the consequences of the bad decisions).

But I may be splitting hairs to "excuse" the people I identify with, and "blame" the people I distrust and dislike.

>> I don't care about "boxes" except possibly to prevent religion and politics from corrupting pure science.

Yeah! What you said.

« Return to the thread "Secrets of the Soil"
« Return to Permaculture forum
« Return to the Garden.org homepage

Member Login:

( No account? Join now! )