Retorts

Biodynamics Defended

The reason why biodynamics has been little studied by scientists is, as Dr Walker suggests, because it offends many a scientist's sense of what is right. This is not accidental -- Rudolf Steiner wished to challenge his listeners to adopt new ways of looking at the world.

The quotations in your June issue must be seen in that light. They use many terms which have a specialised meaning well understood by those who have studied Steiner's work elsewhere. The terms appear strange when taken out of context -- but then, so could terms like "strangeness", "hard water" or "petroleum cracking" to those unfamiliar with them.

The things Steiner speaks of are not to be taken as beliefs -- they are simply part of a different working hypothesis for viewing the world.

Rudolf Steiner's spiritual science is not an alternative to natural science. His suggestions are intended to extend and include the latter. If there is an apparent conflict, it must eventually be resolved by study and research.

Dr Walker is not the only scientist to experience difficulty in understanding Steiner's ideas. Most scientific educations (my own included) contain little epistemology, so we are rarely confronted with questions such as "what are the legitimate ways of learning about the world?" And seldom indeed are we directed to the works of Aristotle, Descartes, Kant and the others who provided the conceptual basis for science.

Instead, we imbibe an understanding of the do's and don'ts of the subject as we go along -- but often don't realise that science has its axioms just like any other field.

Steiner's theory of knowledge challenges some of these axioms. That can make it difficult to grasp, but rather than dismiss it as rubbish, it would be more scientific to study it with a view to understanding.

David Wright, Executive Secretary, Biodynamic Farming & Gardening Assn