[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Canuck-Hater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Lawton

Seems like a credible source to me.

I don't mean to come off as a dick here, but he's a permaculture consultant, what do you think his position is going to be? This is like saying that an acupuncturist is an unbiased source on the validity of acupuncture. There's a reason that peer review is a critical component of the scientific method. Even the most disciplined scientist is prone to bias - we're only human, after all.

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

are you an engineer by chance?

No, and I'm not sure what relevance that has.

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

easy now! if it's not on scientific graph paper, it can't be true!

geoff is amazing and the work he does, does not get the respect it deserves, because it's not the typical laboratory science, most square heads don't give permaculture the time of day.

Yes, all the scientific studies I've read are on ... 'scientific graph paper'. I'll be sure to correct any mathematicians I see using 'scientific' graph paper for their silly math calculations to use the right kind next time.

Most people don't give permaculture the time of day because there's simply not enough valid evidence to back up the claims of permaculture advocates. Much of it is based on pseudoscience. I must say, for someone who claims to not have tilted their hand as far as their own position, you sure look at these things with a lot of emotion... and not very much reason.

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

you want me to go thru your links, but won't take the time to look at mine? who's close minded?

You're providing me with YouTube videos in a serious discussion. Nevermind that they're meant to sway opinion and not provide actual evidence. Adapting science to TV rarely works. There's too much information to squeeze into something that is meant primarily to entertain. Give me something that has sources that can be checked and validated. YouTube videos are not them, they make you look like a flake and someone who isn't willing to do the research they go around yelling at everyone else to do.

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

gregory r. ziegler - specializes in confectionary products, mainly chocolate.

john a. lucey - researches dairy, mainly milk proteins.

chris hallquist - is not a biology major, he has a masters of philospohy.

ziegler and lucey are experts in their field, i don't question that. but how do you translate a confectionary scientist and a dairy scientist into a full on 'food expert'?

as for hallquist, he is not a biology major like you stated, he has a masters in philosophy. is his degree in philosophy that much more valuable than a journalist like pollan, whose work you call 'tripe'?

Pollan's work is unscientific tripe. I've found references that Hallquist is a major in biology and philosophy, and I'm in contact with him to validate this.

As far as the other two, Valo403 has quite nicely taken care of that, no need to repeat what he already said.

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

i am not saying that scientific methods have no value, they absolutely do.

what i'm saying is a am witnessing and participating in a positive change in the way we can feed the world with safe and healthy food. anybody can rely on the scientific book knowledge, but if you can't apply that knowledge in the real world, what is the value of that book knowledge.

And I am saying that anecdotal evidence is the one thing science has learned we cannot trust. As your math teacher would say, show your work.

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

to sum up my stance in one word: permaculture.

i entered the discussion because i wanted to know more about what people think of organics. imo, organics is a highjacked term that has the vanity of 'the right thing' but is more a form of save the world type marketing.

my food hierarchy: backyard > local > local organic (certified or not) > organic > conventional farming

To sum up my stance in two words: evidence, please.

Originally Posted by moncton golden flames

what you are failing to see, is he quoted a 3rd guy, named chris hallquist, whom torque dog claimed to have a masters in biology from the university of wisconsin. when, in fact, from chris hallquists own website, he is actually only a master of philosophy. that is the guy i was referring to.

if you're going to add nothing constructive to the thread at least read the entire posts, is that too much to ask?

Thanks for the misrepresentation of my claim. I stated Chris Hallquist majored in Biology. I never stated he had a master's degree in it. I've contacted Chris to verify as I have found sources (not his website) that insist he does.