Introducing ‘Skeptics Corner’

…because evidence matters

We can explore complicated information and new ideas, without fear… even if some object to this style of open inquiry. Current beliefs matter less than the willingness to rethink and update views over time.

Skeptical examination illuminates important things that are temporarily unknown. What if Yuval Harari is right about our common human biases? It might be good to face flaws in our thinking and gently challenge each other to grow.

I invite YOU to help me uncover my distorted perceptions. I’ll share my hunches about the world a few times each year. Please challenge me; let’s boldly go together!

A framework for uncertainty

Let’s start every discussion by admitting how little humans know. Consider this… of the MILLIONS of fungal species that are estimated to live on planet earth, modern science has only described around 1.2% of them. That’s exciting! There’s always going to be more to learn about the biosphere.

How can we decide when one idea is more likely correct than another?

Dr. Gail Wilson taught me to REJECT inconsistent and weak evidence before it creates confusion. This saves lots of time and effort; there’s a gradient of evidence QUALITY out there, and low-quality evidence isn’t worth much. We can scrutinize competing ideas and also ignore flimsy ones.

Before I lose some of you, here’s a caveat – human culture and the context surrounding scientific inquiry are extremely messy and problematic. Even so, flawed humans and troubling systems can generate stunning results. Over time, poor evidence is dislodged by better evidence, and we make progress.

I recognized that the scientific method is one of the most valuable approaches that humans have ever utilized to assess our universe and biosphere. Also, I argue that scientific evidence is NOT SUFFICIENT without additional input from other pathways of knowledge (see video, especially from 39:24 to 49:47).

But how can we evaluate conflicting pieces of evidence?

It’s not easy. For example, a farmer’s experience is often valid. A researcher’s findings are often valid. A community’s accumulated wisdom is often valid. A philosopher’s reasoning is often valid. Yet all those opinions MIGHT be inappropriate in some circumstances.

Context matters. This is where careful and systematic experiments and scientific thinking can really shine, as part of a team’s investigation of options.

Okay; now what?

This paper can help us to assess different types of evidence. I’ve summarized key ideas in this graphic:

I want anyone giving advice to explain the evidence that supports their suggestions. There are gardening practices I’d try when there is some Level V Evidence – maybe it’ll work in my backyard! However, I’ll likely reject EXPENSIVE ideas unless large, well-designed, trials demonstrate good odds for practical benefit.

Conducting and publishing big, side-by-side, controlled, and replicated trials - spanning multiple soil sites and growing seasons - requires a TON of money, time, and collaborative networking. By the time I published the first chapter of my dissertation, it represented more than four years of substantial effort.

I think rigorous research matters. Level I or II Evidence should not be treated the same tier as a case study or field observation – good research methods produce fundamentally more reliable information.

High-replicated trials might still generate misleading hunches. For example, I often criticize research produced by commercial and academic institutions. I see massive blinders and biases that affect how experiments are often designed. Human ignorance still gets in the way of truth.

Soil enthusiasts must embrace the process

I believe in this umbrella MOVEMENT to bring soil ecosystems back to life. Thriving holobionts are the future of food and agriculture. And also… in many cases Level V or VI Evidence gets showcased as if it’s enough. The lack of highly replicated, controlled, multi-site and multi-year field trials constrains our ability to convince more land managers about the importance of living soil.

There’s also dishonest marketing and magical thinking in many soil enthusiast circles. Minimally controlled case studies don’t produce Level I Evidence, regardless of how the stories are spun. Some ‘soil gurus’ produced impressive outcomes in IDEAL circumstances, and claim their techniques work every time in every place – ignoring how context always influences results. Buyers beware!

Have I alarmed you yet?

Good. It's important to explore competing pools of evidence, and to represent the authentic state of things. It may take many more years to fund and accumulate top-tier evidence for some of the common tenets that circulate in soil enthusiast communities.

What do we do in the meantime?

We can reach for Level III & II Evidence with better and better citizen science. We can hold people accountable when they misreport Level V & VI Evidence. Remember that a temporary absence of Level I Evidence does not necessarily disprove anything – many principles of soil regeneration and agroecology are emerging in high-quality outlets.

With better funding, we can do more, but mere razzle-dazzle won’t get us there. Listening to people who tell you what you WANT to hear is disastrous.

Contrarians are our friends. Those who challenge us are our allies.