Discussion Paper on Goethean Science Methodology
The German poet and naturalist Goethe, working in the 18th Century can be seen to have had a wide influence, and in particular, laid down the groundwork on which Rudolf Steiner based much of his life's work. Goethe's main message seems to have been - observe. His methodology for this hoped to take observation beyond mere looking, and hoped to forge this deeper observation into a tool to gain further insights into the workings of nature. It could be said, that observation is the basis of the scientific method as we know it. In order to do conventional science, we observe phenomenon, either in nature or recreated in the laboratory. It is on the basis of these observations that a scientist produces theories which can then be tested against future experience. This is all well and good, however the problem arises when science tries to claim that this is a purely objective exercise where subjective impressions have no place. With the recent advances in quantum mechanics, the idea that science is a purely objective exercise has been called into question and the supposition has even been accused of being "mere dogma". Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that the observer does in fact affect the observation simply by being there. Can we suggest then that what is occurring at a subatomic particle level, may also occur in our experience of the world at large? The scientific experience is littered with clues that suggest this to be the case. Any great leaps forward in science have involved the use of good 'hunches' and 'best guesses'. It is very difficult for researchers to disentangled themselves from the need for the experiment to work. In fact it can be said that very often researches start with the answer they want, and work back to the answer. This we are told is 'bad science' and should be avoided. Goethe's point is that trying to eliminate the subjective from the process may not even be truly possible - but even if it were, we are ignoring another vast domain of information which may actually be useful. Goethean Science has, at its core, the aim to combine objective and subjective observation.
We feel this is especially relevant to the practice of Herbal Medicine in that, if we were to explore simply the objective information, this would naturally lead us to viewing plants solely as pharmacological agents which should be investigated for their constituents, purified and standardised. This is of course the domain of pharmacology. This route has lead to some of medicine's greatest advances, but has also encompassed some of it's greatest failures, where active constituents (viewed by herbalists as being out of context of the synergy of the plant) have caused very regrettable side effects which non the less remain part of pharmacological medicine. In the treatment of long term chronic aliments (actually an area of general excellence in Herbal Medicine), these side effects can eventually outweigh the benefit of the original treatment. More and more patients are willing to forgo the advances of pharmaceutical medicine and return to therapies such as Herbal Medicine which they view as being more holistic, safer, more 'natural'. Are they right to do so? As herbalists we obviously need to continue to investigate physical properties of herbs to ensure their safety and efficacy; equally though, we have to explore what it is in the therapeutic relationship between patient, herbalist and herb that is attracting people back to Herbal Medicine. Does this relationship have an effect on the therapeutic outcome? If so, how can we utilise this? Research itself is starting to move from quantitative to qualitative studies, where how the patient feels now seems to be as important as any quantitative measure. With this we are therefore, back in the realms of the subjective. How can we combine subjective and objective impressions without the danger of producing ideas that are purely fanciful?
We are grateful to Margaret Colquhoun PhD of the Life Science Trust who has over the last three years lead us in the following method:
- One plant studied at a time. At present we have spent a minimum of 1-2 days per plant, and then revisited it at different times in the season. # Going to 'meet' the plant, viewing different specimens in different locations, any subjective impressions gained are not generally discussed at this point but are saved for consideration later on.
- The next stage is a detailed and exhaustive objective observation of the plant. Phrases like 'I believe…' or 'I feel….' are actively discouraged at this stage. The plant is described physically in botanical terms, the observations are checked against members of the same species growing close by or in different locales. Everything about the shape, colour, size, anatomical structure of the plant is described with each member of the group taking it in turn.
- After this has been exhausted, the group is then encouraged to view the growth of the plant through time. Development is considered from the seed through to stem and leaf, fruit and back to the seed again. This allows us to consider differences in growth pattern between plants in different growing conditions. Again subjective impressions such as 'I feel this plant grows better in these conditions' are discouraged. Phenomenon must be observable at this stage before it is accepted by the group.
- The next stage is to draw the plant using various mediums, choosing details from the plant and also an expression of the whole plant, you may even use the plant itself to make the picture. For instance in studying nettles (Urtica dioica) nettle juice was actually used to produce the picture. The group having immersed themselves in the physical aspects of the plant are then asked to reproduce from memory the description. This allows time for the group to use their imagination and visualisation, to re-grow the plant and take it through it's various stages. We are also beginning to explore the use of eurythmy and movement within this section.
- In the next stage the group tastes the herb in various pharmacy preparations. The School's philosophy has always been that to taste the plant gives us some basic but very useful information about it. For example, many herbal strategies use the bitter principle within plants to stimulate the digestion and the liver. The group may then decide on the basis of the foregoing to produce certain extracts or preparations from the plant. These are often collected and prepared on site. It is only at the end of all this that the subjective impressions are now considered.
- The group are now encouraged to share how they personally feel about the plant, what it felt to 'meet' the plant. What Goethe hoped to achieve at this point was consensus on the subjective impressions. In the consensus he suggested that people were truly meeting an aspect of the plant rather than meeting themselves. This is the danger, that without careful guidance and without following the methodology that people meet, not the plant, but an aspect of their own emotional self. To avoid this, the plant should be studied by different groups of people, with great care taken by individuals not to 'cross pollinate' and influence ideas from other groups, until the new group has reported fully. The bigger picture of such an exercise is to be aware of the observation process being applied in the stages of a plant's growth, which leaves a history of its becoming in matter. This metamorphosis of process can then be applied to many subjects, such as the human being, geology, landscape etc.
Conclusion
Having observed ways in which different groups have arrived at very similar impressions following the strict controls outlined above, we have become more and more convinced that this is a tool which may well answer the need within Herbal Medicine to include the subjective as well as objective impressions. In order to explore this further our Director of Research, Maureen Robertson, and Keith Robertson, our Director of Education, attended a residential course with the Life Sciences Trust on Goethean Methodology. The course has run over two years with nine blocks of ten days, in various locations around the British Isles. They were joined in the venture by past president of the NIMH, Midge Whitelegg, who has a personal interest and would like to include Goethean Methodology program at the University of Central Lancashire. We are heartened to see that other herbalists working independently also see this method as worthy of intense investigation.
It has to be said that it is difficult to talk about such a practical based methodology, however we would have to agree with Schrodinger when he said "If you cannot - in the long run - tell everyone what you have been doing, your doing has been worthless."
I trust that this discussion will have illustrated what we hope to achieve by enlisting this methodology. We would welcome discussion, on what we feel is a very exciting development within Herbal Research. The Life Sciences Trust has provided a medium where many different disciplines have come together, from doctors to pharmacists and botanists, to landscape artists, gardeners and now medical herbalists. In this we are heartened that we seem to be following Aristotle's advice when he said, "What we have to learn to do, we learn by doing".
