Abstract
In Australia, orthodox soil scientists dealing with land management and alternative practitioners who promote ‘regenerative agriculture’ have not been communicating and engaging effectively with each other. Over many years, scientists in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), state departments and universities have made significant achievements in mapping soil distribution, describing soil behaviour and identifying key soil properties and processes that are fundamental to healthy soil function. However, many alternative practitioners are dismissive of these achievements and highly critical of orthodox soil science. Yet many of the tools of soil science are essential to conduct evidence-based research towards elucidating how and why the exceptional results claimed by some alternative practitioners are achieved. We stress the importance of effective engagement and communication among all parties to resolve this ‘clash of cultures’.
Highlights
The division today between orthodox soil scientists and ‘alternative’ practitioners is another example of two cultures neither understanding each other nor communicating effectively. Both groups have the objective of improving soil and land management, but in many cases the alternative practitioners cannot provide scientific evidence as to why their practices are successful, nor do they accept that orthodox soil science has anything to offer in solving problems
The disjunction between the ‘two cultures’—that of orthodox soil science based on Nature’s biophysical laws and rigorous measurement, and that of various alternative practices that must be accepted at face value—is clear
Australian soil scientists have enjoyed many successes in elucidating the properties of soils and how these properties, interacting with plants and the environment, influence soil processes critical to healthy soil function
Summary
P. Snow published ‘The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution’ [1], decrying the fact that Western society was divided into two cultures—science and the humanities—and that neither understood what the other group was talking about. The division today between orthodox soil scientists and ‘alternative’ practitioners is another example of two cultures neither understanding each other nor communicating effectively. Both groups have the objective of improving soil and land management, but in many cases the alternative practitioners cannot provide scientific evidence as to why their practices are successful, nor do they accept that orthodox soil science has anything to offer in solving problems. We explore reasons why this is occurring, the consequences of this disjunction and possible remedies for this unproductive clash of cultures
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
