Editing Anthroposophy (section)

===Scientific basis===
Though Rudolf Steiner studied [[natural science]] at the Vienna Technical University at the undergraduate level, his [[doctorate]] was in epistemology and very little of his work is directly concerned with the empirical sciences. In his mature work, when he did refer to science it was often to present phenomenological or [[Goethean science]] as an alternative to what he considered the materialistic science of his contemporaries.<ref name=Hammer/>

Steiner's primary interest was in applying the methodology of science to realms of inner experience and the spiritual worlds (his appreciation that the essence of science is its method of inquiry is unusual among [[esoteric]]ists<ref name=Hammer/>), and Steiner called anthroposophy ''[[Geisteswissenschaft]]'' (science of the mind, cultural/spiritual science), a term generally used in German to refer to the [[humanities]] and [[social science]]s.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Philolex entry |url=http://www.philolex.de/geistwis.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131110222130/http://www.philolex.de/geistwis.htm |archive-date=2013-11-10 |access-date=2013-12-31 |publisher=Philolex.de}}</ref>

Whether this is a sufficient basis for anthroposophy to be considered a spiritual science has been a matter of controversy.<ref name="Willmann">{{Cite journal |last=Willmann |first=Carlo |year=2001 |title=Waldorfpädagogik: Theologische und religionspädagogische Befunde |journal=Kölner Veröffentlichungen zur Religionsgeschichte |language=de |publisher=Böhlau |publication-place=Köln Weimar Wien |volume=27 |isbn=978-3-412-16700-4 |issn=0030-9230 |postscript=Especially chapters 1.3, 1.4.}}</ref><ref name=Hammer/> As Freda Easton explained in her study of Waldorf schools, "Whether one accepts anthroposophy as a science depends upon whether one accepts Steiner's interpretation of a science that extends the consciousness and capacity of human beings to experience their inner spiritual world."<ref name="Easton 1995 p. ">{{Cite book |last=Easton |first=Freda |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kInpHAAACAAJ |title=The Waldorf Impulse in Education: Schools as Communities that Educate the Whole Child by Integrating Artistic and Academic Work |publisher=Teachers College, Columbia University |year=1995 |access-date=16 March 2024}}</ref>

[[Sven Ove Hansson]] has disputed anthroposophy's claim to a scientific basis, stating that its ideas are not empirically derived and neither reproducible nor testable.<ref name="Sven Ove" /> Carlo Willmann points out that as, on its own terms, anthroposophical methodology offers no possibility of being falsified except through its own procedures of spiritual investigation, no [[intersubjectivity|intersubjective validation]] is possible by conventional scientific methods; it thus cannot stand up to empiricist critics.<ref name="Willmann" /> Peter Schneider describes such objections as untenable, asserting that if a non-sensory, non-physical realm exists, then according to Steiner the experiences of pure thinking possible within the normal realm of consciousness would already be experiences of that, and it would be impossible to exclude the possibility of empirically grounded experiences of other supersensory content.<ref name="Schneider" />

Olav Hammer suggests that anthroposophy carries [[scientism]] "to lengths unparalleled in any other Esoteric position" due to its dependence upon claims of clairvoyant experience, its subsuming natural science under "spiritual science". Hammer also asserts that the development of what he calls "fringe" sciences such as [[anthroposophic medicine]] and [[biodynamic agriculture]] are justified partly on the basis of the ethical and ecological values they promote, rather than purely on a scientific basis.<ref name=Hammer/>

Though Steiner saw that spiritual vision itself is difficult for others to achieve, he recommended open-mindedly exploring and rationally testing the results of such research; he also urged others to follow a spiritual training that would allow them directly to apply his methods to achieve comparable results.<ref name="Schneider" />

[[Anthony Storr]] stated about Rudolf Steiner's Anthroposophy: "His belief system is so eccentric, so unsupported by evidence, so manifestly bizarre, that rational skeptics are bound to consider it delusional... But, whereas Einstein's way of perceiving the world by thought became confirmed by experiment and mathematical proof, Steiner's remained intensely subjective and insusceptible of objective confirmation."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Storr |first=Anthony |author-link=Anthony Storr |title=Feet of Clay: Saints, Sinners, and Madmen: A Study of Gurus |publisher=Free Press Paperbacks, Simon & Schuster |year=1997 |isbn=978-0-684-83495-5 |location=New York |pages=69–70 |chapter=IV. Rudolf Steiner |orig-date=1996}}</ref>

According to Dan Dugan, Steiner was a champion of the following pseudoscientific claims, also championed by Waldorf schools:

#wrong [[color theory]];<ref name="Shermer Linse 2002 p. 32" />
#obtuse criticism of the [[theory of relativity]];<ref name="Sven Ove">{{Cite journal |last=Hansson |first=Sven Ove |year=1991 |title=Is Anthroposophy Science? |trans-title=Ist die Anthroposophie eine Wissenschaft? |url=http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Hansson.html |journal=Conceptus: Zeitschrift für Philosophie |volume=XXV |issue=64 |pages=37–49 |issn=0010-5155}}</ref><ref name="Shermer Linse 2002 p. 32" />
#weird ideas about [[Celestial mechanics|motions of the planets]];<ref name="Shermer Linse 2002 p. 32" />
#supporting [[vitalism]];<ref name="Shermer Linse 2002 p. 32" />
#doubting [[germ theory]];<ref name="Shermer Linse 2002 p. 32">{{Cite book |last=Dugan |first=Dan |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Gr4snwg7iaEC&pg=PA32 |title=The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience |publisher=ABC-CLIO |year=2002 |isbn=978-1-57607-653-8 |editor-last=Shermer |editor-first=Michael |pages=31–33 |quote=In physics, Steiner championed Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's color theory over Isaac Newton, and he called relativity “brilliant nonsense.” In astronomy, he taught that the motions of the planets were caused by the relationships of the spiritual beings that inhabited them. In biology, he preached vitalism and doubted germ theory. |editor-last2=Linse |editor-first2=Pat |issue=v. 1}}</ref>
#weird approach to physiological systems;<ref name="FlynnDawkins2007" />
#"the heart is not a pump".<ref name="FlynnDawkins2007">{{Cite book |last=Dugan |first=Dan |url=http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/Anthroposophy.html |title=The New Encyclopedia of Unbelief |publisher=Prometheus Books, Publishers |year=2007 |isbn=9781615922802 |editor-last=Flynn |editor-first=Tom |pages=74–75 |quote=Anthroposophical pseudoscience is easy to find in Waldorf schools. “Goethean science” is supposed to be based only on observation, without “dogmatic” theory. Because observations make no sense without a relationship to some hypothesis, students are subtly nudged in the direction of Steiner's explanations of the world. Typical departures from accepted science include the claim that Goethe refuted Newton's theory of color, Steiner's unique “threefold” systems in physiology, and the oft-repeated doctrine that “the heart is not a pump” (blood is said to move itself). |editor-last2=Dawkins |editor-first2=Richard |accessdate=21 June 2015}}</ref>{{sfn|Hammer|2021|p=228 fn. 102}}