This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I have conducted much research into Orgone energy. I didnt spot any errors in this account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.135.135 ( talk) 00:53, September 2, 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Orgon energy." The article states "These theories are considered pseudoscience," yet a theory explains and describes a natural phenomena: orgon energy is not a natural phenomena, and there is no theory of orgon energy. At the very least, "theory" should be replaced in this article: at best the article should be removed since it is utter bullshit. The very least is that the article should note right at the start that there is no such thing as "orgon energy." -- Desertphile, October 29, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.86 ( talk) 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up some sentence structure and punctuation problems here. I also changed the claim that ki, prana, etc., are synonyms for orgone, as this is an oversimplification. It is more accurate to say that orgone is a similar concept.
And I removed this, because it seems like an advertisement to me:
" Don Croft, author of the book "The life etheric with Carol Croft" has taken orgone research to a next stage with the discovery of orgonite. Small orgone accumulators that absorb negative orgone and generate positive orgone."
Also note that the orgonite page has been deleted as nonsense and protected against re-creation. Silarius 01:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no evidence that there's such a thing as orgone. It's a theory proposed by Wilhelm Reich and is best redirected to his article. The stub as it stood suggested that orgone exists, which is a violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, a full house. :-)
What are the objections to redirecting? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
May i note that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and **not a warground to discuss the existence of anything**, althought the IRC channel get's heat up from time to time ;) I think that a good, well argumented scientificbased article, written using the well explained guidelines will be a great tribute to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.198.19 ( talk) 13:47, November 10, 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the findings of the scientists on the Special_relativity [1]page, can perhaps be used as a foundation for the scientific background of this article. See: [2]
I found an intresting chapter on the special relativity page (see chapter: Lack of an absolute reference frame), quoted here:
The principle of relativity, which states that there is no stationary reference frame, dates back to Galilei, and was incorporated into Newtonian Physics. However, in the late 19th century, the existence of electromagnetic waves led some physicists to suggest that the universe was filled with a substance known as "aether", which would act as the medium through which the vibrations traveled. The aether was thought to constitute an absolute reference frame against which speeds could be measured. In other words, the aether was the only fixed or motionless thing'''' in the universe. Aether supposedly had some wonderful properties: it was sufficiently elastic that it could support electromagnetic waves, and those waves could interact with matter, yet it offered no resistance to bodies passing through it. The results of various experiments, including the Michelson-Morley experiment, indicated that the Earth was always 'stationary' relative to the aether — something that was difficult to explain, since the Earth is in orbit around the Sun (Editor's note: unless the sun is the center of the universe, just like 200 years ago, the people thought the earth was flat, isn't that funny?). Einstein's elegant solution was to discard the notion of an aether and an absolute state of rest. Special relativity is formulated so as to not assume that any particular frame of reference is special; rather, in relativity, a system appears to observe the same laws of physics independent of an observer's velocity with respect to it.
Some people do not think that or agree that Orgone "theory" has:"been roundly criticised by the scientific and skeptical community." They say that "orgone research" has been done by scientists like Einstein, Galilei and of course Wilhelm Reich. However, a quick read will show that Einstein did a brief experiment on behalf of Reich and came to the conclusion that results were purely artifacts of the experiment method. This was the sum total of Einstein's involvement. Reich himself might have described himself as a scientist but clearly had no understanding whatsoever of proper scientific method. Many of his experiments gave totally predictable results which he didn't understand and then ascribed to magical properties of orgone. Other experiments were badly designed without proper controls, thus giving results which were utterly meaningless - but of course Reich immediately invented some new property of Orgone to explain them. It is fair to say that Orgone "theory" has been and continues to be been roundly criticised by the scientific and skeptical community.
For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Special_relativity
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.198.19 ( talk • contribs) 1:00 November 17, 2006
// Goodness, that is very confused: An equation "Aether" = "Orgone" is nonsense. The term "aether" has quite a long cultural history of its own, with different concepts and variants and shades covered by one term, plus misleading translations e.g. from sanskrit language. Reich gave descriptions of his own for what he considered to be "orgone"; just stick to HIS term and ideas when discussing this, whatever your opinion.
Be careful if you want your talk to appear meaningful. You even confused the name in the header, which I corrected: the gentleman was Galileo Galilei ! 147.142.186.54 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, my apologies for wasting space if this is intended as a prank, but after watching the Orgone related pages for quite some time, I am afraid that a significant number of people actually believe what they type even when they type something like this. The "plain nonsense" criterion seems to have been undermined long ago by the sheer number of people contesting any such labelling, otherwise the article would have been deleted ages ago. -- DrTorstenHenning 19:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Needs more information on why the FDA banned it. The link has nothing on why. It should be expanded on what tests they did to determine orgone was fake. SakotGrimshine 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In science, data should be given with the highest precision that can reasonably be achieved (within budget and time constraints, of course). In compiling literature references, precision comes at no cost and so there is no excuse for dates being given as imprecisely as a 1980s study. Specifically, one should get the numbers right. In 1986, two studies were published as diploma theses at the Philipps University in Marburg (Hessen, Germany), one by Stefan Müschenich (who most probably was not a "Dr." at this time, unless he got his PhD in an unrelated field and went back to undergraduate studies in psychology after that), and one by Rainer Gebauer [3]. If I understand the Wikipedia usage of the term "References" correctly, references are to point directly at a publication (which may be available electronically, but definitely need not be) supporting a specific fact stated in the article. Therefore, I do not know what a link to a whole literature list (that contains at least one error, as shown above) has to do in the References section. -- DrTorstenHenning 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In a previous version of the article, Demeo@mind.net stated that the Orgone related material was '"banned and burned" by the FDA', with quotation marks, so I assume this was a figure of speech more than an actual description of the action. In the latest edit, Max Terry changed this to 'collected and burned by the FDA', without quotation marks. While the former appears to be merely unpolite, the latter is a serious allegation against the FDA. Is there any indication that the FDA burned any scientific (data) material against the intention of its owner (if they collected material in the course of their investigation and then destroyed their copies after whatever time period may have been required for their retention, that is, of course, not objectionable)? -- DrTorstenHenning 20:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
James, please be aware that linking to http://www.orgonelab.org/bibliog.htm is not acceptable for providing citations. If you have meaningful additions to this article (instead of labeling critics as "organized skeptics" and implying they lack authenticity, rather than directly disputing their claims), please link to the ACTUAL ARTICLE providing your citation, not just a list of everything you've ever written. Alvis 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added quite a few specific citations to published studies done within universities, by people with credentials and scientific training, including a couple of my own publications. The link to the larger "Bibliography on Orgonomy" is in addition to those, and it is not constituted of materials by myself, but of several hundred different authors going back to the 1920s. If there are specific places where added citations are necessary, I will try to add them in. But I disagree that linking to my larger Bibliography is something improper. Nor has anyone been requested to "bow and scrape" to anything.
The problem is, most of the scientific people who hear about Reich's work will probably have got their information (misinformation) from either the professional "skeptics", or what Marcello Truzzi called the "pseudo-skeptics", who distort everything and merely resort to ridicule. Or they will survey the internet, and see the clearly unscientific references to things like "orgone generators", "orgonite" and so on, and mistakenly believe that is something which represents Reich's work with accuracy. It definitely does not, and that kind of material, along with the purely "skeptic" stuff, should not exist in any honestly-constructed article on Reich's orgone energy discovery. For example, I note some merchants on ebay hawking "orgone" devices which are purely nonsense, but they also sell "dark matter" devices. Should we judge "dark matter" theory on the basis of what non-scientists or internet hawkers say about it? No.
I've removed the more offensive and inaccurate "skeptic" statements and the references to "orgonite" things, etc., whenever possible, but don't have time to constantly come back to this page and review what has been added back in. Also, I must object to someone constantly adding in "allegedly" in front of every sentence where I cite published positive evidence in favor of Reich. These publications are available, can be obtained via inter-library loans or by direct purchase.
Also note, I came upon this article only a few months ago, found it appallingly prejudiced against Reich with many misstatements of fact, and so added in some citations and other corrections as best as possible. The article already contained references to "the scientific community" as a mechanism by which to attack Reich, as if no "authentic" scientists took Reich seriously. Personally I have a great respect for the scientific method and universities, but the claims and inferences that some undefined and monolithic "scientific community" had genuinely investigated Reich's work with objectivity and care, and hence rejected his findings based upon experimental review with negative results, was clearly unsupportable and false, and so I corrected it. In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of experimentally-derived evidence supports Reich's claims. The skeptics are correct to demand validation for that statement, and so I have provided a selection of citations along with a larger Bibliography with even more of the same. Nor did I add the "debunking" weblinks. But I chose to leave some of them to give the "skeptics" a place for their opinion in the article, even if I consider that opinion to be unsupportable and off-the-mark. J. DeMeo Demeo@mind.net 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The flag at the top says this contains no references. It contains several - I assume the flag is an old one. Could it be removed? MegdalePlace 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The article cites a few works in favour of Reich's theories, done as University thesis. I have just done minor corrections/amendmends of the translations of their titles from German.
I can also confirm, after a quick glance at the national scientific/scholarly electronic catalogue network, that the titles by authors Müschenich and Gebauer are indeed available today from the National Library (" Deutsche Nationalbibliothek") as well as from several University libraries in Germany. The Master's degree thesis by Günter Hebenstreit is listed by the Department of Vienna University, so one can confirm its existence online. So we have two pieces of research done at Departments of Psychology, which deal with the "Orac" (the one, in book form, has 266 pages / for the other one I do not know). Marburg is a traditional, centuries-old State-run University in the federal state Hessen [I think the British change that into " Hesse", perhaps for reasons of pronounciation, or whatever reason of theirs], not far from Frankfurt). The University of Vienna is in the capital city of Austria.
The medical dissertation by Stefan Müschenich (who obtained both a Master's degree in psychology and a Doctor's degree in medicine) (428 pages) does not center on the "Orac", as the title says. I found out that it is also held by two Britisch libraries, the British Library and the Wellcome Trust, both in London, which catalogue it under keywords "Medicine, psychosomatics" and "Preventive Medicine", respectively.
I also found that Mr Gebauer is today working as a psychologist (tests and consulting, I think), and Mr Müschenich is a practicing psychiatrist, both in Germany. I do not know anyone in that field personally, all information is from the Internet.
So that is a little bit, but not too much. No research in physics departments, and published in book form (in two cases) and available to readers who know German; but not in major journals or in English (except for Mr DeMeo's Master thesis on weather experiments).
Regards, 147.142.186.54 ( talk) 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Corrected and amended version: 147.142.186.54 ( talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It is sad how there is such a lack of true skeptics nowadays, expecially on sites such as these; Merely dogmatists and the lazy trounce about these decrepit places, it seems.
You assume something is unprovable, becuase YOU can't prove AND are unwilling to find someone who can or has a theory on it; then you ask why noone has proven it well enough already- If you are surrounded by people that think the way you are, then use objective-logic, and the answer becomes obvious. Now, onto other things: Reich- Yes, He was a crackpot (he did follow Freud, after all :-P ), but he did have some reasonable ideas, a lot of which is forever marred by his idiotic meshing of sex into everything. Orgonite- Yes, it does exist and minus all the fluff you read on the internet actually has scientifically interesting properties (OMG- there's fluff on the internet that covers up real stuff?!); Also, It was invented by Karl Welz as a Commerical enterprize, then popularized by Don Croft and his little crew; However, they have nothing to do with Reich, which makes the redirection quite iditiotic. Kasdaye ( talk) 14:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Famousdog ( talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The responisibility isn't on you for explaining any one phenomenom;
It is, of course, on everyone, or at least anyone who cares to help progress society...
...I, of course, could prove it, but am UnderFunded as it is.
You are incorrect in that I can find "lots" of True Skeptics especially in the main populace as perhaps you imply (?); I have found quite a few- but not "lots" :-P
Excuse me, if my tone ever rambles; And as a Skeptic as you claim (?) to be, your tone seems rather non-objective; But then again, Maybe it's me, or maybe my talk is offset as well, or whatever... Hope to hear replies from you or others soon:
"There is no such thing as good or evil. Thinking makes it so." Shakespeare (ParaPhrased) ( talk) 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain what we see in the image? I see some clouds, a stretch of blue sky, a pyramid-shaped device and an gun-like device. Which of the devices is the cloudbuster? In any case, what we see is not an experiment, but an experimental set-up that can be used in an experiment. Do we have any info on which experiments were conducted with this set-up? If not, I suggest that we remove the image as "just a pretty picture" that does not improve the content of the article. -- DrTorstenHenning ( talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors should stop acting like bunch of wusses when it comes to bull*hit. Did anyone read about the stupidities that are associated with this? Every damn thing in nature, like blueness of the sky, is explained with this (of course, no New Ager knows what rayleigh scattering is!) and there is lot of nonsense added.
Orgone Theory has been roundly criticised by the scientific and skeptical community. NO. Orgone theory is bull*hit and should be handled like that. I could imagine and make a theory about monster cookies that are alive during the night, and make an article, and everyone would be so careful in order not to hurt my feelings?
Anyone with a mild scientific knowledge should be able to understand that this has no validity, let alone individuals who know it better. For God sake, wikipedia is scientific. This is not.
Endimion17 1:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
--
You will need a much better source than what you have to keep your edit as it stands, or I will revert again. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Do sources support orgone as vitalism and should pseudoscience go in lead?
Actually, dear old thing, you just removed the Kelley citation! You have to CITE WHICH POINTS you mean, not make general accusations. You have to CITE A NOTABLE SOURCE which has the authority to decide what is science, not a journalist's polemic with which you happen to agree. Otherwise, why not have Burroughs in the lede??
Do sources support orgone as vitalism and should pseudoscience go in lead?
Informal skeptical resources online agree with Reich's biographers. The concept of orgone was influenced by an appeal to the vitalists of the 1920s in an attempt to render the Freudian libido susceptible to physical experiment. Reich himself attests this. Hans Driesch, Alexander Gurwitsch, Weiss and Kammerer. It must also be remembered that Freud's ideas on hypnosis, the unconscious and the id derive from ultimately Mesmerian concepts. They were stripped of their "force" aspect, Reich tried rightly or wrongly to put it back.
Most biologists, I think, consider vitalism superseded by the grand synthesis. Most physicists will agree that his experiments in that direction were inadequate. So there are two questions; 1 was this "pseudo-science" in 1938, and 2 has it become so since? If there is a reliable indication of an informed consensus on this issue it would be welcome, but 50s journalists affected by Reich's ex-communism and sexual liberationism are insufficient. Please help ensure that fairness to Reich himself provides no kind of support for commercial goods and services based on insufficient grounds. Redheylin ( talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Claims of consensus
Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Redheylin ( talk) 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you guys do need outside input (: There are ArbCom decissions about this very issue. As far as "pseudoscience," it is well sourced to Gardner, but only if attributed. Just attribute it, and you've got it. You may be interested in the current debate on this issue at WP:FRINGE.
However, the vitalism claim is not well sourced. Skepdic is a highly POV source -it says so itself-, and should be used for opinions, not claims of fact. You need a much better source for calling it vitalism. It is, however, obivous that it is a form of vitalism, and you ought to be able to find a source. Alternately, why do you need a source, as it should not be disputed?
Quackwatch has also been noted as a highly POV source by the Arbitration Committee, and should not be used for unattributed claims of fact.
If you don't want to take my word on it just let me know and I'll give you the links. Here is the one on Quackwatch [4]. I also think there was a RS noticeboard discussion about it, but maybe not. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here are more links [5] [6]. On the issue of smoothing it over, it certainly doesn't look smoothed over to me. "Reich's orgone theories were quickly criticised as pseudoscience[2] and the continuing "goofy" applications of his ideas continue to receive such criticism.[7] In 1954 the FDA successfully sought an injunction to prevent Reich from making claims relating to orgone.[8]" What's smoothed over? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
and is generally regarded as a pseudoscience in the field of psychology. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The use of these journalists has been covered by Martinphi above. The last ref is to a pay-site, which is deprecated. Please provide a verbatim quote from this paper affirming that orgone is psychological pseudoscience. Please note that you have removed references to vitalism and then asserted there was no such reference. Please replace the reference if you wish to avoid vandalism. Redheylin ( talk) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the citation of three publications dedicated to pseudoscience should suffice. They suffice to assert that journalists dedicated to making a fast buck out of "outing" pseudoscientists pick on Reich. That was never a problem. Calling it any kind of consensus is the problem. I can easily find three people who think Reich almost superhuman. I'd like to ask you people to act like you talk and seek arbitration. Your editing is disruptive pushing of a POV, lacking civility, lacking knowledge. Redheylin ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin bound and determined to destroy this article, obviously discussion with him is pointless, is there anyone else following this that has some advise? Tmtoulouse ( talk) 01:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin what is your problem? Seriously? Your edits are completely unacceptable and actionable, stop it. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 02:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Reich's theory has been repeatedly classed as pseudoscience by . [1] [5] [6] This opinion is not notable and not neutral. If it i to go in the lede it must be balanced. It cannot be presented as any kind of scientific consensus. Please replace the references you removed, thanks. Please outline any factual inaccuracies if you want the tag to stay. Redheylin ( talk) 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (August 2008) |
what facts are disputed please? Redheylin ( talk) 05:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry - I have reviewed a dozen serious and neutral accounts of Reich - I cannot find your favourite word anywhere!
It's fairly simple. Orgone was proposed as a scientific theory. It had no reproducible results and provided nothing of value to either science or medicine, yet it persists in being represented as scientific by a small core of true believers. The scientific establishment judges what is scientific based on the predictions it makes and how the results it produces bear out those predictions; orgone theory doesn't even come close to any of that, as Reich's biology is complete nonsense and no physicist has ever shown repeatable evidence of orgone energy's existence. Orgone is textbook pseudoscience. Haikupoet ( talk) 05:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It applies if well attributed to an RS. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a really bad source [8]. this is a bad source for a statement of pseudoscience. So, if there are no others, please provide a quote from Gardner where he calls orgone pseudoscientific, and attribute the "pseudoscience" to his book or to him, and put it back in. Some mention of criticism in the lead is justified, and this will do fine, since people want to say "pseudoscience." —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Where are those sources? Could you provide a link to the version? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the text that has been repeatedly removed:
Reich's theory has been repeatedly classed as pseudoscience by critics. [1] [7] [8] In the 1950s all reference to orgone was banned by the US Food and Drugs Authority.
Tmtoulouse ( talk) 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You guys want to put a draft in my userspace? I'll make sure that edit warring doesn't work, by reverting to wherever an edit war started. The rest of it you can do yourselves. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
HERE IS THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE FDA ON PUTATIVE ENERGY, WHICH EFFECTIVELY LEGALISES ORGONE THERAPY http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/altmed.pdf.
Putative energy fields (or biofields) that have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods. According to NCCAM, therapies involving putative energy fields “are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy” and therapists “claim that they work with this subtle energy, see it with their own eyes, and use it to effect changes in the physical body and influence health.” In a sense, “conventional” medicine already uses various forms of “energy” medicine.
My version of have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods was;
"putative energy" - one which well may not exist, but which provides a paradigm or belief-system to explain claimed clinical benefits.
For this TMT substituted (having removed the passage from its balancing role in the lede);
"putative energy" - one which has failed any measurement, but provides some therapist a paradigm for clinical procedures.
but "have defied.....reproducible methods" DOES mean "may not exist" and does NOT mean "HAS FAILED". If there are "FAILED" tests then bring on the "FAILED" tests. Then we can write to the US govt and tell them and no doubt they will drop orgone from the list of devices that may be used. Till then;
CAM products that use putative energy fields in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animals may be medical devices under the Act. For example, we regulate acupuncture needles as “class II” medical devices
and the NCCAM site specifies orgone as included, so this is a climbdown by the FDA. Really even "defied" is a little strong in this context. The FDA should come out and say "there have been no tests on orgone because, at the height of America's political power, the US govt made such tests ilegal." So I do see the skeptics' problem. All I can say is, now they have let up there is every chance to repeat the tests cited in the article, so all being well we will know the truth in a little while, Right now, we do not know. Redheylin ( talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm anti-anti-pseudoscientist (as an editing style for WP), as are all NPOV editors. But I'm not anti sources. I think we should start with a version which 1) includes the pseudoscience statement and 2) is a while back before the recent edit warring started. Edit warring like that should always be made useless. Gardner is a notable skeptic of these kinds of concepts. As long as attributed, you can even use sources such as James Randi. If the talk page of my userspace is also used, I will remove any edits such as those which begin "Wow you are amazingly disingenuous." They can, of course, be re-inserted without the PAs. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the whole point is re-writing the whole article, but do take some version of the current one as a starting point, as some versions have some balance.
Any POV is POV, whether it is anti or pro. So an anti POV is not NPOV.
I could put up two versions, and you two could work on them, and then we could combine the POVs on a third page. Which, with the right attribution, ought to be pretty easy to make NPOV. Same rules would apply to talk pages though, so if you wanted to quarrel you'd have to come here. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I have conducted much research into Orgone energy. I didnt spot any errors in this account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.135.135 ( talk) 00:53, September 2, 2006 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "Orgon energy." The article states "These theories are considered pseudoscience," yet a theory explains and describes a natural phenomena: orgon energy is not a natural phenomena, and there is no theory of orgon energy. At the very least, "theory" should be replaced in this article: at best the article should be removed since it is utter bullshit. The very least is that the article should note right at the start that there is no such thing as "orgon energy." -- Desertphile, October 29, 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.86 ( talk) 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up some sentence structure and punctuation problems here. I also changed the claim that ki, prana, etc., are synonyms for orgone, as this is an oversimplification. It is more accurate to say that orgone is a similar concept.
And I removed this, because it seems like an advertisement to me:
" Don Croft, author of the book "The life etheric with Carol Croft" has taken orgone research to a next stage with the discovery of orgonite. Small orgone accumulators that absorb negative orgone and generate positive orgone."
Also note that the orgonite page has been deleted as nonsense and protected against re-creation. Silarius 01:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
There's no evidence that there's such a thing as orgone. It's a theory proposed by Wilhelm Reich and is best redirected to his article. The stub as it stood suggested that orgone exists, which is a violation of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV, a full house. :-)
What are the objections to redirecting? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
May i note that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and **not a warground to discuss the existence of anything**, althought the IRC channel get's heat up from time to time ;) I think that a good, well argumented scientificbased article, written using the well explained guidelines will be a great tribute to the encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.198.19 ( talk) 13:47, November 10, 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the findings of the scientists on the Special_relativity [1]page, can perhaps be used as a foundation for the scientific background of this article. See: [2]
I found an intresting chapter on the special relativity page (see chapter: Lack of an absolute reference frame), quoted here:
The principle of relativity, which states that there is no stationary reference frame, dates back to Galilei, and was incorporated into Newtonian Physics. However, in the late 19th century, the existence of electromagnetic waves led some physicists to suggest that the universe was filled with a substance known as "aether", which would act as the medium through which the vibrations traveled. The aether was thought to constitute an absolute reference frame against which speeds could be measured. In other words, the aether was the only fixed or motionless thing'''' in the universe. Aether supposedly had some wonderful properties: it was sufficiently elastic that it could support electromagnetic waves, and those waves could interact with matter, yet it offered no resistance to bodies passing through it. The results of various experiments, including the Michelson-Morley experiment, indicated that the Earth was always 'stationary' relative to the aether — something that was difficult to explain, since the Earth is in orbit around the Sun (Editor's note: unless the sun is the center of the universe, just like 200 years ago, the people thought the earth was flat, isn't that funny?). Einstein's elegant solution was to discard the notion of an aether and an absolute state of rest. Special relativity is formulated so as to not assume that any particular frame of reference is special; rather, in relativity, a system appears to observe the same laws of physics independent of an observer's velocity with respect to it.
Some people do not think that or agree that Orgone "theory" has:"been roundly criticised by the scientific and skeptical community." They say that "orgone research" has been done by scientists like Einstein, Galilei and of course Wilhelm Reich. However, a quick read will show that Einstein did a brief experiment on behalf of Reich and came to the conclusion that results were purely artifacts of the experiment method. This was the sum total of Einstein's involvement. Reich himself might have described himself as a scientist but clearly had no understanding whatsoever of proper scientific method. Many of his experiments gave totally predictable results which he didn't understand and then ascribed to magical properties of orgone. Other experiments were badly designed without proper controls, thus giving results which were utterly meaningless - but of course Reich immediately invented some new property of Orgone to explain them. It is fair to say that Orgone "theory" has been and continues to be been roundly criticised by the scientific and skeptical community.
For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Special_relativity
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.198.19 ( talk • contribs) 1:00 November 17, 2006
// Goodness, that is very confused: An equation "Aether" = "Orgone" is nonsense. The term "aether" has quite a long cultural history of its own, with different concepts and variants and shades covered by one term, plus misleading translations e.g. from sanskrit language. Reich gave descriptions of his own for what he considered to be "orgone"; just stick to HIS term and ideas when discussing this, whatever your opinion.
Be careful if you want your talk to appear meaningful. You even confused the name in the header, which I corrected: the gentleman was Galileo Galilei ! 147.142.186.54 15:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, my apologies for wasting space if this is intended as a prank, but after watching the Orgone related pages for quite some time, I am afraid that a significant number of people actually believe what they type even when they type something like this. The "plain nonsense" criterion seems to have been undermined long ago by the sheer number of people contesting any such labelling, otherwise the article would have been deleted ages ago. -- DrTorstenHenning 19:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Needs more information on why the FDA banned it. The link has nothing on why. It should be expanded on what tests they did to determine orgone was fake. SakotGrimshine 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In science, data should be given with the highest precision that can reasonably be achieved (within budget and time constraints, of course). In compiling literature references, precision comes at no cost and so there is no excuse for dates being given as imprecisely as a 1980s study. Specifically, one should get the numbers right. In 1986, two studies were published as diploma theses at the Philipps University in Marburg (Hessen, Germany), one by Stefan Müschenich (who most probably was not a "Dr." at this time, unless he got his PhD in an unrelated field and went back to undergraduate studies in psychology after that), and one by Rainer Gebauer [3]. If I understand the Wikipedia usage of the term "References" correctly, references are to point directly at a publication (which may be available electronically, but definitely need not be) supporting a specific fact stated in the article. Therefore, I do not know what a link to a whole literature list (that contains at least one error, as shown above) has to do in the References section. -- DrTorstenHenning 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In a previous version of the article, Demeo@mind.net stated that the Orgone related material was '"banned and burned" by the FDA', with quotation marks, so I assume this was a figure of speech more than an actual description of the action. In the latest edit, Max Terry changed this to 'collected and burned by the FDA', without quotation marks. While the former appears to be merely unpolite, the latter is a serious allegation against the FDA. Is there any indication that the FDA burned any scientific (data) material against the intention of its owner (if they collected material in the course of their investigation and then destroyed their copies after whatever time period may have been required for their retention, that is, of course, not objectionable)? -- DrTorstenHenning 20:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
James, please be aware that linking to http://www.orgonelab.org/bibliog.htm is not acceptable for providing citations. If you have meaningful additions to this article (instead of labeling critics as "organized skeptics" and implying they lack authenticity, rather than directly disputing their claims), please link to the ACTUAL ARTICLE providing your citation, not just a list of everything you've ever written. Alvis 04:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have added quite a few specific citations to published studies done within universities, by people with credentials and scientific training, including a couple of my own publications. The link to the larger "Bibliography on Orgonomy" is in addition to those, and it is not constituted of materials by myself, but of several hundred different authors going back to the 1920s. If there are specific places where added citations are necessary, I will try to add them in. But I disagree that linking to my larger Bibliography is something improper. Nor has anyone been requested to "bow and scrape" to anything.
The problem is, most of the scientific people who hear about Reich's work will probably have got their information (misinformation) from either the professional "skeptics", or what Marcello Truzzi called the "pseudo-skeptics", who distort everything and merely resort to ridicule. Or they will survey the internet, and see the clearly unscientific references to things like "orgone generators", "orgonite" and so on, and mistakenly believe that is something which represents Reich's work with accuracy. It definitely does not, and that kind of material, along with the purely "skeptic" stuff, should not exist in any honestly-constructed article on Reich's orgone energy discovery. For example, I note some merchants on ebay hawking "orgone" devices which are purely nonsense, but they also sell "dark matter" devices. Should we judge "dark matter" theory on the basis of what non-scientists or internet hawkers say about it? No.
I've removed the more offensive and inaccurate "skeptic" statements and the references to "orgonite" things, etc., whenever possible, but don't have time to constantly come back to this page and review what has been added back in. Also, I must object to someone constantly adding in "allegedly" in front of every sentence where I cite published positive evidence in favor of Reich. These publications are available, can be obtained via inter-library loans or by direct purchase.
Also note, I came upon this article only a few months ago, found it appallingly prejudiced against Reich with many misstatements of fact, and so added in some citations and other corrections as best as possible. The article already contained references to "the scientific community" as a mechanism by which to attack Reich, as if no "authentic" scientists took Reich seriously. Personally I have a great respect for the scientific method and universities, but the claims and inferences that some undefined and monolithic "scientific community" had genuinely investigated Reich's work with objectivity and care, and hence rejected his findings based upon experimental review with negative results, was clearly unsupportable and false, and so I corrected it. In fact, the overwhelming preponderance of experimentally-derived evidence supports Reich's claims. The skeptics are correct to demand validation for that statement, and so I have provided a selection of citations along with a larger Bibliography with even more of the same. Nor did I add the "debunking" weblinks. But I chose to leave some of them to give the "skeptics" a place for their opinion in the article, even if I consider that opinion to be unsupportable and off-the-mark. J. DeMeo Demeo@mind.net 18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
The flag at the top says this contains no references. It contains several - I assume the flag is an old one. Could it be removed? MegdalePlace 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
The article cites a few works in favour of Reich's theories, done as University thesis. I have just done minor corrections/amendmends of the translations of their titles from German.
I can also confirm, after a quick glance at the national scientific/scholarly electronic catalogue network, that the titles by authors Müschenich and Gebauer are indeed available today from the National Library (" Deutsche Nationalbibliothek") as well as from several University libraries in Germany. The Master's degree thesis by Günter Hebenstreit is listed by the Department of Vienna University, so one can confirm its existence online. So we have two pieces of research done at Departments of Psychology, which deal with the "Orac" (the one, in book form, has 266 pages / for the other one I do not know). Marburg is a traditional, centuries-old State-run University in the federal state Hessen [I think the British change that into " Hesse", perhaps for reasons of pronounciation, or whatever reason of theirs], not far from Frankfurt). The University of Vienna is in the capital city of Austria.
The medical dissertation by Stefan Müschenich (who obtained both a Master's degree in psychology and a Doctor's degree in medicine) (428 pages) does not center on the "Orac", as the title says. I found out that it is also held by two Britisch libraries, the British Library and the Wellcome Trust, both in London, which catalogue it under keywords "Medicine, psychosomatics" and "Preventive Medicine", respectively.
I also found that Mr Gebauer is today working as a psychologist (tests and consulting, I think), and Mr Müschenich is a practicing psychiatrist, both in Germany. I do not know anyone in that field personally, all information is from the Internet.
So that is a little bit, but not too much. No research in physics departments, and published in book form (in two cases) and available to readers who know German; but not in major journals or in English (except for Mr DeMeo's Master thesis on weather experiments).
Regards, 147.142.186.54 ( talk) 19:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Corrected and amended version: 147.142.186.54 ( talk) 18:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
It is sad how there is such a lack of true skeptics nowadays, expecially on sites such as these; Merely dogmatists and the lazy trounce about these decrepit places, it seems.
You assume something is unprovable, becuase YOU can't prove AND are unwilling to find someone who can or has a theory on it; then you ask why noone has proven it well enough already- If you are surrounded by people that think the way you are, then use objective-logic, and the answer becomes obvious. Now, onto other things: Reich- Yes, He was a crackpot (he did follow Freud, after all :-P ), but he did have some reasonable ideas, a lot of which is forever marred by his idiotic meshing of sex into everything. Orgonite- Yes, it does exist and minus all the fluff you read on the internet actually has scientifically interesting properties (OMG- there's fluff on the internet that covers up real stuff?!); Also, It was invented by Karl Welz as a Commerical enterprize, then popularized by Don Croft and his little crew; However, they have nothing to do with Reich, which makes the redirection quite iditiotic. Kasdaye ( talk) 14:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Famousdog ( talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
The responisibility isn't on you for explaining any one phenomenom;
It is, of course, on everyone, or at least anyone who cares to help progress society...
...I, of course, could prove it, but am UnderFunded as it is.
You are incorrect in that I can find "lots" of True Skeptics especially in the main populace as perhaps you imply (?); I have found quite a few- but not "lots" :-P
Excuse me, if my tone ever rambles; And as a Skeptic as you claim (?) to be, your tone seems rather non-objective; But then again, Maybe it's me, or maybe my talk is offset as well, or whatever... Hope to hear replies from you or others soon:
"There is no such thing as good or evil. Thinking makes it so." Shakespeare (ParaPhrased) ( talk) 13:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Could someone explain what we see in the image? I see some clouds, a stretch of blue sky, a pyramid-shaped device and an gun-like device. Which of the devices is the cloudbuster? In any case, what we see is not an experiment, but an experimental set-up that can be used in an experiment. Do we have any info on which experiments were conducted with this set-up? If not, I suggest that we remove the image as "just a pretty picture" that does not improve the content of the article. -- DrTorstenHenning ( talk) 08:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors should stop acting like bunch of wusses when it comes to bull*hit. Did anyone read about the stupidities that are associated with this? Every damn thing in nature, like blueness of the sky, is explained with this (of course, no New Ager knows what rayleigh scattering is!) and there is lot of nonsense added.
Orgone Theory has been roundly criticised by the scientific and skeptical community. NO. Orgone theory is bull*hit and should be handled like that. I could imagine and make a theory about monster cookies that are alive during the night, and make an article, and everyone would be so careful in order not to hurt my feelings?
Anyone with a mild scientific knowledge should be able to understand that this has no validity, let alone individuals who know it better. For God sake, wikipedia is scientific. This is not.
Endimion17 1:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
--
You will need a much better source than what you have to keep your edit as it stands, or I will revert again. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Do sources support orgone as vitalism and should pseudoscience go in lead?
Actually, dear old thing, you just removed the Kelley citation! You have to CITE WHICH POINTS you mean, not make general accusations. You have to CITE A NOTABLE SOURCE which has the authority to decide what is science, not a journalist's polemic with which you happen to agree. Otherwise, why not have Burroughs in the lede??
Do sources support orgone as vitalism and should pseudoscience go in lead?
Informal skeptical resources online agree with Reich's biographers. The concept of orgone was influenced by an appeal to the vitalists of the 1920s in an attempt to render the Freudian libido susceptible to physical experiment. Reich himself attests this. Hans Driesch, Alexander Gurwitsch, Weiss and Kammerer. It must also be remembered that Freud's ideas on hypnosis, the unconscious and the id derive from ultimately Mesmerian concepts. They were stripped of their "force" aspect, Reich tried rightly or wrongly to put it back.
Most biologists, I think, consider vitalism superseded by the grand synthesis. Most physicists will agree that his experiments in that direction were inadequate. So there are two questions; 1 was this "pseudo-science" in 1938, and 2 has it become so since? If there is a reliable indication of an informed consensus on this issue it would be welcome, but 50s journalists affected by Reich's ex-communism and sexual liberationism are insufficient. Please help ensure that fairness to Reich himself provides no kind of support for commercial goods and services based on insufficient grounds. Redheylin ( talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Claims of consensus
Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Redheylin ( talk) 22:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you guys do need outside input (: There are ArbCom decissions about this very issue. As far as "pseudoscience," it is well sourced to Gardner, but only if attributed. Just attribute it, and you've got it. You may be interested in the current debate on this issue at WP:FRINGE.
However, the vitalism claim is not well sourced. Skepdic is a highly POV source -it says so itself-, and should be used for opinions, not claims of fact. You need a much better source for calling it vitalism. It is, however, obivous that it is a form of vitalism, and you ought to be able to find a source. Alternately, why do you need a source, as it should not be disputed?
Quackwatch has also been noted as a highly POV source by the Arbitration Committee, and should not be used for unattributed claims of fact.
If you don't want to take my word on it just let me know and I'll give you the links. Here is the one on Quackwatch [4]. I also think there was a RS noticeboard discussion about it, but maybe not. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, here are more links [5] [6]. On the issue of smoothing it over, it certainly doesn't look smoothed over to me. "Reich's orgone theories were quickly criticised as pseudoscience[2] and the continuing "goofy" applications of his ideas continue to receive such criticism.[7] In 1954 the FDA successfully sought an injunction to prevent Reich from making claims relating to orgone.[8]" What's smoothed over? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
and is generally regarded as a pseudoscience in the field of psychology. [1] [2] [3] [4]
The use of these journalists has been covered by Martinphi above. The last ref is to a pay-site, which is deprecated. Please provide a verbatim quote from this paper affirming that orgone is psychological pseudoscience. Please note that you have removed references to vitalism and then asserted there was no such reference. Please replace the reference if you wish to avoid vandalism. Redheylin ( talk) 18:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the citation of three publications dedicated to pseudoscience should suffice. They suffice to assert that journalists dedicated to making a fast buck out of "outing" pseudoscientists pick on Reich. That was never a problem. Calling it any kind of consensus is the problem. I can easily find three people who think Reich almost superhuman. I'd like to ask you people to act like you talk and seek arbitration. Your editing is disruptive pushing of a POV, lacking civility, lacking knowledge. Redheylin ( talk) 23:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin bound and determined to destroy this article, obviously discussion with him is pointless, is there anyone else following this that has some advise? Tmtoulouse ( talk) 01:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Redheylin what is your problem? Seriously? Your edits are completely unacceptable and actionable, stop it. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 02:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Reich's theory has been repeatedly classed as pseudoscience by . [1] [5] [6] This opinion is not notable and not neutral. If it i to go in the lede it must be balanced. It cannot be presented as any kind of scientific consensus. Please replace the references you removed, thanks. Please outline any factual inaccuracies if you want the tag to stay. Redheylin ( talk) 02:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This article's factual accuracy is
disputed. (August 2008) |
what facts are disputed please? Redheylin ( talk) 05:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry - I have reviewed a dozen serious and neutral accounts of Reich - I cannot find your favourite word anywhere!
It's fairly simple. Orgone was proposed as a scientific theory. It had no reproducible results and provided nothing of value to either science or medicine, yet it persists in being represented as scientific by a small core of true believers. The scientific establishment judges what is scientific based on the predictions it makes and how the results it produces bear out those predictions; orgone theory doesn't even come close to any of that, as Reich's biology is complete nonsense and no physicist has ever shown repeatable evidence of orgone energy's existence. Orgone is textbook pseudoscience. Haikupoet ( talk) 05:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
It applies if well attributed to an RS. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a really bad source [8]. this is a bad source for a statement of pseudoscience. So, if there are no others, please provide a quote from Gardner where he calls orgone pseudoscientific, and attribute the "pseudoscience" to his book or to him, and put it back in. Some mention of criticism in the lead is justified, and this will do fine, since people want to say "pseudoscience." —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Where are those sources? Could you provide a link to the version? —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Here is the text that has been repeatedly removed:
Reich's theory has been repeatedly classed as pseudoscience by critics. [1] [7] [8] In the 1950s all reference to orgone was banned by the US Food and Drugs Authority.
Tmtoulouse ( talk) 06:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
You guys want to put a draft in my userspace? I'll make sure that edit warring doesn't work, by reverting to wherever an edit war started. The rest of it you can do yourselves. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
HERE IS THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE FDA ON PUTATIVE ENERGY, WHICH EFFECTIVELY LEGALISES ORGONE THERAPY http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/altmed.pdf.
Putative energy fields (or biofields) that have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods. According to NCCAM, therapies involving putative energy fields “are based on the concept that human beings are infused with a subtle form of energy” and therapists “claim that they work with this subtle energy, see it with their own eyes, and use it to effect changes in the physical body and influence health.” In a sense, “conventional” medicine already uses various forms of “energy” medicine.
My version of have defied measurement to date by reproducible methods was;
"putative energy" - one which well may not exist, but which provides a paradigm or belief-system to explain claimed clinical benefits.
For this TMT substituted (having removed the passage from its balancing role in the lede);
"putative energy" - one which has failed any measurement, but provides some therapist a paradigm for clinical procedures.
but "have defied.....reproducible methods" DOES mean "may not exist" and does NOT mean "HAS FAILED". If there are "FAILED" tests then bring on the "FAILED" tests. Then we can write to the US govt and tell them and no doubt they will drop orgone from the list of devices that may be used. Till then;
CAM products that use putative energy fields in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animals may be medical devices under the Act. For example, we regulate acupuncture needles as “class II” medical devices
and the NCCAM site specifies orgone as included, so this is a climbdown by the FDA. Really even "defied" is a little strong in this context. The FDA should come out and say "there have been no tests on orgone because, at the height of America's political power, the US govt made such tests ilegal." So I do see the skeptics' problem. All I can say is, now they have let up there is every chance to repeat the tests cited in the article, so all being well we will know the truth in a little while, Right now, we do not know. Redheylin ( talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm anti-anti-pseudoscientist (as an editing style for WP), as are all NPOV editors. But I'm not anti sources. I think we should start with a version which 1) includes the pseudoscience statement and 2) is a while back before the recent edit warring started. Edit warring like that should always be made useless. Gardner is a notable skeptic of these kinds of concepts. As long as attributed, you can even use sources such as James Randi. If the talk page of my userspace is also used, I will remove any edits such as those which begin "Wow you are amazingly disingenuous." They can, of course, be re-inserted without the PAs. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the whole point is re-writing the whole article, but do take some version of the current one as a starting point, as some versions have some balance.
Any POV is POV, whether it is anti or pro. So an anti POV is not NPOV.
I could put up two versions, and you two could work on them, and then we could combine the POVs on a third page. Which, with the right attribution, ought to be pretty easy to make NPOV. Same rules would apply to talk pages though, so if you wanted to quarrel you'd have to come here. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)