This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Orgone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 February 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Isn't this just a load of pseudoscientific waffle with no solid evidence to back it up? I'm quite shocked at how biased the article is, and there's not even any flag to say so! Shame on you, credulous wikipedians. Gymnophoria ( talk) 23:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is one of the most shocking on widipedia. For something so unscientific, the word pseudoscience has been pushed from the article (it used to be in the opening paragraph) to a category tag at the end, by people trying to protect their "Orgone Generators" on ebay, along with the interests of the American College of Orgonomy. Please don't let this be a safe haven where ex scientologists can come to flog a new product. 86.147.131.172 ( talk) 05:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The first mention of "pseudoscience" is now at the end of the (quite long) first paragraph. I am going to move it to the first sentence, as that is one of the defining concepts of this article.– Jérôme ( talk) 06:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of biased opinions being expressed here. All approaches should be expressed even those outside the opinions of a biased editor. This is an objective document and not an editorial. Who ever removed the citations of the double-blind university studies replicating the effects of Orgone did this site and its readers a disservice Normana400 ( talk) 06:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Many fields of study and scientific theories seem to be incorrectly categorized as either a legimate science or a pseudoscience based upon it's marketability by those who own or run the world's industries. If the theory and studies reinforce the mainstream narrative and can be used to boost sales of the materials controlled by these entities it is called legitimate by well know to be corrupt and fallible institutions while adversely if the studies and theories presented are a threat somehow to these institutions power and marketability ultimately meaning their sales and profits it is labeled as pseudoscience and railroaded by the entrenched power elites. The veracity of any claims by any source should be questioned and verifiable yet when the "trusted" sources most often referenced are in fact owned and controlled by the same power elite circles and have a vested interest in shutting down certain fields of study and research that could result in loss of sales of the materials in the industries they have the control in then that makes me question the integrity of these "trusted" sources and I have great difficulty in crediting trustworthiness, honesty, or honorable intent to any type of Governmental Agency or the privately owned companies that lobby to and do business with governmental agencies. It is a fallacy for fools to trust the words or to give benefit of the doubt to governmental agencies or the companies catered to and by them when history as well as current events shows time and again irrefutable proof of widespread corruption and dubious intent for the words and actions taken by them. It seems like the "trusted" resources are more often than not the very ones that are guilty of spreading misinformation and making false claims. This obviously makes it extremely difficult to verify as valid any information without doing the research and performing the experiments for oneself. The government's have shown the people all throughout history that to they cannot be trusted to control what information is available and taught as a curriculum in academia or spread as news to the masses. Not once throughout known history has this ever turned out to benefit the majority over the few at the top. I believe referring to any theory or field of study as a pseudoscience as if it is an unquestionable idiocy to pursue the subject any further should be recognized as a red flag warning that the following explanation of information is very likely to be from a controlled source that is pushing the mainstream narrative and as such are highly questionable sources with next to zero credibility when it comes to complete disclosure of truth and unbiased information. similar to the saying "don't trust anyone who says trust me" anyone whom claims to share information in an unbiased manner is very likely sharing extremely biased information in an unbiased manner. When the label on a box says "made without child labor" the first thing I think is "these guys are enslaving children somewhere" simply because the only reason one would have for having that label on a product is if they are known to be guilty of such crimes already. Just pointing out what should be obvious and my point is this. More caution should be exercised in the definitions given here. Definitively labeling something as a pseudoscience is a dangerous precedent to set when so many things initially dismissed as rubbish and false information has proven overtime to actually be legitimate and beneficial to the majority and was being blasted because it revealed the less honorable manipulations of the few in charge. To keep the definition completely unbiased and factual it ought to read more like "has been labeled a pseudoscience" by such and such at these points in time. This is stating a verifiable fact whereas definitive labels are often not. BoriginalB ( talk) 04:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
This page needs some work to make it clear there is no basis or purpose for the topic beyond idle amusement, and as such I removed a large portion of the rather bloated lede which had no purpose. A significant portion of it was rather heavily laden with excessive documentation which frankly only served to obfuscate the ability of someone to edit the article. I also discarded the section of it regarding the FDA legal issues as that was a blatant attempt at martyrdom right from the get-go. That particular story can be placed in the history section of the article. 98.30.32.217 ( talk) 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to edit the information about Orgone as it is characterized as pseudoscience which is not. In my Edit Statement while trying to edit the article I typed the following: According to the two books of Wilhelm Reich about the discovery of Orgone, The Function of the Orgasm: Sex-Economic Problems of Biological Energy (The Discovery of the Orgone, Vol. 1) and The Cancer Biopathy (The Discovery of Orgone, Vol. 2) there are evidences included such as calculations, photos and other various results like the thermal anomaly recorded in the Orgone energy accumulator. So the references stating that Orgone is pseudoscience are false. So I would like to remove them.
I have read both books and they are cosistant, full of evidences and proofs that Orgone exists. Also I have read the Cosmic Superimposition by Wilhelm Reich and wanted to mention in the Edit Statement that there are many citations in Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine accepting and supporting the Orgone, but I could not type the last ones as there is a character letter limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focton ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that most discussions on this page were and are concerned with the question whether orgone is pseudoscientific. May I just try to clarify the discussion for future edits? I think four things need to be distinguished:
1. whether 'orgone' is a scientific or pseudoscientific concept.
2. whether 'orgone' is regarded by the scientific community as a scientific or pseudoscientific concept.
3. whether 'orgone', if it is a scientific concept, has been proven or disproven experimentally.
4. whether such experiments are published in what wikipedia considers 'reliable sources'.
Now, the first point has nothing to do with the question whether orgone 'exists' or 'does not exist'. Neither is it concerned with the question whether orgone has been proven or disproven. The question is whether the concept orgone allows for falsification, conforming to the scientific method. For example. Henry Bergson's idea of an elan vital (life energy) was a philosophical idea, not a scientific concept. As far as I know, he did not claim to know experiments that could proof or disprove his theory. In the case of Wilhelm Reich and Orgone energy, the story is different. Numerous experiments are discussed by Reich and have been repeated by others in relation to the orgone energy accumulator (including by Einstein for Christ's sake!), such as: a temperature differences, bodily temperature differences, electroscopic discharge rate, growth rate of seedlings, reducing cancer symptoms including limiting and reversing of tumor growth, blue glowing of vacuum tubes, blue glowing of charged red blood cells, etc. etc. As such, experiments appear to exist that are 'claimed' by Reich to proof the existence of orgone energy. If Reich indeed had formulated a coherent theory, and if such experimental outcomes would contrast with what is possible according to prevailing theory, then you could say orgone is a scientific concept. Just to add here: Einstein repeated Reich's temperature experiment, observed the same anomalous temperature difference, however, he resorted to an alternative theory to explain this difference discarding the necessity for the existence of a new energy (but he refused to redo the experiment in which he would apply control procedures suggested by Reich that could rule out the possibility his own explanation was false, which frustrated Reich enormously - all this as a side note).
Now, the second point concerns the question of whether other, independent sources agree that orgone is a scientific concept, or think of it as pseudoscientific. This need not bear any relation to the 'truth' of the matter, which is especially concerning as there is loads of false and weak information on Reich and his work, presented by others as 'fact'. Many of the sources cited claiming orgone as pseudoscience are not scientific sources at all. They are mostly popular literature, relate to psychoanalytic sources (not in the slightest relevant to matters of science) and at best popular science. This is problematic, but if these are the best sources available, pseudoscientific it is.
Now, the third point is again different. Many experiments have been carried out by Reich and others. However, regarding the fourth point, no experiments appear to have been published in independently peer-reviewed scientific journals. The most reliable source on this topic appears to be a Master's student thesis from Germany replicating the thermal bodily effects of an orgone energy accumulator. Of course, this is by far not enough of a source to 'prove' that orgone in general is a really existing energy. It could form a small piece of a puzzle, but would require many other experiments and independent reproduction of such experiments to say anything definitively. Also, orgone is claimed to have many other strange properties, as illustrated with above list of experiments, which other properties would also need to be investigated to say anything about orgone in general. Thus, even if orgone is a scientifically falsifiable concept and not pseudoscientific, the fact remains that there are no reliable sources that proof the existence of orgone energy.
My general recommendation would, thus, be to try to nuance the statement that orgone is definitively pseudoscientific (because most sources are not very reliable for that purpose), on condition that the fact is added that no reliable proof of its reality exists. I think that solution could resolve the different views discussed above. This would, however, require the existince of another, preferably more reliable source that would counter the narrative that orgone is a pseudoscientific concept. And I think I found one, one that concerns the original experiment in which Reich claimed to have discovered Orgone (published by Harvard University Press):
"Refuting allegations of “pseudoscience” that have long dogged Reich’s research, James Strick argues that Reich’s lab experiments in the mid-1930s represented the cutting edge of light microscopy and time-lapse micro-cinematography and deserve to be taken seriously as legitimate scientific contributions. . . . Strick presents a detailed account of the bion experiments, tracing how Reich eventually concluded he had discovered an unknown type of biological radiation he called “orgone". The bion experiments were foundational to Reich’s theory of cancer and later investigations of orgone energy. Reich’s experimental findings and interpretations were considered discredited, but not because of shoddy lab technique, as has often been claimed. Scientific opposition to Reich’s experiments, Strick contends, grew out of resistance to his unorthodox sexual theories and his Marxist political leanings." https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674736092 2001:1C02:2807:E600:B8BA:143B:D449:F346 ( talk) 20:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Added Strick source of scientific though hypothetical (i.e. unproven) concept; removed double Kenneth Isaacs reference; note . Note that the Elsevier/Roeckelein source neither clarifies whether the concept is pseudoscientific or disproven; Wrobel does not even say anything about Orgone, merely having a book title that contains 'pseudo-science'.
@ Brightest Knight: Your main post is exceptionally long, so for most of us "Too Long; Didn't Read" ( TL;DR) rules and we will respond only to its general thrust which, here as elsewhere, strongly protests against the verdict of pseudoscience. Might I suggest that if you are content with merely raising the presentational quality of the article and really believe that some passage is an inappropriate reflection of a cited source, then make that case without bias. Take it one point at a time. If others are agreeable, the cite can be removed or edited, the passage perhaps altered, but (in my experience here) any watering-down of the pseudoscience verdict will not be tolerated. Or, for a minor criticism, there are various templates you can tag a cite or a passage with, such as Template:clarify; a variety are listed in Template:More citations needed/doc. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the Strick source a reliable enough source (relative to the other sources used) to slightly nuance the pseudoscientific qualification of orgone (in favor of 'unproven scientific concept')? See this proposed edit and the related discussion in the section immediately above. Brightest Knight ( talk) 21:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, I put here links to 4 videos with description which are provided by The Hellenic Institute of Orgonomy.
In these videos there are reproduced experiments of Wilhelm Reich's ones demonstrated proving the existence of orgone energy, bions and blood disintegration.
-
http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/biophysical-research/orgone-energy-field-meter-video/
-
http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/bions/
-
http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/experiment-xx/
-
http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/reich-blood-test-blood-disintegration/
"In The Discovery of the Orgone, Volume Two: The Cancer" there are dozens of photos provided.
Also providing "Mister Tachyon S01E06: Does Orgone Energy Exist?" episode video and transcript.
-
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6uluya
-
https://forum.orgones.co.uk/t/mister-tachyon-does-orgone-energy-exist/4551 (also read the analysis) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Focton (
talk •
contribs) 08:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok then, as the videos of The Hellenic Institute of Orgonomy(which are an excellent proof about the subject bt) cannot be considered as reliable sources according to Reliable sources policy because they are not published or broadcasted by a company, but Strick's work and the original books of Reich(there is a lot of photograph material as proofs) can be considered as reliable according to the Reliable sources policy because as the following ones are mentioned in it:
"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
Strick's work is published by "Harvard University Press" and Reich's original works by "Farrar, Straus and Giroux", which according to the Reliable sources policy is ok.
Also it is mentioned the following criteria in Definition of Published:
"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."
So the VICE video source should be considered a legit source.
--
Focton (
talk) 13:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Orgone article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article was nominated for deletion on 12 February 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Isn't this just a load of pseudoscientific waffle with no solid evidence to back it up? I'm quite shocked at how biased the article is, and there's not even any flag to say so! Shame on you, credulous wikipedians. Gymnophoria ( talk) 23:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
This article is one of the most shocking on widipedia. For something so unscientific, the word pseudoscience has been pushed from the article (it used to be in the opening paragraph) to a category tag at the end, by people trying to protect their "Orgone Generators" on ebay, along with the interests of the American College of Orgonomy. Please don't let this be a safe haven where ex scientologists can come to flog a new product. 86.147.131.172 ( talk) 05:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The first mention of "pseudoscience" is now at the end of the (quite long) first paragraph. I am going to move it to the first sentence, as that is one of the defining concepts of this article.– Jérôme ( talk) 06:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of biased opinions being expressed here. All approaches should be expressed even those outside the opinions of a biased editor. This is an objective document and not an editorial. Who ever removed the citations of the double-blind university studies replicating the effects of Orgone did this site and its readers a disservice Normana400 ( talk) 06:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Many fields of study and scientific theories seem to be incorrectly categorized as either a legimate science or a pseudoscience based upon it's marketability by those who own or run the world's industries. If the theory and studies reinforce the mainstream narrative and can be used to boost sales of the materials controlled by these entities it is called legitimate by well know to be corrupt and fallible institutions while adversely if the studies and theories presented are a threat somehow to these institutions power and marketability ultimately meaning their sales and profits it is labeled as pseudoscience and railroaded by the entrenched power elites. The veracity of any claims by any source should be questioned and verifiable yet when the "trusted" sources most often referenced are in fact owned and controlled by the same power elite circles and have a vested interest in shutting down certain fields of study and research that could result in loss of sales of the materials in the industries they have the control in then that makes me question the integrity of these "trusted" sources and I have great difficulty in crediting trustworthiness, honesty, or honorable intent to any type of Governmental Agency or the privately owned companies that lobby to and do business with governmental agencies. It is a fallacy for fools to trust the words or to give benefit of the doubt to governmental agencies or the companies catered to and by them when history as well as current events shows time and again irrefutable proof of widespread corruption and dubious intent for the words and actions taken by them. It seems like the "trusted" resources are more often than not the very ones that are guilty of spreading misinformation and making false claims. This obviously makes it extremely difficult to verify as valid any information without doing the research and performing the experiments for oneself. The government's have shown the people all throughout history that to they cannot be trusted to control what information is available and taught as a curriculum in academia or spread as news to the masses. Not once throughout known history has this ever turned out to benefit the majority over the few at the top. I believe referring to any theory or field of study as a pseudoscience as if it is an unquestionable idiocy to pursue the subject any further should be recognized as a red flag warning that the following explanation of information is very likely to be from a controlled source that is pushing the mainstream narrative and as such are highly questionable sources with next to zero credibility when it comes to complete disclosure of truth and unbiased information. similar to the saying "don't trust anyone who says trust me" anyone whom claims to share information in an unbiased manner is very likely sharing extremely biased information in an unbiased manner. When the label on a box says "made without child labor" the first thing I think is "these guys are enslaving children somewhere" simply because the only reason one would have for having that label on a product is if they are known to be guilty of such crimes already. Just pointing out what should be obvious and my point is this. More caution should be exercised in the definitions given here. Definitively labeling something as a pseudoscience is a dangerous precedent to set when so many things initially dismissed as rubbish and false information has proven overtime to actually be legitimate and beneficial to the majority and was being blasted because it revealed the less honorable manipulations of the few in charge. To keep the definition completely unbiased and factual it ought to read more like "has been labeled a pseudoscience" by such and such at these points in time. This is stating a verifiable fact whereas definitive labels are often not. BoriginalB ( talk) 04:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
This page needs some work to make it clear there is no basis or purpose for the topic beyond idle amusement, and as such I removed a large portion of the rather bloated lede which had no purpose. A significant portion of it was rather heavily laden with excessive documentation which frankly only served to obfuscate the ability of someone to edit the article. I also discarded the section of it regarding the FDA legal issues as that was a blatant attempt at martyrdom right from the get-go. That particular story can be placed in the history section of the article. 98.30.32.217 ( talk) 21:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to edit the information about Orgone as it is characterized as pseudoscience which is not. In my Edit Statement while trying to edit the article I typed the following: According to the two books of Wilhelm Reich about the discovery of Orgone, The Function of the Orgasm: Sex-Economic Problems of Biological Energy (The Discovery of the Orgone, Vol. 1) and The Cancer Biopathy (The Discovery of Orgone, Vol. 2) there are evidences included such as calculations, photos and other various results like the thermal anomaly recorded in the Orgone energy accumulator. So the references stating that Orgone is pseudoscience are false. So I would like to remove them.
I have read both books and they are cosistant, full of evidences and proofs that Orgone exists. Also I have read the Cosmic Superimposition by Wilhelm Reich and wanted to mention in the Edit Statement that there are many citations in Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine accepting and supporting the Orgone, but I could not type the last ones as there is a character letter limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Focton ( talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
I see that most discussions on this page were and are concerned with the question whether orgone is pseudoscientific. May I just try to clarify the discussion for future edits? I think four things need to be distinguished:
1. whether 'orgone' is a scientific or pseudoscientific concept.
2. whether 'orgone' is regarded by the scientific community as a scientific or pseudoscientific concept.
3. whether 'orgone', if it is a scientific concept, has been proven or disproven experimentally.
4. whether such experiments are published in what wikipedia considers 'reliable sources'.
Now, the first point has nothing to do with the question whether orgone 'exists' or 'does not exist'. Neither is it concerned with the question whether orgone has been proven or disproven. The question is whether the concept orgone allows for falsification, conforming to the scientific method. For example. Henry Bergson's idea of an elan vital (life energy) was a philosophical idea, not a scientific concept. As far as I know, he did not claim to know experiments that could proof or disprove his theory. In the case of Wilhelm Reich and Orgone energy, the story is different. Numerous experiments are discussed by Reich and have been repeated by others in relation to the orgone energy accumulator (including by Einstein for Christ's sake!), such as: a temperature differences, bodily temperature differences, electroscopic discharge rate, growth rate of seedlings, reducing cancer symptoms including limiting and reversing of tumor growth, blue glowing of vacuum tubes, blue glowing of charged red blood cells, etc. etc. As such, experiments appear to exist that are 'claimed' by Reich to proof the existence of orgone energy. If Reich indeed had formulated a coherent theory, and if such experimental outcomes would contrast with what is possible according to prevailing theory, then you could say orgone is a scientific concept. Just to add here: Einstein repeated Reich's temperature experiment, observed the same anomalous temperature difference, however, he resorted to an alternative theory to explain this difference discarding the necessity for the existence of a new energy (but he refused to redo the experiment in which he would apply control procedures suggested by Reich that could rule out the possibility his own explanation was false, which frustrated Reich enormously - all this as a side note).
Now, the second point concerns the question of whether other, independent sources agree that orgone is a scientific concept, or think of it as pseudoscientific. This need not bear any relation to the 'truth' of the matter, which is especially concerning as there is loads of false and weak information on Reich and his work, presented by others as 'fact'. Many of the sources cited claiming orgone as pseudoscience are not scientific sources at all. They are mostly popular literature, relate to psychoanalytic sources (not in the slightest relevant to matters of science) and at best popular science. This is problematic, but if these are the best sources available, pseudoscientific it is.
Now, the third point is again different. Many experiments have been carried out by Reich and others. However, regarding the fourth point, no experiments appear to have been published in independently peer-reviewed scientific journals. The most reliable source on this topic appears to be a Master's student thesis from Germany replicating the thermal bodily effects of an orgone energy accumulator. Of course, this is by far not enough of a source to 'prove' that orgone in general is a really existing energy. It could form a small piece of a puzzle, but would require many other experiments and independent reproduction of such experiments to say anything definitively. Also, orgone is claimed to have many other strange properties, as illustrated with above list of experiments, which other properties would also need to be investigated to say anything about orgone in general. Thus, even if orgone is a scientifically falsifiable concept and not pseudoscientific, the fact remains that there are no reliable sources that proof the existence of orgone energy.
My general recommendation would, thus, be to try to nuance the statement that orgone is definitively pseudoscientific (because most sources are not very reliable for that purpose), on condition that the fact is added that no reliable proof of its reality exists. I think that solution could resolve the different views discussed above. This would, however, require the existince of another, preferably more reliable source that would counter the narrative that orgone is a pseudoscientific concept. And I think I found one, one that concerns the original experiment in which Reich claimed to have discovered Orgone (published by Harvard University Press):
"Refuting allegations of “pseudoscience” that have long dogged Reich’s research, James Strick argues that Reich’s lab experiments in the mid-1930s represented the cutting edge of light microscopy and time-lapse micro-cinematography and deserve to be taken seriously as legitimate scientific contributions. . . . Strick presents a detailed account of the bion experiments, tracing how Reich eventually concluded he had discovered an unknown type of biological radiation he called “orgone". The bion experiments were foundational to Reich’s theory of cancer and later investigations of orgone energy. Reich’s experimental findings and interpretations were considered discredited, but not because of shoddy lab technique, as has often been claimed. Scientific opposition to Reich’s experiments, Strick contends, grew out of resistance to his unorthodox sexual theories and his Marxist political leanings." https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674736092 2001:1C02:2807:E600:B8BA:143B:D449:F346 ( talk) 20:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Added Strick source of scientific though hypothetical (i.e. unproven) concept; removed double Kenneth Isaacs reference; note . Note that the Elsevier/Roeckelein source neither clarifies whether the concept is pseudoscientific or disproven; Wrobel does not even say anything about Orgone, merely having a book title that contains 'pseudo-science'.
@ Brightest Knight: Your main post is exceptionally long, so for most of us "Too Long; Didn't Read" ( TL;DR) rules and we will respond only to its general thrust which, here as elsewhere, strongly protests against the verdict of pseudoscience. Might I suggest that if you are content with merely raising the presentational quality of the article and really believe that some passage is an inappropriate reflection of a cited source, then make that case without bias. Take it one point at a time. If others are agreeable, the cite can be removed or edited, the passage perhaps altered, but (in my experience here) any watering-down of the pseudoscience verdict will not be tolerated. Or, for a minor criticism, there are various templates you can tag a cite or a passage with, such as Template:clarify; a variety are listed in Template:More citations needed/doc. — Cheers, Steelpillow ( Talk) 09:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Is the Strick source a reliable enough source (relative to the other sources used) to slightly nuance the pseudoscientific qualification of orgone (in favor of 'unproven scientific concept')? See this proposed edit and the related discussion in the section immediately above. Brightest Knight ( talk) 21:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, I put here links to 4 videos with description which are provided by The Hellenic Institute of Orgonomy.
In these videos there are reproduced experiments of Wilhelm Reich's ones demonstrated proving the existence of orgone energy, bions and blood disintegration.
-
http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/biophysical-research/orgone-energy-field-meter-video/
-
http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/bions/
-
http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/experiment-xx/
-
http://wilhelmreich.gr/en/research/microscopic-research/reich-blood-test-blood-disintegration/
"In The Discovery of the Orgone, Volume Two: The Cancer" there are dozens of photos provided.
Also providing "Mister Tachyon S01E06: Does Orgone Energy Exist?" episode video and transcript.
-
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6uluya
-
https://forum.orgones.co.uk/t/mister-tachyon-does-orgone-energy-exist/4551 (also read the analysis) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Focton (
talk •
contribs) 08:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Ok then, as the videos of The Hellenic Institute of Orgonomy(which are an excellent proof about the subject bt) cannot be considered as reliable sources according to Reliable sources policy because they are not published or broadcasted by a company, but Strick's work and the original books of Reich(there is a lot of photograph material as proofs) can be considered as reliable according to the Reliable sources policy because as the following ones are mentioned in it:
"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
Strick's work is published by "Harvard University Press" and Reich's original works by "Farrar, Straus and Giroux", which according to the Reliable sources policy is ok.
Also it is mentioned the following criteria in Definition of Published:
"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text, media must be produced by a reliable source and be properly cited. Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist. It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."
So the VICE video source should be considered a legit source.
--
Focton (
talk) 13:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)