Talk:Orgone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on February 12, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Orgone article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] No errors

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)

The page did not mention the fact that Orgonomy is controversial. I added a single line saying that this was the case, and added Martin Gardner's Fads and Fallacies to the bibliography.--Princemuchao 01:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The word 'theory' should be removed

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)

[edit] Clean-up and orgonite references removed

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)

[edit] Utter nonsense

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)

Wikipedia is not scientific; Wikipedia is factual. It is factual that Orgone Energy is purported to exist. Claims to the contrary are unfactual, as are claims that it is proven to exist. As such, this page should expanded and cleaned, so as to give testimony of both sides, both pro and con. --Chr.K. 14:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ. This may be odd but it isn't much odder than a lot of wiki articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.105.80.92 (talk) 15:29, November 9, 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with having this article on wikipedia, the more articles the better. And also its not bullshit you're just a narrow-minded fool. I bet you haven't even tried not even one orgone experiment in your life, but you KNOW its all bullshit, but just believe your books and everything you read --Mdsats 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot wrong with having this kind of BS on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should contain established scientific knowledge, and nothing else. Wikipedia should not be a repository for the ideas of people who renounce the scientific method, but still call themselves scientists, and borrow a lot of their vocabulary from science, obviously hoping that the credibility of established science will rub off on their ideas. I am still waiting for someone to give evidence. Let's take something as simple as the statement in the article "Reich said it (that is, orgone energy) was blue in color." Now, I don't want evidence that this orgone BS guru Reich said so (the scientific truth is independent of the observer anyway), I want evidence that orgone energy is blue in color. In other words, could someone please tell me of an experiment in which white light passes through a volume with orgone energy in it and the extinction of red light is stronger than that of blue light compared to the situation where the volume is filled with less orgone energy? And please, do not steal our scientific vocabulary by adding ad-hoc theories like "in the presence of orgone energy, color needs to be redefined", use a new word instead in this case. If you (the orgone believers) want to distinguish yourselves from us "narrow minded" scientists, do not disguise yourselves a belonging to us. --DrTorstenHenning 12:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The currently listed "Properties of Orgone" appear to be a straight paste in from a 1999 article about the "Joe cell" lifted from a site specialising in so-called free energy and other perpetual-motion nonsense - see www.linux-host.org/energy/bas102.htm This would also appear to be in conflict with Wikepedia's copyright policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.177.157 (talk) 12:43, December 11, 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I haved tagged the section accordingly. Man, am I glad that this BS is gone ... --DrTorstenHenning 10:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually I got it from http://educate-yourself.org/dc/dcwhatisorgone.shtml which I listed under the references....as for it being BS, how can you explain the fact that cells behave differently under orgone accumulators? How do you explain plants growing faster, plutonium lighting up, etc...inside orgone accumulators? I bet if you actually performed an orgone experiment you would be convinced that it really does exist. As for orgone being blue, Reich said orgone was only visible in certain special conditions....Also, even if you believe its BS it should still be on wikipedia, it can be listed as pseudoscientific or protoscientific..... --Mdsats 01:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
"Reich said"... You seem to have done Orgone experiments, what color did you see? Have you done any other experiments? If so, have you put your results to a peer review process and published them? Are you willing to have your experimental setup and documentation scrutinized? I have already categorized Orgone Science and Technology as belonging to the category Pseudoscience, so that has been taken care of. And as for the Plutonium, I would love to see the documentation of that experiment. --DrTorstenHenning 08:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've never done any experiment showing Orgone to be blue or violet or whatever Reich said it was. I never really cared about that, Orgone usually isn't visible. But I have seen the bions Reich spoke of and effects of Orgone. I'm sure that even a skeptic if they actually did an unbiased double-blind experiment would see the effects of Orgone. As for the experiments Reich did, they're all documented in his books, you can re-do them yourself and see if its true or not. Why do you think in places like Germany where Orgone isn't outlawed Universities confirm the findings of Reich...--Mdsats 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I do work at a university in Germany, and I can confirm that Orgone is not outlawed in Germany. As a matter of fact, no theories, no matter how BS they may be, are "outlawed" in Germany, except maybe a few pertaining to the Holocaust. But that does not prove acceptance by any authority in Germany. Could you be a little more precise as to which researchers (names!) at which German universities (names!) confirmed which findings of Reich using which experimental methods, and in which scientific journal these have been published? And if the results were suppressed by the Universal Conspiracy of Scientists Against Orgone, could you produce any manuscripts that were submitted for publication and corresponding review reports by the conspiring scientists? --DrTorstenHenning 19:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
educate_yourself.org is the biggest collection in a single place of utter tripe I have ever encountered. The main criteria for entry onto this site seem to be that it doesn't work, is scientific nonsense or that it has been "suppressed" by Big Pharma, the CIA, the USA govt etc etc. It specialises in therapies for both the body and the world that are either dangerous or useless, and always nonsense. Virtually all entries contain large doses of paranoia.
My original link appears from its context in www.linux-host.org/energy/ (with its reference to "Joe cells" etc) within that site to be the original - the educate-yourself.org one seems to also be a copy of it.
I would suggest a test for BS - if you can find it on educate-yourself.org it definitely is BS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.177.157 (talk) 10:24, December 14, 2006 (UTC)

--

It doesn't matter whether or not it actually exists, and that it's on WikiPedia or not, but this article needs to be unbiased. Obviously, whoever wrote this article has a bias towards the factual existence of orgone energy, but cites no sources and lets every other sentence become an opinion. This needs work, yes, but not deletion.--67.76.22.89 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

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)

You wrote "It's a theory proposed by Wilhelm Reich...." but it is NOT a theory: it's complete bullshit. The article should be rewritten to state that fact. As you said: as it stands, it does not point out the fact that there is no such thing as "orgon energy." Nor is there such a thing as "life energy." -- Desertphile, October 29, 2007
Orgone is nothing other then the name for creative life force, which was researched and pioneered by wilhelm Reich. even Einstein and Freud participated or conducted orgone research (use google or the Wilhelm Reich article for references). Dozens of scientific based books, numerous websites and even schools teaching orgone science proves it’s existence. Orgone energy has been researched for at least 50 years, it did not just fall out of the sky. A new category "Orgone Science and Technology" has been created and that is were the orgone article needs to be. A redirect would be ok, if their was no stub. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.206.198.19 (talk) 13:36, November 10, 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't be redirected just because people think its another name for the life force, Reich himself did not agree with a lot things regarding chi and prana, it shouldn't be redirected because orgone particularly pertains to Wilhelm Reich--Mdsats 01:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
How does the existence of a school prove the existence of what the school teaches? There are a lot of theological faculties at our universities, yet their mere existence does not prove the existence of God. --DrTorstenHenning 09:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources, was: The use of Wikipedia

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)

I'm going to try and beat this article into some sort of shape. Working now. Drjon 21:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Drjon, the article is massively improved. Just one point: it would be good if you could add inline citations for the various claims when you have some time. But anyway, thank you for working on it. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
A bit quick there, sport :)I was in the middle tweaks when I hit an edit conflict. Am still tweaking. But thanks-- you pointed out a CITE I'd missed-- working on it now. Drjon 22:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I'll stay out of your hair. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
She's right, no worries. That'll do for now. This whole area needs a good broom. Drjon 23:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The article is about orgone right? As in creative life force, i do not see how it relates to some other stuff i read in the article. the first part should be explaining creative force, then orgone machines, like orgonite, orgone researchers, orgone psycology etc etc.. I'll work on the article after the weekend.. I think most people just need a quick reference about what orgone is. Like in the chi/qi format.. here's a good one.. The article states that the FDA does not acknowledge orgone machinery. Not considering that some other goverment might exhale it. So what is the point of stating the FDA sentence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.171.24 (talk) 23:11, November 11, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galilei, Einstein and other scientist about orgone/aether

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

Who's Galio? Do you perhaps mean Galileo? All articles like this, which is pure pseudoscience, should have a large box at the top saying "This topic is pseudoscience". NPOV should not apply to science or scientific topics. Either a scientific theory is true and backed up by data that is reproducible under laboratory conditions or it's a hypothesis until solid, verifiable evidence is produced. Anything else that cannot be tested or is non-falsifiable and claims to be science is in fact pseudoscience. Dr. Morbius 01:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you introducing a too strict interpetation of the current paradigm of the philosophy of science, specifically the formulation, scope, and limits of scientific method? As you seem to be holding to Karl Popper's falsifiability paradigm as if it were gospel, I think it might be sound to consider the following quote from the current Wikipedia article on the philosophy of science: "Popper's ideas have been heavily criticized by many philosophers, especially on the grounds that they do not adequately describe scientific activity." I am not close to the authorities (i.e. well versed) on this, so this is just my immediate take based on my perceptions of this field. __meco 18:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

// 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)

[edit] Is this page a prank?

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)

Your comment about concern that some people "actually believe what they type" is one of the most blatant forms of POV possible, just so you're aware. --Chr.K. 14:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Reich proposed several objective methods to demonstrate that orgone energy existed including tests with a gold-leaf electroscope, temperature differentials, and geiger counters. Even if you say his tests were flawed and produced illegitimate results, he's still following the scientific method. Anyone can replicate the experiments and get verifiable results one way or the other... so, it worries me a great deal when his detractors, as here, rather than replicate the experiments, seek to silence the issue with "deletion". This is the same attitude as the book-burning, and for that matter the persecution of Socrates or Galileo. It is anti-scientific. Don't seek to silence an issue - seek to disprove erroneous ideas.

[edit] and........

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)

[edit] Precision please in References

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)

[edit] FDA actions

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)

Somehow, I was under the impression that this was fairly well known, but I suppose I may have been wrong about that. In any event, it most assuredly did happen, pursuant to the court order I supplied the citation for which at the very end instructs the FDA as follows:
""That all written, printed, and graphic matter containing instructions for the use of any orgone energy accumulator device, instructions for the assembly thereof, all printed, and other announcements and order blanks for the items listed in the paragraph immediately above, all documents, bulletins, pamphlets, journals, and booklets... shall be destroyed."
All in all, a very sad chapter in U.S. history. Cgingold 13:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
If I read the court order correctly, the documents are to be destroyed by the Wilhelm Reich Foundation under the supervision of the FDA, but I guess the slightly simplified language in the article is OK. --DrTorstenHenning 14:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
In the end, the bulk (some 6 tons!) of the material was taken to New York and burned in an incinerator by the FDA. But there's no need to go into detail here, it's already covered elsewhere. Cgingold 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James DeMeo

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 am just in the process of updating myself on this article, which I expect might be a cumbersome endeavor. Not knowing it to be related to the recent purging of orgonelab references (this might be a consequence of some editorial process I am not yet aware of), I came across a decidedly blunt statement in the article's introducing paragraph: "These claims are regarded as "nonsense" by the scientific community", backed up by an external reference to a not overly scientific feeling debunkment web site, Junk science and quackery in the marketplace. Not having updated myself on the consensus opinion of Dr. DeMeo's web site, orgonelab.org, I ask myself (and my fellow editors) if this introduction on your part isn't in itself rather biased? Perhaps this controversy is an issue that is best resolved here at the talk page, including what might be a reliable and agreeable external link to back up a considered statement on the orgone theory's status vis-à-vis the "scientific community".
Personally, however, I feel that blanket references to "the scientific community" are of little value and are mostly applied in polemics. __meco 19:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm a working scientist so I am unimpressed by De Meo's assertion that we should bend and scrape because he is an "ex-university professor". Since the vast majority of his writings are unpublished, self-published or web-published i do not consider him a reliable source and suggest removing all links to his catalogue of self-promotion. A quick search of several scientific abstract databases has reassured me that the only person publishing DeMeo's work is himself. Show me some papers regarding orgone-therapy published in reputable peer-reviewed academic journals (ones that aren't published by DeMeo and Natural Energy Works themselves) and I may change my tune. Until then: this is quackery in the extreme. One final word: just because somebody's books were burnt by unthinking morons in the FDA doesn't make their bonkers theories correct. Famousdog 19:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - the court order deals with "misbranded" items - they don't argue reserach be destroyed, they order fradulently sold items destroyed. Alvis 05:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
The courts decided that the items were misbranded. The courts were comprised of non-scientists with little knowledge of Reich's work and as he correctly pointed out, the judges had no moral right to rule on matters of science and the workings of the natural world let alone qualification to do so. Those who rely on events such as this to support their view of Orgone are defending non-scientists against scientists. And calling Reich's life work "nonsense" or "quackery" is equally unjust and unscientific. Use references to show how qualified academics have falsified his work. (If they exist, which I doubt.) As regards the burden of proof and published sources... Reich's life work was published and is the reference material you should refer to. Go ahead and replicate his work and report your findings. MegdalePlace 20:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James DeMeo Here...

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)

I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you here, and all I've seen in support of your orgone-related quackery are self-published/unpublished articles or websites, and some stuff in German, a language that I would love to master one day, but as of yet I'm too busy working on my Norwegian and French. As for the masters and doctoral theses in support of this nonsense, I know this might be a big secret in the academic community, but the standards for university dissertations (doctoral or otherwise) are far lower than those for peer-reviewed journals. I know as I've done both. Having a PhD doesn't make you infallible. Famousdog 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag at top obsolete

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)

[edit] References / Thesis in support of Reich

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)


[edit] Neutral wording, please !

It is inappropriate to write in an "encyclopaedia" that someone "claimed to have discovered". I have changed that into "...was convinced to have discovered", which is the neutral and hence appropriate wording.147.142.186.54 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And that is not the neutral wording. Reich claimed to have discovered orgone, by saying so, writing about it, etc. We cannot look into his mind, especially now that he is dead. Hence, we do not know what he was convinced of. Hypothetically, he might have been a prankster, fooling generations of followers who take his word for gospel instead of doing experiments by the scientific method. In an encyclopedia (no '"' here), we should write about facts, not assumptions about someone's mindset. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

// That is a question of the nuances of the English language, and of no other things. When writing the statement above, I simply had the intention that a neutral term should appear in the article (and remain there). And that same thing is still all I wish for.

I was - and still am - convinced that "to claim" has a rather negative meaning or connotation, like in "empty claim" etc. It does, as far as I know, not simply report that someone "held the view, made a statement to the effect that..." or sth. like that, and not even "vehemently defended the position that such and such is the case" (which may be close to its etymological roots and earlier word use), but instead today gives it a strong "colour"/"taste" of "...but not really true", "only said so, without being right" etc. Or comparable to German "behaupten" which in modern use no-one will "claim" to be appropriate for a "neutral statement". "Most neutral" would be "to state"/"aussagen", but to my mind that is stilistically flawed here.

So how to render this fact - on that at least we agree - that he said and wrote that he had discovered... in brief and in a most neutral way ? Even after consulting dictionaries I am not sure (I am not a native speaker of English, and as often with translations semantic fields overlap, so there is no precise one-to-one "translation" like "X is equivalent to Y"). I still have the impression that "claim", as it was written in the article and as you made it reappear, can have various shades of meaning. Even if it is "only" "likely to mislead" readers, then it is not the right expression here. I wish a native speaker of English to decide that issue - and one who is hopefully him/herself rather "neutral"-minded with regard to Reich (though how to "assess" that I do not know). That one - or even better: such ones - should decide what is appropriate here. After that I have no intention to see the text changed (I leave the quarreling about other aspects to you others).

Of course, Reich could have been cheating etc., theoretically. As everybody else could. That seemed so unlikely to me that I never thought of that possibility. I know quite a bit about his biography and his ideas and work and innovations mainly in psychotherapy, and for that work he has my sympathy, because I consider that a real and most helpful achievement (many practioners in that field today owe their methods to him, though many will not acknowledge or even know this). It was a "gut feeling" of mine, intuitive conviction, that he would never have cheated. That is all. My field of research is medicine and healing, and how theoretical models in these areas are formed etc., not natural science like physics. I do not know myself what to make of his "discoveries" (as he called them) on cancer and "quasi-physical all-pervading energy" and have never done any sort of experiments regarding those. So I wish to remain neutral and not discuss those here. He could well have fallen victim to wishful thinking, or whatever, sure.

I do not think that all "pro-Orgone" people in the world necessarily have a religious or similar attitude to that, as you seem to believe. I know that a number of people have been "experimenting" with such ideas, meant in a broad, rather colloquial sense, and interpreted their experiences resulting from such experimenting as confirming (some of) his concepts. And to them that seems sufficient. The only one who "wrote" that he did "rigorous, scientific" experiments regarding Reich, in the narrower sense of "modern science as practiced in Universities", wrote that his observations did not confirm Reich's theories (that chap in Berlin), I know that too, as I read his paper. And that chap DeMeo wrote that the experimenter made serious mistakes in the set-up of those experiments, and would intentionally not listen to him (DeMeo) trying to draw his attention to that fact. And I know about the Einstein story too, but did not understand his (E.s) reasoning when I read about it. And I checked the bibliographical details of the degree thesis works cited in the article, but have not read any of those and hence cannot judge their merits or lack thereof. So I leave that issue.

The German W.P. article on "Orgon" had "behauptete", which was apparently chosen to create a negative impression, so I complained about that and changed it, and then I had a look here, and my impression was that the same had occured here. And probably you would like that readers are given to understand "...but it is not really so...", but that is not the way an "encyclopaedia" should be written (you can publish articles elsewhere with the aim of influencing public opinion in that direction - I have nothing against that...) That was all.

So I leave it to said native speakers to decide the matter, which wording sounds definitely most neutral to the English reader who never heard about W.R. before, and won't argue with such verdict, whatever it is. And in case they decide that "claimed" is inappropriate here, or could create impressions that are not wished for, you accept that, too.

The way of writing "encyclopaedia" was chosen, because, when compared with the standarts set by European cultural history (not your field, I understand), this project here may some day become one, but is not now.147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Appendix: I think I was too tolerant towards your acting. Just try yourself and examine a sample of instances where in modern English "he claimed that..." is used. Do you find any example where that is indeed used in a neutral sense, as you seem to suggest it is ? You can even use a searchmachine and use the internet, if you have no suitable print material at your disposal. What do you find? - Unless I am shown clear evidence to the contrary I shall continue holding the view that readers of English will automatically understand "claimed" as something negative, disapproving ("...but it was wrong..."). Therefore that version was and is not acceptable in an article such as this where neutrality is demanded.
If you look at the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie (B. Encyclopaedia) for comparison, it has "...glaubte..." ("believed" in English) in their brief entry on Reich (1993 print edition). That is perfectly acceptable wording for a reference work.
Your stuff about "could have been a prankster" is hypocrisy. If you claim that one must not accept anything on good faith and write "...only facts": could you point out any science textbook or encyclopaedia where authors generally would make a destiction between a) someone discovered x and b) that person claimed to have discovered x, but we cannot know for sure, because it could have been discovered by someone else and the idea been stolen? Of course there is a difference: in such case it is not disputed, but instead accepted as established fact, that some phenomenon exists; in the case of Orgone that is not so, but (highly) controversial (no disagrrement here). The point in common is that you accept something, unless you have evidence to the contrary, and only then would you (publically) question it: here that something is Reich's genuine convicition, there it is the identity of the discoverer or "true author" of the idea. That comparison is not far-fetched, as you will know, because accusations of plagiarism have been made a number of times in science, as well in arts and other fields (I even once saw a book in the University library entitled "Einstein, the notorious plagiarist" or sth. like that - must probably utter nonsense, but it shows that such accusations are being made). Taking your stance "we cannot know..." we all would have to choose such complicaed wording like "x was discovered in [year] at the latest, and the discovery is generally attributed to (person), since no good evidence has so far been published that s/he had secretly obtained the idea from someone elese". So if you demand "accuracy", then follow it in such instances as well. On the other hand, do not use your "claimed" in places like this (but, if you like, on your own "science frauds and pseudo-science" website).

I repeat: this issue is not about science, but about linguistics; therefore your training and possible work experience do not count in any way at this moment. You give me the impression of being either very naive (here), or driven by disgust of "things Reichian" whom you therefore wish to appear in a bad light. And this I do not like.

Sophophilos: 147.142.186.54 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you had spent half as much energy and time on improving the article as you did in writing this lengthy sermon about the use of the word "claim", I would have been impressed. If you do not like the word "claim", then in Reich's name replace it with whatever you like. It does not really matter, since the article is a pile of garbage anyway. And once you are at it, you might also try to persuade the USPTO to change their rules and not force inventors to use such a bad word. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
And, by the way, I do not have my own science frauds and pseudo-science website. It would be futile to maintain such a site since the proponents of pseudo-science have so much more energy and time to spend in flooding the internet with their garbage then I have energy and time at my disposal. My modest contribution to the fight against whacky science, science fraud and pseudo-science is at my workplace (where I have a chance of success, but a small audience) and in Wikipedia (where, at least in the case of this article, I seem to fail). --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

All of the above aside - has anyone noticed that the opening sentence; "Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich for the 'universal life energy' which he was convinced to have discovered in published experiments in the late 1930s." makes no sense? who or what convinced him to discover it? surely it should read "Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich for the "universal life energy" which he was convinced he had discovered through published experiments in the late 1930s." So why don't I change it? Because like the fatuous arguments over whether a pseudo-science is fitting here, I believe that wikipedia is a pseudo-encyclopedia and strongly discourage anybody with the slightest rigour to have anything to do with it. enjoy 81.102.245.243 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is a danger of Wikipedia becoming (or remaining?) a pseudo-encyclopedia. However, since Wikipedia seems to be here to stay, I think it's better to attempt to get the "pseudo" out of it instead of just giving in to the people who want to make it a platform for their pseudoscientrific ramblings. That aside, the opening sentence DOES make sense. A scientist convinces him/herself by posing him/herself questions about the observations (s)he made and their possible interpretations, and then publishes the parts (s)he is convinced of, maybe proposing some explanations that are clearly marked as hypotheses. That's the way science works. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 16:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, well I will wade in and at least change that "convinced" to "claimed". I think we can all agree on what he claimed, but not necessarily on what he was convinced of, which is the reason for the edit. That said, I don't agree with some who believe the article should not exist at all. Like it or not, Reich's ideas have influenced many people and they have even had an influence on literature, as evidenced by the Burroughs and Kerouac excerpts. For that reason, it is noteworthy, regardless of the scientific merit, and I believe "noteworthy" rather than "scientific" is the standard that should be applied here. Dhris (talk) 04:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which scientists "examined it"?

The article currently states that "...orgone theory... has been dismissed by those working within conventional science who have examined it...". There is one refenrence given for that statement, which is a brief account by the "Quack watcher" group. The text linked does give a short portrait of Reich and his work, from their point of view, and says it is all nonsense. It does, however, not mention a single scientist who had actually examined it.

By examine I understand that one person, whatever their assumptions, would perform at least some of the experiments which Reich describes and cites as evidence for his theory, and that such person follows his instructions carefully and in detail, even if they think it must be nonsense etc. Now I would like to know precisely who among "recognised" scientists has done so?! I know only two cases:

1. A.Einstein. That is dealt with in one section in the article on Wilhelm Reich, but leaves out crucial information, so unless you get hold of publications which I assume are diffcult to get hold of, you do not understand what Einstein actually did and how he arrived at his conclusions (i.e. that Reich had erred).

2. One Mr Harrer in Germany, meteorologist, who did some experiments at the "Freie Universität Berlin" and published about them. His conclusions were that there was no evidence for Reich's theory. DeMeo wrote somewhere on his own website, that Mr Harrer had made mistakes in the setup of his experiments, not following Reich's instructions carefully enough, and that he refused to listen to him (DeMeo) when being told so. Who of the two is right I cannot judge from afar.

Who else made the necessary efforts and came to a negative conclusion ? Who were they? - It is easy to read something and conclude "it must be nonsense"; many people do so, in all sorts of cases. No doubt almost all scientists would think it was unpossible, or "nonsense", and would not be interested in persuing the matter, i.e. actually conduct time-consuming experiments. No-one is obliged to research anything. Only it is not scientifically to definitely state "it is not" when you have not investigated it.

I repeat myself: I am not a "follower" of Reich. I have read a good deal of stuff about, and some by him, and do not know to what extent he may have been right; and since I do not know I do not claim or state anything. Only here I want to know what convincing evidence there is against his theory, as the article currently suggests there must be. If someone reads that scientists had "examined it" and "dismissed it", they will naturally assume that careful research has been done (not just reading and concluding from that reading). And that is preciely what I doubt. So please either provide the information that is missing, or the senntence must be altered, as then it is misleading and not accutrate.

Regards, Sophophilos147.142.186.54 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

When you ask the question you just asked, you will not get an answer. The people who rubbish him are generally ignorant and do not base their opinions on science (see above "Bullshit" for example, used to evaluate his findings). There is, to my knowledge, no scientific refutation of Reich's experiments - but of course, those who claim it's all nonsense will list references to scientific papers below, which establish that his research findings were null.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.164.105 (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
That's pseudoscience for you. It persists because its circular logic, folkloric appeal and self-referential form means that it is not worth the (often extensive and expensive) time and effort of real scientists to bother refuting it. We have grants to apply for, students to teach, and what would be the benefit to humanity to show that something that doesn't exist really doesn't exist. There are plenty of real problems to solve first. Famousdog (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skepticism

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)


No "true" skeptics? Regarding orgone I think you'll find lots of people are truly skeptical ;-) To all intents and purposes this stuff doesn't exist. Why is the onus on me (any my "pseudoskeptical" brethren) to prove its non-existance instead of on you to prove its existance? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

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)

why should a scientist waste their time on nonsense? Should they investigate the non-existence of the green monster energy that makes water boil - a theory that I pulled out of my butt and assert? Are they lazy or ignorant because they don't investigate every preposterous claim (by paranoid, new-ageist who don't understand what the scientific method is)labeled "scientific" by crackpots? Jeez. 76.175.171.25 (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Morningwindow
Morningwidow, this is not a fair representation of the facts, and the reason that people get offended by aggressive pseudo-skepticism, apart from the notable lack of constructive contributions from that quarter, is exactly this lack of awareness of the history of science. Reich was not qualified to experiment in physical science, that's true, but his theories are absolutely in line with 20s biological thought; he was neither a crackpot nor a charlatan. Just read the biography of Alexander Gurwitsch, for example and you will see how close Reich was to expressing a biological view of the Freudian paradigm. Seek a little further and you will find we still have no reliable paradigm for discussion of the nature of the mind or the ultimate organising principle of organism.
So, yes, it is certainly lazy and ignorant to assume the views held today are the only possible views and that all who dffer are dangerous. That is basically a fanatical religious viewpoint. Redheylin (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So now you're accusing people of religious extremism? Keep going Red. Arguing, as you appear to do frequently, that proponents of crackpot ideas were actually in tune with the zeitgeist of their time is a fallacious defense. Reich was considered bonkers at the time - anybody believing his theories nowadays need to see a shrink. Arguing that he produced a biological theory of psychoanalysis is like praising somebody for producing a physiological explanation of Norse Mythology. Psychoanalysis is empty philosophizing and circular logic within a veneer of science. It doesn't need a biological theory, it needs the dustbin. Oh, I'm sorry. Am I being "lazy" or "ignorant" or showing "lack of awareness"? Famousdog (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no need to "accuse", the matter is clear-cut. Just one question; seeing that psycho-analysis is useless, why does anyone "need to see a shrink"? This kind of self-contradiction, combined with this lack of respect for method and for the goals of wiki (WHO considered Reich "bonkers" in the 1920s and WHY have you not introduced that material into the text?) combined with these statements of extreme hostility, apparently based solely upon untutored ideology, certainly resemble religious fanaticism rather than reasoned argument.
You say it; I read it; you'd personally prefer that Wiki told the world that psycho-analysis is rubbish. But the goal of Wiki is not to enshrine Famousdog's point of view, and Famousdog is not ready to back his statements with authoritative sources. That does seem lazy. Many, indeed, of the "skeptical" references on various pages, as noted above, simply do not say what the text claims they say.
So I can understand the reasoning; "Let others do the hard work, find references, do research, and "skeptics" need only bully, destroy, harass and discourage! SO long as skeptics make no contribution, then skeptics have ALL THE POWER!" But the party is over. Just the sad drunk in the corner remains to be ejected. Redheylin (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

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)

Hello DrTorstenHenning - in the first place, it is a pretty picture - perhaps you are right that aesthetics are valueless, but I do not think there is a rule about it and myself I have always been led to believe that pages that look pleasing are pages that get read. The pyramid shaped device is, as I understand it, a mount for the "gun-like device" which is the "cloudbuster". You will note that there is a wiki article "cloudbuster" which shows a similar device. So far as I understand, the "experiment" is taking place, just as one might see a flask with liquid in it as an illustration of an experiment taking place. Interestingly enough, the experimenters understood the cloud-form pictured as "the result" of the experiment, whatever you and I may make of that. Perhaps, since I cannot see that the process is being subjected to any quantification of observation, it ought not be dignified with the term "experiment"? Perhaps a better caption can be devised. Your non-rude suggestions will be greeted with honour and festivity. Redheylin (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Superseeded

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)

Thank you for contacting me here, TMToulouse. Now, please bear with me, since you can see I am trying to accomodate you. I am concerned on the one hand that "pseudoscience" tags are causing a historical distortion, not just here but in many places. It is true to say that Reich's views were tenable in the 20s and 30s when he formed them - in fact he was the only one who tried to subject Freud's "Libido" to experimental verification and he deserves praise for that. I think it is also fair to say he suffered unduly because he was a communist and a sex-liberationist, and he was getting unhinged at the end. However, though a poor experimenter in the physical sciences, he certainly believed in what he was doing and tried to get help from good physicists.
He was spurred on by the reports of patients. The situation is as in acupuncture, where an apparently empirical viable therapy has the baggage of an untested and perhaps untestable theoretical background without a real alternative in terms of western biology. So from the view of complementary medicine orgone is a "putative energy".
But on the other hand I am concerned about readers; I would like to say "if you are ill, see a doctor, do not rely on untested remedies, advertised goods and services may be pure quackery, while Reich's claims can be tested cheaply and easily, so do not part with your money." I think it ought to be said, but it will be POV unless, as I am thinking today, I can find such a notable statement and quote it - perhaps the medicine portal will help. Perhaps you can also help. I think some such stock statement should always be at the bottom of the lede in cases like this.
Now, taking all that into account - I will need a better source for WHAT? I can certainly back what I am saying because I have read the literature. Reich says he was inspired by legitimate vitalists prior to the grand synthesis. Vitalism is listed in Wiki as a superseded theory. Gardner is not a scientist, and the only real scientific comments of the time come from the FDA. Reich was not condemned by the scientific community in his lifetime - if you can find something since, that is fine. But please see the difference between good 1930 science and good 2000 science. Regards. Redheylin (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)