Talk:Orgone/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Being as blunt as humanly possible

Life on Earth is an electrochemical process, based on carbon-hydrogen-oxygen-nitrogen structure; carbon-hydrogen-oxygen for fuel and energy storage; oxygen and phosphorus for energy generation and transport; calcium, sodium, and potassium for energy transport and signaling; and the whole thing is held together by sulfur bonds, with the odd trace element for a few special roles. The basics of this were all well-established in Reich's time, yet he proposed a vitalistic force called orgone. Well, seventy years on, those chemical basics have been not only confirmed but their understanding greatly refined by such things as Watson and Crick's discovery of the DNA helix, and they regulate every activity of life from the most primitive RNA-peptide transcription up to me typing this note on the Internet. There has never been any observation of, need for, or even room for orgone or any force like it, as electrochemical interactions are sufficient for every observed life process. The fact that the Reichian remnant continues to present orgone theory as science, despite its failure to contribute anything meaningful to biology, physics, geology, astronomy, or any other field it touched makes it unquestionably pseudoscience. Haikupoet (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Watson-Crick postdates Gardner! As I pointed out in the "Fringe Theories" conversation, vitalism is a usual biological and psychological position in the early 20thC and has never been totally eclipsed. I do not want to repeat these arguments, please look up and read the various bios I have contributed. Redheylin (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Watson-Crick does postdate Gardner. But it's irrelevant to my point in this section; what I'm saying is that not only was Reich's work not only irrelevant at the time, it has continued to lose relevance since as the evidence of a strict materialist view of biology has continued to build. Gardner's work wasn't even really a nail in the coffin, just a description of the nails that were already there. As for vitalism, I'm afraid you're wrong. Biology in this day and age is a strictly materialist undertaking and neither biology nor physics has found anything in nature that could possibly qualify as a "life force" other than the electrochemical reactions we already know about. Truthfully, vitalism was doomed the moment Wöhler discovered urea synthesis, and dead when DNA was connected to Mendelian genetics; everything else was cleanup. Haikupoet (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well - that's your view. Excuse me if I conclude you know little of the history of hiology. Please look at the previous material before you waste any more time . Meanwhile, there is no refutation of Reich that's worth a light, so we cannot say there is. Your view will not make it so. If you say "it has to be so because I believe it is so" - what is that? Science? Redheylin (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The further we get the more obvious it becomes that you shouldn't be editing this article. You have drank too deeply of Reich's kool aid. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, if we can manage without the ad hominem and ad nauseam?Redheylin (talk) 02:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Then stop trying to argue that Reich's theories are some how valid and focus on sourced verifiable information. If the content is sourced to a reliable source then do not revert it simply because it goes against your uh, world view......can you put your POV aside and allow information into this article that you disagree with? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof is not on us to refute Reich; the burden of proof is on Reich's supporters to back up his claims. In 70+ years, this has yet to be done to the satisfaction of the science community, and orgone theory has long since been left in the dust. Haikupoet (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If I might intrude momentarily to make a small point and congratulate you all on your eloquence and ability to tapdance on the edge of incivility without actually falling in... might Reichianism be allowed the indulgence of being grouped with the pre-Einstein physicists, whose work, while interestingly describing natural phenomena, has subsequently been proven to be...well...not quite right? Rumiton (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Newtonian mechanics, as an example of Pre-Einsteinian physics, is in fact quite right, as long as you are dealing with non-relativistic objects. It has been tested and verified experimentally over and over again. Maxwell's equations also predate Einstein, yet they have been tested and verified experimentally. And then there have been theories, before as well as after Einstein, that have been tested and falsified experimentally. And then there are theories that still have to be tested experimentally. Reich's theories (to avoid the word Reichianism, which makes it sound like an ideology) have not yet been tested experimentally, and scientists seem to hesitate to put them to the test, since they are incompatible with so much of the building of theoretical physics that has been tested and verified experimentally that they fear that designing and conducting such experiments would be a waste of time better spent on experiments that are better for their career (that includes me). But if someone not afraid of wasting his/her time and capable of raising funding wants to conduct an experiment according to scientific standards, that will have to be accepted by everyone who truly is a scientist. --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 15:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

DrT, thanks for your improvement of the caption. Now - Maxwell's equations are verified and still work, but at the time they involved an unknown "demon" for which a luminiferous ether was posited until Michelson-Morley. This happened, but nobody is rushing to write "Maxwell=pseudoscience" because of that ether. We can see his place, because a better paradigm came along and we can see where he fits in history and that his work was useful though his ideas were wrong. Now, at the same time, a generation of biologists passed by who (many of whom) worked under the assumption that there was a "Life force". So when Reich wanted an objective, material libido he turned to the vitalists and began to experiment and conjecture. But that generation found themselves yesterday's people after WW2. Reich's story greatly resembles that of Alexander Gurwitsch.

I am talking about Maxwell's equations (electrodynamics), not Maxwell's demon (thermodynamics). --DrTorstenHenning (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I myself do not think there is any special material life-force but, if it is ever found, I doubt it will be called "orgone" anyway. Nevertheless, Reich may have discovered something with his contraptions and misinterpreted, just like Maxwell. But I look at the work of Gardner cited above, and he does not give me this option. Either he has to be a god or an idiot: no middle ground is offered - and there is no god! That's why I count this source as polemic, not serious scientific thought - apart from his lack of a rigorous chain of reasoning and of any empirical investigation. If there is a useful clinical benefit and we ignore it because we do not like the putative energy paradigm around it, we are making a mistake. Medicine has a duty to use whatever works, even if we do not know how it works. Until these effects are dismissed or explained, though, we cannot take notice of them under any head but "orgone". The thing is called "orgone accumulator". So I am arguing for an open mind and a historical sense, oh and a good article. I am not arguing for any physical life force. Redheylin (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Your personal issues with Gardner are irrelevant. He passes WP:RS and can therefore be used in this article. QED. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Gardner was always there, pseudoscience was always there, under 2 Evaluation. The lede just stated what Orgone was according to Reich. That's what you took exception to. Redheylin (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The lede said very little actually, and that's what I am trying to remedy below, your pot shot aside. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

DrT - Sorry about my sloppy use of "demon" but I am sure you recognise the (EM) anomaly that I referred to - the controversy, the eventual reframing of the equations to remove Maxwell's ether, the long delay before news of this filtered through to the vitalists and their own emergent reasons for continuing regardless. And I am sure you see the point that Maxwell is not condemned for this and Rumiton was not altogether wrong.

Now orgone is a "putative food under the act" it is more or less incumbent upon the US govt to confirm or deny any claimed clinical benefit fairly quickly. If they do, this subject may require rethinking, but it will have to pass every biological theory before any physicist is needed. That's what is happening with acupuncture: there's a therapeutic effect but, so long as a neural theory exists, however unsatisfactory, no physicist is running to do chi experiments. How would you, even? Is it a Popperian concept? Not yet, I do not think. I certainly do not think it a waste of time to disprove a mistaken but commonly held idea, as you suggest. Was Michelson wasting his time, bothering to disprove ether? No, because it was affecting mainstream research. Reich is not that, but he is affecting the psychological world, and that idea is still hanging here. It is still notable, that is why we are talking. I say this because that has been the argument since 1954 - why bother? And the result is, we are still here discussing....think of all the wasted time. Better to run tests on the claimed effects, then talk bio-physics if we need to. Meanwhile orgone is a recognised putative paradigm for a claimed effect that is (weakly) supported and unrefuted. Redheylin (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead

One step at a time, if we can get a lead written that reaches consensus the rest of the article will be a lot easier. What the lead needs to say:

• What orgone is specifically, when it was developed and by who
• A brief summary of its historical influences, specifically vitalism
• A brief summary of what Reich claims it can do
• Its failure to be measured reliably and its rejection both during its creation and currently as pseudoscience by its skeptics
• A brief response to the pseudoscience lable by supporters

All of this must be sourced to WP:RS sources. Feedback? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Very good. It doesn't have to be in RS sources, because I doubt the responses will be. Nor are many of the critics RS. (That's parity of sources at WP:FRINGE [1].) Use as many RS as possible, and provide quotes if asked. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say "we are prevented from bringing you a refutation of Reich's ideas because the FDA made it illegal to seek one. But now they have relented, we aim to write this article to make sure that, even so, everybody assumes they have been refuted so nobody ever refutes them, for better or for worse, and this article will remain like this till doomsday".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Redheylin (talk • contribs)

Yea, um thanks for that valuable feedback, I will take it into consideration. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is just your idea of A Modest Proposal, Anon, but you know damn well that's completely unacceptable. Wikipedia does not deal in conspiracy theories, or snark, or double-talk. Wikipedia deals in facts. And, as I stated above, either orgone theory has made a significant contribution to biology, medicine, etc. that has resulted in substantial further research, or it has not. Given the lack of evidence for anything stated in orgone theory, the burden is on its supporters to prove it, not on its opponents to refute it. Show us the studies. Show us the cures -- or even just verifiable biological effects -- that orgone theory has made possible. Show us a field where orgone has become a significant unifying theme; surely, given how all-encompassing Reich's conception of orgone was, there should be at least one or two. If nothing else, show us why orgone theory isn't a barely coherent mishmosh of vitalism, pantheism, ether theory, and wishful thinking. Haikupoet (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not OK? OK. I do not think it is pantheism, though - Reich was an atheist. It's certainly a mishmosh of ether and vitalism, though. But look! I have the answer! When I scrutinise the FDA document closely, I notice it says "putative energies are foods under the act": it cannot be that these two agencies do not know what they are saying. So could we begin the article "Orgone is a food that does not exist. It probably does not work either, we will tell you in a couple of years"?

I doubt there's anything to be gained from mentioning obscure regulatory absurdities. It's like the radio crank who claimed his ultra-wideband packet radio system was actually ultra-narrowband -- the data was carried in numerous low-power sidebands that could be ignored, but only from a regulatory sense; if you filtered out the sidebands, the data vanished. (For reference, it's "The VMSK Delusion" on ka9q.net.) Haikupoet (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right; we should not listen to clinical claims without trials, even if every exponent has a hundred anecdotes (which they seem to have). We should not write anything to support current orgone sales in any way. The NCCAM also cannot allow claims without benefit, so I am sure we will hear all about it very soon. As far as Reich's psychotherapy and ideology goes, it hardly depends on any orgone. I have a certain respect for those factors and a sympathy with what became of him because of it. I have an understanding of the progress of ideas in the life sciences also. I am not in any way arguing that orgone should appear in this piece to be an established fact. Redheylin (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Then we are forced to the conclusion that it is, in fact, pseudoscience by definition. In any case, Reich's ideas on psychotherapy are not at issue here anyway, as they were pretty well accepted by the mainstream in his lifetime, and I for one simply don't know their status now. (Considering the less-than-stellar esteem Freud's work is held in now, and the thundering herd of rabid elephants that was Lacanian postmodernism, I would imagine it's a little lost in the shuffle, but that's only an uneducated guess.) Haikupoet (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone is a mishmosh of ether and vitalism that you just can't refute! Try Orgone! The non-existent food that cures cancer"? Any good? Thought not. Redheylin (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

One thing I can say without having taken the time to read all that, is that it doesn't matter a whit what any of you think. If it does matter, then stop writing the article right now, because you aren't being NPOV. The sources should dictate the article, and what you think of the subject should not have any influence whatsoever. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• One thing I can say is that you're still wikilawyering. Please join the consensus-building like Redheylin has or cease and desist. WP:POINT WP:IAR. Haikupoet (talk) 05:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone can't be said to be a pseudoscience, or not, except by good sourcing, well attributed. People's opinions are what get in the way of consensus. I'm not sure if I see anything in this section which would lead to actually writing the lead yet. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• By your logic, we can't even state that 2*3=6 without citing a multiplication table. I'm pretty sure that isn't the intent of the policies. We are attempting to objectively determine whether orgone theory is pseudoscience or not; unless you're a strict postmodernist, this is a point that can be objectively proven based on the record of orgone theory in the scientific arena. Haikupoet (talk) 02:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

What we, as editors, think of the subject has absolutely no relevance to how we should compose our treatment of it. Anything else is a violation of NPOV, an non-negotiable principle of Wikipedia. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• "What we think" is not what is at issue here. Whether orgone theory fits the definition of pseudoscience is the issue. Science has a specific definition, and pseudoscience does as well. This is a point that can be objectively determined, the same way as the relationship between two species can be determined based on their DNA or whether an engine is internal or external combustion. More in response to your statement below. Haikupoet (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting down to specifics: the phrase "universal creative substratum" is absolute meaningless cr*p and needs removed. Famousdog (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely it is one of many phrases in this article that are just total fluff or psychobable. I am going to rewrite the lead following the structure outlined above, and a concise description of orgone will not include meaningless gibberish. It is just that this article has been spoiling my view of wikipedia as a whole lately so needed a break. I will get to it soon enough if someone doesn't beat me to it. As the lead stands now it is factually inaccurate, POV, and full of gibberish. Hence the tags which keep getting deleted by our local strong advocate of the empty phrase. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh great. In my absence it has changed to the even more deliberately meaningless "bioenergetic extrapolation". What a f*cking load of toss. Famousdog (talk)

Proposed lead

Based on the outline above I have written a new lead and am proposing it here, there are 2 days on the protection of the page, hopefully enough time to hash this out. I have attempted to incorporate as reasonably as possible the various elements that have been discussed:

Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s for a proposed omnipresent force in nature. Reich's theory is derived from Freudian psycho-analysis and biological vitalism and was claimed to account for wide variety of phenomenon including "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm." Orgone has failed any attempt at repeatable measurement and has been classed as pseudoscience by critics. In the 1950s all reference to orgone was banned by the US Food and Drugs Authority but the National Ceneter for Complementary and Alternative Medicine defines orgone as a "putative energy" that may provide a clinical paradigm for some psychotherapist.

Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

• For what it's worth I'd like to draw peoples' attention to other references, particularly the Skeptic's Dictionary entry. Considering skepticism deals pretty strictly in what can and can't be proven, I'd consider it a fairly reliable reference for the pseudoscience argument. I still think, however, that there is a tremendous amount of hairsplitting and wiki-lawyering on the part of those who wish to have the pseudoscience thing left out. Haikupoet (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics' Dictionary is fine as a source, with attribution. Jayen466 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not an NPOV lead. It uses highly controversial and POV sources to make unattributed claims of fact. The SD can't be used that way. As a similar example, seem my link to where the ArbCom talks about Quackwatch. In short, really heavy attribution is necessary in this lead, or else much better sourcing. Only the first and last sentences pass muster. The NIH source is very good. Here is what Carroll says about the SD:

"The reader is forewarned that The Skeptic’s Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects." [2] ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary is used to source a description of orgone, what in that description is invalid? It is not used to source the pseudoscience claim or anything else. I disagree completely that skeptics dictionary can not be used the way it is used. What specifically is wrong with the description of orgone? Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"I think there might be sources for the vitalism comparison, no? But I can't find any, nor are any presented here [10]" Martinphi - this is because the refs were removed - that is why you will find me above asking that they be replaced. I will see to it. Redheylin (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Between 1919 and 1921, I became familiar with Driesch's 'Philosophie des Organischen' and his 'Ordnungslehre'. I understood the first book but not the second. It was clear that the mechanistic conception of life, which also dominated our medical studies, could not provide a satisfactory explanation [to the question "What is life?"]. Driesch's contention seemed incontestable to me. He argued that, in the sphere of the life function, the whole could be developed from a part, whereas a machine could not be made from a screw. On the other hand, his use of the concept of 'entelechy' to explain living functioning was unconvincing. I had the feeling that an enormous problem was evaded with a word. Thus, in a very primitive way, I learned to draw a clear distinction between facts and theories about facts. I gave considerable thought to Driesch's three proofs of the specific totally different characteristics of living matter as opposed to inorganic matter. They were well-grounded proofs. However, I couldn't quite accept the transcendentalism of the life principle. Seventeen years later I was able to resolve the contradiction on the basis of a formula pertaining to the function of energy. Driesch's theory was always present in my mind when I thought about vitalism. The vague feeling I had about the irrational nature of his assumption turned out to be justified in the end. He landed among the spiritualists." (The Function of the Orgasm, 1973, p.23, quoted by Malgosia Askanas, Ph.D., "Expose of Orgonomy" retrieved from http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/expose.php )

On Hans Driesch - some kind person has provided a biography! You will find an evaluation of his theories at vitalism.

Redheylin (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me specifically what aspects of the lead are not acceptable, I am not interested in discussing anything else at this time. I have included much of the information that has been edited wared over lately, at this point anything that is not a specific reference to the above lead, is just pablum. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to help a bit since I'm passing by:

• Regarding the first sentence, it's a "term", is it? That's not what the article is about. Consider "is an omnipresent force in nature proposed by...".
• Regarding the second sentence, it says that Orgone energy "was claimed" to do all sorts of things. The trailing reference goes to an article about chi that doesn't mention the claims. I think the references might of got switched around. (ref fixed) That besides, it uses a passive voice which is discouraged.
• Regarding the third sentence, specifically the word psudeoscience. The article introduces "Orgone energy" as a term for a theory. The second sentence begins talking about a specific theory regarding the term. The third sentence implicitly labels Reich's work and results as psudeoscience.
• Regarding the fourth sentence, these terms exist as Wikipedia articles. Link them! The FDA and the NCCAM. Also consider linking putative energy. This sentence really is too long. Consider splitting it, or removing the part after "but".
• Regarding the text after the "but". But what? This sentence doesn't literally say anything that counters the first half of the sentence. Also consider the statement "that may provide". This is a weasel word since anything that may provide, may also not. The statement is meaningless. Finally, the reference doesn't support the statement. The reference merely mentions Orgone energy in passing as a type of putative energy; a type of energy that has "defied measurement to date by reproducible methods".

I hope I was of some help. (if looks like you guys might need some! :D) –Gunslinger47 04:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice, Gunslinger47. I lost an edit here, will have to come back tomorrow if I can. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to make changes based on the above feedback:

Orgone energy is a is a type of putative energy theorized by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s. According to Reich, it is an omnipresent force in nature that could account for a wide variety of phenomenon including "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm." Reich's theory is derived from Freudian psycho-analysis and biological vitalism. Orgone has failed any attempt at repeatable measurement and has been classed as pseudoscience by critics.

Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A couple final suggestions: The final sentence is still awkward. In particular, "some therapist have claimed" is quite problematic since it's anonymous attribution that's not immediately clarified by the reference (as far as I could read with a glance). I suggest removing this sentence, but moving the reference and the term "putative energy" into the first sentence. Making it something like "Orgone energy is a type of putative energy theorized by psychoanalist Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s. According to Reich, it is an omnipresent force in nature that could account for a wide variety..." –Gunslinger47 19:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

* a omnipresent? *who said he discovered it in the late 1930s - what does this mean, that he said it in the late 30s or discovered it then? *Reich's theory - WHAT theory? *He claimed it could account - "claimed" is recognised as a non-neutral word and deprecated - and is this the theory that could account, or the force, or vitalism and psycho-analysis? *a wide variety of phenomenon??*He claimed it could account for a wide variety of phenomenon including "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm." - whether in quotation marks or not, these statements should be a valid, verifiable description of Reich's claims from a reliable source. If not, then they belong in opinions down with Jack Kerouac. The reader needs to be able to verify that orgone causes orgasms and revolutions and so forth, according to Reich, and this needs to be thoroughly set out in the body of the article.*The Nccam article says "defied", not failed. No failed test has been produced.*some therapist have claimed - see above. Note that inclusion of a pseudo-science opinion necessitates inclusion of a balancing opinion. Here is my suggestion:

• LOSE WEIGHT WITH ORGONE!
• Take off that body armor!
• Burn off that energy running away from William Burroughs!
• Save calories with a great-tasting, mass-free, non-existent food! (c.2008 FDA)

Redheylin (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have changed claims to other word choices, beyond that I am finding it difficult to find constructive and useful criticism in the rest of what you have said. Please strip out the hyperbole and try again. I am attempting to work with you, please try and work with me in a good faith manner. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• a omnipresent?
• a wide variety of phenomenon??
• some therapist?

Redheylin (talk) 01:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So it is safe to assume you don't have anything really of substance to offer this discussion then? Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You are using an unreliable source as your main source and it makes assertions that I question. Users will fail to verify the statements made because they are not, and cannot be, referenced by the cited source. The self-confessed non-neutrality of the source has been stated many times. It is contrary to wiki guidelines. You, Haikipoet and Famousdog wish to insert a "pseudoscience" statement in the lede. You have tried to do it by edit-war and now you want to do it by promoting skepdic to the world's leading authority on Reich. But none of you is familiar enough with the literature to stay in the argument. Please do not mistake the unwillingness of myself and other editors endlessly to repeat ourselves for assent, nor the absurdity I discover in these sorry antics for dialogue. If you want a serious conversation, produce a lede that reflects the article as it stands, as per guidelines. That means solid, reliable, cited expansions of all that sex and revolution nonsense will have to be inserted - and no such thing exists, because the skepdic piece is comedy, not psychology Redheylin (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Skeptics dictionary is not I repeat not and one more time just for good measure not used to source the pseudoscience claim. I am disappointed that you have defaulted back to attacks ony fellow editors rather than actually paying attention to the conversation. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not say it was. Redheylin (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Omnipresent is a word meaning "everywhere simultaneously". Reich described his energy as such, according to the Skepdic. The suggested usage of the word for this article is adequately attributed to Reich and sourced to Skepdic. What's the problem? –Gunslinger47 01:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there some doubt that Reich used this word to describe Orgone energy? –Gunslinger47 04:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I revised the lead without thinking about the talk page, and then got reminded there was a debate going on here. sorry.  :-) here's the revision I made, for your discussion, and I'll rollback the change I made on the main page,

Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s. Originally, orgone energy was a bioenergetic extrapolation of the Freudian concept of libido, the life force of an individual. Much of Reich's early work, like much of Freud's, was dedicated to researching therapeutic techniques for releasing blockages of energy in the human body and mind, since such blockages were considered by both to be the primary source of psychopathology. However, Reich's later work began to treat this energy as an increasingly more generalized and universal construct. Orgone energy in its proper sense is not a personal energy like libido, but rather a universal energy that flows through all things. In his later years, Reich claimed that orgone was the prominent underlying force in almost all observable phenomena, in particular weather patterns, and created devices intended to capture and amplify it.

Reich's followers, such as Charles R. Kelley, construed orgone as the creative substratum in all nature, and compared it to Mesmer's animal magnetism, the Odic force of Carl Reichenbach and Henri Bergson's Élan vital..

--Ludwigs2 05:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I added what I did to give a sense for what Orgone originally was and what it developed into over time. let me know if you guys think this would work, and in the meantime I'll read over the debate here more carefully.--Ludwigs2 05:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Martin and Ludwig. I have reported two editors to the Incidents page. Modifications have been made to this talk page and subsequently to the Incidents page itself. Please inspect the history pages of both and any contributions pages and talk pages you think appropriate, of any you may think have been disruptive or partisan in this matter. Please inspect Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard‎ too under Orgone then advise me. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw Poll

The proposed lede as it stands is as follows:

Orgone energy is a is a type of putative energy theorized by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s. According to Reich, it is an omnipresent force in nature that could account for a wide variety of phenomenon including "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm." Reich's theory is derived from Freudian psycho-analysis and biological vitalism. Orgone has failed any attempt at repeatable measurement and has been classed as pseudoscience by critics.

I would like to take a brief straw poll of editors currently following this discussion about moving forward and putting this into the article. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Well, do not count anything I say, as I said. Oh no I havent said it after all. Strange, I thought I said it twice. Do not worry, I have called the loony bin. If I vote on anything - DELETE IT!!! Redheylin (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If the sources actually say what they are sourcing, and if everything is sourced- yes. But you just can't use that source that much- it's highly partisan. I think there are problems, but can't research it now. But suffice it to say that this is an equivocal yes vote: if the criteria are actually met (which doesn't seem to be the case), yes. If they aren't this can't be called consensus. Certainly I think you should have much better sourcing. The NIH is a good source, and sufficient to the claim if it actually says that about orgone. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

What source are you discussing? What statement of fact needs a source or a better source or is not supported by the source. The sources are the NIH, Skeptic Dictionary two books and a peer reviewed paper. The only source in that which seems disputable is Skeptics Dictionary and it is being used to source what seems like an accurate summary of what orgone purports to measure. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You think orgone "purports to measure" something? I support Ludwig. Quick, wipe this comment off like the other ones! (see above folks, check the history, let's get this thing clear). Redheylin (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and Martin, it does not say that. The NCCAM defines "putative energies" in general as those that have "DEFIED" satisfactory proofs and it includes orgone as an example of a "putative" elsewhere. It does not say orgone has failed tests. Mind you, I am suffering from mild insanity just now - I tried to warn them about it. Please ignore this. Oh and thanks for trying to stick up for me before. Wibble. Redheylin (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Did TMT get edited out somehow? If so sorry Redheylin (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC) - Here he comes:

Here is the deal, when you can post a comment with out dropping into martyr mode or ad hominem attacks I will work with you. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey but now YOURE off topic, just like I was when I said

I would like to invite readers to join a competition to find the little giveaway further up the page and follow it back till they find out which editors are agents provocateurs from an outfit notably ill-disposed to this one. But I am not going to as it's all just my imagination. Redheylin (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you guessed to whom I was referring, before I realised I was paranoid when you took it out for me? Because I have no idea! So let's just forget we said those things and adopt Ludwig's intro.Redheylin (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If Ludwig adds some sources a lot of it would be good for a follow up paragraph to the lead, but at the moment we are discussing the above lead. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There are too many "skeptic" sources for my liking in the proposed lede. This is not an NPOV summary of notable literature on Reich's orgone hypothesis. Further, I would agree with Redheylin that the enumeration of things orgone is supposed to do comes across as comedy or flippancy, and thus does not live up to the standard expected of encyclopedic writing. No one should be under the illusion that Gardner, Carroll and a generic paper on pseudoscience are enough to write an encyclopedic article on this topic. I like the general tone and gist of Ludwigs2's lede; that is much better. However, some of the FDA controversy should be covered in the lede as well. Jayen466 01:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

A note on Mr Harrer: He did replicate Reich's findings in several experiments but offered alternative explanations of his own and Reich's orginal observations, using classical physics. Detailed reports of his research can be found at http://www.datadiwan.de/netzwerk/index.htm?/harrer/ha_001d_.htm (in German only). His research was conducted at a renowed state university and, as far as I can judge, upholds scientific standards. I have written a bit more about his research on the discussion page of the Wilhelm Reich article. 85.216.21.115 (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

would someone please explain to me...

1. what is the problem with comparing orgone theory to vitalism? they are certainly similar enough for a compare/contrast effort, no?
2. what is the need to slap a pseudoscience label into the lead? Reich was one of Freud's inner-circle students, right there at the beginning of psychoanalytic theory; his orgone theory is a direct extrapolation of Freud's libidinal theory, and at the time of its creation would have been considered one of the primary competing formulations of psycho-physical processes in the psychoanalytic world. the fact that the theory has fallen out of grace is maybe unfortunate and maybe justified (and maybe both), but none of that supersedes the fact that for a time it was close to the pinnacle of theory and research in the field.

also, the FDA actions are irrelevant to this discussion. the FDA is a regulatory agency, not a scientific one; they busted Reich for transporting unapproved medical devices across state lines, which has nothing to do with the soundness (or lack thereof) of his theories. please leave that out of the argument. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• Putting aside for the moment that there's some question as to whether even Freud's work could be considered scientific (the record shows that he was very prone to unwarranted data massaging and prejudicial readings), the simple fact is that as far as compare/contrast efforts go, this is what we're doing here over the pseudoscience issue here. The holdout is that one or two of the people involved in this debate apparently seems to feel that an objective comparison of orgone theory to any meaningful definition of pseudoscience is original research (although I don't see any mention of that particular term), and that such a determination can only be added based on the statements of a third party reference. (Evidently the same situation obtains for the vitalism comparison, but I haven't been following that side of it.) Haikupoet (talk) 02:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said above, there shouldn't be any argument among editors based on what the editors believe. On 1: I think there might be sources for the vitalism comparison, no? But I can't find any, nor are any presented here [3]. On 2: I think it can be sourced to notable sources. But, what you said applies also, in that they were talking about what it became, not what it was to begin with. That might be a distinction to be made. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know if such a distinction is meaningful; the definition of science has remained pretty constant since at least the 1700s, as a search for information based on how well a hypothesis conforms to observed reality. Even in its own time orgone "theory" was little more than a hypothesis, and a rather hubristically wide-ranging one at that; Reich latched onto orgone and tried to explain everything with it long before he'd successfully made his case to the scientific community at large. As I've said in other comments, Reich's most basic data was not reproducible outside his own circles; it may have been scientific at one point, but where it became pseudoscience is when Reich refused to accept the failure of his hypothesis and rode his convictions all the way to Federal prison. Haikupoet (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything you say is correct, here and above [4]. It fits the definition of original research. Call me a wiki lawyer all you want. Chant it. WP doesn't work if we do OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:POINT. WP:IAR. The original research rule is meant to forestall preconceived notions and half-baked ideas from being enshrined in Wikipedia; fact=NPOV whatever way you slice it. Reich made a hypothesis and failed to support it; it has had no meaningful effect on science after his time; it is nevertheless still presented as such by his supporters. IT IS NOT SCIENCE, and the fact that it is represented as such makes it pseudoscience. To deny it because of a lack of a reference that uses that exact wording is pointless nitpicking, and leaves the encyclopedia poorer for failing to acknowledge it. Haikupoet (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read the Five pillars of wikipedia before arguing over WP policy. Here is the relevant bit of the second pillar: WP:V. Also please read the bold parts in WP:OR. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haikupoet, if you feel relevant views are underrepresented in the article as it stands, you need to research the relevant sources, and then we can say in the article what these sources say. We cannot simply write your opinions into the article. If you claim these opinions are widespread and reflect general consensus, the onus is on you to demonstrate this. This is what brings articles and discussions forward. Also, note that this revert did not add value; it appears you failed to notice that the two tags you inserted say exactly the same as the single tag that was there already ("The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed"). Jayen466 01:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haikupoet - you're wrong about the definition of science. prior to the early twentieth century science didn't have a definition per se - more of a set of exemplars. people began striving for an effective definition last century, and as of now there are three or four major contenders and a few minor ones still vying for the title. besides, my real argument is more linguistic - the term 'pseudoscientific' adds nothing to the discussion of Reich's work: it's simply an attempt to enforce a particular perception of that work as 'less-than.' it's not our job to convince people that Reich's work is fishy - I think anyone who reads a perfectly unbiased description of his work will come to that conclusion on their own (and anyone who doesn't come to that conclusion is not going to be swayed because you've added the word 'pseudoscientific'). what is your problem with allowing people to decide on their own? --Ludwigs2 05:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For the second time I am removing this tag here and asking which facts are disputed. Disputed facts should be cited since if they cannot be verified they must be removed. I have read this page thoroughly and cannot find any fact disputed. I can find a dispute whether orgone should be termed "pseudoscience" - this remains a POV since it finds no statement of general consensus. Redheylin (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is Kelley's definition:

Orgone energy is Wilhelm Reich's name for the substratum from which all nature is created. The best definition this author can provide for it is this: Orgone energy is the creative force in nature.

I note some editors are discussing, not what the quoted source, says, but what they think he ought to have said. Similar sourced definitions can, of course, be submitted. The longer list of the supposed qualities of orgone is derived from a reliable secondary source, giving a fair synopsis of Reich's published claims. If there is any question as to the reliability of these definitions, please post it. Redheylin (talk) 04:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, could someone just point me to where on this page the disputed facts are listed? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me we need to question the scientific basis of psychotherapy in all such articles. There is much in the literature to so The7thdr (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

fresh start

ok, I had a chance to read over the mess of dialog on this page. let me try to start this discussion fresh and see if we can get somewhere with it.

incidentally - Redheylin, just my opinion, bit I think you should dial it back a couple of notches. while there is clearly a divisive content dispute going on, for the most part everyone here seems to be behaving in good faith.

now with articles like this, I think you always have to go to extremes to distinguish between the belief, its supporters, and its claims. you need to respect the belief, and you need to respect the people who created it and hold it, but you need to be careful that it's unfounded claims are not passed of as truth. so I would suggest a lead along the following lines (starting from what I offered above...):

Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s. Originally, orgone energy was a bioenergetic extrapolation of the Freudian concept of libido, the life force of an individual, and as such was used as a core concept in Reich's version of psychoanalysis. However, Reich's later work began to treat this energy in increasingly more generalized and abstract ways that took it far outside the realm of legitimate psychoanalytic theory. Orgone energy in its full sense was seen as a universal life force flowing through all things, and responsible for almost all observable phenomena. If captured, amplified, and focused - and Reich created devices intended for this purpose - orgone supposedly could be used to treat disease, enhance sexuality, and even influence weather patterns. Reich's followers, such as Charles R. Kelley, went so far as to construe orgone as the creative substratum in all nature, and compared it to Mesmer's animal magnetism, the Odic force of Carl Reichenbach and Henri Bergson's Élan vital..

Orgone was closely associated with sexuality: the term itself was chosen to share a root with the word 'orgasm.' The American public, however, was unaccustomed to the clinical conception of sexuality common in Viennese psychoanalytic circles, and so the concept scandalized conventional society even as it appealed to counter-cultural figures like William S. Burroughs and Jack Kerouac. Investigation into orgone was effectively ended when Reich's research was seized and destroyed by the FDA as unapproved medical practices.

I've left out the word pseudo science, because I think this text effectively shows that Reich's (later) work was not in line with scientific practice - no sense indulging in name-calling if you don't have to.

let me know what you think of this as a start, and/or how you think it needs to be changed. --Ludwigs2 20:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While much of the information is valuable and should be integrated into the article I feel that as lead this is a significant back step from the proposed lead. A lead needs to provide a succinct summary of the major material facts. There is too much background information and less relevant paths as written to open with. It is also lacking any sources at all. I also feel very strongly that the properly attributed and sourced statement of orgone as pseudoscience is not needless name calling and that its removal is a POV problem and a factual inaccuracy do to omission of relevant information. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. if you truly want a "fresh start" dump the existing lead in the article and don't try and use it as a framework. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure I agree with that, Tm, though I'm open to revisions. but assuming that the following is the current version of your proposed lead (I'm porting it from above), then let me explain the weaknesses I see:

Orgone energy is a is a type of putative energy theorized by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s. According to Reich, it is an omnipresent force in nature that could account for a wide variety of phenomenon including "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm." Reich's theory is derived from Freudian psycho-analysis and biological vitalism. Orgone has failed any attempt at repeatable measurement and has been classed as pseudoscience by critics.

• the term putative energy was completely unknown to Reich, and he didn't theorize it that way. for Reich, orgone was a universal libidinal principle, and libido was never a "spiritual" idea. I suspect that Reich (because I know that Freud) really didn't work from a separate body/mind or body/spirit model; the psyche and the physical body were seen as a single system, and libido (orgone) was the operant energetic force behind that system. for example, Reich would certainly have said that it is libidinal/orgone energy that causes a cut on your hand to heal; he just wouldn't have though that was a particularly interesting field of research. by the same token, I'm not sure vitalism is really 100% accurate. I'm getting the sense that you are judging Reich's understanding of his work by the standards of the new age Reichian therapeutic techniques (which are both vitalist and putative energy oriented)
• the second sentence, while true, is just dropped in there without any attempt to make sense of it. I mean, if I walked up to you and said "you know, there are all of these tiny, tiny little animals that run around inside you, and that's what makes you sick" you'd think I was nuts, even though that phrase is factually correct (bacteria and viruses, yah?). to make sense of that phrase, it needs to be presented in context with some kind of background material.
• again, the pseudoscience name-calling bit is unnecessary. this is just a question of verbal neutrality. for example, the phrases "John had an affair with Jim's wife" and "John scr@%ed Jim's wife" are both factually true, but I think you'll recognize that the second one is a good bit harsher.

But let me offer this as a compromise:

Orgone energy is a bioenergetic extrapolation of the Freudian concept of libido, offered by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s. Like libido, orgone energy was conceived to be the life force of an individual, but Reich began to treat this energy in increasingly more generalized and abstract ways that took it far outside the realm of legitimate psychoanalytic theory. Orgone energy in its full sense was seen as a universal life force flowing through all things, and responsible for almost all observable phenomena; an omnipresent force in nature that could account for a wide variety of phenomena including "the color of the sky, gravity, galaxies, the failure of most political revolutions, and a good orgasm." Reich's followers, such as Charles R. Kelley, went so far as to construe orgone as the creative substratum in all nature, and compared it to Mesmer's animal magnetism, the Odic force of Carl Reichenbach and Henri Bergson's Élan vital.. If captured, amplified, and focused - and Reich created devices intended for this purpose - orgone supposedly could be used to treat disease, enhance sexuality, and even influence weather patterns. However, modern attempts at making repeatable and reliable measurements of Orgone have failed.

Orgone was closely associated with sexuality: the term itself was chosen to share a root with the word 'orgasm.' The American public, however, was unaccustomed to the clinical conception of sexuality common in Viennese psychoanalytic circles, and so the concept scandalized conventional society even as it appealed to counter-cultural figures like William S. Burroughs and Jack Kerouac. Investigation into orgone was effectively ended when Reich's research was seized and destroyed by the FDA as unapproved medical practices.

Add that critics have labeled it pseudoscience at the end of the first paragraph, and we are almost there. I really would like to see some sources as well, not that I question its accuracy but there is a lot of verbal real estate making a lot of claims before we see any sources. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - that pseudoscience thing... I think we should make a special Wikipedia category for "Topics that Martin Gardner Considers to be Pseudoscience." Maybe we could even make a barnstar for it. For a half-baked mathematician and twice-baked science writer he sure gets a hell of a lot of air time.  :-)

I'll tell you what, let's compromise. find me someone in the psychoanalytic or psychological fields who calls Reich's work pseudoscience, and I'll let that in without question. what I expect to happen, of course, is that you'll find some decent critiques of Reich's work that we can include without having to resort to this 'pseudoscientific' name-calling thing. in the meantime I'll try to dig up some citations. it would help to know precisely what you think needs to be verified, so I don't waste time digging up references we don't need, so if you could drop me a quick list? --Ludwigs2 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Your personal issues with Gardner do not impeach him as a source, by every standard at wikipedia his books are a reliable source for an attribute statement. Demonstrate to me any policy anywhere on wikipedia that would prevent the use of Garnder's books. I will find other sources to ease this discussion but the sources as they stand now are more than adequate for the statement I want entered. Sources should be used for the orgone as an extension of Freudian libido, second sentence about the generalization of the concept, and a source for the claims of orgone to treat disease, enhance sexuality and control weather. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Demonstrate to me any policy anywhere on wikipedia that would prevent the use of Garnder's books.: The policy you are looking for is the first sentence of WP:NPOV: Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. Gardner, like Carroll, is an author who has written about many topics that he has neither formal training nor an active research pedigree in. As such, he has far less encyclopedic relevance than scholars of the fields concerned. Doesn't mean that Gardner and Carroll can't be used as sources, but as per WP:NPOV they must not be used in such a way that their statements and opinions overshadow or eclipse those of commentators that have met with far wider reception, as measured by scholarly citations in the academic literature of the fields concerned. Jayen466 01:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement I want entered is not "orgone is a pseudoscience" but rather "critics have labeled it pseudoscience." Which is perfectly sourceable to Gardner. It is not a violation of NPOV at all. I would like see the policy page that would say Gardner is not a reliable source for the statement that "critics have labeled orgone pseudoscience." Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We are meant to represent fairly, and without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. So the question is, what percentage of people who have commented on Reich's orgone theory have used the pseudoscience label? Just as a rough survey, google scholar has in the region of 2000 matches for Reich + orgone. There are 62 matches for Reich + orgone + pseudoscience. Likewise 62 matches for Reich + orgone + pseudoscientific. (Almost all of these are in fact the same documents.) So from this very superficial survey, it appears that a little over 3% of scholarly writings that mention Reich and orgone also mention the concept of pseudoscience (of course, it would remain to be seen whether they actually apply it to Reich's orgone hypothesis). 3% is not such a highly significant number that it would make a mention in the lede automatic; especially if the problems that the orgone hypothesis ran into are clearly mentioned, as they now are. Basically the point is, if we privilege the (at most) 3% against the other 97%, we are introducing bias, which is exactly what WP:NPOV is asking us not to do. Jayen466 02:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I like this intro a lot, and am in agreement with Ludwigs2 on the proper sourcing of the pseudoscience claim, if any. Just one quibble: "a wide variety of phenomena", please. Phenomenon is the singular, phenomena the plural. Jayen466 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Critics have labeled it pseudoscience" is actually worse than "Martin Gardner has labeled it pseudoscience;" check wp:Weasel#Variations. and I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to ask for a critical assessment of Reich from the field(s) that actually consider him one of their founding fathers. if psychologists call it a pseudoscience, then clearly a pseudoscience it is, right? why settle for a 2nd string source like Gardner when you have direct sources from the field that you can tap? and if you can't find any sources in the field that label Reich's work that way, then why should we believe Gardner?

"Critics" is no more a weasel words than "scientific community" particularly when the statement is followed by the sources which make the criticism. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Jayen - AAAAaaarrrgghhh... I can't BELIEVE you just corrected my spelling!!!! lol. fixed. --Ludwigs2 02:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources:

Lugg, A. (1987). Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem. Dialectica, 41(3), 221-230.

"Similarly, pseudoscientific predictions such as those made by clairvoyants and pseudoscientific therapies such as naturopathy and orgone therapy, can be analyzed by noting the spurious character of the confirmations and cures that are alleged to establish their authenticity. On the present account, the clairvoyant’s predictions are pseudoscientific whether or not they are correct because the very same predictions could have been made without resorting to cards, tea leaves, crystal balls or whatever 12. And naturopathy and orgone therapy should be discounted because their apparent success does nothing to establish their therapeutic efficacy. What matters in such cases is not whether cure follows therapy but whether the therapy produced it: correlations are one thing, causes another. In each of these cases, what is being criticized is not the theory itself - indeed none of these pseudosciences contains very much theory - but rather the characteristic procedures associated with it."

Isaacs, K. (1999). Searching for Science in Psychoanalysis. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 29(3), 235-252.

"Orgone—a useless fiction with faulty basic premises, thin partial theory, and unsubstantiated application results. It was quickly discredited and cast away."

Though the last doesn't call it pseudoscience we can add "a useless fiction" to the description, or you can just take the sources as they are and go with attributed and source statement as presented. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd much prefer a harsh critique from a clearly reliable and reputable source, than a buzzword from a third party. I consider that to be much more meaningful. would adding a line at the end that said Psychologist Kenneth Issacs considers it a "useless fiction, with faulty basic premises." work for everyone here? might need some phrasing tweaks... --Ludwigs2 03:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

A total of I think almost 6 sources for pseudoscience have been provided since this conversation began. There is no reason beyond ideology to keep it out at this point. You can not hold one niche article on wikipedia to an extreme standard not backed up by any policy. The sources provided are just as good as provided on many other articles about pseudoscience, in fact they are better than most. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've just run smack into wp:source. you have a clearly reliable, undeniably academic source that gets across the point you want to get across. that trumps Gardner hands down. if your point is to add an effective critique of Orgone, you've done it. however, if your point is to get the word "pseudoscience" into the article lead come hell or high water, then as far as I am concerned that's pure POV reasoning, and an even a greater reason to keep it out. --Ludwigs2 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not really up to you, since the sources are on my side it would seem your position is more precarious than mine. My motivation is not really relevant, it is what the sources say. Three acceptable sources can be listed that specifically use the phrase pseudoscience. It belongs in the lead. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say I also find the fervour with which some editors insist on the inclusion of the word "pseudoscience" in article ledes somewhat disturbing. However, in this case, having consulted the Encyclopedia Britannica on the matter, I note that in its article on Reich the EB also refers to orgonomy (commercial use of orgone boxes to heal cancer etc.) as a pseudoscientific system (which, along with his involvement in sexual politics, came to "overshadow" Reich's earlier psychoanalytic work). So it's okay by me for that to be done here, if the rest of you see your way clear to an agreement in that regard. Jayen466 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gardner as a Reliable Source

Please show me where I can see specific wikipedia policy that does not allow the use of Gardner as a source. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No one says Gardner cannot be used as a source. Whether he should be used depends on his importance in the overall pool of literature available to cover a topic. That is something that can be measured, for example by citations of his comments in literature relating to the topic. Wikipedia articles should generally be based on the most cited items of literature. Jayen466 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gardner is cited multiple times in literature on the subject of pseudoscience and specifically on orgone as pseudoscience. Are there corresponding RS that repudiate Gardner's ability to assess orgone? Are there sources that call orgone a valid scientific theory that also fall into the RS criteria? I think I have more than me the criteria for the half sentence I want in the lead, and have bent over backwards in working with material that others have wanted entered and have compromised repeatedly. But I am being shut down on a request that is completely with in wikipedia policy across the board. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

the problem is not whether Gardner is cited. Gardner is a prolific and well-respected author. the problem is with the domain. Steven King is also a prolific well-respected author - if he called orgone pseudoscience, would we take his word for it? being prolific and well-respected is not enough; you need to demonstrate that you have expertise in that domain that entitles you to make such claims. --Ludwigs2 03:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So me the specific wikipedia policy that I can read that invalidates Gardner? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess at some point it becomes notable criticism, if it is cited a lot. Gardner's "Fads and Fallacies ..." e.g. is well cited in google scholar. Here is an example. I am not against citing Gardner on principle, as a notable critic. Is he cited by literature in the actual field (i.e. psychology) as well? That would add further weight to his opinion. Jayen466 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Juding from a quick scan of the cites for Fads and Fallacies, it doesn't look like it. But then again, orgone makes claims beyond psychology, doesn't it. Jayen466 03:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Orgone certainly makes claims that extend well beyond psychology, well well well beyond. I am also unclear on the policy that says criticism can only be sourced if it comes from someone in a specific field. And again several other sources have been provided for the pseudoscience label. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

read wp:source. you don't want to trade a high quality source down to a low quality one. --Ludwigs2 03:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Gardner is not a low quality source, in addition there is the Dialetica source above that clearly labels it pseudoscience. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

argghh.. I hate the fact that this argument is spread over two sections. that's annoying.  :-( but TM, you are missing my point. I'm not saying that Gardener is a low quality source. I'm saying that he is a low quality source with respect to a professional in the correct field. if I'm being prescribed a medicine (told to use an orgone box, say) and I want to get a second opinion, I'm going to ask a medical doctor, not a mathematician. yes the mathematician may actually be smarter than the medical doctor, may actually be more reputable in some abstract way, may even actually be correct, but the fact of the matter is he's a mathematician, not a medical doctor. he's not supposed to be giving me medical advice, and there's something fishy about the fact that he is.

now if you really want to get pseudoscience into this article for some reason, then I suggest you track down the source the OED used (per Jayen's post above) and cite that. that would be the best solution all around. --Ludwigs2 04:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having a "non-skeptic" source saying so is preferable, for the above reasons, but also, and not least, because the reader faced with a Gardner quote is likely to say, Ah well, he is a known skeptic, he would say that, wouldn't he? A non-skeptic source actually carries more weight here. Jayen466 04:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to focus on finding what sources you can for the existing proposed lead. The last bit about what orgone is purported to do the wording bothers me, and I want to see a source for it to see how best to resolve that. At that point we can atleast get a better quality lead int the article and can address the pseudoscience claim after that. The rest of the article needs at least as much work as the lead so lets try and get this wrapped up. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

good point; I'll do that. give me a day to track it down. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to laugh. I stumbled on this source in the first five minutes of looking around on google scholar: what_is_orgone_energy. this is Charles R. Kelley's article "What is Orgone" - worth a read for anyone editing this site. on page 2 (the second through fifth paragraphs) he confirms how orgone was derived from the concept of libido; on page 15 he talks about how 'body armour' blocks energy flow and destroys sexual feeling, on page 5 (first paragraph) he talks about weather control and orgone accumulators. nothing about healing per se, though (pg 3 point 5) orgone is responsible for life, growth, learning, and etc. for a healing ref, we could probably just point to Reich's work "The Cancer Biopathy".

I'd forgotten how trippy this stuff is. honestly, this is not a source I would normally take as credible EXCEPT that every academic who researches Reich is going to cite it. don't know how much more of a reliable source you can get than that.  :-) --Ludwigs2 05:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s. - we might want to add this as an external link for the article, yah? --Ludwigs2 05:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Gardner and his relevance to the field: Gardner I think is best known as a skeptic and science writer. On those grounds he's quite admissible as an expert relevant to the field in question. Remember, skepticism is not simply a process of saying "no it ain't" -- it's about examining claims in light of what evidence is available. That Gardner's stock in trade has always been snark does not mean he doesn't put in the groundwork to examine the evidence in question; after all, he has to research the material in question to write on it. Perhaps not so relevant to the article at hand but nevertheless speaking to Gardner's credibility in the field of skepticism, Gardner is also a trained magician with an eye for spotting trickery and self-delusion. Such expertise proved very valuable in debunking many of the claims of the Human Potential Movement, as an example, and showed Uri Geller to be a fake. No, he is not a scientist per se, but he has much relevant expertise. Haikupoet (talk) 06:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Haikupoet - don't get me wrong, I'm really not anti-Gardner. the man strikes me as very intelligent, and committed to an advocacy of science that I have to respect. but this is a wikipedia sourcing issue. the entire point behind reliable sourcing is to ensure that the edits being entered reflect a professional consensus in the field in question. Gardner is clearly not a professional in many of the fields he criticizes, and so clearly cannot be said to have direct knowledge of any professional consensi within those fields. the only way his opinion can be ascribed value in these discussions is to say that he has a kind of 'meta-knowledge' from his history as a science writer and his understanding of scientific reasoning and methodology. However, I think it's clear that the direct knowledge of an actual professional should always be preferred to the indirect 'meta-knowledge' of an interested and intelligent third party.

further, I think it is in Wikipedia's best interests to always prefer a description to a label. the word 'pseudoscience' is simply a mildly derogatory label that's applied to subjects without a lot of thought; a description of the problems with a theory by an established professional in the field is a much better approach. --Ludwigs2 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig - (hello everyone) Ludwig you raised a few splendid points about vitalism and Kelley. It was I who brought Kelley in because he was well-cited and he linked Reich with Mesmer, which is valid, but his paper IS flakey. There has been (as you may know) a single issue campaign to add the word "pseudoscience" to the lede - and you are right that it is worth scaling back the pressure now that we have finally arrived at talking about sources - anyhow, one of my many attempts at compromise was to introduce "vitalism, a superseded theory". Anyhow, sourcing that took me to Margolis' quote about how Reich went after a kind of Drieschian libido. But she absolutely marmalises Kelley for drawing slack comparisons for, as you say, Reich was a stone-cold materialist. Nevertheless, given this and the post-Mesmerian origins of Freudian theories of hypnosis and the unconscious, I thought it fair to say that his ideas were formed by early 20C vitalist theories - not that he himself was a vitalist. The Margolis article is really sharp. But "The Cancer Biopathy" is a primary source. I agree that it's fair to say in the lede that mainstream psychology pretty much bypasses Reich and the above citation is probably a fair representation of what his critics in the field might say. And it saves the appearance of the article being written to a narrow "pseudo-rationalist" agenda. Perfectly reasonable compromise. I found another - look in the history - from a philosophy of consciousness bod. Redheylin (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

well, the reason I threw the Kelley article out there was that he's a first-hand source. his opinion is absolutely no good for any evaluation of Reich's work - it's totally POV - but for a description of Reich's work, there is no better source other than Reich himself. now I could get the same descriptions digging through "The Cancer Biopathy" and "Character Analysis," but that's a bit of a pain. I could also go and dig up some later writer talking about Reich's work, but more than likely what I'm going to find there is "according to Charles Kelly, Orgone is..." why use a middle man?

and really, I'm incredibly lazy. sad but true.  :-)

Let me check out your Margolis article, because if that gives us what we need without Kelley, that would be an improvement. --Ludwigs2 23:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

P.s. I'm having a hard time finding the margolis quote in the history - can you point me to it? --Ludwigs2 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

known was your problem to me, by super-orgone spidey sense that psychobabbled unto me, behold, thou hast cited the wrong author, let therefore the seeker go:

http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Science/expose.php

sorry!Redheylin (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - doooood... way too much time in the orgone box.  :-) --Ludwigs2 00:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

When I go to the above by from here by clicking I get an "antiwikipedia" page instead. The aetherometry server may be set to divert clicks from wikipedia. If this is so it would not be clever to link to the article. Does anyone else get that? Redheylin (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I get the same. Copying the above link and inserting it into a new window works fine; clicking on it above goes to antiwikipedia. Can still be cited, but only with a non-clickable address. Jayen466 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

lol - I just thought that was redheylin playing a joke on us.  :-) --Ludwigs2 20:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Woo, you never assumed good faith! I think these people are pissed off because they cannot get their etherism into Wiki. But the paper does back what Ludwig 11 was saying and it talks sense.

Redheylin (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

ok, all silliness aside - where are we on this lead? can we go ahead and post the revision we have, or are we still debating? --Ludwigs2 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Our rational colleagues have not checked in for a couple of days, and TMT has been engaged in an erm, difference of editorial opinion on another page. Please insert your lede, remove the tag and watch this space, so far as I am concerned. Redheylin (talk) 03:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that IMHO this whole situation is veering perilously close to abuse of process, it's sometimes a little pointless to keep fighting the issue. I will say that the above certainly sounds like a rather tactless declaration of victory by default. Haikupoet (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I try my best to stay on the honorable side. Tm, at least was agreeing with this version except for the ongoing quibble about the pseudoscience label, and I think the version that I just posted is clearly better then the stubby version it replaced, so I don't feel like I'm cheating. but if you disagree and you think I should roll it back, I will. I'm not interested in cheap victories. --Ludwigs2 03:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd thank Ludwig for stepping in and devoting a lot of time and thought to producing a consensus lede without approaching the task like a fight that has to be won. That level of editorial ethics is worth appreciating exactly because it is not universal, and for this reason I suggested to him that he might like to keep an eye out for later changes to the page made by those who engage in tendentious and destructive single-issue editing, since such folk think in terms of winning fights, not co-operating on good articles. The result is far from what I myself would have written, but I now consider the matter resolved. Redheylin (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Gardner is a reliable source on science. He's also a reliable source on the topic of pseudoscience. He's written extensively on "orgone" in particular, ie. notable. Why is his view that the topic of orgone is pseudoscience censored from the article? Further, why is there no mention at all of the extremely notable position that many feel orgone is pseudoscience? It's a notable position completely excluded. We need to fix that. " all significant views that have been published by reliable sources," per policy. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nealparr - I am glad to see that you are still editing and, if you stopped for a while, welcome back! Now, some history. Gardner's view was always included in the article, but there was an attempt to introduce his view into the lede as an unattributed statement of fact. This was rejected by editors and the lede was reworked by a third neutral party. The statement did not function as a general statement of scientific consensus, being the work of a popular writer without notable expertise, and a better-sourced statement, or a scientific refutation of orgone theory, has proven elusive. Gardner's position has been replaced by a statement from skepdic, which relies heavily upon him, but does not use the word "pseudoscience", and this view is acceptable in the lede when properly attributed. Redheylin (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:PSCI allows for "pseudoscience" to be mentioned when it is notable and attributed. It is notable, why isn't it mentioned anywhere? All you have is a "see also" link and a "category" link. No actual text about that view. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody was able to produce a good source that made use of that magical word. This is, of course, a great pity, as it means we cannot tell people what to think. Redheylin (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin Gardner is a good source for his own opinion. He was also independently cited by NASA scientist Gary Bennett and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.[5] It's not telling people what to think. It's fully informing them of every notable opinion about the topic. That's our job. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

fact tag in lead

OrangeMarlin - which fact do you need clarified here; that the FDA did this, or that it ended scientific investigation into Orgone? the first is easy to get (give me a couple of days, need to hit the library), while the second only means that it ended Reich & co's investigations (since they were the only one who ever bothered researching it). if the second part is your problem, that could be rephrased. just let me know what you need. --Ludwigs2 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Either. The FDA is a US agency, so I'm not sure it matters. There is no scientific evidence that it works, but this article fails to mention that very clearly.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that was clear enough. I can see strengthening it a bit, though. let me look up the ref and see what I can do. --Ludwigs2 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the following unsourced statement in the lede as it appears to repeat the skepdic statement. I have attributed the skepdic statement to "skeptical criticism" Redheylin (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Reich and his followers said that if captured, amplified, and focused – and Reich created orgone accumulators for this purpose – orgone could be used to treat disease, enhance sexuality, and even influence weather patterns.

I have removed the following since the it gives a false reference

However, modern attempts at making repeatable and reliable measurements of Orgone have failed.

No it dosen't. The source said that it can not be measured. I am putting it back in. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

From my point of view, i think Orgone should no longer be associated with psychoanalysis. Orgone is more like energy research.

'God' article is on wiki and it is not disputed by anyone. Do we have proof of God? So why take Orgone of Wiki? If people want to research Orgone why do you care? According to you kindergartners above, Orgone is 'bullshit' and 'nonsence'. So let the fools be fools.

And a lot of things that were 'psudo' at one point, became 'main stream'. Unbelievable things become reality. So never say never.

Gegahrz (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)SilverSultan [Username: Gegahrz] 08.03.08

POV problems

Above I mentioned that "pseudoscience" is absent from the article and wondered why Martin Gardner's opinion isn't cited. Then I find in the History section that he is cited, not for his opinion, but for his "anti-Reich diatribes". What? Diatribe means "a bitter, abusive denunciation." What kind of pov nonsense is it to present Gardner as victimizing Reich?

This entire section is an example of pov run amok. Let me list some of them: "supposed derivation", "supposed communist", "persecuted", "vicious smear campaign", "much maligned", "falsely claimed", "anti-Reich diatribes". Wow, the poor saint! The martyr for the cause! So much for impartiality. Wikipedia does not choose sides. Even Jesus Christ isn't a martyr. Wikipedia reports that people believe he is a martyr.

Fix it please. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see the debate above over Gardner. I got burnt out on it but would fully support getting it implemented. Just getting the lead changed from complete drek to what it is now took weeks. So I haven't gone any further. The article as a whole is in bad shape past the first couple paragraphs. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal - I'll take a look at the section in question and see what I can do (honestly, this article is not at the top of my priority list, but since the wikipedia tempest-in-a-teapot thing seems to be descending here, I can give it some attention)

with respect to Gardner... I don't know what it currently says about him in the article. my own predilection would be to leave him out entirely on wp:weight grounds - the opinion of a mathematician turned science writer is hardly noteworthy on this topic, whatever you might consider Orgone to be. --Ludwigs2 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

James Randi, not a scientist. James Randi, not a paranormal enthusiast. James Randi, highly relevant on paranormal topics. We've had this discussion before, I'm sure you'll recall. A scientist is qualified to talk about science. Martin Gardner has written extensively on orgone and his criticism of orgone has been cited by independent third parties. The POV issue becomes obvious when you read the article and somehow his "anti-Reich diatribes" is notable, but not his "anti-Orgone critique"? I appreciate you taking the time to fix the POV issues. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

we've had this discussion before, yes - lol. but you're right, it's certainly wrong to have Gardner represented in that kind of mixed up way. --Ludwigs2 21:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your edits have cleaned it up a bit so I removed the POV tag. We still need the harsh truth in there somewhere -- that many see it as pure pseudoscience. It's an important point of view notably absent. Doesn't have to be stated as fact, but it needs to be in there as a notable view. We don't want those high school kids thinking orgone is a cool thing to write a research paper on to get an "F". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

They will get an F for researching, no matter how good their research? Well, that may account for the shortage of studies. Of course, if we tell them untruthfully that the science has already proven Reich wrong, that will also put them off. And so, until Doomsday, people will say that Reich was probably wrong, but who knows? Which is what the article says. Redheylin (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're drawing conclusions not based on what I've said. Fully inform readers of all notable opinions on the topic is our job. Our job isn't to say who is right or wrong. Ludwigs knows what I meant by saying a high schooler might get an F. The comment was for him. We previously had a discussion where I pointed out that a kid might submit a paper on orgone for his science class, having arrived here by clicking the "Random article" link, having never known that most scientists don't see orgone as science but rather as pseudoscience. Kid gets an "F" because we neglected to inform him of the popular opinion. Fully informing readers is job #1. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Martin Gardner is a good source for his own opinion. You said it! Is his opinion notable? Certainly he is notable as a non-specialist who made a lot of money out of writing for newspapers - the story should certainly be told and so long as it is "his own opinion" there is no problem. No use trying to make him represent the whole scientific community, as his work is not quoted as authoritative or scientific by scientists. Re your other statements, I note the article says that a couple of Germans wrote theses on orgone. They did not get "Fs", apparently. Your conflation of science with popular opinion is - unscientific, let us say, however you dress it up with "what about the children?". By all means seek out a good scientific refutation and quote it. Gardner is polemical entertainment, without intellectual rigour. I was saying "what if a poor innocent subgrad should read our article and not bother trying to refute Reich because we led him to believe it has already happened? It has not. For one other possible result of such pseudoscientific prejudices, please visit Alexander Gurwitsch, search page for "pathological science" and read. Redheylin (talk) 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, what the heck are you talking about? I never said anything about writing him in as a representative of the whole scientific community, so why are you being contentious? Also, Martin Gardner isn't a newspaper writer, he's a book writer and founding member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Certainly notable, and one of the more notable critics of orgone. Also, again, he has been quoted as authoritative by scientists. I included the link above of one such citation. He's independently cited by NASA scientist Gary Bennett and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.[6] But essentially, why are you picking fights? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Cause you dared question the legitimacy of Orgone. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal, I'll do my best to make the scientific standing on Orgone clear. however, I'm hesitant (always, as you know) to use terms like pseudoscience as content terms (as categories, yes, but...) the problem is that the word pseudoscience is merely a pejorative, adding nothing to the understanding of Orgone or science. what if a teacher assigns a student the task of writing a paper about Reich's work (as one of the original members of the Vienna Psychoanalytic school)? clearly that kid is going to get an F if he writes 'according to wikipedia, Reich's work was pseudoscience, so we don't need to think about it anymore.' doesn't matter that the statement is (arguably) true - the student demonstrates no knowledge of Reich's work when he does that. a description of Reich's research flaws is always preferable to a mere label, as far as I'm concerned.

Redheylin - don't confuse Neal with those unpleasant science-POV people we all know and love. I may disagree with Neal (stridently, at points - lol), but he's reasonable, and that's invaluable in a place like this. --Ludwigs2 20:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary Bennett and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. This sounds more like it. If you have a "pseudoscience reference" for orgone physics from this quarter, then please add it - it is far better than Gardner, or reinforces him tremendously. All the Gardner books I have seen have been collections of articles, btw, but no matter. He is certainly the most noteable critic of Reich - that is why he is in there.

Ludwigs2 - "science POV" - is that a new name for people who make assertions they cannot substantiate? Then our Wilhelm is certainly a scientist! I have not mistaken Neal for anybody, except perhaps a person who has not read the above page and its deliberations on the matters he is currently raising. So far as I remember, Gardner never actually SAID "pseudoscience".

Simply, I do not agree that students may fail if they write about Reich, or that Gardner should be made to look like an authority sufficient to forestall that. Scuse me if that is not what was being said, but I read "we should use Gardner to put people off doing proper science". Last thing I want, and the last thing any Reich-sceptic ought to wantRedheylin (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gardner's written whole books on the topic of orgone and pseudoscience, and has been quoted in other books as saying orgone is pseudoscience as well[7]

Pseudoscience isn't merely pejorative, per the ArbCom ruling. It's used sometimes as a pejorative, sure, but it also has a widely accepted technical use. It adds a lot to the understanding of both orgone and science. It's actually used in science classes as a framework for discussing what makes science different from non-science. I know of at least one such case from my days editing parapsychology. Science Framework for California Public Schools, from the California State Board of Education, has a whole section on discussing pseudoscience and that's just a manual for teachers in grades K-6. When you get to upper levels, there's whole courses on distinguishing science from pseudoscience.

For the purposes of Wikipedia, all we need to concern ourselves with is that ArbCom said it isn't just pejorative. WP:PSCI is a part of core policy. There's no reason not to explain the flaws of orgone as well, but excluding Martin Gardner and his notable opinion from the matter is not being fully informative. There's many who characterize orgone as pseudoscience.[8] It's not merely a pejorative slant. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Gardner's written whole books on the topic of orgone and pseudoscience, and has been quoted in other books as saying orgone is pseudoscience as well[9] - can you help me here, please? The ref does not appear to mention Gardner or pseudoscience. Redheylin (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I would just point out here that the "skepdic definition" of orgone occurs long before Reich's own definition. I think this was partly because the definition was making the lede long, but it is bad practice. Redheylin (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

If the link isn't working for you, go to http://books.google.com , type "orgone pseudoscience gardner" and click search. You'll see several books written by Gardner among others. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's giving me a NCCAM page. The Aeronautics page is not going to help - though I agree it is a person saying that, if Gardner says that James Randi and Johnny Carson claim to have refuted a Stanford research team, then that is good enough for him. Fair enough, but it is not a notable or scientific paper. What about the NASA guy?? Redheylin (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RedH - if I remember correctly, the Gary Bennett piece is a non-analytic rehash of Gardner's opinion (I may not remember correctly, though). and no - Science-POV is a term for people who treat science as though it were a matter of faith that needed to be defended, rather than an analytic process dedicated to justifying beliefs through empirical evidence. it's strange, but unavoidable - religion is a response to uncertainty, and some people will cling to whatever gives them hope and surety. Science makes a good God...

Neal - Arbcom didn't rule on whether the term was prejudicial; it rules on whether it could be used as a categorization for articles. I agree - some things should be categorized as pseudoscience, but extending that categorization to the level of a description is going a bit far. --Ludwigs2 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the Bennet (NASA scientist) piece was an examination of heretical science, also called pseudoscience in the paper, as a part of the Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference. It's published by this list of scientific organizations: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, American Institute of Chemical Engineers, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, American Nuclear Society, Society of Automotive Engineers, Society of Automotive Engineers, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and the IEEE.[10] It's analytical, as most science papers are, and I'd say pretty notable considering the publishers and the forum. If you guys are going to try and discredit the reliability of the paper, we can skip to dispute resolution straight away and save ourselves some needless discussion. Wikipedia publishes notable views. It was said above that it was an unsourced view. Obviously it isn't.

If you'll take the time to read WP:PSCI (core policy) again, you'll note that it isn't just about categorization. Trust me, I know it inside and out. It says articles may contain that information and in certain cases be categorized as such. Further, read the actual ArbCom case and tell me if you still hold that interpretation.[11] --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: Do you believe in the scientific method, as a technique for determining the validity of hypotheses? If you do, then the term "Science-POV" is a very poor term. Something like "conventional scientific belief is perfect POV" may be more appropriate. At least in the USA, in the current political climate, I think the scientific method is something that does need to be defended. As I understand it, those who believe Reich was correct believe that the scientific method confirms the existence Orgone, correct? If that is correct, then a proper application of a science POV should support Reich's hypothesis. Bhimaji (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bhima - you are right on all counts. I was just joking with Ludwig because I also think the term is inappropriate. "Scientism POV" might be better. Ludwig is exactly right that "Science" can become a shared article of faith which is then defended and asserted by non-scientific means. I usually call it "pseudo-scepticism" - it pretends to be sceptical, but in fact has a fixed view against. For example, there is one such active organisation around here that has set beliefs, laid down by a guru-figure who charges exorbitant amounts of money to initiate you into a "higher thought", and looks down on the foolish masses who differ in any way from its dogmas. Unfortunately, one of those dogmas is "Reich was a fraud". This is not because of any logic or experiment but because, in the heat of McCarthyism, he was attacked as a commie and a sexual deviant. The things those journalists wrote back in 1950 are still articles of faith to this particular "cult". Redheylin (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Which organization is that? One thing that bothers me is when I see people claim that most mainstream scientists aren't open to new ideas. When I worked with scientists more regularly in the past, they were excited at new ideas, and were interested when they heard of potential problems in theories. That doesn't mean that they weren't sometimes closed-minded - but I saw a lot of interest in new ideas. There are many, many people with new ideas that have no scientific rigor behind them - of course, there are also new ideas that do have rigor. However, at least on the Internet, most of the complaining I see about scientists being closed-minded is done by people who have a demonstrable lack of understanding of the scientific method. I was just reading about the Gravity Probe B satellite. Close to a billion dollars spent to provide experimental evidence for parts of Einstein's work. Nobody was expecting that Einstein would be proven wrong, but there needs to be experimental backing for a claim. For a group of people reputed by some to never want to question consensus, they seem remarkably eager to put an immense amount of time into testing theories that are nearly universally accepted. Bhimaji (talk)

Reich was a fraud because he didn't abandoned a disproven hypothesis and eventually turned it into a "cure for all." Orgone is make believe, and Reich refused to accept that. His attempts to then develop devices to control weather and cure cancer is what makes him a fraud. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Neal - let's see the article then! Please note you are referring us to the question; How are we to write articles about pseudoscientific topics, about which majority scientific opinion is that the pseudoscientific opinion is not credible and doesn't even really deserve serious mention? Now, just before, you sounded a bit irate because I reminded you that Gardner is not majority scientific opinion on Reich. I leave you to consider this. Redheylin (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bhima - I don't happen to believe that there is a single, unique, determinable thing called the scientific method at all. I think there's a general idea that repeatability is a good indicator of validity, but 'repeatability' is something that is measured (and legislated differently from subject to subject, even within the same field, and repeatability really only means a theory 'works', not that it's 'true'. Reich had a theory, and he thought he could generate repeatable results from it; to that extent it was perfectly valid science. unfortunately for him, no one except his adherents could generate the same repeatable results; end of theory, end of story. I mean, you should take your lead from Einstein on this: he gave Reich and Orgone enough credit to examine the research, and then (as a good scientist) admitted there really wasn't a whole lot interesting to see.

Redheylin - I'd forgotten the term scientism; I think that's much better, and I'll use it from now on (with your permission...). what would that make them, though - scientismists? scientismikans? scientologists?

and Neal, I second the request to see the document. I saw it before (I could look through the histories) but as I remember what was given me was a single page extracted from something. I'd like to see the whole article, for context. --Ludwigs2 01:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse - as a point of fact, Reich turned his theory into a 'cure-for-all' long before the theory was disproven. --Ludwigs2 01:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

scientismists? scientismikans? scientologists? Tee-hee. I was just wondering the same thing. They are damned reductionists and allopaths, dear boy. Redheylin (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith that this isn't a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (I've posted it twice here so far!), here it is yet again: [12] Redheylin, I'm not pointing you to the question at WP:PSCI, I'm pointing you to the answers at WP:PSCI. Specifically: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." There are dozens of references that call orgone pseudoscience. I'm giving you a really reliable, independent, one in the link above.

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to insist that this relevant information is not censored from the article. I've been very fair so far, but there's apparent bias here that is skewing the evaluation of the sources fairly. Whatever your personal biases, this article is supposed to be written from an impartial view that includes all notable opinions. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the NASA one we are after. Neal if anybody had found solid evidence that orgone is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community the statement would be in there. Redheylin (talk) 02:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

More than enough evidence has been presented, repeatedly on this talk page. Discussion of how orgone is a pseudoscience should be added. The editors fighting against will never be happy no matter how many sources are provided. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

He's independently cited by NASA scientist Gary Bennett and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.[11] Sorry, the word "independently" made it look like two papers, but now I see it is only one. Well, yes, this is evidence that one scientist accepts Gardner as an authority. We could say "Gardner's view has some support in the scientific community". Redheylin (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, I do not care what you think or have to say, I think you are here to be disruptive and with a serious axe to grind. At the moment there are not enough editors watching this article to keep you from dominating your POV through brute force. Hopefully that will change. I encourage Neal to add the accurate and sourced information that belongs in this article and has belongs from the beginning. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Tmtoulouse - I think your real issue is that there aren't enough editors to allow you to dominate your POV through brute force. so there.  :-P

Neal - it you're going to wikilawyer me I'll wikilawyer you right back. that passage you quoted - "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience" - literally says that these theories may be categorized as pseudoscience, and may contain that information. the word 'that' is ambiguous: you choose to read that as 'contain the word pseudoscience', where I choose to interpret that as 'contain the information that led to that categorization'. I think my interpretation makes more sense, since my interpretation adds some understanding to the topic whereas yours merely repeats what is already in the category entry. however, I'm willing to post the question to Arbcom for clarification, if there's a mechanism for doing that. if so, let's put this baby to bed once and for all. --Ludwigs2 03:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

also your link, above, and here again, is a link to a single page in an apparently much longer piece. we cannot see the beginning of the discussion to establish context, and we cannot see the end of the discussion to establish resolution. can you post a larger section? if not, I can go hunt one down myself. --Ludwigs2 03:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your interpretation I think have moved beyond wikilawyering to the ridiculous. You are having to twist the wording pretty far, pseudoscience can be called pseudoscience. That is wikipedia policy. Check out intelligent design or creationism. Orgone is similar "science" and with the sources we have should be called pseudoscience. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith do not make an argument. They make a strong case for what has been said above regarding scientific method as against the cult of scientism. Redheylin (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig, we can see enough to say that one scientist sees Gardner as an authority on pseudoscience, and accepts his views on Reich. But when he goes on to say that, if Gardner says Johnny Carson refuted Targ and Puthoff then Targ and Puthoff are pseudoscientists - well, he kind of reduces the overall sense of rigour and balance! Redheylin (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, one scientist doesn't share that view. The scientist wrote it. The editor published it. That laundry list of scientific bodies above endorsed it. It's not a self-published paper.

Ludwig, by all means get a third opinion. Ask for clarification or post an RfC. I'm all for dispute resolution on this one and feel confident that when pseudoscience is a notable opinion, articles can and should include that information. It's not the most notable thing about the topic, but it's certainly includable. I'm certainly not going to argue with you on it given my level of confidence on this issue. Not including important information like that is irresponsible editing. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article already IS categorised as Pseudoscience, anyhow! Redheylin (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a category. It's not information about those views -- who holds them, why they feel that way, how widespread is that opinion, what biases do those who hold that opinion have, and so on. Nothing informative about why it's categorized as such. Nothing at all in the body of the article about pseudoscience or Martin Gardner. We may not be able to answer all of those questions, but we include what we know from the sources we have. Knowingly excluding this information is not responsible. Don't take my word for it. Do the RfC. Get outside opinion. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I apparently haven't been paying enough attention. There are people who believe that most mainstream scientists don't think that orgone is pseudoscience? It's not called pseudoscience very often nowadays because there simply aren't that many people who believe it exists. Right or wrong, the mainstream view is that Reich was wrong. Bhimaji (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Bias of Article

Reading over the history of this article (and sighing throughout), it's very clear that there's an effort to corrupt the neutrality of this article. As it stands, these lines under the "Evaluation topic" are in particular very blatantly biased toward the side of orgone believers:

"The idea of orgone has not been upheld by any experiment in the physical sciences according to this website, (see below).[17] The Masters and PhD research of Stefan Müschenich has supported Reich's observations of certain effects he attributed to orgone, namely a replication of the effects of the orgone accumulator on test subjects in keeping with Reich's original descriptions, while a control "dummy box" showed no such effects.[18]"

The lines concerning Müschenich are clearly written to upstage the skeptical response, which is only written in a brief, poorly-formatted passing.

This, along with the rest of the article is in dire need of a rewrite and (especially) a disputed neutrality flag. - LbCyber (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As I read it, the article says that there has never been any confirmation of any orgone - there is some evidence for certain effects attributed to orgone, but that is a different thing. Those effects require either refutation or explanation, but so far as anyone here can determine, they have received neither. Even if some heavyweight biologist were to come forward and say "the reason they have received neither is that any decent scientist knows the experiments must have been somehow flawed" we could insert that, but even this is not forthcoming. The moral campaign against Reich has prevented proper investigation, still, those people were awarded their Masters and that is how things stand. The best thing we can do is make it clear that questions remain. If we do otherwise we are helping to maintain a situation that is unsatisfactory - and we are also going beyond the sources. But please bring forward any appropriate material. Redheylin (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not a balance of critical versus supportive entries, but the presentation of both. Insofar I do not see such a balance, as the only means of providing disputing points of view to the subject, the Evaluation section, is not in line with Wikipedia's expectations concerning NPOV as is underscored in its section regarding Information Suppression. Rather, the scarce criticism present in the article of Orgone is overshadowed by its positive assessments and the edit wars evident in its history make it clear that this article needs to be, at the very least, flagged... not for deletion, but for a neutrality dispute, as the History and Fictional Account sections have maintained a neutral, factual point of view and should be preserved.

No matter what your feelings are regarding Reich and his work, the point of view of detractors, which contains an exceptionally large portion of the scientific community, is significant enough to deserve fair treatment in a clear, reasonable and concise format. It's, again, a question of balance. The Evaluation section currently contains little. - LbCyber (talk) 09:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)