Talk:Orgone/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Majority view

A source presented, cited to a journal, is not a "POV" view to be removed.[1] It clearly sets out the majority view of this fringe pseudoscience, and belongs in the lead. Also, orgone energy isn't a physical anything, it's a concept promoted by Reich.[2] . dave souza, talk 16:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a concept proposed by Reich which has been picked up by a number of other people. The article should reflect that.

Also I would agree that the version of the lede without the loaded statement is the better one. Artw (talk)

Fully agree that an unloaded statement that it's a concept promoted by Eeich is appropriate. As of 21:40, 21 March 2009, the start was "Orgone energy is a hypothetical and largely discredited extrapolation of the Freudian concept of libido first proposed and promoted in the 1930s by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich.", which is acceptable. Edits, largely by Ludwigs, changed that to "Orgone energy is a physical extrapolation of the Freudian concept of libido, proposed and promoted in the 1930s by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich, but largely disregarded after the 1950s due to the absence of supporting evidence" which is inappropriate as it isn't a physical anything. In my view "Orgone energy was proposed and promoted in the 1930s by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich with the claim that it was a physical extrapolation of the Freudian concept of libido, but it lacked supporting evidence and has been almost entirely disregarded since the 1950s." states the position clearly and concisely. I've restored the 21:40, 21 March 2009 version, please discuss and seek consensus on any changes. . . dave souza, talk 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

well, first, let's be clear. Orgone is a physical extrapolation of the concept of libido. I didn't mean to imply that it was physical in the sense of 'real', but only that Reich took Freud's metaphorical concept and treated it as actual. that's not really subject to debate, though I'm perfectly happy rewording things to clarify what 'physical' means here. to the quote: POV does not mean UNRELIABLE; plenty of perfectly reliable sources reflect POVs, and the source at the end of the lead is clearly a biased source. either we find something more neutral, or I find something more congenial toward Reich to balance out the statement. I'd prefer a more neutral, scientific quote, however; all we need to support here is that Reich's work has no practical place in the scientific world. --Ludwigs2 17:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You're presenting a fringe viewpoint as fact, and mangling English horribly to do so. Stating that "WR claimed that it was a physical extrapolation" is ok, but us saying that as the opening statement is not acceptable. . dave souza, talk 17:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not averse to the 'claimed that' language; if that helps clarify what 'physical extrapolation' means, then ok. personally, I'd suggest a broader rewrite, like: "Orgone" is an idea promoted by WR, who tried to extrapolate Freud's metaphorical concept of Libido into a physical reality. would something like that work for you? --Ludwigs2 17:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting close to the third option above, which I welcome. If you're just saying orgone, then physical energy would be better than physical reality. . . dave souza, talk 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

oh, yeah, 'physical energy' is much better. wish I'd thought of it myself.

re this kind of edit

Dave, you're really stretching the bounds of the English language trying to prove a point about Orgone. I'm not unwilling to compromise here (orgone is silly), but frankly you're POV-pushing. please be a bit more reasonable.

and please don't remove dispute tags without addressing the issue. that's just rude. --Ludwigs2 16:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:WEIGHT, and don't edit war to attack as "POV pushing" a clearly referenced majority view. If you feel we should present this fringe subject as though it has credence, see WP:REDFLAG for the requirements for sourcing. . . dave souza, talk 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave, I'm not suggesting that we present this topic as though it has 'credence'. 'Credence' is not a scientific term, pro or con (unless a given scientist happens to like CCR, as I do). I'm simply trying to present this in a way that doesn't support the topic but also doesn't indulge in attacking it. my objection to the reference is not that it's a bad reference, but that it's just snarky; I'm sure we can find a reference that disposes of Orgone on scientific grounds without resorting to hyperbole. I oppose the word 'credence' for the same reasons: Orgone is a dead concept not because of anyone's beliefs, but because no one has ever found a practical use for it. as a rule (for scientific and pseudoscientific issues, at least), I think it's best to focus on factual statements and practical effects, and leave statements about 'credence', belief, interpretations, value judgements, and the like out of it. making claims about beliefs simply gives proponents of the issue ammunition - they can say that their belief is just as good as anyone else's belief, and dispose of a whole lot of good science by casting it as some kind of 'scientific conspiracy' (I'm sure you've seen that before...). it's a fact that no one has ever found a good use for Orgone, and that's sufficiently damning without resorting to ad hominem commentary that will just fuel opposition. --Ludwigs2 17:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs, which part of "the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view (and that it is, in fact the minority view). The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail so the reader understands how the minority view differs from the widely-accepted one, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should clearly be identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order not to mislead the reader" don't you understand? . . dave souza, talk 17:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, I think both of the versions listed in this diff are reasonable. They both make clear in the first sentence that orgone is not a mainstream or scientifically valid concept. This can't really be worth edit-warring over, can it?

I'd be more concerned about the final sentence in the first paragraph, which implies that the FDA unilaterally shut down a potentially promising avenue of research. That's a) not true, and b) not what the source says, and c) the source is about.com, people. Here's what happened: the FDA charged Reich with fraud for marketing his sham devices with false and misleading claims. They made their case in court; a judge agreed with the FDA's position and ordered the orgone accumulators confiscated and destroyed because Reich was marketing them without bothering to do any actual research to prove his claims. And that's all from the cited source. Let's edit-war over that, eh? :P MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

[ec] Regrettably, I can't agree about the clarity of "physical extrapolation.. but largely disregarded" which implies that it's physically real, but ignored. Either of the other options is ok by me, as stated above. Starting off with that clear statement, the FDA charge appears supportable, mention of the judgement is a good idea. Implementation of your suggestion will be worthwhile. . dave souza, talk 17:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Dave: this is an article on Orgone. there is nothing in this article (that I can see, anyway) that is "attempt(ing) to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view". in fact, Reich's views about Orgone are the majority views about Orgone; scientific viewpoints only need to enter here to inform the reader that it is a dead perspective, without any practical use or reality. If this were a page about (say) quantum physics, then you'd be absolutely correct in removing any reference to Orgone. but it's not; it's a page about Orgone. right?

MastCell: that seems reasonable to me. in fact, I think I tried to make a revision along those lines some time ago, but it got reverted by someone. If Dave's ok with it then I (or he, or you - whichever makes people happier) can put it in. --Ludwigs2 17:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs, by that logic "majority view" on the flat earth article is that the earth is flat. Do please study WP:WEIGHT with care. . . dave souza, talk 17:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

yes, in fact, that is the case. 'majority view' is not some universal truth applicable in all contexts and situations. On mainstream articles the scientific POV is the majority view, and fringe views have no place at all (unless they are sufficiently important to include). on articles about fringe topics, the fringe perspective is the majority view, and the scientific POV is an always notable and necessary minority perspective. it's not wikipedia's place to promote science über alles; it's wikipedia's obligation to make sure that neutral descriptions of fringe topics include appropriate scientific critiques. but this is probably a discussion we should have elsewhere if you want to pursue it. just let me know what an appropriate venue would be. --Ludwigs2 18:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, the issue already came before ArbCom - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. In particular, see "Science is not a point of view", "Relevant comparisons", and "Scientific focus". They may answer some of the points your raise. The middle principle, especially, indicates that the mainstream view is the majority view, whether the article is called "orgone" or "quantum physics". We have an obligation to clearly explain Reich's claims, but we also have an obligation to reflect the majority view, which is that his claims are nonsense. MastCell ^Talk 18:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That’s really not the same thing as "articles on fringe topics must be slanted as negatively as possible", which is sadly how some folks are applying it.

Rumours of a flat earther takeover appear to be exagerated. Artw (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order not to mislead the reader. . . dave souza, talk 19:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) MastCell: I'm aware of all of those links, and I agree with your assessment that fringe theory articles need scientific references so that they don't present themselves as some kind of truth. but really, these ArbCom rulings suffer from some deep and prevalent misinterpretations. just taking these two points: "The prominence of fringe views need to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative" and "While scientists have points of view, scientific inquiry itself is a methodology, and cannot hold one. That coverage of a topic is primarily scientific does not prevent it from being (nor obviates the need to be) neutral". I agree with both statements in the form they are written, but the first point is often erroneously interpreted as meaning that wikipedia itself has to refute or reject a fringe view, and the second as meaning that any view offered by any scientist on any topic is inherently neutral. Putting the prominence of a fringe theory into perspective is easily done by pointing out that the theory has no supporting evidence and no practical use (that's how a theory is refuted in scientific methodology); we don't need to resort to the semi-telepathic weasel-wording of claims about what scientists (or worse, the 'scientific community') believe, think, or feel about a particular theory, and we don't need to indulge in excessively pointed commentary about how bad, dumb or evil a theory is (which would clearly fall into the point of view of particular scientists, anyway; scientific inquiry itself doesn't lend itself to that kind of acerbic conclusion). To my mind we should describe what a fringe theory is in simple, unloaded terms, state clearly that the theory isn't used in scientific research (with a decent explanation why, if one is available), and then let it go. More than that (in either direction) is gratuitous. --Ludwigs2 19:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're aware of the ArbCom links, why say things like "on fringe topics, the fringe perspective is the majority view, and the scientific POV is an always notable and necessary minority perspective"? That fragment alone contradicts two of the three editing principles I cited - it asserts a "scientific point of view", and wrongly consigns it to the "minority perspective" on articles about fringe beliefs. Otherwise, I agree with you, so there's no need to argue your case, at least as far as I'm concerned. I don't think Wikipedia needs to "debunk" orgone; I'm happy with a simple statement that orgone lacks supporting scientific evidence or usefulness, and I think readers can easily draw their own conclusions on the topic. MastCell ^Talk 23:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

since I feel like we're close to a working agreement here on Orgone, let me respond to this on your talk page (for everyone, of course; I just want to separate out the more abstract debate from the Orgone debate). --Ludwigs2 23:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Dave: you've just quoted something on how a fringe topic (like flat earth) should be handled on a proper science article (like plate tectonics). that says nothing about how the flat earth theory should be discussed on the flat earth article. context and common sense, context and common sense... --Ludwigs2 19:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

<ud> Ludwigs, I've just quoted "articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position then discuss the history of the idea in great detail". Your statement that this refers to "a proper science article" is bizarrely illogical and I hope you're not just trolling. . dave souza, talk 20:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

lol - no, sorry, I misread. a correct reading actually supports what I'm saying, so I guess I got confused. basically what the passage you gave says (interpolating a bit) is that articles on discredited ideas should have whatever minimal discussion of the modern viewpoint is needed to prevent the reader from getting a wrong idea that the idea is current, practical, and/or valid, and then go on to discuss the discredited idea in detail. I'd agree with that completely. the problem, of course, lies in assessing what the 'minimal discussion needed' means in the context of a given article. proponents are likely to suggest a very minimal contribution of scientific viewpoints; opponents are likely to argue for an excessive contribution. to my mind the proper balance is easiest to find by eliminating affective arguments and terminology entirely: don't talk about what people believe, think or feel, and don't use judgmental terms like discard, reject, disparage, (or anything else that projects an emotional state onto scientists as a whole). simply say that no one uses the theory and no one can show any evidence that it works, provide appropriate sources, and leave the rest of the article to discussing the topic. that seems to fulfill the passage you quoted perfectly, no? --Ludwigs2 20:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Whew, glad that was a misunderstanding of what I'd written. However, don't forget that "minimal discussion" is qualified by "Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order not to mislead the reader", and the problems with obscure subjects like orgone are much less well known than the flat Earth issue. We must give due weight to the majority view, and if references show that view to be that the topic is pseudoscience or junk science, we should make that clear. Anyway, I'm glad to say that the current wording of the lead seems reasonable to me. . dave souza, talk 19:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

works for me as well, and sorry for the confusion. just an FYI - I'm considering the best way to redact parts of the first paragraph of the 'History' section which deal with Reich's life (some of it, I think, isn't necessary to a discussion of Orgone; I'm just not sure yet what the best way to cut it is). If anyone objects, or has suggestions, please let me know. --Ludwigs2 20:18, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

History

I just had cause to insert the following in the article Paul Kammerer:

Sander Gliboff of the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Indiana University has commented that, though Kammerer's conclusions proved false, his evidence was probably genuine and that he did not simply argue for Lamarckism and against Darwinism as those theories are now understood. Rather, if we look beyond the scandal, the story shows us much about the competing theories of biological and cultural evolution and the range of new ideas about heredity and variation in early 20th-century biology and the changes in experimental approach that have occurred since that time.

I'd suggest that the same remarks would apply to Reich. Mastcell - you have made several allegations on this page, that Reich was a "sham" who "did no experiments", that he "marketed" devices and "promoted" orgone for example, which, I believe, could not be supported in the article itself but which make your erstwhile involvement in suspending me for reverting the repeated, tendentious and disruptive insertion of similar comments in the article (as is now acknowledged at the head of this page) look like partiality, as I am sure you can represent to yourself.

The job of this article is to explain what orgone was/is supposed to be, why Reich could reasonably hold such views in 1930, how the scene had changed in the 50s and the overall validity of the concept in psychology as well as physics. He thought there was some kind of "life-force" - so did a good many people. That "life-force" is the concept that freed us from the idea that God made a little you and popped you into mummy's tummy. The Freudian libido is just such a psychological life-force, but Freud did not commit himself as to its ontology. Reich said it was physical.

But more to the point, Freud said we have to adjust to society, while Reich said society needs to readjust to us. That's the trouble is it not? - why everyone wants to trash him? Because I do not find anyone who is involved in this matter involved in editing all the famous biologists who largely agreed with Reich at the time. McCarthy lives!! Here is yet another of my edits of early 20C vitalism you all might care to witch-hunt, from Biophoton:

In the 1920s, the Russian embryologist Alexander Gurwitsch reported "ultraweak" photon emissions from living tissues in the UV-range of the spectrum. He named them "mitogenetic rays", because he assumed that they had a stimulating effect on cell division. However, the failure to replicate his findings and the fact that, though cell growth can be stimulated and directed by radiation this is possible only at much higher amplitudes, evoked a general skepticism about Gurwitsch's work. In 1953 Irving Langmuir dubbed Gurwitsch's ideas "pathological science".

However in the later 20th century Gurwitsch's daughter Anna, Colli, Quickenden and Inaba separately returned to the subject, referring to the phenomenon more neutrally as "dark luminescence", "low level luminescence", "ultraweak bioluminescence", or "ultraweak chemiluminescence". Their common basic hypothesis was that the phenomenon was induced from rare oxidation processes and radical reactions.

So, I wonder if we can give a sober account of the history of science that takes full account of our rather poor present understanding of the ontology of mind, rather than taking causes celebres and trying to turn them into fundamentalist rants that say the idea is bad n wrong before it has been enunciated, that insist upon awkward twists and turns of language that prevent a clear presentation of what was being said and how it has been evaluated? This is certainly POV-pushing. Redheylin (talk) 05:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

¿Que? Manuel El Camarero (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, wouldn't that be nice :) Unomi (talk) 05:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

"Reich saw orgone as a universal bioenergetic force lying behind and causing much, if not all, observable phenomena.[1]" This, the second sentence of the article, is not only ungrammatical - can anyone show me where Kelley (the reference) says this, please? - otherwise the second half of the sentence goes. THX. Redheylin (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

RH: with regards to this last sentence, see Kelley's article, page 2, last full paragraph: "What he found was that the same energy which flowed in the sexual embrace was present in all nature, "living" and "non-living," and that it governed the most significant and widespread natural functions. Reich found that the same orgone energy underlay each of these classes of phenomena:", followed by an extensive list of the phenomena orgone lay behind. seems like an accurate passage, though maybe it could be phrased better.

with regards to the rest - I don't disagree with you, really, but I don't know exactly what you're asking or suggesting we do. look, a lot of people are confused about failed scientific efforts. they think that the people who advanced failed scientific ideas must be dumb, crazy, or conniving schemers (and it's not helped by the fact that people who continue to advance failed scientific ideas after they've failed generally are dumb, crazy, or conniving schemers). I mean, I can point out till the cows come home that Reich was (factually) one of the premier intellects of the early 20th century - a list of the people who considered Reich a peer would start with Freud, Marcuse, Jung, and Einstein, and probably include Heidegger and the bulk of the Frankfurt School émigrés - but that creates too much cognitive dissonance for most people; someone being both intelligent and wrong isn't (can't be) on their radar. cognitive dissonance is a tough nut to negotiate in all cases, and on the internet it's a total, mind-numbing bear. You're right - it would be great if editors here gave up fringe-busting (and fringe-hyping) and just wrote these articles as simple intellectual history, but I can't see any way to reach that state (and believe me, I'm good at that kind of thing). there's waaay too much emotional investment on both sides of the fence for that kind of detachment to hold sway.

all of which is a roundabout way of saying that trying to get anyone to 'see reason' on these topics, particularly in this forceful kind of way, is going to net you absolutely zilch (except possibly to make the divide worse). maybe in ten years... Till then, I sympathize. --Ludwigs2 07:12, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles are for the general reader, not just for those with good knowledge of the historical development of ideas, and our obligation is to be clear at the outset that failed ideas have failed. It's entirely possible that the inventor of snake oil was an under-appreciated genius, but in a modern world rife with snake oil salesmen our article must make the current status of snake oil clear at the outset. Once that's clear, all clarifications welcome. From Bowler (2003) the Kammerer article looks woefully deficient on the context and detail, with neo-Lamarckism still having some credence when Kammerer started before WW1. Must return to that when time permits. . dave souza, talk 09:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that when you refer to 'the general reader' you seem to be describing what I would consider the audience for wikipedia simple. Unomi (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Both. The less informed are more likely to find WP. . dave souza, talk 11:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your point, Dave. that 'wikipedia is for the general reader' implies to me that we should be even more careful about putting things as intellectual histories. I mean, from an encyclopedic perspective, Orgone is noteworthy because (in no particular order):

1. it was a somewhat scandalous/cultish thing that caught the public's attention for a brief period of time
2. it was a scientific theory that was proposed by a fairly reputable scientist, which failed to produce any valid results
3. it is an interesting speculative hypothesis which resonates with other interesting speculative hypotheses, and still manages to capture some people's imagination
4. it's an idea that's still bandied about by a small number of people (who either don't accept that it has no scientific grounding, or don't care, or aren't really interested in it scientifically at all)

1 and 4 are social and political facts; 2 and 3 are matters of intellectual history. Most of the conflicts on this page arise because editors are confused about which point they're addressing (particularly, 2&4 get confounded together, as do 1&3). being clear about the intellectual history aspects should make talk a lot less contentious and clarify content for the reader. --Ludwigs2 16:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig - I can see that, to Kelley, orgone "underlies all phenomena" - I cannot quite see that he claims it causes them all. He thinks of it as some kind of luminiferous ether that, so to speak, "conducts" gravity and EM. In the first place this is a rather extreme presentation of orgone that has no cited references to Reich, so pushing his claims further into grandiosity is ill-advised, I think (you will notice I have not drawn upon his assurances that "orgone is Driesch's entelechy" in the articles Hans Driesch and Entelechy. In fact, a rather more sensible source for this article that DOES quote Reich completely trashes these claims. At the very least they should be tagged as "according to Reichian extremists", so I do not think they should be in the lede).

What do you say, DSouza? "The people are stupid and we must tell them what to think?" Thought so. This is not the place for it. You say that most readers do not know much about the history of ideas, then what are we doing here but trying to supply such knowledge? Well, other than that, we are trying to impose our own points of view, I suppose. I do not know much about snake-oil, other than that I have gathered that it is an American quack remedy - a knowing fraud. And I was commenting that to edit this page on the basis that Reich was a fraud, in the absence of any consensus of authorities, is unacceptable, inexplicable, and reasons have to be sought for it elsewhere, mostly in wiki editors' ignorance, prejudice and political views. Redheylin (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin, much as I respect your mind-reading powers, you misrepresent my position and I suspect that improvements in your normal reading comprehension would be useful. If "orgone energy" has support from mainstream views, then we say so. If it's a fringe minority view, as the sources suggest, then we make that clear at the outset. As to whether Reich was a fraud, I leave that to expert historians and the courts to decide. . . dave souza, talk 16:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

@ RH: hey, if you have a better way of putting it, and a source better than Kelley for these things, please: drop the revision here in talk and lets work through it (I'd normally suggest you edit it right in, but, you know... this page is still on yellow alert ).

Other than that, let's please keep the knowledge domains separate. 'Fraud' is a legal term - from my dictionary, fraud is a "wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain"". 'mainstream' and 'fringe minority' are skepticist jargon that have some limited use as rubric. Science has no real equivalent for any of these concepts: in science, there are theories that work and theories that don't work, and a theory that works doesn't care how many people believe it or how much anybody gets paid. --Ludwigs2 17:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwig - thanks, as always, for your cool head and kind heart. There are indeed better ways of putting things - they are in the history, along with all the deleted "centre-ground" references. You may be right that I have nothing to gain from calling bad wiki-editing just that. But I have nothing to gain anyway - wiki has good articles to gain, but there are plenty of fields that can use improvement - just you have to accept that in every field some page or another is the playground of some or other ideological bully - nationalists, religionists, politicians - and this is one such. As I keep saying, 99% of my work on science articles is left alone.

But, in my recent trawl through the history, I found one other thing too: a spam link to a site selling "orgone jewellery" and so on. Dave there, and Mastcell, they have one good point; I would be seriously upset if this article helped sell people such things. I would not mind at all if it caused them to lash up their own Reichian devices like Burroughs, but those things on the web ARE "snake-oil". At some stages (like in the Gurwitsch articles) I have inserted notices about commercial pseudo-scientific healing devices. Something similar should be prominent here - I would be perfectly happy if there were a templated tag at the top. Just one thing - once the article has distanced the life of Reich from such people (which is as easy as detaching tachyons from another famous branch of healing jewellery) then that is the end. There is no need to pay any more attention to those who are bent upon obscuring a straightforward, neutral account of Reich's place in the history of psychology. As far as Dave's point goes, I cannot quite imagine how any account of Reich's life and thought could possibly give any reader even the slightest impression that his ideas "are mainstream". Redheylin (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that most of the long-term editors on pages like this share the same concerns: nobody with half a brain wants wikipedia to end up as a convention hall for people selling semi-mystical energy transceivers or promoting long-defunct theories as unexplored truths. there's just some entrenched differences over how and how far that particular concern should be taken. I'm probably more on your side (having done enough funky, experimental things in my youth that I've lost the right to criticize anyone else's funky experimental urges); but I understand the more conservative approach as well. lord knows I don't want someone to give up chemo because wikipedia implied that orgone was a better cure.

but are you really going to make me dig through the history? I don't know what you mean by 'centre-ground' stuff. I have been thinking that the article lacks any mention of Deadly Orgone Radiation (which was Reich's major obsession in his later years), but it's such a paranoid thing that I don't know how to add it without the article starting to sound crazy. tough balancing act. --Ludwigs2 20:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sloppy with linx, sorry. Wait!!! Look at this from Dualism (philosophy of mind);

:As technological advances have offered a closer look at the brain's connection to human thought and action, they have also enabled biological psychiatrists and neuroscientists to promote a dangerous institutional bias toward neurological reductionism. Spurred by funding from multimillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and by the cultural penchant for quick fixes, such investigators frequently exploit the intellectual naivete of the media and the public by implying that any simple physiological correlate of behavior is good evidence of cause. Thus they mislead the public into accepting the view that all human psychopathology is, at its roots, a biological pathology - instead of explicitly acknowledging that mind, brain and behavior share irreducible interconnections. The suggestion here is that much of the general public operates on an assumption of mind and body as two different kinds, which is exploited by brain scientists.

This is AFTER they have explained Descartes' animal spirits and Plato's ideas WITHOUT the slightest advertisement that these are outmoded by the ahm "mainstream psychology" which, the article seems to say (above), may be biased and conning the public for money. "Worried? Sad? Take a pill!" It goes on to ask if brain scans are snake oil. Now this is dangerous stuff! Why is anybody messing around with poor Reich? Apart from drug companies maybe.

You ask about his negative orgone? If you want not to give the impression Reich was getting crazy, you'll have a hard job. He was so in it goes. People should sympathise. Anybody with a little courage, compassion and intelligence is fit to be driven nuts. Bwahaha. Glad to hear you took the experimental approach to life. Funny how it makes you liberal. And nuts. Redheylin (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, well... one of the few New Age maxims I do buy into is that everybody is nuts by default; takes a good bit of effort to make yourself sane.

That being said, i get the sense that you're branching out into different territory here. without disagreeing with what you said (I'm not a fan of reductionism of any sort) you seem to be making a meta-assertion about what other editors are thinking; at least, I can't think what other point you'd be making by importing a section of an entirely different article. or are you asking me to go edit over at Dualism?

and yeah, I have no doubt that Reich was certifiable by the end of his life; but it's that kind of culty, paranoid craziness that's too easy to buy into if you read it uncritically. On the one hand, I don't want Reich to look like a total howling-at-the-moon loon (because he wasn't); but on the other hand a discussion that's too neutral in tone might end up sounding almost reasonable, and encourage those people who seriously think that cloudbusters are our best defense against an imminent invasion by DOR-consuming space aliens. that's a headache none of us need. --Ludwigs2 22:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well again, those aliens are very much a product of their time too. No, I do not see the other article as a diversion because it shows the debate about the nature of mind is still open today, the approaches of "mainstream" psychology are still being questioned and these matters are discussed on other pages without apparent conflict. I am just offering material that shows how, as a pre-molecular-biology vitalist and a materialist who identified the libido as physical rather than (or as well as) mental, Reich's views, when he was a young man, were mainstream. But he tied them to Marcusian and revolutionary political views and ended up seeing sexual suppression as The Great Conspiracy. Watching Stalin and Hitler confirmed this. So when the US went semi-fascist in th 50s (even the UK govt refused to play along on Cuba and Vietnam) it just made him sure that he was surrounded by a load of death-minded pervert control freaks who were out to crucify him. Hence the saying "just because youre paranoid...." Look, I do not care whether a straight, unadorned account makes who look good or bad. But Mastcell there has presumably read the thing yet he still reckons that Reich was busted for marketing and promoting devices - he was not, he was done for crossing the state line with his own machinery for his own use. So I sorta kinda think there's a duty of care there, so that people who browse the article do not find something so arcane that they cannot figure out what happened even after several reads, edits... what editors are thinking, though, is beyond me. Just I am reflecting on why that alert flag had to be there at the top - it was not because of you and me, I do not think. Redheylin (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I mean, sorry, is there some kind of DOUBT that ex-commies in 50s USA got a very hard time, got picked on for any reason or none? Just please someone write in and say if there is, then we can be that much more careful about giving the impression that Reich may have been picked on, and give that much more weight to the damning opinions of 50s populist science journalists. Redheylin (talk) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RedH - most of what you wrote above is pertinent to Reich, but not to the concept of Orgone. This is an encyclopedia, and we shouldn't let articles stray all over the place. granting that the weird world political climate of the 30s-50s had a profound impact of Reich's life, worldview, and philosophy, I think that trying to connect that up with Orgone is a huge stretch. don't you? --Ludwigs2 18:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Last June

Orgone energy is a term coined by psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich in the late 1930s for a proposed universal creative substratum in nature, compared by his follower Charles R. Kelley to Mesmer's animal magnetism, the Odic force of Carl Reichenbach and Henri Bergson's Élan vital.. Therefore Reich's theory is a form of vitalism

Reich wrote in The Function of the Orgasm,(quoted); "Between 1919 and 1921, I became familiar with Driesch's 'Philosophie des Organischen' and his 'Ordnungslehre'...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."</ref>,

a standpoint that most modern biologists consider superseded. Reich's work was declared "pseudo-science" by Martin Gardner: Albert Einstein, in reviewing and refuting some of Reich's results, took a somewhat gentler view.

Reich took an increasingly bioenergetic view of the Freudian concept of libido, developing a therapeutic approach he called Vegetotherapy. Departing from his work in the psychology of sex, Reich began first to speculate about biological development and evolution, then atmospherics and finally the creation of all matter. Studying decaying materials he believed he detected sub-cellular vesicles which he called "bions" which were self-luminescent. At first he conceived the energy of these bions as electrodynamic or radioactive, but he later concluded from his research that he had discovered an entirely unknown but measurable force, which he then termed "orgone".

This is the lede last June. It gave an account of Reich's involvement in the search for cellular communication and organising intelligence - his links with the work of vitalists like Driesch and Gurwitsch combined - which, with his atheist materialism shows why he HAD to believe in some "orgone" - particularly as he grew up with a "luminiferous ether". It shows that he was aware of electromagnetic and UV signalling hypotheses but rejected them. Now, after the successes of Waddington and Crick these things went out of fashion, meanwhile there was a high-pressure conservative thought movt in the USA. But Reich had been kicked out by Hitler - the more they said he was wrong, the more he had to be right. It was just the control freaks trying to do him down. I can understand why he thought that, given that theyre still at it. Redheylin (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

well, I think that long quote by Reich could be worked into the body of the article, and other parts of this might be worked back into the current lead. what did you have in mind, specifically? --Ludwigs2 18:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote was quoted in a study of Reich - I have to track it down otherwise it will be a primary source. It does not much matter whether the account is in the lede or not, but the details of the biological, social and political thinking that caused Reich to conceptualise orgone ought not have been removed, I think. Above I was reasoning about the circumstances of Reich's FDA bust. These things ARE in the lede, and the FDA affair forms a really notable statement here about Reich's orgone therapy. Since these events are put forward as relevant to the credibility of orgone, I think it should also be relevant to discuss the circumstances and responses to the events. The editor above did not say "orgone is a poor scientific conception" but, effectively, "Reich was a huckster". I cannot see that I have been responsible for losing focus on the scientific ideas - rather, everything I added along that line has been removed and replaced with more "Reich-oriented" and less "psycho-biology-oriented" content. Redheylin (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

there's no problem with primary sources, so long as they aren't advancing (or being used to advance) an opinion. Reich clarifying what he thinks about orgone would be probably be a good addition to the body (and that line in the lead comparing it to other theories could sure use some clarification regardless). besides, the last few exchanges here have been relatively calm; maybe we can work out something decent without it turning into a major fooforall. --Ludwigs2 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote is [3] - a self-published PhD who is quite good showing how slack Kelley's paper is (and who does not like Wiki!). I think it is adequate authentication of an account that could anyway only really repeat Reich's own account of his intellectual development. Yes, it should be clear that, while Kelley readily aligns any energy theory with any other, Reich was differentiating orgone from entelechy etc. And as I said before, the qualifier "according to Kelley" should never have been removed from that sentence that "Orgone creates the universe, died for our sins, washes whiter and wrote all Bob Dylan's songs too". Those are tendentious claims designed to degrade the article and its subj IMO. I introduced Kelley because it's an easy-to-find account of some key matters - it should not be taken as a main, neutral, exact and authoritative account of his ideas. It aint. Redheylin (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich and the FDA

These might be of some interest. Artw (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The article

This article, particularly in the lede, has ceased to define orgone in psycho-analytic terms and has instead become entangled with secondary, social considerations such as the reception of the idea. Its language has become obscure and it gives precedence to non-notable and non-representative sources such as Kelley on one hand and Isaacs on the other. Particularly, it asserts that Kelley's views are identical with Reich's. Therefore, the article has ceased to be rigorous and meaningful in terms of the history of psychology and now reads like an extended "trivia" section. It will therefore be necessary to rewrite, or to revert to a former version. Redheylin (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting perspective. Are there secondary sources that properly situate orgonomy in the history of psychology? 74.98.43.217 (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Some are quoted here. It is not a matter of my "perspective" - the article is for an encyclopaedia, this is not a scandal-seeking Sunday paper. Redheylin (talk) 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Obviously I came off as inappropriately confrontational. A mainstream source situating orgone energy properly into the history of psychology would clearly help to organize the article. So far this does seem to be lacking. 74.98.46.129 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Confrontational? No, just your comments sounded like you had not read the article and checked the sources. I was pointing out that the article contains factual inaccuracies, that the headings do not reflect content, that the REACTION to Reich looks more important than the ideas themselves and that it is no longer easy to get an idea what the article is about. Did you maybe write part of this, that you felt personally attacked?

It's like going to Michael Jackson and reading a load of stuff about llamas, plastic surgery and sexual allegations, then half way down it turns out the man made the biggest selling record of all time. You say "this guy is a singer, first" and somebody answers "interesting perspective".

Mainstream? How about [4] Redheylin (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Red, you cite an out-of-print book from 1981 that was only published in the US of A as a "mainstream source"? How about this one: [5]? Oh, that's out-of-print too... and its from 1982... and its only available in the US... I'm sorry, but you're doing a very good job of convincing us that Reich's theories are today little more than a historical footnote. I don't agree with the Michael Jackson comparison either! The MJ article clearly states in the first line: "Michael Joseph Jackson (August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009), known as the "King of Pop", was an American musician and one of the most commercially successful and influential entertainers of all time." No mention of llamas at all, no plastic surgery references until "half way down"... Famousdog (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The Sharaf book is said to be the best biography but since it was written by a practitioner it is not neutral enough. Wilson simply does this kind of person. I'd agree that the physics of Reich is a historical footnote since I do not think, even if his observations lead to some new physics, that it is going to end up with a force called "orgone". Reich's vitalism was valid at the time in biology and psychology while his direct involvement of body and emotion in therapy does not depend upon his philosophy of the life-force. I am glad you find the Michael Jackson page straightforwardly informative and that you do not agree that this page compares on that level, which was my point. Redheylin (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All I'm saying is, if you want to situate orgone in the History of psychology, then the appropriate course of action is of course to dig up what would be considered reliable sources on the History of Psychology. Surely there is no shortage of good sources. For instance, the APA has published an 8 volume encyclopedia of psychology. Maybe you could start there? 71.182.247.220 (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There's very little on Reich in general psychology texts. The whole of psychotherapy and psychoanalysis is already a fringe thing in that context. If you want to know how to use an electric prod to get a rat in a black box to buy soap powder then of course the efforts of Reich's 1950s detractors are freely available in such treatises. In the present context, though, new material is not really the question I raised. Redheylin (talk) 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"Further reading"

What exactly are the criteria for "further reading"? Some of these sources look like they might be a little bit dubious. I propose that unless a case can be made for each "further reading", that they should either be removed or incorporated as proper references to the article (when appropriate). 74.98.46.129 (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dissociate Orgonite related material with Orgone

I strongly disagree with having "Orgonite" associated with Orgone. If Orgonite is mentioned in the article, it is necessary to highlight the fact that Orgonite "devices", and all other Orgone "technology" stuff found on the net are a DISHONEST recuperation of Reich concepts to pursue fraudulent commercial activities. None of the properties or alleged effects of Orgonite have something in common with Reich's orgone investigated effects. Also the image used in the head of the article is non appropriate. for the same reasons, because associated with the Orgonite business. For Intelectual honesty and respect for Reich's work integrity, we MUST remove or denounce the Orgonite and fake/dishonest Orgone business on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.99.199 (talk • contribs)

I would be happy to agree with you...once you post some evidence that, you know, any of this is true. The evidence that the scientists that made your computer work and the internet go have somehow missed. I will anxiously be awaiting your reply. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilhelm Reich's work should still be distinguished from the work of others. If neither of them work, that can be noted, but that's not the issue at hand. If there are substantial differences between Reich's original methodology and newer developments, they should be separated.

With regards to the scientists who 'made your computer work and the internet go', most scientists prefer to use empirical data, of which there appears to be little. From the description here, any benefit would likely be limited to the placebo effect, but in the absence of clinical trials, and given the (questionable and unpublished) Müschenich thesis, Orgone has not been conclusively proven to lack medical efficacy. 24.247.213.106 (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Devo

I've made a change which relates to Devo, not orgone as such. The text previously read that Devo "probably sarcastically" promoted orgone recyclers, but the citation, footnote 30, explicitly makes clear the interviewer's opinion that they were sincere: "(At this point I realized he was being 100% sincere and I truly had to bite my lip a bit to keep from giggling. But still, I was in awe of the guy.)" For this reason I have changed "probably sarcastically" to "apparently sincerely". The link for footnote 30 is http://www.fecalface.com/SF/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=949&Itemid=92

and the relevant passage begins

A: Do you feel that this sort of consumer-based art conflicts at all with the critique of consumer culture that you were doing with Devo?

I've also made a couple of changes of spacing and punctuation to the quote itself. Mothersbaugh's words have clearly been run together at the original website and I've separated them here. E.g. "iconit" should clearly be "icon it" Not sure what the guidelines are on this. Spicemix (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased article beginning

The first passage of the article is written in a highly biased manner and also contains wishful thinking. It is written in a tone that tries to justify the use of alternative medicine. Such writing is not fit for an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.147.126.130 (talk) 07:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. If a person wishes to defend the practice there is a place for that, but that place is a separate section which lays out specific counter arguments and is well cited.Geno the Great (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

experimental results

Are there any interesting results from these hypothesis? I've seen some videos illuding to them, by argon acucmilators promoting plant growth, etc. These are easily reproducible in regular homes, . All this guess work and quotations are not very helpful. --Namaste@^? 09:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

If it's that easy and verifiable, well... why not do the research under fully scientifically valid, reproducible conditions, gather and analyse the results, and submit a paper to a respected journal for peer critique yourself, and see what happens? There'll be something worth citing, then. Even the follow up research mentioned in the existing text sounds not particularly valid - they didn't do a double blind comparison, for example. 193.63.174.211 (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

cloudbuster merge

I think cloudbuster should get merged in as a section of this article. they are both short, and cloudbuster is too heavily dependent on the pseudoscience of Orgone to stand alone properly (it's hard to talk about it without going into orgone theory). --Ludwigs2 16:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Support: sounds good to me.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

compare with other energies

The subtle energy identified by Reich characterized in the same terms as biofield energy. In effect, researchers today are replicating his work and carrying it further as the study of how intentionality influences this energy and the general health of an organism. For instance, Dr. Richard Gerber noted in his book, Vibrational Medicin Page 299-300, that (to paraphrase) energy healing applied to samples of enzymes changed the bioactivity and that the direction of change amongst the different kinds of enzymes always corresponded to the greater health of the organism.

Also for the feild controlling formation, in biology see: The "Re-discovery" of Morphogenic Fields Tom Butler (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That would pretty much fall under the rubric of wp:original research unless you can find some third-party source that explicitly connects Reich's orgone to other forms of subtle energy. In fact, from what I know about Reich (which is limited to some curious academic reading in the history of psychology), what he proposed was a good bit different than the esoteric conceptions of subtle energy. his character analysis work would fit into the subtle energy rubric better than orgone. We shouldn't engage in incautious generalizations without a lot of sourcing to back it up. --Ludwigs2 17:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You dismiss based on passing interest?

See What is Orgone? which is also the first reference of the article. The reference to "bioelectricity," which evolved into orgone energy is described today as biofield energy. Both have virtually the same list of characteristics. Like mesmer's magnetism, Reichenbach's odyle and Bohm's eidolons, Reich's orgone is a fundamental field of energy which is related to life and subject to intentionality.

I don't care if you discount the relationship. I have been using Reich's encounter with the law for one of my articles and thought I would offer the above bit of information. If you have it all figure out, fine! Tom Butler (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't cast me as an opponent here, I'm just pointing out what I think needs to be pointed out. The issue I have is with the chain of logic you presented above: "The reference to [...] which evolved into [...] is described today as [...]" The kind of chain of reasoning should always be sourced. that's all I'm saying. can you give a decent source that lays out that logic? --Ludwigs2 23:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of the main points of divergence are covered in the article. Reich rejected "spiritual" forms of vitalism on one hand, and also, on the other, disagreed with Alexander Gurwitsch and Harold Saxton Burr who thought that bio-communication fields were UV and EMF repsectively. Covering these differences sufficiently points to the similar theories you mention. Redheylin (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Tachyon

Can anyone tell me why the article on 'Tachyon' is included in the 'See also' section? There is no mention of Orgone or Reich in the Tachyon article, or of tachyoi in this one. I saw the two linked elsewhere, but equally incomprehensibly as here. If no one knows, I suggest removing the link.84.194.100.111 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)