Dualism and orgonomy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2012, 01:31 AM
RE: Dualism
(30-09-2012 07:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  I await evidence.
Last time I checked, it was peer review you wanted. DeMeo published his research comprehensively in the peer-reviewed Water: A Multidisciplinary Research Journal.
However, you might be also interested in a scientific paper specifically on the thermal anomaly.

These and other links are published in OBRL newsletter and were copied from the latest issue, where you also find new experimental results.
As far as I can tell, DeMeo does a scientific work, with real technologies, physically measurable results and proper controls. Please read through it and tell me what do you think.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 02:08 AM
RE: Dualism
I am aware of the world independently (so it seems) from everybody else.... I have my own views based on past experiences and teachings.... some of what people say I might not agree with..... in my brain it goes a little something like this.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norepinephrine

Consider

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
01-10-2012, 07:55 AM
RE: Dualism
(01-10-2012 01:31 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(30-09-2012 07:13 PM)Chas Wrote:  I await evidence.
Last time I checked, it was peer review you wanted. DeMeo published his research comprehensively in the peer-reviewed Water: A Multidisciplinary Research Journal.
However, you might be also interested in a scientific paper specifically on the thermal anomaly.

These and other links are published in OBRL newsletter and were copied from the latest issue, where you also find new experimental results.
As far as I can tell, DeMeo does a scientific work, with real technologies, physically measurable results and proper controls. Please read through it and tell me what do you think.

This is not real science and does not pass the bar of peer review. This is a tiny community of 'researchers' who publish in their own journals for each other. They are not taken seriously by chemists or physicists for very good reasons.

Their 'research' is poorly designed and poorly interpreted, exhibiting confirmation bias shining like a nova.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 10:10 AM
RE: Dualism
I really can't see what you all have against duelism. It's a civilized way of handling disputes between gentlemen.

[Image: duel3.jpg]

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Erxomai's post
01-10-2012, 11:11 AM
RE: Dualism
(01-10-2012 10:10 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  I really can't see what you all have against duelism. It's a civilized way of handling disputes between gentlemen.

[Image: duel3.jpg]

I prefer fisticuffs

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRu1db6C_O9ACW3YIBYlfD...p7RXYXnu_d]

For no matter how much I use these symbols, to describe symptoms of my existence.
You are your own emphasis.
So I say nothing.

-Bemore.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
01-10-2012, 12:30 PM
RE: Dualism
(01-10-2012 07:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  This is not real science and does not pass the bar of peer review. This is a tiny community of 'researchers' who publish in their own journals for each other. They are not taken seriously by chemists or physicists for very good reasons.

Their 'research' is poorly designed and poorly interpreted, exhibiting confirmation bias shining like a nova.
These are some serious accusations quite beyond the scope of the topic. It possibly points at a deeper underlying problem, this is why I need to suspend my judgement for now. I'd easily believe that this is a relatively small community of researchers, who serve each other as peers and reviewers. That's not very surprising. But I don't want to believe what you say, I'm a man of experience, I need to see for myself.

There is a grey zone, where scientific method gets mixed with politics and other human flaws. The simplicity of scientific method is deceiving, considering how much depends on this system of academic community, journals, peer-review, funding, personal reputation, popular theories and unpopular theories. Even a child can perform a scientific experiment and publish it in a journal, unless... it happens to be a paradigm-challenging topic. I smell a rat in there and it's not just from reading too many PhD comics.

I'd hesitate to call their research poorly designed and so on, I'd have to take only your word on that, which I don't think that's something you'd want people to follow. You clicked on the link only so many hours ago, but the authors spent decades in this field, working in the laboratory. And I have no way of checking how... reliably you went through this material.
I don't see personally what's wrong with this research. If there's something wrong with it, it needs to be exposed and explained properly almost like for dummies. As skeptics do it, by graphs, public lectures, Youtube videos and lectures on Youtube. And a chance from the other side to respond. The same thing you guys do with homeopathy and efficacy of prayer, basically.

It's almost regrettable that orgonomists are a level-headed lot and don't cause harm in society, so the skeptical community doesn't allocate any resources on them. It's like the Catch 22, to attract a fair attention they need to be crazy and dangerous, but by being crazy and dangerous they lose a chance of a fair attention. Not dangerous enough for skeptics and not... good enough(?) for chemists and physicists, no wonder they formed a closed community. No wonder that there is this talk around the net of dissident science and scientific persecution. In case you ever wondered what does it mean, here you see.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2012, 04:49 PM
RE: Dualism
(01-10-2012 12:30 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-10-2012 07:55 AM)Chas Wrote:  This is not real science and does not pass the bar of peer review. This is a tiny community of 'researchers' who publish in their own journals for each other. They are not taken seriously by chemists or physicists for very good reasons.

Their 'research' is poorly designed and poorly interpreted, exhibiting confirmation bias shining like a nova.
These are some serious accusations quite beyond the scope of the topic. It possibly points at a deeper underlying problem, this is why I need to suspend my judgement for now. I'd easily believe that this is a relatively small community of researchers, who serve each other as peers and reviewers. That's not very surprising. But I don't want to believe what you say, I'm a man of experience, I need to see for myself.

There is a grey zone, where scientific method gets mixed with politics and other human flaws. The simplicity of scientific method is deceiving, considering how much depends on this system of academic community, journals, peer-review, funding, personal reputation, popular theories and unpopular theories. Even a child can perform a scientific experiment and publish it in a journal, unless... it happens to be a paradigm-challenging topic. I smell a rat in there and it's not just from reading too many PhD comics.

I'd hesitate to call their research poorly designed and so on, I'd have to take only your word on that, which I don't think that's something you'd want people to follow. You clicked on the link only so many hours ago, but the authors spent decades in this field, working in the laboratory. And I have no way of checking how... reliably you went through this material.
I don't see personally what's wrong with this research. If there's something wrong with it, it needs to be exposed and explained properly almost like for dummies. As skeptics do it, by graphs, public lectures, Youtube videos and lectures on Youtube. And a chance from the other side to respond. The same thing you guys do with homeopathy and efficacy of prayer, basically.

It's almost regrettable that orgonomists are a level-headed lot and don't cause harm in society, so the skeptical community doesn't allocate any resources on them. It's like the Catch 22, to attract a fair attention they need to be crazy and dangerous, but by being crazy and dangerous they lose a chance of a fair attention. Not dangerous enough for skeptics and not... good enough(?) for chemists and physicists, no wonder they formed a closed community. No wonder that there is this talk around the net of dissident science and scientific persecution. In case you ever wondered what does it mean, here you see.

This is not the first time I have looked at this field. Your insinuation that I reject it without giving it a fair hearing and your accusation that mainstream scientists conspire to exclude these people are not only unfounded, they are ludicrous.

Scientists thrive on paradigm-busting results. Real scientists will put their results out there for criticism, knowing they might be wrong. Look at Fleischmann and Pons (cold fusion).

Peer-reviewed journals want to publish the best, most interesting stuff, especially stuff that might rock the boat. But it has to have credible evidence. Look at the recent results in cosmology, that the universe is both flat and its expansion is accelerating. This is real science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 05:44 AM
RE: Dualism
Dammit, Lumi! This ain't no origami thread! Big Grin

You know Chas enough to know he's an anti-woo extremist. This orgone stuff definitely reads like woo. It's a very small group of self-referencing researchers. Sure, mainstream science tends to be extremely conservative and exclusionist, but over time outside ideas do seep in. I mean, look at how long it took Higgs to get his particle.

If there's something to this orgone stuff, they just gotta keep hammering at it. Personally, I don't see it.

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2012, 06:45 AM
RE: Dualism
(02-10-2012 05:44 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Dammit, Lumi! This ain't no origami thread! Big Grin

You know Chas enough to know he's an anti-woo extremist. This orgone stuff definitely reads like woo. It's a very small group of self-referencing researchers. Sure, mainstream science tends to be extremely conservative and exclusionist, but over time outside ideas do seep in. I mean, look at how long it took Higgs to get his particle.

If there's something to this orgone stuff, they just gotta keep hammering at it. Personally, I don't see it.

Anti-woo extremist? Really? Blink

You're saying that requiring evidence makes me extreme? Consider

What I am is extremely impatient with those who, even after decades of negative results, cling to an idea.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
02-10-2012, 08:44 AM
RE: Dualism
(02-10-2012 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  Anti-woo extremist? Really? Blink

Really. Big Grin

(02-10-2012 06:45 AM)Chas Wrote:  You're saying that requiring evidence makes me extreme? Consider

What I am is extremely impatient with those who, even after decades of negative results, cling to an idea.

Lumi ain't got decades, and DeMeo seems to think he's on to something. Tongue

[Image: 10339580_583235681775606_5139032440228868471_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: