Dualism and orgonomy

[Chas]

Freakin' delay in teh interwebz causing double post.

Or just my impatience.

[Vosur]

(02-10-2012 03:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  This comparison is quite weak. There is no such thing as a creationistic laboratory, measurement or experiment.

Actually, all three of them exist.
http://www.creationresearch.org/vacrc/vacrc.html

Now, what was the difference between Creationism and your Orgone woo again?

(02-10-2012 03:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I guess I just want to see skeptics stop judging a book by its cover and show some honesty and fairness, by admitting a "weakness", I mean admitting that this is not a total crushing victory over woo in this case. I don't want to see judging a book by the cover, specially when it's not even a cover of a book, but of a journal (not) written by someone completely different with his own agenda. (for example, the Gardner critic has a hardcore Christian agenda) Or admit there is not enough data to make a proper judgement. FFSM, we are all allowed to say "I don't know" or "it's impossible to decide from the information we have" or "I can't find any scientific articles on this topic". C'mon, throw me a bone to chew on, I won't bite. If there aren't any, just say so. Just don't act all high and mighty, because nobody can both do a research and review himself. If that doesn't happen, then something is wrong on the other side.

It must be my sociologic gut speaking, but looks like we threw away our brains and let journals do our thinking. All unknown research is not judged by its own merits, but rejected by default, unless journals tell us about it first. Yet it works fine, until there comes a topic with a controversial history (but quite rational methods) and nobody is willing to give it a proper review. Any volunteers? I've seen how asking for volunteers usually works and as I said, the silence is deafening.

The average person is not scientifically literate enough to make a profound judgement on hypotheses from different fields of science and even if he were, he would only be able to look at the evidence from his perspective, possibly missing out flaws in the proposed hypothesis because of his own bias/lack of expertise/etc. A peer-reviewed paper has been looked at by dozens of different scientists and is therefore reliable in comparison to the source you've been quoting so far. Tell me, why do you think that there are no such papers for the Orgone theory?

[Luminon]

I wanted to create a new topic to reply and stop hijacking it here but I see someone changed the title of this one. So here's the reply. I repeat again for new readers, politics is here meant as management of personal reputation and influence, nothing to do with elected officials.

(03-10-2012 04:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Actually, all three of them exist.
http://www.creationresearch.org/vacrc/vacrc.html

Now, what was the difference between Creationism and your Orgone woo again?

Wow, this looks quite similar, must say. A building with equipment and people doing experiments.
One thing I noticed is, that all their equipment is basically microscopes. Then they interpret what they see.
OTOH, orgonomists say (and experimentally verify) that if you build such and such box and place such and such samples or materials in it for a certain time, there will be such and such measurable changes in their physical properties, such as electric conductivity of water, vacuum tube luminescence or a different behavior of technical devices like neutron detector or Van de Graaf generator.
This is quite a large field of study, including atmospheric, ecologic and biologic studies and also underlying theories in physics. You can't make a snap judgement here. Compared to Genesis creationism which you can see on the first page that it's internally incoherent bollocks.

(03-10-2012 04:43 AM)Vosur Wrote:  The average person is not scientifically literate enough to make a profound judgement on hypotheses from different fields of science and even if he were, he would only be able to look at the evidence from his perspective, possibly missing out flaws in the proposed hypothesis because of his own bias/lack of expertise/etc. A peer-reviewed paper has been looked at by dozens of different scientists and is therefore reliable in comparison to the source you've been quoting so far. Tell me, why do you think that there are no such papers for the Orgone theory?

I googled around and didn't find any such paper. Not even a criticism, save for some third-hand bashing on skeptic forums. Which I think is very significant. I'll explain why this is not special pleading.

I just returned from a university lesson of Constitutional law. The lecturer was the politician Cyril Svoboda, a multiple minister and quite an impressive character in person, I must say. (long story)
And he said something. Which methods of manipulation are the most powerful? Firstly, news broadcast (TV), because it makes an impression of objectivity.

Secondly, even more powerful weapon political weapon is silence. Death by silence, as the Japanese say. If you really want to destroy a political opponent, be silent. Do not say anything for him or against him, do not acknowledge his existence. Being unknown is much worse than no publicity at all. Because even the worst political thieves inspire pity in people when the media bash them all day long. (this is what happened with convicted politicians S. Gross and D. Rath) This was Mr Svoboda's point.

As I said, it seems to me that scientific journals effectively do politics, in terms of reputation (prestige) and money, for themselves or for the grants. And I am almost sure that the journals employ this powerful weapon, keeping us in the dark about some areas. This is what I'm concerned about, the politics infiltrating science, not a problem with scientific method itself. One of my newly learned lessons is, that without a control mechanism, an institution will sooner or later start to do whatever it wants. Journals have a power over which articles they publish. I heard they usually reject about 90% of articles and charge money for the rest. This is not inherently wrong, but more of a reason to have some controls or possibility to repeal to a higher instance, which there isn't, AFAIK. The only thing that can break the monopoly on information spreading is the Internet, but it apparently doesn't work for academic community. It only works for agitating enthusiasts like me, so here I am, agitated and agitating.

I know how necessary the journals are for the layman public. I say, trust journals if the published text is sound, which it usually is. But do not trust them if they are silent, if they say nothing for or against. You want to be critical towards orgonomy? Be fair but be critical, be loud, try to find flaws in it. But do not hold against it that the journals are silent, because this is a problem of journals, not orgonomy.

[Vosur]

(03-10-2012 07:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I googled around and didn't find any such paper. Not even a criticism, save for some third-hand bashing on skeptic forums. Which I think is very significant. I'll explain why this is not special pleading.

I just returned from a university lesson of Constitutional law. The lecturer was the politician Cyril Svoboda, a multiple minister and quite an impressive character in person, I must say. (long story)
And he said something. Which methods of manipulation are the most powerful? Firstly, news broadcast (TV), because it makes an impression of objectivity.

Secondly, even more powerful weapon political weapon is silence. Death by silence, as the Japanese say. If you really want to destroy a political opponent, be silent. Do not say anything for him or against him, do not acknowledge his existence. Being unknown is much worse than no publicity at all. Because even the worst political thieves inspire pity in people when the media bash them all day long. (this is what happened with convicted politicians S. Gross and D. Rath) This was Mr Svoboda's point.

As I said, it seems to me that scientific journals effectively do politics, in terms of reputation (prestige) and money, for themselves or for the grants. And I am almost sure that the journals employ this powerful weapon, keeping us in the dark about some areas. This is what I'm concerned about, the politics infiltrating science, not a problem with scientific method itself. One of my newly learned lessons is, that without a control mechanism, an institution will sooner or later start to do whatever it wants. Journals have a power over which articles they publish. I heard they usually reject about 90% of articles and charge money for the rest. This is not inherently wrong, but more of a reason to have some controls or possibility to repeal to a higher instance, which there isn't, AFAIK. The only thing that can break the monopoly on information spreading is the Internet, but it apparently doesn't work for academic community. It only works for agitating enthusiasts like me, so here I am, agitated and agitating.

What do you think is more likely, that the Orgone 'theory' is not being published in peer reviewed journals for the same reason that Creationism and pseudo-scientific research in general isn't or because there's a conspiracy involving every single peer reviewed journal on the planet whose goal it is to ignore this one specific 'theory'?

(03-10-2012 07:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I know how necessary the journals are for the layman public. I say, trust journals if the published text is sound, which it usually is. But do not trust them if they are silent, if they say nothing for or against. You want to be critical towards orgonomy? Be fair but be critical, be loud, try to find flaws in it. But do not hold against it that the journals are silent, because this is a problem of journals, not orgonomy.

Have you ever seen Creationism or pseudo-science published in peer reviewed science journals?

Anyway, how am I supposed to find flaws in it if I don't have the necessary machinery to make the experiments myself? How would you be able to judge if a Cloud Buster works if you don't possess one? How would you be able to tell if an orgone generator works if you don't have one?

[Chas]

(03-10-2012 02:03 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

(03-10-2012 07:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I googled around and didn't find any such paper. Not even a criticism, save for some third-hand bashing on skeptic forums. Which I think is very significant. I'll explain why this is not special pleading.

I just returned from a university lesson of Constitutional law. The lecturer was the politician Cyril Svoboda, a multiple minister and quite an impressive character in person, I must say. (long story)
And he said something. Which methods of manipulation are the most powerful? Firstly, news broadcast (TV), because it makes an impression of objectivity.

Secondly, even more powerful weapon political weapon is silence. Death by silence, as the Japanese say. If you really want to destroy a political opponent, be silent. Do not say anything for him or against him, do not acknowledge his existence. Being unknown is much worse than no publicity at all. Because even the worst political thieves inspire pity in people when the media bash them all day long. (this is what happened with convicted politicians S. Gross and D. Rath) This was Mr Svoboda's point.

As I said, it seems to me that scientific journals effectively do politics, in terms of reputation (prestige) and money, for themselves or for the grants. And I am almost sure that the journals employ this powerful weapon, keeping us in the dark about some areas. This is what I'm concerned about, the politics infiltrating science, not a problem with scientific method itself. One of my newly learned lessons is, that without a control mechanism, an institution will sooner or later start to do whatever it wants. Journals have a power over which articles they publish. I heard they usually reject about 90% of articles and charge money for the rest. This is not inherently wrong, but more of a reason to have some controls or possibility to repeal to a higher instance, which there isn't, AFAIK. The only thing that can break the monopoly on information spreading is the Internet, but it apparently doesn't work for academic community. It only works for agitating enthusiasts like me, so here I am, agitated and agitating.

What do you think is more likely, that the Orgone 'theory' is not being published in peer reviewed journals for the same reason that Creationism and pseudo-scientific research in general isn't or because there's a conspiracy involving every single peer reviewed journal on the planet whose goal it is to ignore this one specific 'theory'?

(03-10-2012 07:44 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I know how necessary the journals are for the layman public. I say, trust journals if the published text is sound, which it usually is. But do not trust them if they are silent, if they say nothing for or against. You want to be critical towards orgonomy? Be fair but be critical, be loud, try to find flaws in it. But do not hold against it that the journals are silent, because this is a problem of journals, not orgonomy.

Have you ever seen Creationism or pseudo-science published in peer reviewed science journals?

Anyway, how am I supposed to find flaws in it if I don't have the necessary machinery to make the experiments myself? How would you be able to judge if a Cloud Buster works if you don't possess one? How would you be able to tell if an orgone generator works if you don't have one?

No one but the small cadre of 'true believers' has ever been able to reproduce their results. There is no credible evidence that this mysterious 'orgone energy' even exists - no one but believers can detect it. This is pretty much like psi research.

There is no model for it, no mathematics, no mechanism. It doesn't explain any otherwise unexplained phenomena. The theory makes no precise predictions so it cannot be adequately tested. It walks like pseudo-science, it quacks like pseudo-science, ...

[Luminon]

(03-10-2012 02:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  No one but the small cadre of 'true believers' has ever been able to reproduce their results. There is no credible evidence that this mysterious 'orgone energy' even exists - no one but believers can detect it. This is pretty much like psi research.

There is no model for it, no mathematics, no mechanism. It doesn't explain any otherwise unexplained phenomena. The theory makes no precise predictions so it cannot be adequately tested. It walks like pseudo-science, it quacks like pseudo-science, ...

I think you're in for a surprise. The following paragraph is taken from a response to Gardner's 1989 article in CSI journal. You can read the whole response and the references, I hope some of it gets through your defenses.

Dr. Reich's findings have not died with him because his experiments, when carefully conducted under the original conditions, produce the same results now as when he first developed them. They yield clear evidence for a pulsatory, weather-active and biologically-active energy continuum. It can, and has been, measured and photographed, and found to exist in high vacuum as well.(4) Reich called this energy continuum the orgone, but other scientists, working completely independent of Reich, and usually without knowledge of his works, have likewise measured or strongly inferred the existence of such an energy.

For example, there is Dayton Miller's work on the dynamic aether drift,(12) Halton Arp's work on energy/matter bridges between galaxies in deep space,(13) Giorgio Piccardi's work on solar influences upon the physical chemistry of water,(14) Frank Brown's work on cosmic modulation of biological clocks,(15) Harold Burr's work on the electrodynamic characteristics of creatures and the natural environment,(16) Hannes Alfven's work on streaming plasmas in the depths of space,(17) Thelma Moss' work on energy-field photography,(18) Bjorn Nordenstrom's work on x-ray phantom-images and circulation of bioenergy,(19) Robert Becker's work on mammalian bioelectrical limb regeneration,(20) Rupert Sheldrake's work on morphogenetic fields,(21) Louis Kervran's work on bioenergy-driven biological transmutations,(22) Berkson, Emergy, Anderson and Spangler's works on non-constant, continuum effects in nuclear decay processes,(23) and Paul Dirac's observations on the "neutrino sea".(24) And yes, we must not forget the work of CSICOP target Jacques Benveniste,(1) who demonstrated a non-molecular, likely energetic phenomena long known to homeopathic physicians. Each of these workers discovered or argued for a force conceptually similar to orgone: mass-free, yet capable of affecting or being bound to matter, participating in physical chemistry, metabolism, and heredity in some way, possessing measurable biological, meteorological, and cosmic components, reflectable by metal shielding, yet also amplifiable (and not extinguishable) through use of solid metal enclosures. Only in the case of Moss do I recall orgone being mentioned as a possible mechanism, but the properties and behavior of the phenomena independently identified by these researchers were orgone-like in many ways. So much for the assertion that no one "outside orgonomy circles" has detected these phenomena.

(03-10-2012 02:03 PM)Vosur Wrote:  What do you think is more likely, that the Orgone 'theory' is not being published in peer reviewed journals for the same reason that Creationism and pseudo-scientific research in general isn't or because there's a conspiracy involving every single peer reviewed journal on the planet whose goal it is to ignore this one specific 'theory'?

These are not the only two possibilities.
To find out, I'd need to do a research. But I could guess that every single journal wants to build and keep its prestige. Reich was arrested and his books were confiscated and burned. That's not a good start for reputation and skeptics don't like to give second chances.

(03-10-2012 02:03 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Have you ever seen Creationism or pseudo-science published in peer reviewed science journals?

No, why? Skeptical community usually works as a spam filter of science, filtering out woo. But as you know, sometimes spam filter fails and misplaces a real message for fake, or lets through a disguised spam item. I hope you won't say that journals never publish anything stupid. It sometimes happens, I recently heard a podcast where such cases were put to a good laugh. I think it was the Radio Freethinkers show from Vancouver.

It's ironic how the otherwise exact and natural science is so dependent on such nebulous values as personal reputation and journal prestige. I don't know of a better system, but if the current one is flawed, this is how. Sometimes you just have to go through the spam folder by yourself.

(03-10-2012 02:03 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Anyway, how am I supposed to find flaws in it if I don't have the necessary machinery to make the experiments myself? How would you be able to judge if a Cloud Buster works if you don't possess one? How would you be able to tell if an orgone generator works if you don't have one?

If you can check the science references if you have the knowledge or know someone who does. (see upwards) You can also build the orgone accumulator by yourself, it's not diffcult. Ideally, it'd be best to send someone in Oregon to JDM himself to try some technologic demonstrations and make a reportage for some skeptical media. If you keep your word and publish objectively whatever you learn there, it might be worth it to both parties.

As for me, I'm physically sensitive to such phenomena. I'm confident I could tell a fake orgone box (without metal layers) from a real one. Without the accumulator I don't have that much energy, but still enough to do experiments on an interested skeptical person (a very rare combination where I live) and enough everyday observations to know it fits. Of course, I can't know for sure about the rest of the claims that involve more technology.
If no other people or external evidence are available, I use this method, first I grow a Heron's beard and then I try to shave it with Occam's razor. Heron's beard is not yet an explanatory principle: it is a principle for the management of an ambiguous experience.

[Luminon]

double post, sorry

[Vosur]

(05-10-2012 09:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  These are not the only two possibilities.
To find out, I'd need to do a research. But I could guess that every single journal wants to build and keep its prestige. Reich was arrested and his books were confiscated and burned. That's not a good start for reputation and skeptics don't like to give second chances.

Much like Viktor Schauberger, huh?

(05-10-2012 09:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  No, why? Skeptical community usually works as a spam filter of science, filtering out woo. But as you know, sometimes spam filter fails and misplaces a real message for fake, or lets through a disguised spam item. I hope you won't say that journals never publish anything stupid. It sometimes happens, I recently heard a podcast where such cases were put to a good laugh. I think it was the Radio Freethinkers show from Vancouver.

Gotcha. The filter has worked for the vast majority pseudo-scientific claims in the past, except for the one of Wilhelm Reich. The experiment he conducted with Albert Einstein shows that he is someone who, much like you, jumps to false conclusion too fast. He claimed that the effect caused during the experiment was thanks to the orgone energy, yet Einstein showed that he could reproduce it and explain it naturally.

(05-10-2012 09:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  It's ironic how the otherwise exact and natural science is so dependent on such nebulous values as personal reputation and journal prestige. I don't know of a better system, but if the current one is flawed, this is how. Sometimes you just have to go through the spam folder by yourself.

Having existed long before the invention of peer-reviewed papers, natural science is not dependant on them, the credibility of a source that deals with a (scientific) topic is.

(05-10-2012 09:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  If you can check the science references if you have the knowledge or know someone who does. (see upwards) You can also build the orgone accumulator by yourself, it's not diffcult. Ideally, it'd be best to send someone in Oregon to JDM himself to try some technologic demonstrations and make a reportage for some skeptical media. If you keep your word and publish objectively whatever you learn there, it might be worth it to both parties.

As for me, I'm physically sensitive to such phenomena. I'm confident I could tell a fake orgone box (without metal layers) from a real one. Without the accumulator I don't have that much energy, but still enough to do experiments on an interested skeptical person (a very rare combination where I live) and enough everyday observations to know it fits. Of course, I can't know for sure about the rest of the claims that involve more technology.
If no other people or external evidence are available, I use this method, first I grow a Heron's beard and then I try to shave it with Occam's razor. Heron's beard is not yet an explanatory principle: it is a principle for the management of an ambiguous experience.

Here's a song for you:

[Luminon]

(06-10-2012 09:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Much like Viktor Schauberger, huh?

I don't know about him. His research on water sounds promising, it's similar to what Reich and JDM researched, perhaps he stumbled upon something related. Flowing water seems to have quite a significant effect on orgone fields and the research of Miroslav Provod these fields might be the explanation of the principle of dowsing. I recommend you the article about how James Randi "disproved" the dowsing by designing a faulty test.
So this is why I'd like to see Schauberger's research verified by an orgonomist.

Also, I propose another kind of research on Viktor Schauberger, the Reich Behavioral Test. Three random prototypes of his inventions should be placed among five random technical devices. Then eight government agents shall be invited to examine every device separately and fill out a questionnaire how much each device produces in them a desire to destroy it with an ax, burn books about it and arrest its inventor for wanting to overturn the economic status quo. If Schauberger's inventions achieve high score, then the rest of tales about him is probably true.

(06-10-2012 09:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Gotcha. The filter has worked for the vast majority pseudo-scientific claims in the past, except for the one of Wilhelm Reich. The experiment he conducted with Albert Einstein shows that he is someone who, much like you, jumps to false conclusion too fast. He claimed that the effect caused during the experiment was thanks to the orgone energy, yet Einstein showed that he could reproduce it and explain it naturally.

It was Albert Einstein, who jumped to a conclusion too fast. He achieved a positive result, but thought of an alternate explanation and did not bother to confirm it with a revised Reich's version of the experiment that would remove the heat circulation. (this revised experiment is presently repeated by JDM with modern technologies and here are the preliminary results)
Again, from the response to Gardner:

Furthermore, there has never been, to the best of my knowledge, any researcher who has ever carefully reproduced Reich's experiments and obtained clearly negative findings. Even Einstein confirmed one of Reich's experimental findings, the temperature differential within the orgone accumulator,(3) but unfortunately without completing the necessary control tests which demonstrate its orgone-energetic origins. Indeed, there are dozens of qualified researchers who have duplicated Reich's experiments, obtained positive confirming evidence, and published their findings in various journals.

Several years ago I produced a detailed Bibliography on Orgone Biophysics,(4) which covered the period of research from 1934 to 1986. It contains over 400 separate citations by more than 100 different authors, most of whom possessed the M.D. or Ph.D. degree. Besides my own thesis and doctoral dissertation,(5) which were presented to and accepted by a group of respected scholars at the University of Kansas, I have listed in this Bibliography 17 other theses and dissertations which drew heavily from Reich's works, confirming various aspects of his bioenergetic formulations. There are 38 indexed citations in the Bibliography covering Reich's bion and biogenesis experiments, including Professor du Teil's 1938 confirming presentation on the bions to the French Academy of Sciences. The Bibliography also contains more than 80 indexed citations on the electroscopical, thermical, and biological effects of the orgone energy accumulator. This includes some 22 studies on plant-growth responses, and 6 on cancer retardation or wound-healing in laboratory mice. Another 12 citations discuss or evaluate the Reich bioenergetic blood test. More than 50 citations focus on cloudbusting, with 20 or so papers discussing methods for direct visual observation of the atmospheric orgone. Of particular note is the most recent German dissertation on "The Psycho-Physiological Effects of the Reich Orgone Accumulator",(6) which was a double-blind, controlled study, confirming many details of Reich's original assertions on the parasympathetic stimulation of concentrated orgone energy on the body, and the weather-dependent pulsation of the orgone in the accumulator.

But Gardner says nothing about this research, as if it was wothless, the workers involved being somehow deluded into forgetting their research training, or worse.

(06-10-2012 09:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Having existed long before the invention of peer-reviewed papers, natural science is not dependant on them, the credibility of a source that deals with a (scientific) topic is.

And who gets to decide about the source's credibility? Martin Gardner, apparently.

(06-10-2012 09:01 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Here's a song for you:

And here's a song for you, maybe if I convince you first, the rest will follow

[Vosur]

(06-10-2012 06:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't know about him. His research on water sounds promising, it's similar to what Reich and JDM researched, perhaps he stumbled upon something related. Flowing water seems to have quite a significant effect on orgone fields and the research of Miroslav Provod these fields might be the explanation of the principle of dowsing. I recommend you the article about how James Randi "disproved" the dowsing by designing a faulty test.

I don't think we will ever have a fruitful conversation until you learn what a credible source is. Every single time you bring up a website, it's a biased, hasn't been peer-reviewed and contains no external references. An interesting fact about that page is that the author of it edited Nikola Tesla's quote at the top of the page to fit his agenda. Tesla actually said that "The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence." I encourage you to research this yourself.

It seems to me like you don't ever investigate your own sources to see how much woo they actually contain. Earlier this week you laughed about a source, without realizing that it was yours, when you saw the rest of it's content. Did you actually bother to research both sides of the story with James Randi or did you fully trust the website you posted?

(06-10-2012 06:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It was Albert Einstein, who jumped to a conclusion too fast. He achieved a positive result, but thought of an alternate explanation and did not bother to confirm it with a revised Reich's version of the experiment that would remove the heat circulation. (this revised experiment is presently repeated by JDM with modern technologies and here are the preliminary results)
Again, from the response to Gardner:

Furthermore, there has never been, to the best of my knowledge, any researcher who has ever carefully reproduced Reich's experiments and obtained clearly negative findings. Even Einstein confirmed one of Reich's experimental findings, the temperature differential within the orgone accumulator,(3) but unfortunately without completing the necessary control tests which demonstrate its orgone-energetic origins. Indeed, there are dozens of qualified researchers who have duplicated Reich's experiments, obtained positive confirming evidence, and published their findings in various journals.

Several years ago I produced a detailed Bibliography on Orgone Biophysics,(4) which covered the period of research from 1934 to 1986. It contains over 400 separate citations by more than 100 different authors, most of whom possessed the M.D. or Ph.D. degree. Besides my own thesis and doctoral dissertation,(5) which were presented to and accepted by a group of respected scholars at the University of Kansas, I have listed in this Bibliography 17 other theses and dissertations which drew heavily from Reich's works, confirming various aspects of his bioenergetic formulations. There are 38 indexed citations in the Bibliography covering Reich's bion and biogenesis experiments, including Professor du Teil's 1938 confirming presentation on the bions to the French Academy of Sciences. The Bibliography also contains more than 80 indexed citations on the electroscopical, thermical, and biological effects of the orgone energy accumulator. This includes some 22 studies on plant-growth responses, and 6 on cancer retardation or wound-healing in laboratory mice. Another 12 citations discuss or evaluate the Reich bioenergetic blood test. More than 50 citations focus on cloudbusting, with 20 or so papers discussing methods for direct visual observation of the atmospheric orgone. Of particular note is the most recent German dissertation on "The Psycho-Physiological Effects of the Reich Orgone Accumulator",(6) which was a double-blind, controlled study, confirming many details of Reich's original assertions on the parasympathetic stimulation of concentrated orgone energy on the body, and the weather-dependent pulsation of the orgone in the accumulator.

But Gardner says nothing about this research, as if it was wothless, the workers involved being somehow deluded into forgetting their research training, or worse.

And here you are, referring me orgonelab.org again. This is getting tiresome.

(06-10-2012 06:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And who gets to decide about the source's credibility? Martin Gardner, apparently.

The section "scientific credibility" on this article on wiki is a good start. Peer-review and external references are just two of the criteria that make a source credible.

I don't think I'm going to bother with this much longer. You already tried to make a case for orgonomy back in 2011 and failed at it. You're still using the exact same sources you used back then. What makes you think they are all of the sudden credible?