Dualism and orgonomy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-10-2012, 03:22 PM
RE: Dualism
(07-10-2012 09:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  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.
Well, it looks like I have to, this is getting weird. You don't get very specific, I'm not sure if you're even looking a the external references, or the things down below the text aren't external references. Let's make a test. Which one of these is a proper external reference and why?
1) H. Burr, Blueprint for Immortality, Neville Spearman, London, 1971; cf. L. Ravitz, "History, Measurement, and Applicability of Periodic Changes in the Electromagnetic Field in Health and Disease", Annals, NY Academy of Sciences, 98:1144-1201, 1962.

2) D. Miller, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, 5:203-242, 1933.

3) R. Becker & G. Selden, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, Wm. Morrow, NY 1985.

(07-10-2012 09:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  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?
Why? Does it misrepresent the Randi's test?
I've heard of this experiment before. The article iis meant to illustrate how a well-meaning skeptic like Randi may construct a nice randomized test. And well-meaning dowsers do not understand their field enough to know that the dowsing phenomenon takes at least hours of continuous flow in the same direction to estabilish. So there's ignorance on both sides, the test is negative and skeptics win by default, because of the burden of proof. Skeptics should be aware of their not yet proven counterparts, but experts in their field and offer their contacts to applicants for consulting. An ordinary dowser and million dollar challenge applicant can not possibly imagine the principles behind his discipline (except in a rudimentary trial and error way) and so he's not able to spot potential problems in tests like that.

(07-10-2012 09:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  And here you are, referring me orgonelab.org again. This is getting tiresome.
Maybe. Did you read through the quote? Sentence by sentence, word after word, plus the references below? (if they actually are proper references, see above)

(07-10-2012 09:56 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(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?
There are two most probable errors I could make, one is false humility and the other is bad presentation. So I tried to systematically exclude the false humility.
As for the other, I get a bad feeling about this. There's something itchy at the top of my mind. It might be that we're arrived at a blind spot of mine, some unawareness or cognitive dissonance or something, it's hard to tell yet.
Maybe it's not mine, it's the impression, that this is not about science, this is about the social animal that is a scientist and about social/political skills in academic environment. It's all so nebulous. The Wikipedia article doesn't seem that much exclusive with orgonelab, or I'm missing something. Anyway, who is unbiased and yet willing to do the homework for free? Who can do justice to such a multi-disciplinary field that is orgonomy?

This is a very confusing and frustrating topic, because
- I'm not sure how much you follow my points and look over the materials I post.
- I'm not sure how good or bad is my presentation of the materials.
- I'm not sure how much it is the fault of the researcher(s) that they don't measure up to the criteria or don't put up enough applications for review.
- I'm not sure how much it is the fault of journals and reviewers that they ignore or misrepresent the researchers and their applications for review.
I might even consider writing an e-mail to prof. JDM himself and ask for clarification. Any questions you would like to ask him or I should ask?

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
07-10-2012, 07:42 PM
RE: Dualism
(05-10-2012 09:40 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(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. Drinking Beverage
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? Consider
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.

I hope you're joking. The response was written by DeMayo. What the hell did you think he was going to say ? Many of the references are by Reich. There could be no possibly more circular bunch of crap imaginable.

BTW, can someone tell me how to place something under a "spoiler". Thanks.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
Isaiah 45:7 "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (KJV)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
08-10-2012, 12:46 AM
RE: Dualism
(07-10-2012 07:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I hope you're joking. The response was written by DeMayo. What the hell did you think he was going to say ? Many of the references are by Reich. There could be no possibly more circular bunch of crap imaginable.
In my previous post are three of references not from Reich and there's more where it came from. This is not a circular crap, you're just cherry-picking.

(07-10-2012 07:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  BTW, can someone tell me how to place something under a "spoiler". Thanks.
It's like quote, you just write spoiler and /spoiler into the parentheses. [ ]

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
13-10-2012, 10:21 AM
RE: Dualism
(07-10-2012 03:22 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Well, it looks like I have to, this is getting weird. You don't get very specific, I'm not sure if you're even looking a the external references, or the things down below the text aren't external references. Let's make a test. Which one of these is a proper external reference and why?
1) H. Burr, Blueprint for Immortality, Neville Spearman, London, 1971; cf. L. Ravitz, "History, Measurement, and Applicability of Periodic Changes in the Electromagnetic Field in Health and Disease", Annals, NY Academy of Sciences, 98:1144-1201, 1962.

2) D. Miller, "The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics, 5:203-242, 1933.

3) R. Becker & G. Selden, The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, Wm. Morrow, NY 1985.
In order to give you a proper answer I would first have to know what these books are supposed to be a reference to. It doesn't seem like they have a direct connection with the article you linked me to.

(07-10-2012 03:22 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Why? Does it misrepresent the Randi's test?
Irrelevant to my question. Did you or did you not research both sides?

(07-10-2012 03:22 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I've heard of this experiment before. The article iis meant to illustrate how a well-meaning skeptic like Randi may construct a nice randomized test. And well-meaning dowsers do not understand their field enough to know that the dowsing phenomenon takes at least hours of continuous flow in the same direction to estabilish. So there's ignorance on both sides, the test is negative and skeptics win by default, because of the burden of proof. Skeptics should be aware of their not yet proven counterparts, but experts in their field and offer their contacts to applicants for consulting. An ordinary dowser and million dollar challenge applicant can not possibly imagine the principles behind his discipline (except in a rudimentary trial and error way) and so he's not able to spot potential problems in tests like that.
James Randi is by far not the only person to test the abilities of so-called "dowsers". That being said, since you claim to know how to perform a dowsing test properly, why don't you apply for the one million dollar challenge of the James Randi foundation or one of the other paranormal ability challenges?

(07-10-2012 03:22 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Maybe. Did you read through the quote? Sentence by sentence, word after word, plus the references below? (if they actually are proper references, see above)
Yes. Now what?

(07-10-2012 03:22 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are two most probable errors I could make, one is false humility and the other is bad presentation. So I tried to systematically exclude the false humility.
As for the other, I get a bad feeling about this. There's something itchy at the top of my mind. It might be that we're arrived at a blind spot of mine, some unawareness or cognitive dissonance or something, it's hard to tell yet.
Maybe it's not mine, it's the impression, that this is not about science, this is about the social animal that is a scientist and about social/political skills in academic environment. It's all so nebulous. The Wikipedia article doesn't seem that much exclusive with orgonelab, or I'm missing something. Anyway, who is unbiased and yet willing to do the homework for free? Who can do justice to such a multi-disciplinary field that is orgonomy?

This is a very confusing and frustrating topic, because
- I'm not sure how much you follow my points and look over the materials I post.
- I'm not sure how good or bad is my presentation of the materials.
- I'm not sure how much it is the fault of the researcher(s) that they don't measure up to the criteria or don't put up enough applications for review.
- I'm not sure how much it is the fault of journals and reviewers that they ignore or misrepresent the researchers and their applications for review.
To get straight to the point: As much as I would like to refute the orgone energy hypothesis strictly on a scientific basis, I am unable to do so for at least two reasons. First of all, I'm not a scientist. I do not possess the necessary expertise in any of the scientific fields that orgonomy deals with to write a profound rebuttal of their experiments. Second of all, I don't have the necessary interest to spend so much time on something that does not differentiate from other paranormal/pseudo-scientific claims made in the past. Even Creationists possess laboratories in which they conduct 'scientific' experiments in various different fields of science and they write extensive books about their results, yet the two of us know that it's a bunch of woo-woo. Why is that? Because their research does not meet the standards of the scientific method.

Richard Feynman explains it rather well.



(07-10-2012 03:22 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I might even consider writing an e-mail to prof. JDM himself and ask for clarification. Any questions you would like to ask him or I should ask?
Sure.

1. Do you think that the orgone hypothesis meets the standards of the scientific method?
2. Why do you think that there are little to no peer-reviewed papers dealing with said hypothesis?
3. Why don't you use the national/international media in order to 'promote' your research so that other scientists are encouraged to evaluate your claims?

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2012, 03:14 PM
RE: Dualism
(13-10-2012 10:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  In order to give you a proper answer I would first have to know what these books are supposed to be a reference to. It doesn't seem like they have a direct connection with the article you linked me to.
These are some of referenences to a research of various scientists who in most cases never heard of Reich, but nevertheless encountered natural phenomena, that fit the description and effects of Reich's orgone. Which is why they are referenced.
So to repeat the question, are these real references or not? As I understand it, I could reference a children's book and it will be still valid, if I do it properly. So I don't understand your hesitation.

(13-10-2012 10:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(07-10-2012 03:22 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Why? Does it misrepresent the Randi's test?
Irrelevant to my question. Did you or did you not research both sides?
No, I didn't. Lack of time and interest. Anyway, I don't question the test itself, but the premises on which it was designed.
I thought why Randi's million dollar challenge fails so... always and maybe I've got it. There is a difference between practitioners and theorists. Practitioners can be tested, but they can not design a reliable and fair test, because they don't have a theory on how it works. They just observe something without real understanding of the phenomenon itself or even hypothetical idea how it fits into the framework of contemporary science.

(13-10-2012 10:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  James Randi is by far not the only person to test the abilities of so-called "dowsers". That being said, since you claim to know how to perform a dowsing test properly, why don't you apply for the one million dollar challenge of the James Randi foundation or one of the other paranormal ability challenges?
Because I don't know how to dowse, I don't have the skill. Oh, I tried to walk around the garden with an Y-shaped stick, but it didn't move. Maybe it was dry or something. Maybe I should re-read the Provod's texts and try again, but right now I'm hundreds of km far from home, studying. And will be for months at a time, perhaps years in total. It would be far better to find someone who is about to undergo such a test and familiarize him with Provod's method of dowsing.

(13-10-2012 10:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  To get straight to the point: As much as I would like to refute the orgone energy hypothesis strictly on a scientific basis, I am unable to do so for at least two reasons. First of all, I'm not a scientist. I do not possess the necessary expertise in any of the scientific fields that orgonomy deals with to write a profound rebuttal of their experiments. Second of all, I don't have the necessary interest to spend so much time on something that does not differentiate from other paranormal/pseudo-scientific claims made in the past. Even Creationists possess laboratories in which they conduct 'scientific' experiments in various different fields of science and they write extensive books about their results, yet the two of us know that it's a bunch of woo-woo. Why is that? Because their research does not meet the standards of the scientific method.

Richard Feynman explains it rather well.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Try to summarize why this research does not meet the standards of the scientific method.
As I understand it, the hypotheses/theories are found in original Reich's books and articles. JDM merely repeats his experiments and tries to replicate the results. (successfully, it seems) To me it looks like he takes Reich's theories, designs experiments, performs them and publishes the results, online and at regular conferences. (among other things)
He also references a lot of other independent (valid, scientific) research that fits together with Reich's theories.
This is how I understand it. Now tell me what you see. Hopefully we'll be able to compare that with JDM's statement and somehow uncover this mystery.

(13-10-2012 10:21 AM)Vosur Wrote:  Sure.

1. Do you think that the orgone hypothesis meets the standards of the scientific method?
2. Why do you think that there are little to no peer-reviewed papers dealing with said hypothesis?
3. Why don't you use the national/international media in order to 'promote' your research so that other scientists are encouraged to evaluate your claims?
Message sent. I explained the situation and included your questions, plus a few of mine, on unrelated matters.

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
14-10-2012, 04:07 PM
RE: Dualism
(14-10-2012 03:14 PM)Luminon Wrote:  These are some of referenences to a research of various scientists who in most cases never heard of Reich, but nevertheless encountered natural phenomena, that fit the description and effects of Reich's orgone. Which is why they are referenced.
So to repeat the question, are these real references or not?
If the experiments of these authors have been properly executed, documented and peer-reviewed and they haven't twisted the facts to fit their agenda (in case they have one), the answers would be "yes". In order to find out whether or not these references meet the standards mentioned beforehand, I would have to do more research than I am willing to do for a less important part of the debate.

(14-10-2012 03:14 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I thought why Randi's million dollar challenge fails so... always and maybe I've got it. There is a difference between practitioners and theorists. Practitioners can be tested, but they can not design a reliable and fair test, because they don't have a theory on how it works. They just observe something without real understanding of the phenomenon itself or even hypothetical idea how it fits into the framework of contemporary science.

[...]

Because I don't know how to dowse, I don't have the skill. Oh, I tried to walk around the garden with an Y-shaped stick, but it didn't move. Maybe it was dry or something. Maybe I should re-read the Provod's texts and try again, but right now I'm hundreds of km far from home, studying. And will be for months at a time, perhaps years in total. It would be far better to find someone who is about to undergo such a test and familiarize him with Provod's method of dowsing.
You're doing exactly what Dawkins described in the video I posted, which is trying to rationalize why dowsing doesn't work without questioning the practice itself. That's more or less the same thing religious people do when their prayers don't work or what wiccas do when their rituals don't show any effect. As I've said earlier, one of your problems is that you are more likely to think that the reason why dowsing has never been demonstrated to work in a controlled experiment is not because it doesn't work, but because every single dowser who has attempted to do so did it wrong. Meanwhile, your claim that no participant of dowsing experiments has the necessary theoretical knowledge to design them properly remains unfounded.

(14-10-2012 03:14 PM)Luminon Wrote:  OK, now we're getting somewhere. Try to summarize why this research does not meet the standards of the scientific method.
As I understand it, the hypotheses/theories are found in original Reich's books and articles. JDM merely repeats his experiments and tries to replicate the results. (successfully, it seems) To me it looks like he takes Reich's theories, designs experiments, performs them and publishes the results, online and at regular conferences. (among other things)
He also references a lot of other independent (valid, scientific) research that fits together with Reich's theories.
This is how I understand it. Now tell me what you see. Hopefully we'll be able to compare that with JDM's statement and somehow uncover this mystery.
I don't have anything to add to the criticism that has been offered to you in the thread about Orgonomy started in 2011. I suggest you to reread the entire thing.

(14-10-2012 03:14 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Message sent. I explained the situation and included your questions, plus a few of mine, on unrelated matters.
Thanks. I'm looking forward to his reply.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2012, 06:12 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2012 06:20 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Dualism
(14-10-2012 04:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  If the experiments of these authors have been properly executed, documented and peer-reviewed and they haven't twisted the facts to fit their agenda (in case they have one), the answers would be "yes". In order to find out whether or not these references meet the standards mentioned beforehand, I would have to do more research than I am willing to do for a less important part of the debate.
It is safe to say that these authors worked independently, they did not adhere to a single hypothesis, most of them did not know most of the others, they were separated by space, time and lack of internet. Some of them are well-known for their high quality scientific contributions, like Dirac or Alfven. If these authors did have a pseudo-scientific "agenda", then there would have to be a dozen of different agendas, which makes it strange why is their research so similar.
On the contrary, this is quite an important part of the debate, it's an independent confirmation of Reich's/JDM's research. There seem to be many works pointing at what they decided to call orgone, and from some sources which there is no reason to doubt. Which is why I think you're overly suspicious in this case.

(14-10-2012 04:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  You're doing exactly what Dawkins described in the video I posted, which is trying to rationalize why dowsing doesn't work without questioning the practice itself. That's more or less the same thing religious people do when their prayers don't work or what wiccas do when their rituals don't show any effect. As I've said earlier, one of your problems is that you are more likely to think that the reason why dowsing has never been demonstrated to work in a controlled experiment is not because it doesn't work, but because every single dowser who has attempted to do so did it wrong. Meanwhile, your claim that no participant of dowsing experiments has the necessary theoretical knowledge to design them properly remains unfounded.
No, I'm not doing that. I was a little boy when I last experimented with dowsing rod. I had a freakin' plush animal in my bed. I didn't have the internet and didn't know Dawkins even existed at the time.

I mean, people on both sides make unjustified assumptions. They assume, that any water running for any time is detectable by a dowsing and that the rod reacts exactly on top of the water line, regardless of the rod's orientation and the water's direction.
Instead, the principles of dowsing described by Mr Provod rely on a long-term uninterrupted stream of water, hours at least to build up the fields in local (orgone or ether-filled) space. (note, that JDM's physical orgone effects also often take weeks or months to manifest!) Which is not a problem in natural underground springs, where it flows for decades and centuries, which is also where the dowsers normally work. But if someone makes an experimental setting where the water flows for a while and then stops or reverses, or even water pipes get near or cross each other, then it will not work. Can you accept that it probably isn't as simple as waving a piece of wood over a water pipe?

(14-10-2012 04:07 PM)Vosur Wrote:  I don't have anything to add to the criticism that has been offered to you in the thread about Orgonomy started in 2011. I suggest you to reread the entire thing.
Will do, unpleasant though it may be.

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
14-10-2012, 09:46 PM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy
I just wanted to let you all know...Chas, Vosur, Lumi, that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread and laughing my ass off ;-D It it like an adult version of me and my little sister fighting "Not it's not", "Yes it is", "No it's Not"....

Anyhow I have decided to weigh in. Chas requires empirical evidence, or at least data from known reputable sources, which is reasonable, rational, and logical requirments. Lumi feels he has some kind of special sensory perception that has led him to believe some idea's that are not currently accepted by mainstream science, but supports his special perception. I cannot say if Lumi is wrong or not because I too lack enough evidence to verify his claims, and I cannot sense things like him. It would be unreasonable to expect people with a healthy dose of skepticism accept them as being true without have more data from more reputable sources. Perhaps it will one day be widely accepted as fact, but even if it is true it is unlikely to be proven within my lifetime. Lumi, I fear all you best efforts are in vein, even if you are wholly convinced. Conviction is not proof, or even evidence. You should expect extreme resistance to your ideas from the vast majority of the non-religious folks.

Okay, I have done my part to end the futility.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2012, 12:52 AM
RE: Dualism and orgonomy
(14-10-2012 09:46 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I just wanted to let you all know...Chas, Vosur, Lumi, that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading this thread and laughing my ass off ;-D It it like an adult version of me and my little sister fighting "Not it's not", "Yes it is", "No it's Not"....

Anyhow I have decided to weigh in. Chas requires empirical evidence, or at least data from known reputable sources, which is reasonable, rational, and logical requirments. Lumi feels he has some kind of special sensory perception that has led him to believe some idea's that are not currently accepted by mainstream science, but supports his special perception. I cannot say if Lumi is wrong or not because I too lack enough evidence to verify his claims, and I cannot sense things like him. It would be unreasonable to expect people with a healthy dose of skepticism accept them as being true without have more data from more reputable sources. Perhaps it will one day be widely accepted as fact, but even if it is true it is unlikely to be proven within my lifetime. Lumi, I fear all you best efforts are in vein, even if you are wholly convinced. Conviction is not proof, or even evidence. You should expect extreme resistance to your ideas from the vast majority of the non-religious folks.

Okay, I have done my part to end the futility.
Oh, thanks Big Grin
But why end? Obviously, we are at the limit of the internet, it can't squeeze through any physical evidence. This is why we have these huge credit banks - scientific institutions and journals, that lend credibility as a currency, to eliminate the distance. Now there's the question why some applicants didn't get the loan of credibility, what are requirements to get the loan and what is the banking history of some particular would-be customers of the bank Prestige Inc. Or if that bank is really impartial, or uses double standard instead.

Even if you see you can't win, you can still hope at least one side will get wiser. That's what I need, I can't walk away until I get some idea what the hell is happening or see that I can't learn that here and now.

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
15-10-2012, 05:38 AM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2012 05:42 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Dualism and orgonomy
(15-10-2012 12:52 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Oh, thanks Big Grin
But why end? Obviously, we are at the limit of the internet, it can't squeeze through any physical evidence. This is why we have these huge credit banks - scientific institutions and journals, that lend credibility as a currency, to eliminate the distance. Now there's the question why some applicants didn't get the loan of credibility, what are requirements to get the loan and what is the banking history of some particular would-be customers of the bank Prestige Inc. Or if that bank is really impartial, or uses double standard instead.

Even if you see you can't win, you can still hope at least one side will get wiser. That's what I need, I can't walk away until I get some idea what the hell is happening or see that I can't learn that here and now.
You could try contacting the publishers of peer-reviewed science journals and tell them to take a look at the Orgone research or suggest the authors of orgonelabs.org to send these journals an article on their research. This one may be your best bet.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: