Talk:Law of attraction (New Thought)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Double-Slit Experiment and other scientific evidence in support of the Law of Attraction[edit]

Double-slit experiment (both the classic experiment and the more recent Silicone Oil Droplet experiment) is repeatedly cited as a scientific basis to support the hypothesis. This article uses several studies to promote this hypothesis. The skeptics dictionary article on the other hand seems like a rather biased interpretation that relies on a lack of data in an attempt to discount the scientific merit of the Law of Attraction. Therefore, the perspective that there is no scientific evidence seems to be misleading and not representative of the scientific viewpoint of the hypothesis . For this reason, this article should be modified to more accurately reflect the mixed opinion on this hypothesis, such as a viewpoint like "*little* scientific evidence has been found in support of this hypothesis."

In addition, this hypothesis has been miscategorized as a belief system. Due to it being supported using scientific evidence, however little, it is not accurate to define it as belief system. Permafry42 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have just read and discovered that even the source skeptics dictionary article says "there is little evidence to support the notion that believing something can make it so." There's a huge difference between 'little' scientific evidence and 'no' scientific evidence Permafry42 (talk) 07:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that's not strong enough for you, he says at the end of the first paragraph that 'this "law" is false; it's not even truthy." The point is, as this Wikipedia article makes clear, that there are some limited cases where positive thinking can bring about positive results. That's not the same as scientific evidence for the Law of Attraction. In fact it very much is the scientific consensus that the Law of attraction is not supported by scientific evidence, the quantum mysticism of a few fringe thinkers notwithstanding. garik (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Reception of the Idea" section[edit]

I did some edits on this section because I thought it was a bit too gung-ho with the viewpoint against the law of attraction. That is the viewpoint that I happen to hold, but I did think it definitely needed to be toned down a bit. Ashleyleia (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That section is still heavy. Somehow we are treating the so called 'scientific and rationalist' community with the sort of reverence they don't really deserve. If they know so much, let them explain how to create life. Or how iron knows that it has to be solid while water knows it has to be liquid - when underneath they are all made up of the same electrons, protons and neutrons. These morons know f- all. ~~PB~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Iron is solid because it has a metallic structure. It has unfilled d-orbitals, so it has many delocalised electrons. The electrons and the positive Fe irons are strongly attracted together. A lot of energy is required to break those attractions, so at room temperature (and most other temperatures humans will experience) iron is a solid.
Water is a covalent structure. Oxygen has six electrons in its outer shell, which means it can bond with two more electrons before it has a complete outer shell (as it does not have d-orbitals). Hydrogen has one electron (and as it only has 1s orbitals, it only needs one more to have a full outer shell) so two hydrogen atoms can covalently bond with oxygen by sharing electrons. This creates a water molecule, H2O. The forces between H2O molecules are what determines the melting point. These are reasonably strong- oxygen is extremely electronegative so there is a strong dipole, and there is even hydrogen bonding- but they are not nearly as strong as the intermolecular forces in iron. Less energy is needed to separate one water molecule from the next.
In short: iron has stronger intermolecular forces than water, so more energy is needed to turn iron into a liquid.SCIAG (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

And why does iron have unfilled d-orbitals? ~~PB~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this issue could be resolved by renaming the header to read, "Criticisms." Atheus42 (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you guys/ladies are all way too generous in your assessment. This is a one-sided POV hitpiece using terribly unobjective sources with an axe to grind. Too much negative energy, so I'm outa' here. But first let me say if the POV pushers can ever unbend themselves enough to want to entertain a better, self-empowering reality, they ought to watch the original Secret film with Esther Hicks. Or just read some objective material on the subject. How about Think and Grow Rich. (The author did think and grow very rich, and not from writing his book.) Anything w/b better than some angry popular journalists' opinions. They're really missing the picture.
Also, it's not just thought and focus. Feeling is the real' heavy hitter in LOA. This is old, old stuff. There is nothing new under the sun. And this isn't rocket science.
The "I'm-a-victim" mentality is not what made Western civilization great. Lots of the great innovators and icons of the 20th Century (including, e.g., Thomas Edison) had reason to feel like victims but they knew the secret and it motivated them to spend all those endless hours to improve their own lives and the lot of humankind.
Peace to you all, and especially wishing the POV pushers a better song to sing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Seems to me Thomas Edison espoused working, not wishing and waiting, when he said genius is "99% perspiration". ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bill/check example[edit]

An editor took out the "For example, if a person opened an envelope expecting to see a bill, then according to the law of attraction, the law would "confirm" those thoughts and contain a bill when opened. A person who decided to instead expect a check might, under the same law, find a check instead of a bill." from the lede, feeling that it was "obviously biased". It's taken from a Csicop article, but it's an example used by Lisa Nichols, a law of attraction exponent.

The article seems badly in need of an example that explains what "positive or negative results" this school of thought is actually talking about. If this is a bad example, can we find a better one? --McGeddon (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the same edit also removed the statement that there was "no scientific basis" for the law of attraction, so perhaps that was the only "obvious bias" being objected to. But the example is worth discussing anyway, as it is perhaps a silly, over-literal one that doesn't do the literature justice. --McGeddon (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Pending any discussion of this, I have restored the example. --McGeddon (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good, not sure what the issue was, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Please remove that example, as it arbitrarily removes time from the equation. Also you are not distinguishing between attraction (realization) of desires and attraction of like energies. One should not write of a field which he does not understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Master Key[edit]

Why has no mention been made to Charles Haanel's The Master Key? This is a seminal work that has launched many lives from mediocrity to achievement and reportedly it 'created' Microsoft in the mind of Bill Gates.

This is a major omission and it and he should have been mentioned in the main article.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). </ref> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashpark (talkcontribs) 20:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review the guideline on reliable sources. That you (and others) feel a book is "seminal" and that it "reportedly" did something valuable isn't the basis, here at Wikipedia, for including anything about that book in an article. What needs to be done, to be included, is for a reliable third-party source, such as the New York Times, to discuss the book. Then information from that news article (not the book) can be used in this Wikipedia article. (If that sounds unreasonable, well, there are lots of other places on the Internet to write, to your heart's content.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

paragraph about Srinivasan Pillay[edit]

See the change I made. Here's my reasoning:

  • "According to several other scientists,[...] certainly believes and teaches"--this is the way I first tried to parse the sentence. It's missing a subject. There are other ways to try to parse it, but I couldn't find one that gave a working sentence.
  • Which books he has written is not germane to the body of the article. If he is of sufficient notability to warrant his own article (none exists at this writing), those details could go there.
  • The book seems to me to be careful not to claim that the law of attraction is supported by science, but rather to posit that science explains the law of attraction.
  • The "several other scientists" and the "and many others" I can find no support for in this primary source, at a brief glance.
    • If there are other scientists who hold this or a similar position, that would need to be supported by a reliable secondary source.
    • I could find no obvious reliable secondary source regarding this book.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of attraction (New Thought). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)