Talk:Orgonite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Sources[edit]

hitler I added some sources and refrences. Please read the other orgone articles on wikipedia, including the research done by Einstein and Reich, before shoving this article of as "new age".

The article should make clear that Don Croft's concept of "orgone" and orgonite "device" are derived but quite different from Reich's. For example, Reich's substance-monistic concept of orgone did not allow it to be generated or destructed; it may only be gathered and scattered (with orgone accumulators or cloudbusters), and switched between two states (OR and DOR). Nowhere in Reichian literature one can find mention of crystals or mineral material to cause such a conversion; Contact with Space, Reich latest book, is a wild speculation about the complex ecological processes that cleanse the planet of stagnant DOR pockets, and their disruption by human activities. And I do not think that Reich's "orthodox" continuators such as James DeMeo would be very happy to be associated with Don Croft's sloppy business (see “Email letter to Don Croft from James DeMeo”). My two cents, for the sake of neutrality on an article that should probably not exist… —Meidosemme 00:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense on Wikipedia[edit]

Why is wikipedia keeping New Age moronism at the same level as science? This page should be deleted and prevented from recreation. It is absurd. It is scary how nonsense becomes a widely accepted thing. Wikipedia should be fighting against ignorance. --Endimion17, 1:31, 4 November 2006, (UTC)

Why? I guess that the anonymity of the internet, and Wikipedia, is as appealing to these people as it is discouraging to real scientists, who live from building a reputation and are used to having to defend the things they write in front of their peers. Wikipedia as a whole cannot fight the ignorance, it is up to each individual to do this. Let's take this article as a showcase example and let's try to keep the nonsense out of Wikipedia at least. Keeping it out of the world and the internet will be impossible anyway. --DrTorstenHenning 09:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but wikipedia is NOT a good source for information, anyone can modify its contents, there are some very famous examples, quite entertaining, in fact. It boggles the mind to see wikipedia.org in the bibliography of some reasearch papers. By the way "offical" sources of information are even worse in my opinion, they have an agenda to maintain. For example: denying the existance of a subtle life-energy when the evidence to prove it is avaliable to anyone; we are the only culture in human history to do so. We can feel life-energy every minute of everday, its just that in our culture mothers don´t teach their children to recognize it, so we confuse it with some other bodily sensations. The study of suble-energy SHOULD be approached in a objective, scientific way, as much as possible, exesive mystisim only serves those intent on disproving the obvious. "I have absolutely no idea what water is, said the fish. Why do you ask?"
I agree completly that "New Age" retoric is one of the most ridiculous out there, almost as bad as the mechanistic-newtonian view of the world. Most "scientists" still adhere to old scientific paradims that have been proven obsolete long ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.82.55.104 (talkcontribs)
Well well, my dear 190.82.55.104, that is a bold statement you are making. I am one of those scientists that according to you adhere to old scientific paradigms. And if you bring me a fish intelligent enough to speak English, I am confident that the fish and I can agree on scientific experiments to be undertaken to examine whether water exists or not. I am also quite confident that the experiments will show that the existence of a substance called "water" is a good model to explain certain observations that the fish makes in everyday life, like total reflexion of light at the surface of the ocean, pressure varying with distance from the surface, et cetera. I am not denying the existence of a subtle life-energy, I just say that to date, no experiment under controlled conditions (that what our scientific paradigm requires) has proven the existence of orgone, let alone its properties. For example, I still have not seen an experimental setup that would answer the question if orgone is indeed blue. I might just as well claim that my personal subtle life energy is turquoise in colour - prove me wrong!. If you do not agree with the scientific method, the one you call a paradigm, that is OK with me. However, in this case, please find another name for it, do not call it science to avoid confusion (it very important to call different things by different names). Also, since WP:NPOV seems to be on your side and is outweighed by WP:VERI and WP:NOR, in this latter case, Wikipedia might not be the right place for your beliefs if you cannot live with having them labelled as beliefs instead of scientifically proven facts. --DrTorstenHenning 19:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be here, as should other pseudoscience, as references to cultural phenomena, if nothing else. Just as Intelligent Design deserves a space in Wikipedia as a cultural phenomenon, however pure the drivel therein, so does Orgonite and other pseudosciences.
There's nothing wrong with tagging it as pseudoscience, but removing it is not appropriate.
*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else?[edit]

"Ph.D. Charles R. Kelley described orgone energy as the "subtle, trans-dimensional energy matrix of the universe"."

Is there any indication that there is a consensus to describe it this way? If not, I will delete this sentence as original research. --DrTorstenHenning 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance, the cardinal sin...[edit]

How come people can be ignorant enough to follow what other people say (particularly within the majority), without testing it out, and/or observing it with unbiased logic... A true scientist is ALWAYS balanced between being open-minded and skeptical... Kasdaye 20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's (at least partly) right. And it is because we are open-minded and sceptical that we have not simply deleted this stuff, but are waiting for scientifically sound proof for the claims in this article. --DrTorstenHenning 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Trademark (?)[edit]

Does someone have an idea what is wrong with mentioning the fact that Orgonite is or appears to be a registered trademark? I have not found the FAQ that according to the dit history should be pertaining to this. --DrTorstenHenning 19:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

-Karl Hans Welz tried to copyright the word "orgonite" a couple of years ago and failed. The word was already in popular use and he was rejected the copyright. He still insists that he owns the copyright, but this is simply false, and wishful thinking. By the way a good experiment with orgonite is placing an orgonite device in the microwave, it will not heat up. Also Orgonite is not detected by metal detectors no mater how much metal is in the orgonite, what type of metal, or the sensitivity of the detector, quite interesting. A tri-meter can detect the ionizing effects of orgonite, a geiger counter will also demonstrate the effects of orgonite, especially when placed close to radioactive material. Of course don't belive me... EXPERIMENT!!!!!! Instead of bickering you, supposedly "open minded" scientists should experiment for yourselves instead of waiting for an "authority" to tell you what to think, thats what a REAL scientist does, by the way.

Please see his The Invention controversy Robert C Prenic 16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

'Pages needing expert attention from Chemistry experts'[edit]

I've removed the tag requesting attention from a chemistry expert. This article doesn't need help from a chemist, it needs help from a pseudoscientist. If anyone disagrees, please discuss here. Bfesser 20:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia really needs a template that puts a warning in the top of all pseudoscience articles. Something like a disclaimer saying that the article contains dubious information that could be harmful if taken seriously... but in better wording. Just a thought. -- Bfesser 02:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Orgone energy[edit]

I vote we merge this. The page has no importance beyond its relavance to Reich's Orgone energy waffle... Famousdog 13:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream news article[edit]

This is probably still a subject which cannot be justified having a Wikipedia article due to its fringy nature and lack of mainstream reliable sources. However, should more sources surface the situation may change. For now, I have found this: Philp, Rowan (10 May 2009). "Bad vibes sink energy crusaders". The Times (South Africa). Johannesburg. Archived from the original on 10 June 2009. Retrieved 10 June 2009. . __meco (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


Article should be remade[edit]

Although it may not be truth or fact, communities and forums of people sharing information about this 'orgonite' based on Reich's theories have circulated the internet. There are hundreds of sites and reports of people making this stuff and 'gifting' it in various areas, as well as local newspaper articles, and that guy being arrested for it. Even if this is pseudoscience, I think the article should make a reference to what 'orgonite' actually is and information about this phenomenon. 79.69.217.110 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Band called orgonite[edit]

There seems to be a Russian(?) band called Orgonite these days. Perhaps disambiguation is needed? Atuomi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)