Print

Print


I agree with Herb. I also kind of agree with Michael: the public's minds are
tainted in certain critical areas by corporate activity. This applies to
climate science, but it's not being UNscientific that suits the corporate
agenda - rather, they muddy the waters by claiming that the scientific
consensus view is 'junk science' and haul out some dissident science as
'real' science. However, they use the IDEA of science - and that taints it
in the minds of the public, pushing some people into the arms of less
conventional ideas. And in health, for example, there's been far too much
evidence of science being 'owned' by corporates - the public is very aware
of that. 

I think a corollary of this is that scientists have become somewhat more
defensive about the unconventional - which, as Herb says, has some good
ideas, and even amid some of the wackier concepts I suspect you might find
good germs of new ideas swirling around. 

 

From: Science for the People Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert David Ogden
Sent: 24 July 2012 01:56 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Discussion about Energy

 

Very well said as usual, Herb. Some time ago I put a link to an article

http://www.cs.txstate.edu/~ro01/science-and-its-demons/scienceAndItsDemons.p
df

which addresses the current phase of irrationality, puts it in a historic
and social context, and discusses what science can do to exorcize the
"demons" of distrust and suspicion which burden it.

Bob Ogden

 

 

 

  _____  

From: herb fox <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] 
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012 3:10 PM
Subject: Re: Discussion about Energy

 

In my youth there was an orgone fad.  Quite a few persons with whom i was
acquainted had or built orgone boxes.  None was a scientist and there has
never been any proof that there is such a thing as orgone.  Ouija boards
were also the fad.  Today the majority in the US believe in Astrology.  I
have not seen any investigation of popular attitudes towards science and
scientists, but it appears that we are not trusted or believed as perhaps we
once were.  Were i not a scientist i might also have a cynical attitude
towards them, since the majority are contributors to the military, big
pharma, or big agra, or others of that ilk.

I didn't contribute to the discussion Mitchel's post provoked because after
reading Petros' and Joel's remarks i realized that anything i might say
would be dismissive.  I anticipated that they would then simply dismiss me
as another brainwashed scientist.

Now it seems necessary to speak to the underlying problem.  It is not that
there are funky ideas around.  It is not that there are imaginative
alternatives to currently accepted concepts.  These are good.  In some other
society they would provoke experiments by qualified scientists that would
produce results that would be believed by the non-scientist majority.  But
in this society Capitalism is hegemonic   It owns us.  It owns the
scientists and their science.  We are tainted.  We are not to be believed by
a cynical public.  Unfortunately our practice is sufficiently arcane that
the popular masses cannot easily grasp exactly what we do.  They have to
trust us; but they don't.  The only cure for this problem is Science for the
People--that scientists, like firemen and nurses, demonstrate by their acts
that their first concern and obligation is to help people, to rescue them
from an unjust social order.  We are tainted.

herb






On 7/23/2012 2:39 PM, Mitchel Cohen wrote:

Hi,
The researchers I was talking about new nothing about Reich. Orgone energ
was something that Joel Carlinksy added on his own, but I was specifically
asking about Tesla, etc. which may or may not overlap with Reich's
constructs.

The  fact that Reich was imprisoned for his research and that the US
government burned his books in the 1950s doesn't prove anything one way or
the other about the validity of his work, but it does make  one curious,
no?

Mitchel

-----Original Message----- 
From: Michael H Goldhaber 
Sent: Jul 23, 2012 11:29 AM 
To: [log in to unmask] 
Subject: Re: Discussion about Energy 

Nearly 40 years ago, Carolyn Iltis, a historian of science, was in Berkeley
SftP. She was interested in topics such as witchcraft, but also played
around with Wilhelm Reich's concepts, and had an orgone box.  Reich was of
course the follower of Freud who first tired to combine his work with
marxism and was interested in various bodily energies. He got in trouble
with the US government and was eventually declared insane because he
believed in little green men or something like that. The orgone box was a
box that was supposed to trap and reflect bodily produced orgone, which was
somehow related to orgasm. I suspect Wikipedia must have an article on it. 

 

Best,

Michael

 

On Jul 23, 2012, at 8:16 AM, Romsted, Laurence wrote:





Mitchel:

 

Two more things.

 

Without searching through past emails, I want to stipulate that I
misrepresented you intentions.  I did not scan them before I wrote the email
below either.  I went on my memory.  My mistake.

 

However, you could have at any time responded to my question to you, Joel
and Petros.  You have not.  Please do.  If you need the question restated, I
will locate it in my old emails.

 

Larry

 

From: Larry Romsted <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 10:41 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: FW: Discussion about Energy

 

 

Mitchel:

 

Please.  I felt I should tell this list why the potential discussion
disappeared.

 

From my perspective  (obviously): You started the discussion by circulating
Joel email without explanation.  I was struck by a passage that made no
sense to me concerning energy and chemistry.  I offered to discuss it on the
SftP list.  Joel did not want to.  You lost interest.  Petros was willing to
discuss stuff with me off list.  We are sort of doing that now.

 

I take very seriously the idea that the fundamental ideas of science that
have developed over the past several centuries do not include important
energy concepts.  I do not know of any.  So I asked.  You have not responded
either.

 

If your going to circulate statements and idea that are contrary to
established scientific ideas (that is OK), explain why you are circulate
them, what they are about, and what the published and reviewed evidence is
for them with references.  It took me several email exchanges before I
learned that Orgone was the missing energy.  I do not know what Orgone is.

 

Larry

 

From: Mitchel Cohen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Science for the People Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Monday, July 23, 2012 4:19 AM
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Discussion about Energy

 

Larry, this is untrue, at least as far as I am concerned (and I believe it
holds for Petros as well). How you come to this, I don't know,  as I wrote
the exact opposite -- that I did not want to discuss this privately but
wanted to do so on the list. Joel Carlinsky declined, not  me.

M.

-----Original Message----- 
From: Larry Romsted 
Sent: Jul 22, 2012 10:48 AM 
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Discussion about Energy 

All:

 

Remember those few emails about energy that sort of started after Mitchel
sent an email from a guy name Joel and I volunteered to discussion the
ideas?

 

Joel, Mitchel and Petros, also involved a bit, decided that they did not
want to discuss them in a discussion list.

 

The end,

 

Larry

 

 

 



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 7322 (20120723) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 7322 (20120723) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 7323 (20120723) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com