Print

Print


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.pdf
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 
>>