Talk:Energy (esotericism)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed merge

they should not be merged - gerry

They should be merged. Famousdog 14:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

how do you feel a merger of the two articles might benefit this article or that article? Whateley23 00:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Not for merge, different topic areas and both would be weakenned by the two combined.-- Ziji  (talk)  06:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of repetition of information between the two pages, so they are clearly not "different topics" and the concept of "spiritual energy" is central to a lot of putative energy medicine. How would this "weaken" either article? I think it would make the two stronger. Famousdog 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

again, i ask, exactly how do you think it will improve either article? Whateley23 00:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

They may be merged, the only advantage I can imagine, is that the contributions of many more editors on a closely related subject will be made available on the same article.Hallenrm 11:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Further, I would suggest that the name of the merged article be changed to Energy (healing)Hallenrm 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think it should be merged with energy medicine, but i disagree on the name change. "Energy (healing)" implies that there is actually some healing going on, whilst the evidence suggests otherwise. Famousdog 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

given that no one can answer my question of what, exactly, would benefit either article by a merger, i am opposed to the idea. Whateley23 01:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Famousdog, If you do not believe that such kind of energy can actually heal, there is no point in discussing with you, moreover in that case energy in medicine is equally misleading and does not reflect the nature of the contents of the article.Hallenrm 07:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with you at all there. You don't have to be a believer to know a lot about a topic and to be able to write intelligently about it. Anyway, the general consensus seems to be that (for whatever reason) people oppose the merge, so I will remove the tags. Famousdog 14:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: This discussion looks old and dead, but just in case it comes back to life, I oppose merging with Energy medicine. That would be analogous to merging "lumber" with "carpentry". See also my suggested name change below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) 00:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Limiting scope

I modified a sentence in the "Scientific Validation" section to sensibly limit the claims of skeptics. An honest skeptic should object when spiritual "energy" is claimed without evidence to produce empirical results, but that same skeptic should not object when non-scientific claims are made. For instance, claiming that "manipulating energy" can cure disease should be subject to scientific validation, as it alleges a physical result. But simply claiming that human beings possess souls is a non-scientific claim not subject to scientific analysis. The epistemic value of such claims is open to question, obviously, but they are categorically not "pseudoscience", as there is no pretense of scientific rigor. Valkyryn 15:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Monism: Suffer no deep dichotomy of Energy and Energy (spirituality)

Towards establishing an inclusive working definition:

In the spirit of panentheism, animism, and the resolution of transcendence and immanence and in honour of Divine Mystery, agency and teleology; spiritual energy may be envisioned as that energy that is the lifeblood and marrow of all that which is held by the bastion's of the Scientific Canon as energy or that which is considered invested with energy (E=MC²) and/or perceived as energetic or kinetic. Spiritual Energy is the principal energising, vitalising and animating principle.

Walking my talk in Beauty
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Er... right. Whatever. Famousdog 19:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Subtle Energy

My suggestion would be to rename (or redirect) this page to Subtle energy. Subtle energy is a more neutral term and is the term being adopted by that portion of the scientific community which is starting to take it seriously. (e.g., ISSSEEM ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that I think energy (spirituality) covers a broader range of topics than just subtle energy. The latter, insofar as I can tell, in mainly used in e.g. Reiki and therapeutic touch and similar energy medicine techniques, while the former encompasses philosophically distinct concepts of "life force." Checking a couple of the "What links here" articles, this would seem to be the more appropriate designation unless the topics are distinct enough to warrant separate articles. Nobody has replied to your suggestions for five days, so I am going to WP:BOLD to change the redirect and put a disambig notice here. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Being more familiar with latter than the former, I don't know. If they are that distinct, then we probably will want two pages at some point, but given the current state of this page, it's probably better to improve this one and figure that out later. Thanks for the boldness ... a fine solution for the time being.--Mbilitatu (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Validation POV and Sources

The section Energy (spirituality)#Scientific validation is written from a mainstream scientific POV. The article makes claims without sources, consistently invokes marginalizing words and ignores the body of scientific work that is not dismissive. The section needs either to be significantly edited or re-labeled as a criticism of the topic. I would be happy to do that myself, but being new to Wiki, I wade gently into controversial topics.--Mbilitatu (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Once again we get into the old "researching the unresearchable" Catch-22. There's little research because qualified scientists don't see any point researching this stuff. Believers say it's unresearchable because its "unquantifiable" or "exists in a different realm from that of science". Scientists say it's unresearchable cause it ain't there! So there is a paucity of genuine, credible scientific research. The gap is filled by proponents and believers doing frankly ridiculous, biased and contradictory "research" that (surprise, surprise!) supports their beliefs. (see Orgone for examples of just plain poor "science") This "research" then appears in self-published sources from new-age publishers rather than in peer-reviewed academic press where it would be laughed out of court. So there you go. Nothing to research = no research. Believers could then take this paucity of research as evidence for "a mainstream scientific POV" when its actually evidence of the lack of credibility of the subject in general. Famousdog (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the existence of the circle you point out, although I might debate that there's little qualified research. However, my point in this case does not depend on whether or not there is qualified research. Let's assume for the moment that the picture you paint is a complete one. Even in this case, the section on scientific validation is written strongly from the point of view of science, which (in our assumed context) says that this whole topic is bunk. This is a critical point of view on the topic and reads as such. I think it should be re-titled "Scientific Criticism" or something like that. It should reference the claims being made, which it does not. Let's just take the first 3 clauses. Theories of spiritual energy are not validated by the scientific method. That is a sweeping, unsubstantiated statement. thus are dismissed as non-empirical beliefs by the scientific community is another sweeping statement. Claims of spiritual energy producing empirical results are therefore often considered to be pseudoscience or quackery is another sweeping statement. They are stated as fact with no backing and no sources. The section goes on like this. The 4th clause states Claims related to energy therapies are most often dubbed as anecdotal and on and on. This section is indefensible. This section is so completely biased that we haven't even gotten to the subtle points about whether or not there are good scientific sources.--Mbilitatu (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, "science" doesn't have a point of view unless you think of it as a big conspiracy. I work in a lab with 15 other people. We don't agree on anything! "Science" is a process of many competing opinions and theories being tested according to the scientific method. Whatever has the most evidence to back it up becomes the dominant theory. There's no evidence (beyond partisan, self-published "research" by "believers") for any energies beyond the ones that we know about. If you have some evidence, perhaps you could win the $1,000,000 that James Randi is offering? Secondly, The NIH statement on putative energy therapies accurately substantiates the three "sweeping statements" you cited. I will add it as a source. Famousdog (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Your first and third statement contradict each other. Your position is that because scientists disagree that means that science does not have a POV. So POV only exists in the case of unanimity? Thus one would conclude that there is no New Age POV, no communist POV ... in fact, then POV doesn't exist. Then your third statement defines what you think science is, which is exactly the scientific POV and the way that science looks at the world, and is the POV of this section. My point stands. In addition, you have dismissed my call for more sources to a bunch of sweeping claims by providing a top level reference to the NIH categorization of alternative therapy, and then just repeat the sweeping condemnation of altnernative therapy yourself. Clearly you agree with the POV of the section. --Mbilitatu (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, Mbilitatu. They know it all. Everyone has to prove what they say except them. Neutrality, in Point of View terms, or otherwise, is a myth. Their "logic"(?) is the only one that rules. I am a Chartered Engineer with decades of experience, so I know science and scientific method, as it is, inside out and backwards. I am also a Healer with what is sometimes referred to as Higher Sense Perception. I see, feel and hear at that level. Experientially and empirically (I have looked up the defintions and it is an accurate term in this sense) those energies exist; not that anyone knows what energy is, only what it does, how it manifests. I am comfortable with energies, the strength of, that others are not, one Healer feelign as if his head was "lifting off". on a rudimentary experiemntal basis I am aware that those eneries are not attenuatd by matter (wood, glass, metal) to any noticable degree. I have sensed anomalies in auras that have turned out to correlate with illnes and injuries - so have plenty of other people. There has been experimentation and research, e.g., Oschman, Korotkov, Levichev, Tiller, et al. Finding them takes only the most basic level of research on the Internet. Whether they cannot even manage that, or find the results of such research unnacceptable, I do not know; obviously the results of such work is inconvenient to "the given word". There are detractors, of course, though they tend to be just abuse; far easier to ignore or throw the usual Quack, Woo, yah boo sucks "argument" at it. I have never yet seen any evidence, proof, in such criticism. Several months ago I concluded that there are subjects that need a protected Wiki to prevent pseudo-sceptic meddling. It must put off many potential contributors and it often seems that is, in part, thhe intention of some. If my book and those that follow are as successful as some predict, I will see what I can do in the protected Wiki sense. I certainly know of sources of knowledgeable contributors for such a venture, over 95% of whom are academically, technically, medically, etc., qualified, let alone the experimental and experiential aspect.

While lecturing at a College I used Wikipedia, at times, as a source but only for examples of sourcing, manufacturing and using engineering materials, for students at further education level, certainly not for the University students. much above schoolboy science Wikipedia can start to get shaky, for anything out of the mainstream of science, anything much beyond classical, materialistic, Newtonian science it is, largely, useless. For any subject that might find itself under the pseudo-sceptic gaze, Wikipedia is close to useless. Unfortunately, they are not the types to be willing to defer to greater knowledge or experience; in their purview there is none greater. [[RichardKingCEng (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)]]

My story is very similar. PhD research. Healing work. Find wiki highly valuable. But see that there is a mob run rampant making it impossible (or at least time-wastingly tedious) to contribute intelligently to certain topics.--Mbilitatu (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) So... you're both healers... Okay. "Contribute intelligently"??? By simply tagging the section you (as a healer) disagree with, as "POV"? You claim this section is POV because it hasn't got sources, but there's plenty of sources in the individual articles on topics such as electromagnetism or quantum mechanics or transcranial magnetic stimulation to support their existence. Would you accept sources such as quackwatch, skeptical enquirer, skeptic magazine? Unlikely. Those sorts of sources are always tagged as POV or unreliable, but those publications are the only ones who can be bothered to address a topic that most people see as fruitless. In the same way, I would not accept "sources" that were self-published or from new-age publishers (I used to be in charge of the Mind, Body, Spirit section of a bookstore). So it appears we have reached an impasse. I can only ask you to remove the POV tag because you simply ask the impossible. That somebody provide a negative proof. Like asking Iran to produce WMDs that it hasn't got! Famousdog (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it for 2 reasons, neither of which had anything to do with whether or not I disagree with it. One, it makes claims that are not substantiated. This is standard wiki procedure. Got nothing to do with POV. The other reason is POV and that has mostly to do with marginalizing and absolutist words. When someone makes sweeping statements about alternative topics such as, "Bob saw a ghost", that is routinely changed to, "Bob claimed he saw a ghost". This section needs the same treatment. The fact that negative statements are difficult to prove does not justify leaving them unchallenged. I will not remove this tag until this section is cleaned up. If someone removes the tag, I will replace it. At some point I will simply edit the section myself and escalate this conversation to messing around with the text itself. As to whether or not I would support the sources cited, I don't feel like we have reached that point in the discussion. I find it bizarre that we are debating the fact that this section needs improvement. I would welcome a debate elevated to the level of whether or not the sources are good. I recognize that a toned down (less absolute) version of what is being said in this section does represent the opinion of a large number of intelligent people and needs to be represented on this page. This is not the issue. My problem is not with the fact that many scientists have negative results on subtle energy. My problem is that these results are not presented in proper context and specifically cited. Once this section is cleaned up, it is my intention to add a section covering the scientific results that support the existence of subtle energy, and many of those sources are going to be subject to the same kind of knee-jerk reaction among some people as being disreputable. But at least a debate on sources is one level up from this. Besides, if quackwatch, skeptical enquirer, and skeptic magazine are the only sources you think have negative results on subtle energy, I would be happy to add more. There are many sincere, scientific experiments that have been done and reached negative conclusions. I'm happy to help locate those sources.--Mbilitatu (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I just looked and see sources have been added. Thanks. I'll wait some time and take a look at the changes.--Mbilitatu (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)From Famousdog (13th February 2008): “So... you're both healers... Okay. "Contribute intelligently"??? By simply tagging the section you (as a healer) disagree with, as "POV"?”

Not contributing from just the Healing point of view but having a knowledge of both sides point of view. As a Professional Engineer I use science but considerably more besides. So, I am already in a better position than a mere scientist. I have tee advantage of the extra knowledge and experience as well. Not a boast, just an “is”. Much of the so called “scientific” and pseudo-sceptic contribution on these topics hardly reads as intelligent, more somewhere between woeful lack of knowledge, biased and juvenile, especially when the words quack and Woo drift in. I am, obviously, well aware of the evidence for electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, etc., as well as being aware that there are still gaps and many “particles” are still in the postulated, searching for situation. Besides, anyone who thinks the esoteric side seems weird, really ought to read a decent book on quantum mechanics. According to quantum mechanics, “solid” matter, is 99.9999999999999 % empty, non-existent. As Marcus Chown wrote in “Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You” (pp12), after explaining, broadly, the nature of the physical, how an understanding of the true nature of matter came about: ”Despite its appearance of solidity, the familiar world was actually no more substantial than a ghost.” That is remarkably close to the esoteric understanding; the ideas of string theory seem even closer. So, even pseudosceptics are, essentially, ghosts in a ghostly existence, adamantly claiming that all that is ghostly is real and that nothing else exists. Oh, by the way, Brian Greene, Professor of Physics and Mathematics at Columbia University, a strong proponent of String Theory, is going a presentation as the Energy, Intent and Healing Conference on 9th June 2008, organised by The International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine (ISSSEEM) on June 19-26, 2008 ([1]). Now what would Brian Greene know about science, experiment, reason, logic, etc? There are other conferences as well, also with “heavyweight” presenters, i.e. they possess professional and/or academic qualifications and experience, e.g.: The Healing Intention: Conscious and Unconscious” ([2]), organised by the Scientific and Medical Network ([3]) and the Royal Society of Medicine ([4]) - Section of Hypnosis and Psychosomatic Medicine; “The Body and Beyond – Cross Cultural Understanding of Subtle Energy”([5]), Bath Spa University, 22nd to 24th August 2008, organised by the Scientific and Medical Network. I attended similar and related conferences last year. There is far more substantial information than the pseudo-sceptics and amateur scientists allow on Wikipedia pages. Is that confirmation bias or poor research?

“In the same way, I would not accept "sources" that were self-published or from new-age publishers (I used to be in charge of the Mind, Body, Spirit section of a bookstore).” Oh, dear, do you really think that is where we are coming from. Have you not heard of library literature searches; I was doing that forty years ago at Brunel University; the modern equivalent being an Internet search. The Wikipedia page on the Human Aura is woeful, even ignoring the pseudo-sceptic content. I did an Internet search to write something myself (not for publication on Wikipedia; the pseudosceptics would soon delete it) to go on one of my Web Sites; a rudimentary search, then specifying “pdf” results (to try to limit the non-profession, non-academic results), then “.edu”, “.ac.uk”, etc. for the same reason. I ended up with about seventy articles, papers, etc., all the way from experienced opinion (Barbara Ann Brennan, etc., though Barbara has Science Degrees) to Oschman, Tiller, Korotkov, Levichev and others. Unfortunately my book and its completion, comes first; the draft of that Web page stands at about four A4 pages equivalent, as I recall. Levichev is a mathematician with a couple of Doctorates and, with Korotkov, developed a mathematical model for the energy field of the aura in the form of the Stress Energy Tensor. I had wondered if that was feasible as tensors are a common way of representing fields, then found they had done it, though they brought in quantum chromo-dynamics and Minkowski space as well, it seems, a little beyond my engineering mathematics, though I have no problems with the concepts. They know that their equipment is only picking up secondary effects of the aura, rather than the aura itself. However, experiments undertaken by them, with others, and by others, appear to substantiate their work. For example, changes detected by their equipment correlated with changes observed by other means.

“Would you accept sources such as quackwatch, skeptical enquirer, skeptic magazine? Unlikely. Those sorts of sources are always tagged as POV or unreliable, but those publications are the only ones who can be bothered to address a topic that most people see as fruitless.” No, I would not accept such sources because the language used is as juvenile as the science and logic; no more than I would ask a primary (nursery?) school child, with a distinct lack of manners and yobbish attitude to elucidate me on calculus, polymer chemistry, Weibull statistics, Fourier analysis, etc. Besides, they are in a similar position to an equally science, logic, limited person I came across on Richard Dawkins Forum; I ended up advising him that he was out of my depth.

Somehow, I gained the quaint idea that the UK Sceptic Forum was more sensible than the one west of the Pond; not so. I came across one character who, essentially wrote, “You say A but you really mean B and B is wrong so what you say is wrong”; for warped logic that takes some beating; plus another who deemed my arguments to be invalid, or at least reduced, because I wrote my comments in Word (to copy and paste) and used quotation marks instead of the Forum quote facility; what it amounted to was “if you do not use the Web Site whizzbangs your argument is invalid”, or at least degraded!? Anyone who can only find this type of topic on pseudo-sceptic sites and “New Age” magazines, “Mind Body Spirit” bookshelves, etc., is in serious need of a course in basic literature research techniques. That is something you learn during first term at University, or at least it was in my day. Besides, a great deal of it is fairly obvious.

How about proof that most people think it is fruitless, reliable surveys, peer reviewed research, as you state. Besides, as I recall, many people, “most people”(?), thought what Michael Faraday was researching was fruitless. Good heavens, what on earth is the energy that is making this computer work?!

As for unreliability tags on the “sources of wisdom” mentioned, the same should go for Wikipedia on these subjects because they are written in much the same vein, at a similar level.

“I can only ask you to remove the POV tag because you simply ask the impossible. That somebody provide a negative proof”

I have not done anything with any tags and am certain that the POV of Wikipedia will remain, broadly, pseudo-sceptic. The tag being placed there is perfectly justified. I seems that pseudo-sceptics are happy to go around posting tags themselves but cry foul when anyone else does; typical of their double standards.

I am not asking the impossible. I am well aware that to prove a negative requires infinite knowledge and commensurate experiment. I am also aware that absolute proof requires an infinite number of experiments that produce the same outcome, which would take eternity. If something cannot be proved to not exist, where is the logic in deriding people who have reason to believe, experientially know, that it does; we number in hundreds of thousands to low millions, at least; that can be estimated from Memberships of the various groups of Healing Organisations, for a start. What would be appropriate would be “proof” of statements from the pseudosceptic, mainstream side. Think of yourself, together with a few like minded people, among a majority of blind people who insisted that their totality of experience and knowledge is all there was, more or less, all there is. How would you go about proving that light exists? Actually, just pseudo-sceptics and mainstream scientists (those of the limited scientist kind) dropping the double standards approach, along with the often juvenile language would be a start, though such people, presumably, do not believe in miracles; in that sense, neither do I. Hence my certainty of a need for a restricted Wiki; so there are more important things to pursue than trying to straighten out Wikipedia; it has a sickness that is beyond even me and people like me. The POV is so “even handed”, “neutral” that the ratio of pseudo-sceptic references to more knowledgeable references is 4:1; bias towards the ignorant; the research behind the Page is so good that mentions none of the researches I have named, let alone numerous others that I know of but have not mentioned; I have their papers on my computer – and this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia?!

By the way, I believe in providing justification for being able to make sensible contributions and confirm that subjects are within my knowledge, qualifications and experience, so I do not use a pseudonym. My knowledge and understandings are based on real qualifications and real experience, though neither are of great value in Wikiland. There is a warning on Wikipedia that being in the open risks various sorts of danger and abuse but once I am properly in the public domain that will come anyway; it is the nature of the beast and the level of a certain “intelligentsia”. If I do not end up on Quackwatch, for example, I will be extremely disappointed.

There is a problem with some people in the general esoteric, non-physical field referring to the higher energy fields related to the physic body as magnetic. They certainly do not help our cause and play into the hands of the pseudosceptics. Such people also often describe the aura as emanating form the body, or surrounding it; neither is the case but the true explanation, situation, is far beyond the pseudo-sceptic ken. Mind you, the nature of the energies is beyond them anyway, as is another property. If they understood or listened they would know that they need to look on the edges of what can be sensed by current instruments, though it is secondary, tertiary, etc., effects anyway. Deriding genuine researchers and those who would like to extend knowledge but are made to fear for their careers, simply maintains that situation, which is probably at least partly the intention.

It is a situation that many of us would like to correct.

No-one seems to know what energy is anyway; the “definitions” are only descriptions of observable effect, not definitions. There is not a definition of what energy actually is. Other than limitations in the senses of many, along with most of their instrumentation, there is nothing to preclude the energies we sense; nor am I aware of anything in existing “definitions”, principles or mathematics that excludes those higher energies. Against them is only ignorance and bias. My experiential understanding is that hey differ from physical world energy in both nature and frequency. I am reluctant to explain too much as therein lays future research interests on my part. [[RichardKingCEng (talk) 06:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Richard, you are boasting. Please stop. And refrain from referring to us as "mere scientists" or comparing us to a "child". Its pathetic displacement. Famousdog (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Finally got around to reading your thesis ;-) today. Your rhetoric is impressive (haven't come across the epithet "pseudo-skeptic" before!), but no evidence appears forthcoming and your appeals to "experience" are falling on deaf ears (Richard Dawkins would call this The Argument From Personal Experience and quite rightly dismisses it, since us humans "experience" some very weird things - usually after a late night cheese sandwich). Please stop the smearing your fellow users, though. For example, I do know how to do library searches, since I'm a postdoctoral fellow... but I'm not boasting! Honestly! No, really... Now... shall we try making a useful contribution to the article, please, instead of making mammoth, vitriolic posts here? Famousdog (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this kind of hostility is getting us nowhere. Let's be civil, guys.Giantrobotbrawl (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This looks pretty non-controversial, so I will go ahead with the merger in to Energy (spirituality). I think I pulled everything germane out of the Spiritual energy stub last week, but it is still in the history behind the new redirect if anybody wants to double check. If we would like further discussion of the name, please open a new section below. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 07:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Energy (spirituality) and Spiritual energy appear to deal with substantively the same topic. The latter currently is a stub with a relatively extensive See also (including a link to E(s)). So, gentle editors - should these pages be merged and which title should the new article bear? Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 18:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: From the perspective of content, I would support a merger. From the perspective of nomenclature, I am uncertain which is the better term. Two sections up I suggested that it all be redirected toward subtle energy, but it was suggested that Energy (spirituality) encompasses more than subtle energy, so I set that topic aside until this page was improved. (Subtle energy is currently redirected toward Energy (spirituality)) --Mbilitatu (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Support the merger. They both deal with the same topic, and differences can be put into subsections. Think outside the box 16:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely support. There is nothing on the page Spiritual energy that isn't already here in some form. And there is always the potential that this other page could provide a NPOV fork. The treatment of the topic evidently includes no criticism. (edit: Forgot to add: I prefer the title Energy (spirituality), as it covers a multitude of variations on a theme.) Famousdog (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Changes

I have somewhat mitigated the article's sweeping rejection of scientific validity since it covers many fields, some of which, notably the research of HS Burr, cannot be dismissed as unscientific without analysis not yet available on Wiki. Redheylin (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Instead I have begun an extensive Wiki index on this page. Please leave it unless you can think of a better place for it. Redheylin (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• This article does not discuss the subject indicated by its name, but focuses on various of modes of spiritual healing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed split

It has been suggested that this article be split into articles entitled Vitalism, Mysticism, New Age and Energy medicine, accessible from a disambiguation page.

Support. Those all sound like valid partial merge targets to make sure that no good content is lost. Rather than a disambiguation page, though, might we prefer a simple redirect to vitalism? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 10:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. I am nor sure how many of the same Wikipedia Needs. There is, (in addition to those listed above, Etheric body(another recently rewritten by Redheylin), Etheric plane, Aura (paranormal); as well as from various individuals and traditions Prana, Mana, Odic force, Qi, Lung (Tibetan Buddhism), Koshas, Walter John Kilner, L-Field, Morphogenetic field, etc. New Age energy thinking draws on the other sources. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed many such individual essays, but none devoted to the consideration of all these together, particularly in their reception into Western thinking and the analogies perceived between them. The result is that it will be awkward even to begin to give a concept like "etheric body" the kind of approach it needs, so that it is liable to remain, like a lot of the articles on wiki that non-specialists overlook, no more than a wooly and uncriticised Theophical tract. I am deeply suspicious of the reasoning that, for example, has taken upon itself to prevent any consideration of, say, the effect of Bergson upon Reich or, for another example, the ideas of Haeckel, Burr and Sheldon and their place in the history of embryology, the extent to which "field" theories of organisation have been eclipsed by molecular biology and so forth. These ideas remain current in forms of therapy and philosophy, so it is important to determine when good science became out of date. Otherwise you cannot distinguish between a scientist who held ideas usual in his time and a fringe don Quixote, let alone evaluate the impact of Theosophy etc on thought, art and scientific research.

How the hell else would you make the list you just made? Or at least, how could a non-specialist do so without some central critical list? And why do you think the Skeptics online so love to include ki, prana, Reich and Mesmer in the same sentence?

By the way, MS, there's one for you REALLY! You just have a look at old Sheldon - not that his odious views entirely efface his ideas - and leave poor old Alice alone. She simply had a mania for categorisation combined with a normal contemporary list of racial stereotypes which anyone could find offensive. She really thought she was compassionately identifying with the plight of Jews. I can give you far worthier causes for your paranoia. Go and have a dekko at Sheldon, google him and add a comment on his views - I was going to myself but the articles around my chosen field are in such uproar, so neglected, I had not the time. Which is not reason for anyone to undo my work, I know when citations are needed thanks. Redheylin (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This page is not what it was a couple of days ago. As I am attempting to improve historical articles, particularly concerning the history of medicine, I had intended to use this page in order to compile a register of ideas of energy in religion, philosophy and medicine, and the interaction between these disciplines as regards "energy" concepts. For example, the electromagnetic and radioactivity quack medicine that proliferated 100 years ago is a matter of interest. This theme is NOT a matter of personal research, it has been treated before in its present scope. However a great deal of material was removed in a very short time, without notice, before it could be properly referenced, and of the original article only a lead and a single section remained.

It seems a few friends here are so aggressively POV about pseudo-science that they would like their obsession to prevent wiki from faithfully reflecting history. I should like to point out that, while it might be considered pseudo-science if anyone today were to make false claims based on a "luminiferous ether", that does not mean that James Clerk Maxwell was a pseudo-scientist.

Of course, if you are familiar with physics you can easily add a paragraph explaining why, when and how the "ether" theory lost favour. But I do not think you should simply cruise wiki erasing or defacing all references to Maxwell without notice.

I mentioned on the notes page that work was in progress and particularly asked that the "see also" list be left intact, but discourtesy has set in. I invite those who wish to edit this page to respond and co-operate.

The page should not be split unless, as I said in the note, anyone can suggest any better place to draw together the philosophy of vitalism, the fringe science, the therapies of today still based on Edwardian ideas and so forth. It is not that these ideas do not need to be refuted. It is just that good history requires an account of their existence and their refutation. Kindly assume that wiki readers are able to think for themselves. Thankyou. Redheylin (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. "The page should not be split unless, as I said in the note, anyone can suggest any better place to draw together the philosophy of vitalism, the fringe science, the therapies of today still based on Edwardian ideas and so forth. It is not that these ideas do not need to be refuted." I believe you have hit upon one of the crux issues of this page. I have stated with some forcefulness that I think that a "subtle energy" page should not be the place for the discussion of philosophies. It should focus on the concept of energy-of-many-names. You are making a case for needing a place to bring together philosophies that have in their foundation a concept of life-force, Qi, spiritual energy, etc. This also makes sense. Perhaps one key is to come up with that new page. I don't know what to call it, either. Maybe Energy Medicine? Spiritual Energy Philosophies? --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There could be much more well-referenced information in this article on the historical and sociological aspects of belief in "Energy (spirituality)". For example, the concept of vital energy (also called by some prana or chi) is part of spiritual belief systems as well as alternative therapies - both past and current. This should be documented in a central article, with "See also" links for more detailed information. Arion 3x3 (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The vitalistic principle goes by many names: chi or qi (China) prana (India and therapeutic touch), ki (Japan); Wilhelm Reich's orgone, Mesmer's animal magnetism, Bergson's élan vital (vital force), etc. American advocates much prefer the term energy. Many kinds of alternative therapies or energy medicines are based upon a belief that health is determined by the flow of this alleged energy. For examples, see acupuncture, Ayurvedic medicine, therapeutic touch, reiki, and qigong. (Skepdic) Redheylin (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Support. This page appears to replicate much material from Energy (spirituality), Energy therapy, Vitalism, etc. I am worried that it could provide a seed for a POV fork. The 'See also' section is quite out of hand... Famousdog (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree that much of what has been put on this page would be better placed on one of the pages of the proposed split. However, if I understand the proposal correctly, the split would remove this page. That is my point of opposition. The topics of Vitalism, Mysticism, New Age and Energy medicine do not cover Energy (esotericism). Vitalism, Mysticism and New Age are perspectives on life or perhaps philosophies. Energy medicine is a healing modality based on energy. Speaking metaphorically, if Energy (spirituality) were lumber, then Energy medicine might be a school of carpentry and Vitalism, Mysticism and New Age might all be styles of construction. There needs to be a page for the lumber. If you want to reduce the overlap, I would look more at the overlap of Energy (esotericism) with Qi or élan vital. For better or worse, the dominant term adopted in the USA is "energy". --Mbilitatu (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Further refs

Developmental systems theory - Organismic theory Organicism - Redheylin (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16451325 for the above concepts and Jungian archetypes of collective unconscious. Redheylin (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Galatzer-Levy,RM (1976) Psychic Energy, A Historical Perspective Ann Psychoanal 4:41-61 [6] Redheylin (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

energy therapy

I have moved this section to the talk page for discussion:

The concept of spiritual energy

Ideas connected to spiritual energy span a wide range of cultures that assume the human body or the universe as a whole is pervaded with such an energy. Among the wide variety of such terms the following are some of the best known, though all should not be presumed to be held to refer to exactly the same concept;

* Aether or the quintessence of classical physics

• Aura in parapsychology and spirituality
• Holy Spirit in some branches of Christianity, similar ideas in Islam and Judaism
• Prana in Hinduism
• Qi or ch'i or ki in several Asian cultures, especially Chinese
• Magical energy in various systems
• Mana in Oceanic cultures
• Mbec in Ghedee
• Silap Inua in Inuit mythology

Similar concepts are also found in some more modern western works;

* Morphogenetic field of biologist Rupert Sheldrake

• Odic force of chemist Carl von Reichenbach
• Orgone energy of Wilhelm Reich
• Vital energy

==Premise of energy therapies==

The various approaches known collectively as "energy therapies" vary widely in philosophy, approach, and origin. The ways in which this energy is used, modified, or manipulated to effect healing also vary. For example, acupressure involves manual stimulation of pressure-points while some forms of yoga rely on breathing exercises. Many therapies are predicated, as regards the given explanation for their supposed efficacy, on some form of energy unknown to current science: in this case the given energy is sometimes referred to as putative energy.

However "Spiritual energy" is often equated with empirically understood forces, for example, some equate the aura with electromagnetism. Such energies are termed "veritable" as opposed to "putative". Some alternative therapies, such as electromagnetic therapy, use veritable energy, though they may still make claims that are not supported by evidence. Many claims have been made by associating "spirit" with forms of energy poorly understood at the time. In the 1800s, electricity and magnetism were in the "borderlands" of science and electrical quackery was rife. In the 2000s, quantum mechanics and grand unification theory provide similar opportunities.

Insofar as the proposed properties of "spiritual energy" are not those of physical energy there can be no physical scientific evidence for that energy's existence. Therapies that purport to use, modify, or manipulate unknown energies are among the most controversial of all complementary and alternative medicines. Theories of spiritual energy not validated by the scientific method are usually termed non-empirical beliefs by the scientific community. Claims related to energy therapies are most often anecdotal, rather than being based on repeatable empirical evidence.

Some acupuncturists say that acupuncture's mode of action is by virtue of manipulating the natural flow of energy through hypothesized meridians, scientists argue that any palliative effects are obtained physiologically by blocking or stimulating nerve cells and causing changes in the perception of pain in the brain. However, this theory fails to account for the specifity of the locus of successful intervention. The gap between the empirally proven efficacy of some therapies and the lack of empirical physical evidence for the belief-systems that surround them is at present a battleground between sceptics and believers.

This entire section has, as far as I can see, a separate subject than the subject of the article, and should not be in the article at all. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right - I have converted the text into brief notes on "energy therapies" and shall add other similar notes to the other headings. I think it is clear that these therapies do claim to identify and work with some "energy" which may be termed spiritual in the broad sense the present article requires. Redheylin (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this page for?

This page doesn't say anything conclusive and seems, to me, to be an attempt to muddy the waters rather than explain anything to anybody. Just providing a list of links without comment means that evidence-poor quackery like vitalism is put on the same footing as evidence-rich electromagnetism. A solution to this would be to split the page into sections for theories and therapies that utilise either veritable or putative energies. The main difference in these theories is whether you have to believe or not. This would allow the reader to discount those theories that require a leap of faith or a colossal assumption. Then comes the harder decision of whether pseudoscientific therapies using veritable energy (such as magnet therapy) are actually doing what they say they are. This would genuinely aid the reader. And remember: Wikipedia is not just a collection of links! Famousdog (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree this page is terrible. It's gotten worse over time. Every month somebody gives it a new name. The worst problem with it is that people confuse energy with the practices that make use of it. (or in skeptic-speak, "claim to make use of it") This is like confusing lumber with carpentry. I go back to a proposal I made a long time ago. This page should be named "Subtle Energy". It should just cover the energy and have no or minimal coverage of the therapies. There is a reasonably well known society that has adopted this term: The International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine (ISSSEEM). There are other, better, pages that cover subtle energy using terms from other cultures, most well known being Qi. The only reason I do not suggest that this page and Qi be merged is that Qi has inherited so much culturally specific context as to be too constraining. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello - there was a "raid" upon the page and somebody changed its name. I do not find it a good choice. On the other hand, I do not find any meaning in the term "subtle energy". I do not think it odd that a page about wood should link to a page about carpentry either; there's no confusion. You are absolutely right that Qi is culturally constraining. The same is true of prana, orgone or anything else you choose. And that's why the page exists.

Famousdog, you are right that a therapy that depends on belief - faith healing, for example - may not belong here, unless there is some type of theory about "energy". If some therapy has a built-in concept of energy, then it does belong here. In many cases it is not possible to separate the therapy from the concept of energy, or else there is no page dealing with that, so the link to the article on the therapy is given.

Perhaps - I do not know - I have enough faith in the intelligence of anyone that troubles to read these things that they can tell the difference between knowledge of the electromagnetic field - Maxwell's equations - and theories about a putative energy from the South Sea Islands. But what is the value of splitting the page, when it exists to take in the entire field. This page points out these differences, gives some apparatus to think about and distinguish between and evaluate these various ideas. It is perfectly OK to point this out - but to "distinguish" in the sense you mean is really, I think, a matter of ideology; that we editors have to act like censors, making sure people will never have to think for themselves, that they will never say; "I wonder what a biophysicist would say about it" - rather, we will make sure they think what WE want. I would rather just annotate the links with the shortest description, without thrusting an ideology upon the user.

As far as vitalism is concerned, you may like to look at a few of my recent pages; Driesch Alexander Gurwitsch Paul Alfred Weiss Hans Spemann - all of these world-famous developmental biologists were, to some extent "vitalists", and if you look at the pages on modern developmental theory you will read that we simply do not know how a cell puts itself together. DO NOT KNOW - got it? And I am writing from that position, and I am not drawn to anyone who has any kind of program to suggest we do, from loopy hippies to mullas to self-appointed priests of pseudo-rationalism. Redheylin (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

By the by, FD, it is not true that the diff between putative and veritable is in the believing. For instance, in the UK a doctor can prescribe acupuncture for arthritis. The doctor may not believe, the patient may not believe, in any energy-meridians - Qi is certainly "Putative" - but still, the treatment beats the placebo effect. Someone may think this is due to endorphins, others, like you apparently, may think it is some kind of hypnosis. And that might be right, perhaps you can produce an experimental study that concludes that. Otherwise it will be original research and POV, Redheylin (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This might be getting a bit off-topic, but I don't agree. Acupunture is a physical and physiological intervention. There are now several physiological models of why it works and you do not need to believe or invoke Qi in order to see its benefit. It is being accepted as a medical intervention and science is slowly explaining how it works undoing centuries of waffle about "energy meridians". That is why it is available on the NHS. Qi is putative, but the success of acupuncture does not rely upon it, or indeed upon the placebo effect. Reiki (where there is no physical contact) also invokes Qi, but has far less evident efficacy, so is probably wholly reliant on the placebo effect. Famousdog (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Redheylin, on the contrary, it is your editing that has made this article what it now is. The "raid", on this page (as you describe it) was an attempt to restore rationality to the article -- an attempt that you have undone. The typical problem I have encountered with all the pages you have edited, including this one, is an attitude of ownership (WP:OWN); and you tend to reject the efforts of other editors to make changes. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Famousdog, there are many models. It seems you are having difficulty following your own argument. I note you have offered many pretexts for breaking up this page in the past. None of them evinced much reason or knowledge. Your remark that veritable energy does not belong on this page is a case in point. It is only you who is seeeking to drive a POV wedge. It is a good idea, though, of yours to annotate the various approaches and I am happy to discuss any mode of classification you may propose. But I am reverting your removal of the William Blake paragraph, marked "original research" - if you like you can explain just what references you think are missing. As far as the piece on therapy goes it has been removed from the lede to a section on therapy because Malcolm Schosha and Mbilitatu both said that therapy was given undue prominence in the article. Please can you guys settle your differences and not edit-war? Redheylin (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

MS, who is the one who "tries to own"? The one who discusses or the one who refuses to discuss the changes they make? None of the editors you led to the page was ready to defend what they did. They were given a week to discuss but not a single one had the courage. Redheylin (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I am very concerned about the article "ball games". The people who have written it think it should be about ball games apparently!!!! But I mean, they mean, like, ALL games played with a ball. There is a great big list of them and, worst of all, the page fails to say anything conclusive. I mean, it does not even point out that cricket is a noble sport of gentlemen. Rather, they have the nerve to put it on the same page as football. This is going to wreck a lot of innocent young lives. What say we go and take everything off it and just write "football is shite"??

Wow, touched a nerve there, didn't we? Let the record state that so far, Redheylin has accused me of circular reasoning, lacking knowledge, POVism and accused MS of edit-warring and cowardice. He has also used foul language. I think this user is clearly a disruptive influence (with a distinct POV and too much time on his hands). Votes to block? Famousdog (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yawn, so what IS my distinct POV? Never mind - I agree with the proposal to block. You have indeed touched a nerve and it seems to me nothing but blocking will prevent the inevitable reflex. Now, I might ask, why is this editor engaging in badinage upon this talk page but refusing to discuss the changes he is making? This is not an accusation, it is a mere observation, just as I observe that your long tenure at this page has been accompanied by much hostile invective and precious little constructive contribution.

I also observe a strong POV - it is hostile towards some aspects of this "spiritual energy", no? That is obvious from your remarks. You referred to vitalism as "evidence poor quackery", for example. Now, the fact is, 200 years ago vitalism was the rationalist pov, up against the religious doctrine of preformation. Having won that battle, the need to invoke any special force has been pushed back but not, at present, entirely eradicated. That is not to say that I myself champion any vitalist philosophy, but that I wish to see the thought of the great biologists of history fairly represented, and the state of current knowledge likewise. To judge Galvani and Berzelius "quacks" on this basis is misguided, misleading and tending to historical revisionism - I'd say it adds up to a lack of knowledge of the history of biology, certainly, and that is being charitable.

China and India are large continents with growing economies. You and I will never see the day when millions of people no longer see the world through a mindset that includes chi or prana. I think we WILL see the day when those nations spend a lot of money trying to vindicate their mindset, even though it be constructed upon a visualised interior anatomy that knows little of any central nervous system. Somehow or other this entirely putative energy philosophy has given rise to an effective praxis. And on this basis I pointed out that not all putative energy concepts require faith, which is what you had said, so you were not reasoning circularly, but not following your own argument. Further, at least one notable writer believes that chi is nothing but Chinese electromagnetism - in which case it would be veritable energy. So, although I can see that the page requires some structure and presentation, it is still not clear how this can be done: your suggested distinctions will not do.

I do have a couple of sources that cover this all quite well, though, and, as you know, such overall sources are our only reference for due weight and neutral viewpoint. If you can bring others forward that would be good.

But meanwhile you will no doubt appreciate that users may actually be wishing to ascertain for themselves what is or was the mindset of 19thC biologists or Chinese people. They need a clear and well-referenced presentation, not a rant about quacks. And that's what they are going to get.

Please state your reasons for;

1) Your repeated summary removal of the contribution re. Blake's use of energy in a psychic context. 2) Your repeated promotion of the article "energy therapies" out of that section and into the lede, ignoring the discussed views of MalcolmSchosha, Mbilitatu and me. 3) Your failure to contribute or suggest a more suitable picture.

Redheylin (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding vitalism, I am fully in agreement with your comments above. Regarding Chi and Prana, I think you are guilty of a rather stereotypical view of the Indian Subcontinent as slightly "backward" scientifically when in fact they are way ahead of most Western states regarding education in science and engineering. Regarding my removal of the Blake section, it is peripheral to the topic and the sources are hardly freely available. Regarding energy therapies, these "therapies" are predicated on the assumption of something that, almost certainly, doesn't exist. Before you came along and started waffling about Blake, this article was about that substance and how it is purported to be used by therapists. The Lumber/Carpentry debate has served only to trivialise this connection. If "spiritual energy" doesn't exist then lots of people are out of a job. So lets see the evidence that it does, eh? Finally, I have been on holiday (hurray), now I am back (booo). I returned to find the page completely rewritten in a vastly inferior and confusing manner. I'm not even sure how to remedy this situation. This page has turned into a collection of links (which WP is not supposed to be), with minimal critical discussion and lots of new age jargonism. You are welcome to it. Famousdog (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I cordially invite you and any other interested editor to co-operate to ensure that this page and all other similar pages are fairly represented both as to the arguments that are advanced and the notable refutations they have gained. But you must understand that your current use of words like "garbage" and "quackery", combined with purely destructive, non-consultative modification of other editors' work, does not contribute to wiki but only advances a personal and highly emotional POV. It's worth remembering that, when "spiritual therapists" are out of a job, professional debunkers will also be! Then let us desist from common informal fallacies of argument.

I am glad to hear that you now realise that Galvani and Berzelius were not "quacks", and the corollary is twofold. First, I dare to think that Wiki itself has played some part in your enlightenment, and it is my earnest wish that it may serve others, of whatever opinion, similarly. Second, it follows from this that a refutation of any later vitalist (such as Gurwitsch and Reich) can only be based upon a careful study of trends in the history of biological and psychological thought. It is to this task that I urge and invite you to bend yourself, that the present page may be improved as to its "minimal critical discussion" (remembering of course that such discussion must largely be held over to the page in question). The task of finding suitable references over such a wide field is great, and rendered more onerous by persistent POV pushing.

This brings me to the nub, and here, at last, your reasoning must be called circular. You say that this page used to be chiefly about energy in therapy, therefore it is up to you to make sure it remains so even when all other active editors disagree and when there is an "Energy Medicine" page already for that purpose. On the basis of that you argue that Blake's earliest known use of the word energy in a psychospiritual context has no place on a page about energy in a psychospiritual context! (I discount your allegations of personal research and obscure references, since this one again merely shows you need to do a little reading). And lastly you identify "spiritual energy" as a single (non-existent) thing, whereas the references clearly show the term covers a range of meanings from mindlike forces, through the hand of god to electomagnetism and ultra-violet photons. This is why offhand debunking will not do. This page has to cover a lot of related bases - related in the relevant literature, including Skepdic - and its job is to show similarities and differences, recording refutations, perhaps, delineating progress, but not passing judgment with the benefit of hindsight. And as for today, if you find people holding misguided Victorian views, simply note it for the benefit of social understanding, please, and reflect that at least they no longer hold misguided mediaeval views! Thanks, famousdog, hope to continue collaboration in a better spirit. Redheylin (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"If "spiritual energy" doesn't exist then lots of people are out of a job. So lets see the evidence that it does, eh? " This is actually not true. The scientific method proves the existence of a thing, and then figures out how to make use of it. Indigenous healing techniques came about very pragmatically ... they worked. The theory of "spiritual energy" is a secondary effect of the mind trying to explain why the practices worked. If science ever proves the non-existence of "spiritual energy" (if a proof of non-existence is possible?), it won't matter one bit. A new theory of why healing works would have to be developed. The point is that the theory is the least important aspect. The most important aspect is whether or not a healing modality actually makes a difference. If one wants evidence of spiritual energy, take a class from a reputable school of healing. Then you can decide for yourself ... how does it work? That said ... with the majority of the universe filled with dark energy and dark matter, it boggles my mind that people have such a big problem with the possibility of subtle energy. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When you argue like that, I cannot see how you also want to separate therapeutic practice from its theoretical "energy" philosophies. The page "Energy Medicine" is there alright, but I cannot at the moment see what it will give us besides a lot of duplicate information and extra clicking. However, if it is to be kept then by all means let's merge the two, since that is better than the undue weight that it is currently given here, as has been remarked. We need to go one way or another I think. Redheylin (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I may not understand what you are saying, so my apologies if this response misses your point. My previous paragraph is perhaps off topic for this section. My reasoning for having a page on spiritual energy is to have a place to put what is believed to be true about it. Wiki has not even begun to address this. We're still fighting the "does it exist" debate, which I find tedious. There is a body of scientific research about it. There are theories for what the mechanism is. There are different ways in which people sense it ("claim to sense it" in skeptic-speak). There are suggested ways to improve one's ability to sense it. There are interpretations of what it means. There is an entire body of information on energy that is independent from all the ways in which it can then be manipulated. This page currently has none of that. If we don't have a page on energy, I don't know where that stuff goes. Then, there are literally hundreds of energy therapies and it seems like a dozen new ones get created every day. In my opinion, Energy medicine would be a good place to put that, although even here we run into a battle over whether Energy Medicine covers all energy based therapies, or only those recognized to date by NCCAM. Honestly, although I have a clear preference, I'm not enough of a wiki-maniac to get into a revert war over this. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mbilitatu, so far as I am concerned there will be no war so long as "what is believed to be true" means "what has been verifiably averred by notable experts of all opinions". As far as I am concerned "does it exist?" is meaningless since it has hardly been shown that, say, chi, prana and orgone ARE in the first place to be considered different words for the same thing, let alone that "energy" always refers to the same thing. That is why I think that, to begin with at least, it is better just to link together the various "types" of energy and comment separately on each. Only comment that clearly appertains to ALL "spiritual energy" has a place here, and there's no need and no space to discuss matters that discuss and relate to only one type. I do not, therefore, know what you mean be "THE mechanism".

I am sure you will also agree that, should an editor for any reason seek to defend a claim that is indefensible a grave error might be made. For example, if you would look at biophotons you will find that it has been claimed that such biophotons may cure cancer. I have promoted a flat refutation of this, since I know of no evidence and I would think it a great wrong to be any part of the abuse of sick people. No glowing accounts of, say, chi or radiotherapy will do, only a solid account of a cure by this means. This is why most notes on such particular matters should remain WITH those particular matters. Do you see? If you promote the idea that "all energy is one energy" then logically any unsupported quackery becomes a condemnation of ALL energy theories. And that's where the trouble has arisen, I think.

Now this "body of scientific research" - the first thing is to pull it together and to look at its scope and reliability. I would suggest that this be done here on this talk page. We DO have a page on energy, this is it, and, if you really continue to think that the two should be separated then I shall accept that and back you. That means there will be NO discussion of therapies here: just a link to the other page. NCCAM will be a great place to start - then you will need reliable reasons to introduce each separate further strategy. Please do the work and let us thrash it out here - we can invite a few others perhaps. Once there is a fairminded consensus it will be difficult to overthrow it. Redheylin (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Double Standard

The following entry was added to this article: "The attempt to associate additional energetic properties with life has been all but abandoned in modern research science, but spriritual writers and thinkers have maintained connections to these ideas and continue to promote them as either useful allegories or even as fact in spite of their dismissal by the scientific community."

I added a lot of "mainstream thinkers claim" stuff to it, exactly like the kind of "believers claim" baloney that is all over wiki. My edits were reverted, and apparently in a way that I am not allowed to revert the revert. Why is it OK to pepper every alternative article with "believers claim" and then I can't put "the mainstream claims"? The claims in this paragraph are unsubstantiated. What's even worse, the second clause tries to represent what "spiritual writers" maintain, but it's obviously what a skeptic thinks that spiritual writers maintain. --Mbilitatu (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the idea that "mainstream" is acceptable here when there is zero scientific evidence from the literature that any spiritual energy has been observed is essentially a violation of WP:WEASEL. More than this, as I pointed out earlier, WP:WTA#Claim makes it clear how and when claim should be used. It is not a "claim" that there is no scientific evidence, there simply is no scientific evidence. I will source the statement to make it more solid.

I do not believe it is okay to "pepper" "alternative articles" with a word-to-avoid either, however, we need to take them on a case-by-case basis, not on a generalized tack. Tit-for-tat is a terrible standard of editing. I also recommend you read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE to learn why minority opinions are relegated to "second place" here at Wikipedia.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that phrasing appears very weaselly; I am not saying that that was your intent, but there is no need to clarify mainstream when we are already talking about research science. If the claims being cited to spiritual writers are not verifiable, please edit and source them. - Eldereft (cont.) 14:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

But we are NOT talking about research science, and it is NOT a minority view. Let's break down the original comment into it's two clauses, which are two independent statements.

Statement 1: "The attempt to associate additional energetic properties with life has been all but abandoned in modern research science" This is patently not true. In fact, scientific acceptance of energy is on the rise. It is a lie that it has been all but abandoned. It is true that it is not a majority view among scientists, but it is not true that it has been all but abandoned. Not only is this false, it is unsubstantiated.

Statement 2: " but spriritual writers and thinkers have maintained connections to these ideas and continue to promote them as either useful allegories or even as fact in spite of their dismissal by the scientific community." Here a blatant skeptic is trying to state what spiritual writers maintain. This statement claims that spiritual writers promote energy purely as allegory or "in spite of dismissal" by the (and again I insert) MAINSTREAM scientific community. This is patently false, as well as unsubstantiated. The spiritual community embraces the concept of energy because (a) based on direct experience (b) based on the minority scientific view and (c) based on the understanding that all mechanistic mind-theories, including esoteric energy, are simply maps of reality and not reality itself. If you don't understand what I'm saying, fine. But what you are saying is absolutely false.

And as far as majority/minority, there is no evidence that a minority of people believe energy is bogus. Clearly a majority of scientists and skeptics do, but the problem with wiki is that skeptics think their reality is the reality. What I am saying is most likely a majority view, it's just a majority that skeptics dismiss as delusional. But, let's also remember, this is a page on esoteric energy (I hate that term, by the way, it's used nowhere else except in wiki) and not on science. This page has a right to present the information from the POV of the people who actually know something about it, not just people who think the page is equivalent of the tooth fairy.

I'm going to delete this paragraph in a day or so unless someone gives me a good reason not to. It's junk. --Mbilitatu (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, because every skeptic always says "zero scientific evidence" and then I bring up William A. Tiller and his scientific papers, and then the skeptic says, "but his science is poorly done", and we have come full circle. Skeptics inherently think all scientific evidence for energy must be poorly done because it's the equivalent of trying to patent a perpetual motion machine, that it must be bad because it doesn't exist. So we are left with no words that will ever convince a skeptic, so the statement that there is "zero scientific evidence" carries no weight with me. People who say that just don't like the evidence. There is a phrase in the community ... "If you have direct experience, no words are necessary. If you do not have the experience, no words with suffice." Such is the wall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbilitatu (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is true that it is not a majority view among scientists, but it is not true that it has been all but abandoned. Not only is this false, it is unsubstantiated. -- citation please. There is already a direct citation in the article that substantiates this.

The spiritual community embraces the concept of energy because (a) based on direct experience (b) based on the minority scientific view and (c) based on the understanding that all mechanistic mind-theories, including esoteric energy, are simply maps of reality and not reality itself. If you don't understand what I'm saying, fine. But what you are saying is absolutely false. We need a citation for this claim. As it is, we have at least one citation which says that our current wording is good. Clearly a majority of scientists and skeptics do, but the problem with wiki is that skeptics think their reality is the reality. What I am saying is most likely a majority view, it's just a majority that skeptics dismiss as delusional. But, let's also remember, this is a page on esoteric energy (I hate that term, by the way, it's used nowhere else except in wiki) and not on science. This page has a right to present the information from the POV of the people who actually know something about it, not just people who think the page is equivalent of the tooth fairy. Please read WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS for how we handle the opinions of people who are opposed to the academic understanding of the subjects of this encyclopedia. While you may not like the "double standard" or the "circular reasoning", Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Convince the outside world that your understanding of spiritual energy is correct, get yourself published in Nature or Science and come back. Until then, your proposal that Tiller someone validates your great white hope for scientific evidence of spiritual energy is something we cannot use. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not need to offer citations. You do. I'm deleting your edit. --Mbilitatu (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The the most recent reference of the citation you gave is 17 years old!!! And you claim this justifies a statement modern science? --Mbilitatu (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that any "monumental breakthroughs" in understanding spiritual energy have happened in the last 17 years (or ever). You must accept that fringe theories are generally ignored by the scientific community. However, I have included some very good and solid reliable sources which back up the statements in the article. I have yet to see you provide any citations to any reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep using unfounded claims to back up unfounded claims. Let's go back to basics.

Statement 1: "Modern science has abandoned energy". This is not justified by a 17 year old source. QED. Your additional claim that nothing new under the sun doesn't cut it. Just look at William Tiller. He's modern, a scientist, and has written extensively about it.

Statement 2: "spriritual writers and thinkers have maintained connections to these ideas and continue to promote them as either useful allegories". Your source is a medical paper. It doesn't speak for spiritual writers. Completely improper reference. Doesn't back up your claims.

You have a paragraph with two statements, both controversial, neither one backed up by sources. It needs to be removed. And then you say "how we handle the opinions of people who are opposed to the academic understanding of the subjects of this encyclopedia. While you may not like the "double standard" or the "circular reasoning", Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs". I'm righting any wrong, I'm trying to have this page true to the topic. You are, in wiki terms, Pushing POV. As soon as I figure out how to report this, I'm going to do it. This is a phenomenal waste of time.--Mbilitatu (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Tiller's forays into pseudoscience notwithstanding, there are no peer-reviewed references that report the existence of spiritual energy in any respectable journal. Modern science does not accept its existence. All it takes is for you to provide one good citation to show this is wrong. I have provided a great citation to show that spiritual energy has no scientific basis.

Secondly, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that someone can summarize spiritual writers when they are reporting explicitly as a review what spiritual writers are saying. It's not hard to get that. I don't see anything substantively different from what they are saying in the "medical paper" from what you are saying in your summaries to what is stated in a single sentence in this article.

Thirdly, the paragraph is backed-up by citations. I am aware that you think that you are trying to make this page "true", but the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. You need to provide a source that backs up your understanding and it needs to be more reliable and verifiable than the sources we currently have.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientific references to electromagnetism in living systems

I dont think this section belongs here as it has nothing to do with the rest of the psuedoscientific claptrap. Im going to be keeping an eye on this article with a view to tightening it up. In the meantime I think this section should definatly go, however as thats possibly a bold step too far Id like to propose it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.76.72 (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Definition of terms

There is no scientific evidence for those kinds of energy or fields, indeed energy is very well defined in science. The term was borrowed from physical science as an analogy where, for example, in physics, measurable quantities of energy are associated with a variety of observable phenomena including waves, potential fields, and even matter itself. Unlike in the physical sciences, spiritual energy is not necessarily considered by those who believe in its existence to be something that can be directly measured or observed in a laboratory. Still, many believers in spiritual energy have used the discoveries of modern physics including relativity and quantum mechanics to support their beliefs in both allegorical and pseudoscientific ways.

I removed the above for various reasons. First "the term was borrowed from physical science" is questionable; the first paper quoted as reference says that the word "energy" has no fixed sense in physics before the 1840s, while Blake is quoted using it in a psychic sense over 50 years before. The sentence following is wrongly constructed but amounts to a "weasel": the idea is better expressed by the terminology of the USA report - as "putative" as against "actual". Treatment of extreme "putative" philosophies should logically follow this formal distinction. The first sentence is inadequately supported by the (very clear) paper cited - this paper deals only with "energy" as a possible source of non-conserving, non-inverse-square phenomena such as "psi"- which are specifically excluded from the present page. Use of "energy" is a sense so far removed from the normal does indeed constitute bad thought, but this does not prevail throughout the field in question. Redheylin (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please provide references for your claims. The scientific view of of energy in the sense of esotericism should be included. Verbal chat 16:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Verbal - yes, a scientific view of the subject is needed and, as I said, is best provided by notices of valid uses and tests of energy measurement and intervention in the spheres of life and health as well as authoritative overviews that provide a coherent view of a wide range of matters included in the field. Such is the NCCAM report I mentioned. This report distinguishes between "actual" and "putative" or "biofield" energies in cases where medical interventions are classified as "complementary". An "actual" energy claim involves a known energy - magnetotherapy is an example - while a "putative" energy claim involves a known or claimed effect explained in terms of an unknown energy such as "chi". Of course, "actual" does not mean "empirical".

There are, therefore, more wide-ranging, balanced, authoritative, historically useful and elegant treatments of what you call "The scientific view of of energy in the sense of esotericism" available, though I note that some references and explanations to this effect may have been removed at an earlier date - I read the article last some time ago. The idea of "energy" does go rather beyond that part of complementary medicine which it involves, of course; it is so wide-ranging that no one field, or refutation of that field, can stand as a statement on the whole idea - this, I assume, is why the page is divided into various fields. For example, a statement (Stenger) to the effect that "energy" is a poor explanation of trans-spacetime effects such as telepathy echoes a statement in the article but does not provide the source for the general statements included which it is meant to supply. Another, Dawson, is given only in abstract at the cited source and, once again, refers to a narrow refutation of an inceidental aspect of the field.

Rather, the statements "spiritual energy is not necessarily considered by those who believe in its existence to be something that can be directly measured or observed in a laboratory. Still, many believers in spiritual energy have used the discoveries of modern physics"... are unreferenced WEASEL words

The reference above, though, (Stenger) does also show, as I said, that the statement "The term was borrowed from physical science" must be questioned - the given source actually contradicts it.

The passage as it stands, badly written, partial, unreferenced and plain wrong, deserved to be removed. Redheylin (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got to object to this passage as well. it's drastically confused. on the one hand it makes a point of saying that that the term was borrowed from the physical sciences as an analogy, but in the same breath it makes the criticism that there is no scientific evidence for this kind of energy. to which I can only reply: well DUH! the logic of this is way off-kilter: I mean, if I said that paper-clips are like curly hairs, would you reply by saying that there's no scientific evidence that any animal anywhere is covered in paper-clips? there are plenty of problems one can find with analogical reasoning without stooping to taking the analogy literally. while I agree that this distinction does need to be drawn, the current version is utterly ham-handed about it. --Ludwigs2 19:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed statement unsupported but rather contradicted by cited sources

The term was borrowed from physical science as an analogy where, for example, in physics, measurable quantities of energy are associated with a variety of observable phenomena including waves, potential fields, and even matter itself.

weasel words with inadequate reference

Unlike in the physical sciences, spiritual energy is not necessarily considered by those who believe in its existence to be something that can be directly measured or observed in a laboratory. Still, many believers in spiritual energy have used the discoveries of modern physics including relativity and quantum mechanics to support their beliefs in both allegorical and pseudoscientific ways.

relationship to the scientific concept

I agree with some of the objections here. The concept of energy originated, as far as we can tell, with Aristotle, who defined it somewhat loosely as the ability to cause things to move. The modern scientific concept of energy as a conserved quantity did not arise until around the 1830's-40's. It seems that the esoteric usage corresponds more to the loose Aristotelian concept than to the scientific concept. However, I think it is also clear that the scientific concept is often used, implicitly or explicitly, to lend a spurious air of legitimacy to the esoteric usage, and that this fact ought to be made clear in the article. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That fills out nicely what I said, thankyou. I agree with your latter statement and would welcome a well-referenced version of it. I'd prefer that there were wikilinks to material on, for example, EMG and ECG, so that readers can check for themselves what is and is not mainstream in terms of medical interventions, where articles like this really have a duty of care. Redheylin (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

well, interesting... I'm not even sure it's entirely Aristotelian - when esoterics talk about energy they are usually referring to a form of perception, a kind of awareness that feels like there's energy flowing through the body or the greater world. they rarely talk about it as an active or actual force (except in a Tai Chi sort of way where the perception of flow translates into a correct form of movement). I might be able to dig up something along these lines from someone like Ken Wilber, but I think that's as close to mainstream sources as your going to get on this topic. --Ludwigs2 21:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

forgot to add: I think all we may need to do is disambiguate the scientific use of energy, so that it's clear to the reader that the word is being used in a different. that might be easier, at any rate, than trying to find an affirmative statement about what esoteric energy is. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ludwigs - I take your points and the differences you mention are general, perhaps, but in my view not universal enough to serve as a lede definition. The existence of this page IS a disambiguation from just "energy" - that speaks for itself. And the lede makes it clear that these energies are often rather subjective; it traces them to Plato's energy as a medium between body and mind. But the page also includes investigations of electromagnetism - Burr and his meters, Gurwitsch and his ultra-violet - which were bona-fide scientific explorations of this "Platonic" energy - veritable, objective energy-fields as possible mediants of psycho-somatic organisation - "memory as field, evolution as driving force". Symmetrical concepts exist in Jungianism, and the two have been bridged by theorists like Sheldrake. We are then in a "mind-body" discussion which is controversial but does not amount to "scientists versus the rest". Scientists who championed Platonic mind-body views and have not been adequately refuted cannot be casually trumped by generalised negative comments based on trashy newage writers who may have made use of similar ideas. By the way, the BBC just found that 80% of the UK population does not find Darwinist evolution an adequate sole explanation of human existence. The neovitalist discussion is far from over, and it would be wrong to allow rational-fundamentalists to throw general propaganda-mud without displaying a grasp of the entire field. Redheylin (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"I dont think this section belongs here as it has nothing to do with the rest of the psuedoscientific claptrap." This last, typically illiterate comment, was the sole justification for removing all references to medical views of human energy fields. The thinking is - "if it makes sense it does not belong here". Ze people are TOO STUPID to be allowed to investigate zeze tinks! Zey must be TOLD VOTT TO TINK. Nestcepas? But if you go down this route - if it makes objective sense get rid of it - then you are imposing POV and preventing people from using wiki to reach nuanced evaluations of various ideas, therapies, beliefs etc. One cannot separate (eg) Gurwitsch's Drieschianism from his completely vindicated discovery of bio-luminescence without reference to "good science" (that is, articles on bioluminescence are "scientific" while Gurwitsch's vitalism is "esoteric", related to the work of Kilner and Reich but involved with the inner life of humans).Redheylin (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Red: your point taken as well. I do tend not to think in terms of 'objective' esoteric energy or the various attempts at investigating it - that subject never held much interest for me. I think part of the problem (for me, at least) is that 'objective' energy is usually a reductionist concept (e.g., there's a single substance or principle or whatever called 'energy' that is the motive force in something) whereas in living systems energy is usually a multi-faceted, holistic phenomena. if you've ever delved into the philosophical debates over entropy and entropic systems, you know what I mean. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Chinese use magnetic compasses to determine their feng-shui, without the slightest doubt that it is affecting, as "chi", their health, mood and outcomes. If "energy" is what it is meant to be according to these esoterists, then it must be both objective and subjective, or half-half. The language of mood and the language of electromagnetism will be equally valid in different contexts. Burr's discussion of the field and whether living systems are anti-entropic, is interesting - the point is that people - good scientists - can maintain the idea of the organising field with subjective correlates, without necessarily invoking any unknown forces, and that empirical studies can be made. In the case of health claims, they MUST be made. Such ideas have been eclipsed by the massive successes at the molecular level - Waddington, Crick and the rest - but they have not been refuted. They are appealed to by a wide variety of loose-thinking new-agers, but this fact also is no refutation. Yet it is clear that many such scientists were guided by their "spiritual" ideas, that their work has been taken up into many forms of spirituality etc. That is; there's a place for objectivity here as well as subjectivity.

To my mind it is a question of brain-states - we have one department that doubts everything and another that trusts everything. This creates intellectual confusion, so we try to switch one or another off. So the world is full of religionists who are "plagued by sinful doubt" and of hard-headed folk who say "how nice it must be to believe..." Still, I'd venture that even these classes of human mess are better off as failed monomaniacs than those who have "succeeded" at the price of constantly imposing their psychic fragmentation upon the rest of us by violence. Redheylin (talk) 00:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Notes

Archive 1

More dodgy theories

I read in the article of late that "Tao" and "Brahma" are names for energy. I rather doubt this. References? The removal of the the comments on Blake is also regrettable, since the role of energy as a mid-term between matter and mind is very common in the relevant philosophies, rather neatly encapsulated by Blake. Redheylin (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to revise at will - I'm seeing this as an 'underconstruction' article. I though I had retained the Blake bit - I'm not sure which comment you're referring to.

tao and brahman (not brahma) are both universal vital forces, but I suppose their inclusion here is arguable. I was really trying to get away from the 'luminiferous aether' concept, which is really a defunct theory of physics, not a matter of esoteric energy. but there's lots of room for discussion. --Ludwigs2 22:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao means "way" - it's a supreme regulating principle. The "teh" is the immortal energy of tao. "Brahman" is likewise "the unchanging, infinite, immanent, and transcendent reality which is the Divine Ground of all matter, energy, time, space, being....." The concepts of teh and shakti, on the other hand, and their relations to chi and prana respectively, are worth exploring - though previously I had contented myself with linking to those pages. I agree the page has been unduly weighted towards western medicine because I came here straight from working on vitalism and developmental biology (which is how I got mixed up with WR!) The comment on Blake was there till very recently. No probs, let's not work at cross purposes. Structure the article as you think best, call me if you want me, meanwhile I'll offer comments, if that is OK with you. Redheylin (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

actually, te is closer to 'virtue' - it talks about the correct way to follow tao, where tao is seen as a universal force or process. but that's an aside. let me try cleaning up a bit and see if we can get things focused, topic wise. --Ludwigs2 01:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

So, I'm a bit stuck here. the only substantive entry on this page is at Energy_(esotericism)#Vitalism_and_spirituality_in_the_age_of_electricity, which reads is an oddly dodgy way. the rest of the article is a set of lists. so which waydo we want to go with this article, a 'list of...' article, of do we want to try to reorganize the material into proper sections and flesh each out? or some hybrid of those two approaches? --Ludwigs2 02:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig2, first (just an aside!) I typed "tao te energy" into Google and first hit reads; "Shambhala dictionary of Taoism te represents Tao's energy or the qualities or nature received by every living being or thing from Tao." They're not the only ones. Now, this to me represents the length and complexity this article would achieve, and the absurd amount of duplication, if we tried to rehearse every controversy about every aspect of this subject. That's why, in repairing the piece some time ago, I constructed as an annotated list divided into topics. That way there can be a paragraph on each topic as well as a line or two about each subject. I think it should also refer the reader to related general bodies of knowledge, whether Taoism or thermodynamics. For instance, kundalini is related to Hindu Shaktism and yoga, so there is no problem in writing that. Harold Saxton Burr worked with bioelectromagnetism, Alexander Gurwitsch discussed ultra violet emission and I cannot see a problem in adding these either (though neither offered initiated ways to perceive these energies, which is why it bothers me that you have made this part of the primary definition): they are here because their ideas connect with vitalism and some forms of therapy. Obviously some have connected them with ley-lines and auras as well. We can't really give the whole history or discuss the validity of every idea that is related: all we can do is simply "here's yet another set of ideas about bio-psychic energy" with a brief neutral description. Others want bits of "dodgy" disclaimer prose: I do not see the point. On the other hand I do not really object if you want a crack at working the lists into continuous paras. Let's just take it one at a time?? Redheylin (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Removing spurious links

I am removing some totally spurious links that frankly are only here to provide some scientific credibility to discussion of an utterly unscientific theory. Developmental systems theory and emergence are scientific concepts that have nothing to do with "esoteric/spiritual/subtle" energy. Organismic theory and organicism do not need or require any sort of putative energy, neither is there any mention of it in their respective articles. There is no mention of "energy" in the archeoastronomy article. Glastonbury is a town in England. Gaia is not a spiritualist theory, it is an ecological theory. The source of the Aurora borealis (and australis) was explained over 100 years ago by Norwegian physicist Kristian Birkeland (a hero of mine). The earth's magnetic field is well-understood scientifically and has nothing do do with spiritual energy. Ditto with telluric currents. Geodesy is about measurement of geographical features. If anybody thinks I have made a mistake removing these links, perhaps they could explain their relevance and why they should be re-inserted. Famousdog (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"discussion of an utterly unscientific theory"? First, the article does not discuss a single theory but a range of ideas from all over the world. It functions as a kind of annotated directory for such ideas. Second, the argument is circular: "the ideas here are unscientific because I am removing scientific ideas because this page is about unscientific ideas..". Third, the concept of science is only some 500 years old, while many of the ideas here might be termed pre-scientific, or obsolete science. Now, an example: the philosopher Avicenna stated that all things are attracted to each other by love, mediated by angels. Now, he is talking about gravity, this can be referenced. In this sense there is nothing inherently more "scientific" about the word "gravity" than the word "love", and it would be entirely acceptable to link the word "gravity" in an article about Avicennan angelology, and conversely to mention Avicenna's "love" in an account of the idea of "gravity". The difference is not that one is "scientific", but that Newton sought quantifiable formulae - moreover, sought to use forces rather than simply explain them. Nobody doubts the progress he made, but to seek to separate his ideas absolutely from those of Avicenna would be absurd, rather it would be reminiscent of a quasi-religious fundamentalism. In considering this view, bear in mind that the connection between mass and force of attractivity is still not understood at all.

Furthermore, some of the articles linked here deal with the supposed biological effects of actual phenomena - such as astrology and astronomy, magnetic bracelets. It seems to me sensible to draw attention, when dealing with such things, to the state of scientific thinking on the relevant background ideas. It is often asserted that to do so somehow lends credibility to such ideas - I do not know why: rather I'd have thought that, if such ideas are really "utterly unscientific", the effect would be quite the contrary. Once again, as so often in such cases, I get the idea that you'd prefer to tell the reader what to think and render the article itself unintelligible. While it may be held that this will somehow foil modern charlatans (which forms no part of our remit), it also does a tremendous disservice to the history of ideas by rendering unintelligible those ideas which one personally finds unacceptable - that is, it violates NNPOV and OR rules, and does so out of an apparent sense of superior intelligence and duty of moral care to the hapless reader, none of which is wiki policy, I think. Please therefore confine your destructive edits to those for which you are able to provide sources clearly demonstrating the non-compatibility of a given subject with the article - OR can be a matter of removal as well as addition. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the rant about my motivations. Oh, hang on. Doesn't that "wiki policy" that you invoke also include assuming good faith? I see you didn't actually object to my removing any of those links, so I'll assume you agree with my edits despite our apparent contrary views. Famousdog (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

scientific references section

someone recently tagged the scientific references section, and I find myself agreeing that this is a bit off the article topic. I know that some alt med practitioners have tried to find physical/biological manifestations of esoteric energies, but I don't think that leads to the inclusion of non-esoteric research of this sort. I'm going to remove the entire section for the time being; if anyone objects, please revert and we'll talk about it. --Ludwigs2 17:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that as a rejection of my comments above - I'd have preferred some kind of answer, actually. Redheylin (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry, no - I think I missed your comments above entirely. At least, I didn't mean to reject anything. which are you referring to? --Ludwigs2 20:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ah, sorry; got it. well, we may have a different perspective here that needs to be ironed out. to my mind, energy in the esoteric sense always relates to living energy of some sort (specifically the motivating or animating principle of objects conceived as living entities). with something like biomagnetism, there's a distinction that needs to be made (IMO) between the physical (inorganic) effect and the metaphysical interpretations that these effects might be put to. In other words, I have no trouble including claims by people who think that biomagnetism represents an extension of the life force (which is right on topic), but including all research on biomagnetism (even mere clinical attempts at measuring magnetic fields) as though they were talking about esoteric energy strikes me as a bit synthy. --Ludwigs2 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you just gave a great reason why this page cannot mention, say, Franz Anton Mesmer or John Michell (writer) and so cannot cover a vast tract of esoteric ideas concerning energies. We are going to be a bit stuck with Faraday too, and Kilner. And Reich - he thought orgone was perfectly scientific, he rejected the whole idea of "esoteric". Feng shui goes, they use magnets. Some people think acupuncture is electromagnetic, so that goes. Then you need a clever bit of footwork to explain how "earth" energies and "cosmic and astral rays" are "organic". Lots of luck.... you'll be returning this page to some kind of intellectual limbo of weird religious ideas, as soon as there's any reason to think them true, out they go - and I have no business here any more.Redheylin (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

whoa - the reason I peppered my comment with IMOs was because I wanted to talk about the issue - I have no set agenda and no particular investment in any given outcome. just giving my side. you make very good points above which I hand't considered, so if you'd care to work with me the article will ultimately be better for it. --Ludwigs2 21:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, there's no reason not to write the sentence "Avicenna explained gravity as a form of love in his angelology" and such a sentence can legitimately be included under all three linked pages. I am rather keen on the history of science, and I do not like people obscuring that subject in pursuit of their private theories or adding facile "pseudoscience" links to theories that stood up for centuries. You may have a clear idea of where science ends and religion begins: Plato did not, Newton did not, Einstein did not, Nils Bohr even selected the t'ai chi as his coat of arms. Ultimately it will not be possible to turn any of those lists of topics into coherent paragraphs without linking in all or most of the material you just removed. Redheylin (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Red, Please don't assume that I disagree with you until actually do disagree with you (which I will do overtly and vocally, at need). do you want me to restore the section? If I do, then it will either need trimming or it will need an introduction that explains it the way you are explaining it, because as it was it looked like we were suggesting that obvious things like gravity were inherently metaphysical concepts rather than physical concepts (which might be the case, but would need a lot of explanation for the average reader). how would we do that? --Ludwigs2 22:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggested above working those lists into topical paras. My reason for not doing so was that "pseudoskepticism creep" would once again turn the paras into rants or make them read, as you put it, in an oddly dodgy way. However, this is a perfectly reasonable way of managing: magnetic bracelets make claims about biomagnetism and magnetobiology, for example. Redheylin (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, well let me restore the section (we'll keep the tag in place for now) and see what we can do about it. --Ludwigs2 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Shall we try to convert one topical list into prose, then? Redheylin (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

we could do that, or at least work some prose in around it. I'm not sure yet what the best approach would be; still trying to grok the section. --Ludwigs2 02:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I wrote the introduction to this section, which was previously just a pointless list of genuine physical manifestations of vertiable energy (and mechanisms/techniques that utilise/measure those energies) that have been occasionally hijacked by quacks. Somebody coming to this topic after watching (say) the thoroughly unscientific documentary What the bleep do we know? might be interested in spiritual energy and quantum physics. It is therefore necessary and useful (IMO) to have links to articles on phenomena that have been linked with "esoteric" (yuck) "energy". BUT... it must be properly introduced as such and Redheylin's edits to the introduction have (IMO) obscured its purpose and reverted the subsequent list to its previous rather meaningless state. In summary, the introduction needs work, but the list itself is useful here. Famousdog (talk) 11:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I hadn't really looked at his revisions yet. I'd have reversed the intent to talk about people seeking out physical or physiological bases for the perception of esoteric energy. would that help if we rewrote it that way? and don't 'yuck' it. anyone who's every meditated deeply (or had decent sex, for that matter) knows the feeling of energetic flow: it's a common and easily replicated experience. there's no sense dissing the concept just because a lot of people get hung up trying to attach the experience to a physical manifestation. --Ludwigs2 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose FD means the changes I made a year or two ago, as I've done little since. It's clear-cut: I'd like the page to reflect to provide a guide to related articles. Others want to impose their own views on the pretext that readers who "might be interested in spiritual energy and quantum physics" must either a: be told what to think or b: must find an illegible article - and these seek to impose their views by incivility and disruption. I have done little on the para in question but confine myself to removing straightforward misrepresentation, as in the case of Sprenger supposedly saying that "esoteric energy" was an abuse of a physical concept, whereas he actually says the word did not take a real place in physics till 50 years after Blake. L2, you're right to centre on subjectivity: our job is to identify the modes in which this sense has been mapped onto scientific and religious energy theories. I reject the idea that to place "quantum" and "consciousness" in the same para constitutes a co-opting, on the part of wiki, of scientific ideas to uphold spiritual ones in such a way as to demand OR editorial disclaimers. This is not our job. Redheylin (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

well, ok. I'll try a quick rewrite a bit later, see if I can focus more on the subjectivity side. let me know what you think. --Ludwigs2 23:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Above all, while "esoteric" signifies "inner", hence signifying some link with consciousness and subjectivity that may be beyond present measurement, it is immaterial whether the energy in question is a scientifically-verifiable one or some kind of spirit, prana etc. so long as it is manifestly a form of energy and manifestly linked to some mental quality. Here, to state the relevant hypothesis does not betoken a recommendation of it, and does not require a counter-argument, since otherwise we'd end up with a very long page and a hundred redundant articles! Redheylin (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry L2, I've had lots of decent sex and I don't feel any spiritual "energy" or "flow". I feel something entirely physiological and neural hardwired into us by evolution. That doesn't make it any less good ;-) or any less meaningful. However, the Argument from personal experience has no place in science or an ecyclopedia. I saw a UFO when I was six and it was red and shaped like a trumpet (writes on UFO page:) "UFOs are red and shaped like trumpets". Red, why don't you just redefine the whole English language the way you want it to sound? Ironic that you criticise me for OR while imposing your own esoteric ;-) use of language on us all. I can't/won't argue with goalpost-shifters, which is what I've encountered most times I've tried to edit this disorganised nonsensical hash of an article. And, yes, taking two phenomena that are poorly understood (at least by the layperson) and saying "hey, maybe one explains the other", IS co-opting genuine science to the cause of New Age airy-fairyism. Anyway, I wash my hands and (in line with L2's original suggestion) simply recommend you remove this section entirely and write whatever you want about your "esoteric energy" ... Famousdog (talk) 10:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

FamousDog, don't confuse this with an argument from personal experience: this perception is well-documented in numerous sources that discuss spirituality. in fact, the only argument from personal experience here is yours (or do you really think that because you haven't sensed it, no one has?). In my view, the point of this science section is to point to people who have tried to find some physical correlate to the well-known experience. some of those are reputable, some not, all have more-or-less failed, but I still think there's room for discussing the efforts.

And no, I'm not saying that's what the current section does, but that just calls for revisions. --Ludwigs2 20:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Red, why don't you just redefine the whole English language the way you want it to sound?" You mean "esoteric"? That's what it means; "appertaining to the inward", the opposite of "exoteric". "I can't/won't argue with goalpost-shifters, which is what I've encountered most times" - could you point us to a time when you attempted to discuss your changes before making them? "taking two phenomena that are poorly understood (at least by the layperson) and saying "hey, maybe one explains the other", IS co-opting genuine science" - If someone noteable says that any one thing explains another, that's to be recorded on the appropriate page and, if appropriate, linked here. SO, that film, whatever it was is a "film that tries to link quantum and consciousness." Arguments for against - film page. Linked statement - here. Famousdog's thoughts - nowhere. The wikilinks to "quantum" and "consciousness" are not an argument "for" the movie's POV, so no argument is required against. Redheylin (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh... from Wiktionary (but my dictionary says much the same):

esoteric (adj)

1. Understood only by a chosen few or an enlightened inner circle.

   The writing in this manual is very esoteric; I need a degree in engineering just to understand it!

2. Having to do with concepts that are highly theoretical and without obvious practical application.
3. Confidential; private.

Synonyms

• arcane, recondite
• cerebral
• secretive

Crikey, Red. It would appear that your definition (valid as it is) is third on the list old boy. And the other two definitions would seem to reinforce the same basic point. I have never agreed with the change of this article's title from Energy (spiritual) because I imagine most readers would find the use of the word "esoteric" in such a prominant place to be.... well, just a bit esoteric. More obscurantist drivel, in other words. Famousdog (talk) 09:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Chambers' has it right: "inner, secret, mysterious...opposite of exoteric". But the one you quote is correct in describing modern misusage. I also did not agree with the name-change - let's get it put back. Redheylin (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with either... --Ludwigs2 00:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess; so long as the words "esoteric" and "exoteric" were applied to metaphysics, as they were in the Greek sources, it did not much matter whether "eso" applied to the "inward things of man" or "the inner circle of knowledge", since in the eyes of those who used the term the "inner knowledge" was precisely of "the inward nature of things". But now that one can have "esoteric" fashions and engineering the word has largely lost its original meaning - rather as a "mystery" is no longer a solely religious affair - so it should perhaps be avoided. Redheylin (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change to name of article

Following on from the previous discussion, Redheylin and I seem to be in agreement that the name of this article is a bit contentious and possibly confusing for the new reader, so I'm proposing we revert the article back to Energy (spirituality), Energy (spiritual) or Spiritual energy. Please add your names/comments below under the appropriate header and we'll see if we can get consensus (he says, doubting it!).

Agree

Famousdog (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Other

One thing that occurs to me is that the term "spirituality" MIGHT JUST be interpreted in a way that excludes the treatment of veritable energies. I'd therefore suggest Psychic energy as a title that avoids the term, which can itself be contentiously interpreted. Redheylin (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

psychic energy isn't quite right (as it privileges that 70's 'mental powers' kind of idea - use the force, Luke!). if you're worried about 'spirituality', then I'd suggest either 'Energy (spiritual)' or 'Energy (arcane)'. but as I said, I'm not too worried by any of the choices. as long as we don't lean towards 'Energy (moronic)'. --Ludwigs2 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's another abused word - it just means "of the mind or soul" really. Cannot go for "arcane". Redheylin (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with Energy (spiritual). I would also add that therapies utilising veritable energy are almost certainly already covered, or could be, on the Energy medicine article. Famousdog (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, but they should be covered here as well, I think. It's almost always the case that the medical practice is derived from philosophical/spiritual assumptions, and not the other way around. That's true for western medicine as well, in an odd way. --Ludwigs2 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not simply a question of "energy medicine" - the writer John Michell and others have written about ley-lines and astrology connecting this with geo-electromagnetics. The question is the one you have raised; that words get connotations beynd their original meaning and these enter dictionaries. The word "spiritual" ought to be OK, but now it seems you are indeed proposing to define this as "non-physical". And there is no such thing as non-physical energy. Redheylin (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would throw my hat back in for Subtle Energy. It got rejected a long time ago, but I still favor it. It's gained wide enough acceptance to have been adopted by ISSSEEM, The International Society for the Study of Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine. --Mbilitatu (talk) 01:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of like that, actually. I'll throw my vote for subtle energy as well. --Ludwigs2 05:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I prefer spiritual energy myself. I think the whole parentheses thing leaves much to be desired. I believe that the term "subtle energies" is used most often by pseudoscientists hoping to make the point that the energies are too "subtle" to be measurable by conventional means. This excludes many who use the term "energy" in a metaphorical sense but rely on similar antecedent story lines for the existence of energetic Primum Mobiles. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Veritable, measurable (i.e. "real") energy can be "subtle" too! "Subtle energy" is just rebranding and turd-polishing of the old new-age "energy" catch-all. To address Red's earlier point, I agree that there is no such thing as non-physical energy, but since the types of energy discussed on this page are unmeasureable by science and detectable only by hand-waving healers, such energy may as well be "non-physical". If it was physical, we could detect and measure it. Thirdly, there are such things as magnetism, telluric currents and "geo-electromagnetics" but their connection with ley-lines (assuming such things exist) is spurious. How about Energy (New Age) or Energy (putative)? The problem is that the term "energy" has been abused by generations of people who refuse to define it. We trying to clean up a centuries-old mess here, and Energy (spiritual) is as close as we'll ever get I'm afraid. Famousdog (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

"since the types of energy discussed on this page are unmeasureable by science" - that's the point. Electromagnetics and UV have been implicated in some theories and are measurable. Orgone is supposed to be measurable: Reich would have nothing to do with anything else. There are electro theories of prana and chi, there are magnetic bracelets and tachyon medallions - the question is not whether these things are true or not: the notable theories exist and need to be linked here with brief descriptions that neither imply that these are true or false unless perhaps authoritative sources point definitively one way or another, as would be the case with many obsolete scientific theories, which also have a place here. Once again I have to point out that "energy" is a philosophical idea that was used by Blake in a quasi-vitalist sense fifty years before the word received a meaning in physics via Helmholtz' laws of thermodynamics. It's absurd to say Blake was abusing physics. The problem is rather that the word has been co-opted on the Energy page (see Vis viva) and that page has failed to give a full historical overview. (See History of energy). We need to work harder to integrate vitalist ideas into science history rather than imposing our own current views on the ideas of the past. The fact that some ideas are still current among occultists does not make the likes of Mesmer "New Age" - that would also be absurd. Redheylin (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I give up. Let the stupid title stay. Frankly, I can't see many readers clicking on a link with the word "esotericism" in the title, so not many people will actually read this disorganised cack-handed mess of an article. Famousdog (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Change name ... keep name ... either way is fine. But just for fun, I decided to look into whether anybody looks at this page. It was viewed 4,509 times in February 2010. The top specific search, Brittany Murphy was searched 5,255,255 times ... who knows why. South Korea comes in ranked 1,000th with 173,774 searches. So it's certainly not a popular page. I couldn't find any statistics on the least popular pages to see where this one might rank among wiki's 3 million pages. But by way of comparison, this page is twice as popular as Homology_(mathematics). --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Difference between Law of attraction of Concrete and Abstract things

               DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LAW OF ATTRACTION OF CONCRETE AND ABSTRACT THINGS

DEFINITIONS

              CONCRETE THINGS
                ARE THOSE WE SEE,FEEL,LISTEN TO, TOUCH.
              ABSTRACT THINGS
                ARE THOSEWHICH ARE ANYTHING OTHERTHAN ABOVE e.g. LOVE,SATISFACTION, GRATITUDE ad infinitum.

1. As the physical things get accumulated, the power to attract geys diminished.There is a point of saturation.

2. As the abstract things get accumulated, the power to attract increses. It is power of synchronisation.

98.234.197.76 (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)SUDHIR KULKARNI, SAN FRANCISCO, 13 MAY 2010 e-mail sudhirkulkarni29@gmail.com

Acupuncture

The statement reverted is correct as it stands. Western medicine does have a non-energetic viewpoint on the efficacy of acupuncture. However, it is not true that no scientific evidence exists for the energetic viewpoint. I do agree that the justification that science can not explain it doesn't hold water. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What statement? Famousdog (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The statement we keep reverting. Any statement of the form, "There is no evidence that ..." is extremely difficult to defend. A single piece of evidence invalidates such a statement. The burden of proof lies on the maker of such a statement. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a single piece of evidence to be getting on with: http://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.a3115.full?view=long& ("Conclusions / A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found...") K2709 (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

How about, there is weak evidence for small beneficial effects on specific complaints (like knee pain and nausea). That reflects the current state of play scientifically speaking. Famousdog (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Strong enough for insurance to pay for it. Clinical results for Acupuncture are comparable to weak results of many pharmaceutical trials that result in FDA approved drugs. Aspirin is beneficial on specific complaints. --Mbilitatu (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You talk a lot, Mbilitatu, but cite your evidence rarely. Let's see this comparison of results from clinical trials for acupuncture that are comparable to results for FDA approved drugs. Obviously, every effective treatment is targetted at specific complaints, but asprin treats headache, pain, prevents heart attacks and strokes, reduces fever, etc and all in a measurable way. Acupuncture might have a small beneficial effect on knee pain and nausea, yet the chinese doctor down the road from me claims he can cure you of impotence, chronic pain, back pain and (f*ck it in a bucket) HAIR LOSS. Famousdog (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

... and lets not forget the fraudulent, faked claims that you can undergo heart surgery under acupuncture. Chinese propoganda, plain and simple. Famousdog (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

... and lets not forget the millions of Americans addicted to over-prescribed pharmaceutical drugs. Pharma propaganda, plain and simple. I've argued with you enough already. You don't know what you are talking about. You're pissed off at the acupuncturist down the road and taking it out on wiki. Should I go attack the wiki pages on medicine because half the doctors in this country just lap up what drug company pushers say? Have you actually tried out acupuncture with a few people? Do you have ANY first hand experience? Or do you just believe what you read? I don't need to cite evidence because I'm not trying to make unsupported statements on wiki. I gave up editing wiki because I always have to encounter no-nothings who have more time than I do to push their limited world experience on wiki. Have at it. I give up. Wiki isn't worth it to me. Make your edit. I won't revert it any more. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

... and for what it's worth, see Clinical trial#Criticism or http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all or spend 10 minutes on Google. There exists a specific meta-study on a particular approval for a particular drug that discovered that (a) the drug barely beat placebo and (b) the company ONLY published those results where the drug did well and buried the rest, although all had to be given the FDA. You go find it. It's not my job to force anyone to educate themselves. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Crikey, touched a nerve there. One person's opinion of clinical trial procedure is hardly damning (and says nothing about the efficacy of acupuncture or the existence of meridians). This is symptomatic of several previous arguments I've had with with alt-med types on WP. Ask for some kind of evidence and you get a lecture on "The System". I also think that you conflate the regulatory situation in the US with medicine globally, when the monetary pressures on healthcare in the US are exceptional. You also don't have to lecture me about the placebo effect, since far from being a "no-nothing" (I think you'll find that's "know-nothing"), I'm a psychologist and I think the very placebo effect discussed in that Wired article explains a lot about acupuncture. I'm not saying there aren't drugs on the market that are unecessary and whose efficacy is unproven. What I am saying is that acupuncture's efficacy is faaaaaaar from proven if not totally illusory and there is no scientific evidence for meridians. Now, when some anonymous editor deleted a section that said: "There is no scientific evidence for these (meridians)" without providing any ummmm evidence I reverted it on the basis that it seemed entirely justifiable to do so. Your bad faith polemics and anti-scientific conspiracy-weaving aside, I don't much care whether that single sentence stays or goes, so we'll just leave it out, eh? Famousdog (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right about two things. It does touch a nerve and it is "know nothing". But anti-science? I work with a Fields Medal winner pushing a scientific frontier. That's the difference. I recognize that Science is a model for reality and don't confuse it with reality. All science is correct and incorrect to some approximation. I also work with healers and mystics. You seem to think the placebo effect explains about acupuncture because you think both are nonsense. You do not appear to be open to the possibility that it might be evidence for the power of the placebo effect and healing in general. I keep bringing up medications because you appear to want to hold acupuncture to a different standard than medicine. You are willing to forgive the fact that many medicines are ineffective, yet you decry the fact that scientific evidence for acupuncture is not bombproof. Most scientists have not even begun to know how to ask those questions of something like acupuncture. Most scientists have not escaped the limitations of a method of inquiry that takes a subject/object world view. A few have. You do not appear to be listening to those. Evidence for meridians? I don't know ... do you like this? http://www.siteground147.com/~centreba/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=107 Probably not. It doesn't matter to me. I watched a healer wave her hands over my wife, "fix her meridians", and a two decade long, debilitating tendonitis disappeared overnight, for good. That kind of experience makes an impression. You may choose to believe that or not as you wish. But if you get into questions of "do those meridians actually exist", you have to also be willing to ask the question, "do electrons exist?" We see the effect of that which we conceptualize as electrons, but ask any world class particle physicist and they are going to explain that they do not "exist" as such. They are potential, acting out at times as that which we observe as wave and that which we observe as particle. You can model it either way and both and none of the above. Same with meridians. It's just another model for a level of reality we don't really understand. I stand by my statement, polemic or not, that you do not have the experience to know what you are talking about. --Mbilitatu (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could please stop your accusations that I don't know what I'm talking about. Here's an example of me knowing what I'm talking about: There are hundreds of meridian systems criss-crossing the body in different locations and directions, such that if you drew all of them on a human being, they would be black with ink. Which meridian system do you subscribe to, cause I bet its different from the guy who healed your wife, and the next guy and the next guy and the next guy... That type of vagueness and covering-all-your-bases makes meridians unfalsifiable. Not cause they exist, but because defenders of alt-med constantly change the goalposts. You knock one thing down (easily) they come right back at you with a slightly different version of the same thing. I'm glad your wife had a good experience, and it must be great to be free of that pain, but isn't it more parsimonious to conclude that her belief that she would be healed "healed" her psychosomatically? Belief is powerful, even when the thing you believe in is non-existent. Famousdog (talk) 11:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. I'm sorry. You don't. It's not an accusation. It's obvious. Yes, there are hundreds of models for meridians. There are different models of chakra systems. And when a skeptic tries to knock one down, another pops up. Yes. That is the way it works. If you want to have a clue, you need to study 'subjective synthesis'. Remember when I said that some scientists have moved beyond a subject/object world? This is what I was talking about. You can not separate your own beliefs and perspectives from that which you perceive. That separation exists in the classical scientific model, but it need not exist. Different healers will work with different models, different meridian systems. The system is not what matters. The results are what matters. The degree to which there is coherency of feeling, belief, results, and alignment with all things universal ... that matters for results. But there is a degree of freedom that, so far as we know, is not nailed down. There is not one way. And ... it is also not necessary to conclude/believe that meridians don't exist because there are different systems. That is equivalent to concluding that an electron doesn't exist because it can look like a particle or a wave. Physicists have succeeded in getting macroscopic (visible to the eye) matter to be in a state of vibrating and at rest at the same time ... two different states simultaneously. The question "is it vibrating" and "is it at rest" must both be answered with "yes". It's not either or. If you want to understand this, you are going to need to move beyond an exclusive, this-or-that perception of the world you live in. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as my wife's experience ... that was one of a hundred such experiences I have participated in. Think of it as a matched filter, where your belief system is the underlying signal. Yes, in that one instance, it would jump the gun to arrive at a conclusion. However, if you open your mind to the possibility that something real might have happened, it opens a door to more of that, and more and more and more until evidence overwhelms any resistance in the mind. The problem with skepticism is that it keeps that door closed and no evidence arises, so there is nothing to change the mind. Words will never, ever convince the mind to let go of it's illusions about the world. Only direct experience. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Finally, consider your statement, 'Belief is powerful, even when the thing you believe in is non-existent.'. Yes. But, somehow, skeptics never turn that lens on themselves. Belief is incredibly powerful, including the belief that something does not exist. Can you honestly tell me that you are willing to believe statement (a): the power of belief was sufficient to heal my wife of a 20 year tendonitis; And that you are unwilling to believe the statement (b): a skeptical position of disbelief is powerful enough to block such experiences? If you are absolutely convinced in your bones that meridians do not exist and you are completely coherent in your feeling, thought and action with that belief ... then you will most likely never experience otherwise. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You say open-minded, I say credulous. You say closed-minded, I say careful. You say that "The system is not what matters. The results are what matters." I agree whole-heartedly. So where are these amazing results? Maybe those amazing results are the same as your "hundred such experiences", but you've already admitted that you are biased towards interpreting evidence in favour of your world-view, so why should we believe you? So more careful, less credulous people do experiments - and the "results" vanish like so much moonshine... If "the results are what matters", acupunture is dead in the water. (and yes, I'm willing to believe both a and b because belief - as I've said - is powerful. But the power of belief is not at issue here, only acupuncture's failure to survive trial by randomized, double-blind, clinical trial) Famousdog (talk) 13:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Good vibrations

Hello fellow editors,

I've been thinking of creating a new article on "vibrations (spiritual)" but that was before I found this article. If you do a search for "vibrations" on Wikipedia, there is no mention of this article on the 'vibrations' disambiguation page, so I could at least add this article into the disambiguation page for "vibrations (spiritual)".

However, there is something else I was wondering about: The Beach Boys song "Good Vibrations". The fact that this song was inspired by Brian Jones' mother remarking that a dog could sense a person's vibrations, indicates that the word was in use in the English language before the 1960s new age. Does anyone know of any book that mentions the word "vibrations" in use historically? I'm not asking as a general discussion about the topic, I would like to expand the description of the term, possibly in this article. I do like the way this article is written by the way.

Regards, Freelion (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The vibrations commonly felt during Astral Projection were described as such as early back as 1929 in Sylvan Muldoon's "The Projection of The Astral Body". Helena Blavatsky's (posthumously channelled?) "Spiritual Vibrations" from 1926 will likely be on topic also. 92.30.15.181 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Freelion (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Skeptics Dismiss Evidence

http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/ScienceMeasures.htm

In a few decades scientists have gone from a conviction that there is no such thing as an energy field around the human body, to an absolute certainty that it exists. Moreover, we have begun to understand the roles of energy fields in health and disease. Most people are simply not aware of this research, and persist in the attitude that there is no logical basis for energy healing. The main reason for the change in outlook is that sensitive instruments have been developed that can detect the minute energy fields around the human body. Of particular importance is the SQUID magnetometer which is capable of detecting tiny biomagnetic fields associated with physiological activities in the body. This is the same field that sensitive individuals have been describing for thousands of years, but that scientists have ignored because there was no objective way to measure it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.12.112 (talk) 19:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

People can't even detect the Earth's geomagnetic field, which is thousands of times stronger than the magnetic fields that the body generates. And in any case the body generates much stronger electric fields than magnetic fields -- but we can't detect those either. Looie496 (talk) 20:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

For example ... look at the most recent revert to this article removing a reference to an article by Tiller ... "Needs an RS (reliable source)". Here's the way Wiki-Skepto-Logic works ==> Statements must be backed up by citations. Citations must be from reliable sources. But everyone knows that subtle energy does not exist. Therefore, any citation claiming evidence for the existence of subtle energy must be from an unreliable source, and therefore may not be used to support a statement. Therefore, all statements claiming evidence for the existence of subtle energy are unsupported, and must be removed. --Mbilitatu (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's criteria, reliable sources are defined by where they come from, not by their content. For scientific statements, reliable sources are academic journals and academic books. Unpublished documents from personal web sites are not considered reliable sources for anything except the views of the authors. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it comes down to an endless trail of wiki-lawyering. For example, is the Subtle Energies and Energy Medicine Journal reliable? It's academic. But it's not mainstream. A majority of scientists might claim it's bad science. Tiller's work is decidedly academic, but his work is rejected out of hand. I stand by my parody of wiki-skepto-logic. After all the arguing, it comes down to the judgment of the editors, and the (effective) consensus on wiki has been decidedly pseudo-skeptic. --Mbilitatu (talk) 02:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you shot yourself in the foot there: "A majority of scientists might claim it's bad science." That's the reason its not considered a reliable source. Not the topic it discusses. If quality research was done on, I dunno, parapsychology or chakras, journals like Nature and Science would be falling over themselves to publish it because they thrive on sensational findings. It isn't, so they don't. Famousdog (talk) 08:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This completes our circular reasoning. You are presenting the exact same argument that I parodied. If it were valid research, then Nature would cover it. Mainstream academics & publications have become the high priests of wiki-religion. This discussion goes nowhere. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. You said that "Citations must be from reliable sources. But everyone knows that subtle energy does not exist. Therefore, any citation claiming evidence for the existence of subtle energy must be from an unreliable source." Your "parody" is unfair and what I said above is not "the exact same argument." To put my comment above in your terms: Citations must be from reliable sources. But everyone knows that subtle energy does not exist. Either no research on this topic (which journals like Nature would fall over themselves to publish) has been presented to the mainstream journals, or if it has it has not got through peer-review. Therefore, if evidence of the existance of subtle energy (a sensational claim) has been published elsewhere (in less well-known/read journals) it is highly likely because of their lower standards of peer-review. Now, I publish in a variety of journals, and I know which ones are the easier to get into, so I send my scrappier work there and save the good stuff for more rigourous (and invariably higher-profile) journals! There are other, better reasons for deciding that a source is unreliable but since my university library doesn't hold the journal in question, its somewhat tricky to find out. Sorry. Famousdog (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Either no research on this topic has been presented to the mainstream journals" ... mainstream journals think it bunk. And by your clearly circular reasoning, you think that justifies it being bunk. Your logic is flawed. "(which journals like Nature would fall over themselves to publish)" ... an assumption you make, and again flawed logic you use to justify claiming it's bunk. "if it has it has not got through peer-review." Which it has, you just don't like the peers because, again by your circular reasoning, any peer that would agree with bunk is bunk. I have a PhD in CS from a name brand university and there is plenty of lousy research in peer reviewed journals of all types, but no wiki-skepto-freak would cite those journals as unreliable. The difference is that they are mainstream, low-quality research. I'm not gong to continue this discussion any more. Feel free to have the last word. As I said ... this goes nowhere. It's patently obvious to anyone with their eyes open that wiki-bias is rampant. --Mbilitatu (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie, "cannot even detect" is not the point - we cannot detect the release of hormones, the motor of our dreams or many such things. The point is; whether detectable fields have psychophysical correlates. Redheylin (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Because some animals can detect the Earth's magnetic field, human sensitivity to it has been examined in just about any way you could imagine, and always comes up negative. Human biomagnetic fields are so much smaller that it takes extreme quantum technology to detect them. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Red, FMRI uses a strong magnetic field to flip the spin of atoms in water molecules in the brains of dreaming humans resulting in a 3D map of water density in the brain. From this, you can aquire a time-dependent measure of blood-oxygen level dependent (BOLD) activity (which, thanks to recent electrophysiological work, we know is correlated with electrical neural activity) in the visual cortex correlated with REM (dreaming) sleep. Dreams, the weight of current EVIDENCE suggests, are "images" created by neural activity in visual cortex that are rationalised and given narrative structure on waking. You can argue til the cows come home over the "purpose" of dreams, but not their "motor". Or did you mean something different by "we cannot detect... the motor of our dreams"? Famousdog (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

"Motor" means; "that which moves or drives"[7]. A "purpose", of course, is in the future, and I do not think neural activity is driven by the future. Not usually anyhow! So, causes, not purposes. "We" do not consciously cause the neural activity, but it is still motivated by something or other and it can still affect us. As far as detection goes, pigeons' have a magnetite lump in their heads[8] as big as ours, whereas it ought to be proportional to body-mass index. Not only that, but the pigeon does not question its instincts. Still, we have da magnetite Magnetoception#In humans. Get back to me when you have successfully edited that page... Redheylin (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Fortunate we talked about it, since there was no note of human magnetite on that page. I inserted. I find my edits in science and medicine tend to stand. I guess those people tend to be, er, scientific. Talking of FMRI, the article Pheromone has; In 2008, it was found using functional magnetic resonance imaging that the right orbitofrontal cortex, right fusiform cortex, and right hypothalamus respond to airborne natural human sexual sweat. This is what I mean by unconscious psychophysical correlates. I wonder if we need a Smell fields (esoteric) page? Had to correct the Greek on that one and it's still not quite right. Still, some days it's the day for drive-by. (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

In 1970, David Cohen of MIT, using a SQUID magnetometer, confirmed the heart measurements. By 1972, Cohen had improved the sensitivity of his instrument, enabling him to measure magnetic fields around the head produced by brain activities. Subsequently, it has been discovered that all tissues and organs produce specific magnetic pulsations, which have come to be known as biomagnetic fields. The traditional electrical recordings, such as the electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram, are now being complemented by biomagnetic recordings, called magnetocardiograms and magnetoencephalograms. Additional sources, Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies, Nature’s Own Research Association in Dover New Hampshire, and the The International Center for Reiki Training in Southfield Michigan since 1991. Mbilitatu is right. Looie496 is wrong. How long will the world be flat and truth be held back? Famousdog is making ad populum appeals! And they say they want the scientific method. stevenwagner —Preceding undated comment added 23:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC).

I added it.Redheylin (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Famousdog - I note there is a tendency to keep back controversial papers from publication until after retirement. I'd cite Hardy on the aquatic ape, Burr's popular book, Thom's work on stone circles - and for an example of what may happen otherwise, look at Wegener, vindicated 40 yrs after publication. Why is this necessary, if science is only a disinterested quest for truth? Surely because it's betting your career on a single throw of the dice. And for the few years till the dice come down, meanwhile, you have to get on, get that research job.

As far as esoteric energies are concerned, their scientific popularity has declined as a result of the successes of molecular biology but, even before this, nobody much after Mesmer was talking about unknown physical forces. They were talking about intercellular communication, the victory of evolution over entropy and the place of known forces in this, the possibility of coherent signalling, and what this might mean to developmental biology, medicine, the mind-body interface, the nature of memory, the relationship of reason and order and the way we are plugged into the great cosmic wotnot. Molecular behaviour does nothing to enlighten us and black-box Skinnerism leaves us with more nomological danglers than the hanging gardens of Babylon. Psychology can hardly be called a science: objectivity about the subjective eludes us. That's why this conversation is taking place. And so it should. I do not think there is any great future in trying to persuade folks here that it is crazy even to think about it.

You will, I am sure, be aware that some dreams have narrative structures that appear directly related to physical correlates. The man who wants to pee dreams he is in the toilet, the horny teen moves through his garden of delights - scenarios that are inseparable from some rudimentary narrative. Some homeorhetic psychic force is giving us movies as it balances up our psychophysiology. Not that there is any "psychic force" as such. And yet there is. Redheylin (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm a researcher and I did experiments on subtle energies. I created a model which explains subtle energies through pure physics and biophysics. My research was scientifically published and it is available for free as an open access paper at google scholar. You may read my published paper and use it as a reference to enhance the wiki article. ofcourse you are welcome if you need my help with any explanations. This is a link for my paper http://www.soeagra.com/iaast/iaastsept2012/2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waelfouda (talk • contribs) 11:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Citations

Every single piece of information not cited should immediately be removed from this article. This article is very sad and embarrassing. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

there is a goofy edit war going on over tags. {{u|JzG}] I am deleting the unsourced content per WP:VERIFY since you will not tolerate tags or better, supply refs. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing the unsourced content is fine. The tags are being added in drive-by fashion by anons who are not giving any rationale or discussing the issue. I tolerate tags just fine when there's a problem pending fixing, but here we have active editing by people who seem motivated to change the article but not engage in any way. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

semi-protection

i just requested semi-protection. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Removal of fringe sources

@HealthyGirl: Fringe sources are not automatically banned from fringe subjects. They should not be used to make claims in Wikipedia's voice, but they can be used to describe claims made by fringe authors. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand this, I just believe this article needs work and I will fix it. My complaint about the ectoplasm section was that the sources were entirely fringe with no academic or skeptical coverage of those claims. Secondly ectoplasm has nothing to do with the idea of 'esoteric' energy, it was off-mission. But I do not think we should be linking to psychic books. Academic, scholarly or skeptical sources are much more reliable. HealthyGirl (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I have been watching this. Tgeorgesc if you disagree about any specific sources and content that were removed, it would be most productive to talk about them one by one. Each bit can be discussed here and if you cannot agree, RSN (or better since this is health related, WT:MED are where you can bring things for community input. Just a suggestion; keep it simple. If you concern is too much, too fast, please just ask for a pause while the two of you discuss what has already been done. :) Jytdog (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Badly sourced content

User:Darker Dreams about this and this:

Such places are sometimes considered places of power, depending on the belief system of those who consider it sacred.

References

These are terrible sources. WP:ABOUTSELF is about people or organizations. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the statement that they're considered places of power is contentious? And that you are feel it can't be justified? Darker Dreams (talk) 06:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Stop trying to force extremely low quality sources into WP. Our mission is to provide readers with accepted knowlege per the polocy WP:NOTEVERYTHING. It is not to give voice to every crank with a website. There are scholars of religion and sociology. I took the care and time to find a couple when this content was merged here. Jytdog (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

continued... No, I was pushing back in place of power to retain the wiki references to things like Charmed which I haven't had a chance to dig out the relevant episode or how to format the citation. Actually, I didn't even look at which citations got scooped up in someone else's edit [9], who was hammering away at source quality, and you promptly reverted out of hand. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm - pop culture trivia is so important to WP? ce Jytdog (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Pushing for religious aspects

This entire article is literally just a skeptics dismissal. Space for that is fine, but can we please add the actual religious & beliefs part of this practice? Artheartsoul1 (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but according to wikipedia, energy is considered "woo", and therefore cannot at all be taken seriously according to current official/unofficial guidelines. Feel free to add anything you want with reliable sources, but realise taking the worlds oldest man up Mt Fuji in a backpack might be easier.

Probrooks (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is it that this article is relegated to a vapid skeptic's dismissal whereas the exact same concept with a Chinese name (i.e., Qi) is given at least passing respect?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.248.17 (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2018‎ (UTC)

There may be an issue with that other article (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:PSCI). Possibly that another aspect is that Qi/Chi is also used for non-esoteric purposes (i.e. wok-chi/wok-hei). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 12:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Bias

The unscientific bias in the first two paragraphs make the article unapproachable. Though citing various support for the idea of dismissing energy fields in and around the human body and other objects, as well as the interaction between them, it actively avoids the massive scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that such fields do exist, and are the subject of scientific inquiry at universities and established institutes. Recommend someone from HeartMath Institute or Rutgers University (some institute there) or the Transformative Technology Conference (all of whom are using modern instrumentation to detect, monitor and modify human body energy fields) to rewrite this article from a scientific perspective, instead of some misguided attempt at skepticism. Christopheraune (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

On arXiv "energy fields" are very close to non-existent. So no science works with energy fields, it is a term from Science Fiction, same as Heisenberg compensator. See WP:LUNATICS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Useful opinion piece

Dawson, P. J. (1997). "A reply to Goddard's 'spirituality as integrative energy'". Journal of Advanced Nursing. 25 (2): 282–289. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025282.x. ISSN 1365-2648. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ජපස (talk • contribs) 21:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Orgone Energy and lesser miasmas

Just wondering whether Orgone energy should get a mention, and maybe some of the mechanisms proposed by early hypnotists. Basically I want to put a few examples in as categories of esoteric energy - as I think the area of discourse is fascinating. RecardedByzantian (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Orgone energy is pretty narrowly defined by Reich and, crucially, he claimed to be able to measure the stuff. However as it is used by advocates today, it certainly has found a home in this morass. Seems like a reasonable add-on to this article in some place or another (but not as a main topic, probably). jps (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

mental energy

It can also be seen as a mental energy that is totally distinct from chemical energy.

If you want to include that "mental energy" hokum, you need to quote a reliable source saying that there are people who see it like that. Goop (company) is not a reliable source. It is a huckster site that sells snake oil. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Ah, another logical positivist swindler infesting the world, I see. It IS mental energy, and see my initial comment about Goop.com. You do not need reliable sources for a concept you claim is not reliable. Obviously. Anyway, Goop.com is a New Age goo website, but that statement is still true. It is VIEWED as a mental energy by believers in it. And it also happens to be a mental energy in reality. When Crowley or advanced occultists or esotericists refer to energy, they are obviously not referring to physical chemical energy but to energy of the mind. But you already knew that. You're just being egotistical. StebbinsMan (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hob Gadling:. Yup, this is woo and the source not acceptable. Alexbrn (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Go back to RationalWiki or something and read the circular reasoning page you wrote there. And we already knew mental energy is woo from your view, but this page is about mental energy. So... go figure. StebbinsMan (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rather, you should read WP:FRINGE and WP:LUNATIC. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: It is not genteel to revert someone else's talk edit. StebbinsMan (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

On the contrary, @StebbinsMan:, it is a kindness that Alexbrn removed your post and prevented the likely sanction for violating the No Personal Attacks policy. Discuss the content, not the contributor. Your first post here was to attack another editor and continuing in that vein will lead to negative consequences. If you want to include this content, please provide a source that complies with the reliable source content guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No, I was not addressing him negatively. I was addressing his beliefs as being negative. The same way me calling a Christian fundamentalist out for falling into foolishness and illusion would not be a personal attack or how me calling out Goop.com for believing in nonsensical alternative medicine garbage would not be me insulting their character. Perhaps it would hurt their identity, so I see why it's not PC. StebbinsMan (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The "energy as metaphor" issue going on here is an interesting one. The Goop.com source really does not do justice to this usage and their assumption that there is such a thing as "mental energy" as opposed to "spiritual energy" or "life force energy" or "source energy" or... or... or... just means it's not particularly useful as a distinguishing marker. The comparison to "magnetism" is apt. Frankly, these ideas are so jumbled and so often passed between one usage and another it hardly makes sense to single out one for display (especially not in the lede).

It would be nice if there were a few more sources which dealt with the lexicology of "energy" as it pertains to this subject. But, alas, I have not found a good one yet. Would love it if you happen upon one, my good StebbinsMan.

jps (talk) 18:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, a good source in this space that divvy'd it all up nicely would be valuable. I suspect however that the topic is not amenable to such treatment. Alexbrn (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The intro is overloaded with skepticism

Just because an experience is subjective and can't be measured, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I've updated the intro to reflect this. I have not added new material or made new claims. But the way it was written before indicated that the claimed experience cannot happen because they can't be measured. This is not the case. The fact that they can't be measured does not disprove the subjective experience.

I understand that Wikipedia should not be promoting fringe theories but this cult of skepticism is another thing entirely. AlexClwn (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

It is good that you have finally decided to discuss the changes you wish to make on the talk page. Your edit warring? Not so much.

Re: "Just because an experience is subjective and can't be measured, doesn't mean it doesn't exist", see Russel's teapot. The burden of proof lies upon you, the person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Re: "this cult of skepticism", Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies [...] are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[10] [11] [12] [13]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.

We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.

We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.

We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.

We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.

We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.

We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.

We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.

We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.

We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.

We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.

We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.

We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.

We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.

We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.

We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.

We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.

We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.

We are biased towards evolution, and biased against creationism.

We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.

We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.

We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.

We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.

We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.

We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.

We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.

We are biased towards mendelism, and biased against lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your overly verbose admission of bias. This is not a case of Russel's teapot, it's a claim of subjective experience. Compare Near-death experience. At least the intro of that article is more respectfully written. If a person says they have an experience and it cannot be recorded, that doesn't mean science can write it off. It means science needs to be more open minded and admit it doesn't have all the answers. This should be reflected in the intro instead of just this "closed case" attitude common among "skeptics". AlexClwn (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I mean one of my changes was to insert the word "subjective". Are you really arguing with that? AlexClwn (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@AlexClwn: If it cannot be measured in kilocalories you have no shred of evidence that it were an energy, so we may not call it energy; by definition energy is something measurable in Joules. How many kilowatt-hours of sexual energy does one use during intercourse? So, no the definition of energy isn't only subjectively assessable: if it cannot be measured in British thermal units, it is not an energy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Then how do you measure any subjective experience? Can you prove the contents of a person's dream? If not then by this logic, dreams do not exist and anything that you have experienced cannot be believed. An eyewitness statement cannot be used as evidence. Absurd. If a person has claimed to have experienced an "energy" even if it can't be measured in BTUs, an honest introduction would at least include the fact that it is "subjectively" claimed to have been experienced. Just like near death experience. AlexClwn (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Energies can only be measured in BTUs. Dreams are not measured in BTUs. Therefore Dreams aren't energy. NDEs aren't energy. As simply as that: energies are always measurable in Joules. Uncreated energies from Eastern-Orthodox theology aren't energy in a physical sense. So, we only speak of energy from physics, chemistry, biology and so on, we make no claim that that's what uncreated energies are.

Santa is subjectively experienced by children. Are you telling us that Santa isn't real? Same applies to the energies from esotericism: we dare to say that Santa isn't real. At least there is no sufficient reason to speak of Santa as being real. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

AlexClwn, my essay at WP:1AM may be helpful to you. It was written for Wikipedia editors in the exact situation you are in on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

See, you're setting out with the wrong outlook. You're trying to disprove something instead of honestly reporting about it. In this way you are not being objective. Can you say honestly that people have not reported subjective experiences of energy which cannot be measured in joules or BTUs? That's all I'm getting at. AlexClwn (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Their subjectively experienced energies have nothing to do with energies from science (e.g. quantum mechanics). We don't state in the voice of Wikipedia that uncreated energies do exist; that's a theological belief upon which Wikipedia has no opinion. In the very moment that you stated that esoteric energies heal real diseases, you made the whole concept amenable to empirical falsification. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

...and thus a legitimate target for being labeled pseudoscience. -- Valjean (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I never stated that. I only stated that objective experiences of "energy" have been reported. This article is NOT about "energies from science". You think science creates energy? Energy can exist whether scientific methods can find it or not. Wikipedia doesn't have to say they exist, only that experiences have been reported but that they cannot be measured. Do you deny that they have been reported? AlexClwn (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I suspect you meant to write "subjective." -- Valjean (talk) 05:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, this article isn't about the energies from science (e.g. quantum mechanics). It is about an occult belief, unsubstantiated by any objective evidence, and thoroughly abused by WP:Lunatic charlatans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Correct – subjective! It was a typo. I was thinking that Wikipedia should be objective by reporting that subjective experiences of "energy" which cannot be measured scientifically, have been reported. Is this not true? AlexClwn (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but in that sense "feeling energetic" isn't really a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article (sources?) - it's just a metaphorical use of "energy". This article is about a claimed force. Alexbrn (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if that's true. I suspect you don't know that it's true, either. Despite the requests and explanations above, you have not provided any sort of sourcing to substantiate your position. That's why it's called a belief. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@AlexClwn: I tried to find a specific suggestion for an edit to the article in this section, but could not find any. What are we talking about? Is it about changing the article, or does it not belong here? If it is about changing the article, could you please say what exactly you want to change? "Less skepticism" is not specific enough. I suspect that what you will propose can be answered with the objections you already see here though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If we are talking about things like "These have not been able to be confirmed by measurement": That wording suggests that the fault lies in the measurement, or that it is just a matter of time. Both are wrong. Fringe believers think up all matters of excuses when their ideas do not fit reality. We should avoid using those excuses in Wiki voice. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it's true or not, just that it's a subjective experience that HAS been reported. I'm not making this up. If these experiences have not been reported, there would be no need for this article.

This is not a metaphorical "I'm feeling energetic today", after all that is a real energy that can be measured in calories. This article is about other "energies" that people have reported. The truth of which is not up to editors to determine. Just state the facts that certain experiences have been subjectively reported BUT they cannot be measured. The fact that people have reported certain experiences of energy (not feeling energetic) is unarguable I would have thought.

@Hob Gadling: Look at the edit history of the introduction in the last few days. They were my suggestions which I felt were quite reasonable. The fact that these "energies" have not been measured is just a plain fact which I do not dispute. You can take it as a critique of the technology if you like but this is what science is about isn't it – continual improvement in technology and measurement; also the improvement of understanding. My point is that just because they haven't been measured does not negate the fact that they have been reported by people who have experienced them subjectively. AlexClwn (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

By the same epistemic standard, Santa is real. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

In other words, you have no suggestion for improving the article in the shape of "change x to y". You just want to state opinions about the subject, for which this is not the place: see WP:FORUM. I think we are finished here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

the way it was written before indicated that the claimed experience cannot happen because they can't be measured. I don't see that this is the case. Nowhere in the text does it say that these claimed experiences "cannot happen because they can't be measured". It says there is no scientific evidence for these things. It says that alternative medicines that claim to interact with such things are therefore controversial. But nowhere are the truth-value of the claims evaluated. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. jps (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Exactly right. Nobody claims that people do not experience things like ghosts, angels appearing to them, or voices in their head. They clearly do; it is not plausible that that many people are all lying. When people say "the voices are not real" they are not saying that the person didn't hear the voices. When people say "ghosts are not real" they are not saying that the person didn't see something that they thought was a ghost. If you listen to how people talk about this sort of thing this becomes clear. You hear things like "the voices are not real. They are just your brain tricking you. Ignore what they tell you to do" you never hear "you aren't hearing voices in your head, so please stop pretending that you are". --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The latest first sentence is better than it was.

"Proponents and practitioners of various esoteric forms of spirituality and alternative medicine refer to a variety of claimed experiences and phenomena as being due to "energy" or "force" that defy measurement and thus are distinguished from the scientific form of energy"

My only concern is the word "defy". This seems pejorative. It seems to indicate bafflement and disbelief, mockery. Why is it used when it could just be said "that cannot be measured"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexClwn (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

"Defy measurement" is a turn of art. It simply means "have not been measured nor are protocols in place that provide for the possibility of measuring". It is much less wordy just to say "defy measurement". jps (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

God, you empiricist clowns are funny as hell thinking mental experience has anything to do with Russell's Teapot. StebbinsMan (talk) 01:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think this subject has anything to do with "mental experience"? What source indicates that? jps (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed StebbinsMan. I just went to a random previous version of the article and see the following intro paragraph which has much more info than currently:

"The term energy has been widely used by writers and practitioners of various esoteric forms of spirituality and alternative medicine[1][2] to refer to a variety of phenomena. Such "energy" is often seen as a continuum that unites body and mind. The term "energy" also has a scientific context, and the scientific foundations of "physical energy" are often confused or misused to justify a connection to a scientific basis for physical manifestations, properties, detectability or sensing of "psychic energy" and other physic phenomenon where no presently known scientific basis exists.[3] It is sometimes conceived of as a universal life force running within and between all things, as in some forms of vitalism, doctrines of subtle bodies or concepts such as qi, prana, or kundalini.[4]"

There is ample warning in there that this energy cannot be verified by science yet there is more info about the history and types of purported energy. In other words it conveys more about the subject than the current acid washed version.

This is merely a suggestion. As it is I am humbly suggesting the changing of a single word, see above. AlexClwn (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, the page is whitewashed and unwilling to even talk about what this thing is out of some pseudo-skeptical insecure nonsense. It's also strange that esotericism is in the the title even though the page doesn't mention esotericism a single time and mostly just talks about New Age, alternative medicine, and ghost hunters while briefly mentioning Qi. StebbinsMan (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The title has always been a problem. The issue is that the word "energy" and the word "force" is used very loosely among those who are interested in the subject and they often vary between people who are involved in all of the topics you are mentioning.

There are plenty of possibilities for improvements for this page. But the answer is to find good sources that explain how to deal with the subject. Right now, all I see is unverified commentary. If you have some sources you think could help us out, I beg you to provide them.

jps (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Some clarification would help, what is "energy" exactly?

I seem to be misunderstanding what this article means by "energy". I always read "qi" or "chi" as meaning either blood circulation or oxygenated blood circulation. The exercises in "qigong" are mostly breathing exercises, which would lend to my belief that "qi" in Traditional Chinese Medicine refers to oxygenated blood, which is a measurable energy source. The meridians that transport that energy would correspond to veins that carry the oxygenated blood. It seems like a translation error of the description of blood vessels transporting oxygen and not a "mystical force" that gets energy from nowhere. When they say the energy is all around us, that sounds like someone trying to explain that our cells are fueled by the oxygen in the air around us. Exercise is good for our cardiovascular health; that is a true statement. Movement is good for our chi; objectively that means the same thing. 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:2870:A34F:F45B:B762 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

But here is the catch: either inspiring too much oxygen or not expiring enough carbon dioxide messes up the blood pH, which only allows for an extremely small variation. So, yeah, there is a way to change blood pH, but it isn't advisable.

You also need to understand something about Wikipedia: we don't settle stuff through original research, but only based upon reliable sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Some clarification would help, what is "energy" exactly?

I seem to be misunderstanding what this article means by "energy". I always read "qi" or "chi" as meaning either blood circulation or oxygenated blood circulation. The exercises in "qigong" are mostly breathing exercises, which would lend to my belief that "qi" in Traditional Chinese Medicine refers to oxygenated blood, which is a measurable energy source. The meridians that transport that energy would correspond to veins that carry the oxygenated blood. It seems like a translation error of the description of blood vessels transporting oxygen and not a "mystical force" that gets energy from nowhere. When they say the energy is all around us, that sounds like someone trying to explain that our cells are fueled by the oxygen in the air around us. Exercise is good for our cardiovascular health; that is a true statement. Movement is good for our chi; objectively that means the same thing. 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:2870:A34F:F45B:B762 (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

But here is the catch: either inspiring too much oxygen or not expiring enough carbon dioxide messes up the blood pH, which only allows for an extremely small variation. So, yeah, there is a way to change blood pH, but it isn't advisable.

You also need to understand something about Wikipedia: we don't settle stuff through original research, but only based upon reliable sources. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by blood ph?: I was not referring to the ph of blood, I was making a link between blood circulation bringing oxygenated blood to the parts of the body where that oxygen will be used by the muscle that needs the energy. I purpose that the "mystical" energy qi was a reference to the systems in the body that transport oxygenated cells and convert the oxygen and human fats and sugars into adenosine triphosphate, and then transport that adenosine triphosphate to the muscles that need that fuel. If exercise improves that transport system, then is seems like the ancient world knew that exercise improved the human body's ability to transport and modify different forms of chemical energy into ones that are able to be used by muscles in the human body. 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:5426:5419:BFC8:81AB (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough to me :).

Cannot add anything of the like without a published source describing it as such, though. And even with one, likely there will be partison zealots crying foul, heresy and sorcery (i.e. the go to buzzword that is guaranteed to kill any deliberations on WP - "pseudoscience"). Firejuggler86 (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The burden of proof is upon those who advocate the real existence of qi. Also, qi-based therapies have not been found to work better than placebo—that counts as hard evidence against the existence of qi. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of martial arts that claim that exercise improves qi/chi, and it translates to "energy" in English. When we play sports and get tired we say that we are out of energy, if a Chinese person plays sports and gets tired, they say they are out of qi/chi. Exactly how is it mystical? They know breathing has something to do with increasing energy, and we know that breathing gives us more energy. I fail to find any mysticism in it. It seems like a lot of bias when the "modern world" claims that they discovered breathing is connected with energy for physical activity and the "ancient world" was telling fairytales when it said that breathing improved energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8830:8DF0:A986:8A0B:82ED:62 (talk • contribs)

The problem with your claim is WP:OR. We only accept information from WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

non-RS cites

@Tgeorgescu: sorry for my typo "on-RS" in edit summary before. The point is that that sources I removed are flaky sources; why do you want them back? And you also reverted another small change to stick closer to sources. Can you please say why? Especially if you intend to revert me again. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Stenger is a trusted debunker. According to WP:PARITY trusted debunkers write WP:RS for WP:FRINGE subjects. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

tgeorgescu is right. That's what PARITY is for. -- Valjean (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning a reason for one of those. Can you point out more specifically what WP:PARITY says about trusted debunkers? I'm not finding it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: You have to read the whole of WP:ARBPS to make heads or tails of it. If you don't believe me, you may open a topic about it at WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem, Stenger is fine as an additional source on the non-existence statement. It looked to me like other source was stronger, and enough. Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

quote from Brian Dunning: "energy is the measurement of work"

With the gist of this article, I would entirely agree. And whoever added the quote from Brian Dunning had a right to do so. And Brian Dunning has a right to say... what he said.

However... that quote seems almost as "metaphysical" as the topic "metaphysical energy" I Google'd to come across this.

No, it is not true that "energy itself is not the thing being measured: energy is the measurement of work performed or of potential"!

Energy is in fact the thing being measured (that is, when it is being measured): it is that which is the ability to do work, or embodied in the work already having been done (object elevated, temperature raised, ...).

It is good that there is a link at the top of the article to the Wikipedia article "Energy". Note that that article begins (as this moment, at least) by saying "In physics, energy is the quantitative property that must be transferred to a body or physical system to perform work on the body, or to heat it."

Note in particular that it does not say "the measurement of" that property.

Energy is measurable, in any particular case can (theoretically at least) be measured - but energy is not itself then the measurement, but the thing being measured.

I'm not going to do this (gotta think about that), but it seems that each use of "measurement" by Dunning should be followed by "[sic]". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:4301:6190:BDEF:C986:71A0:35BE (talk • contribs)

To cut a long story short: no WP:RS = no edits. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)