Talk:Energy (esotericism)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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 Unpublished documents from personal web sites are not considered reliable sources for anything except the views of the authors.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"[1]. 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[2] 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 [3], 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.[4] [5] [6] [7]"

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)