Talk:Odic force/Archive 1

Intro

The original version of this article read like a religious/mystic tract, with no sources or "factual" information of any kind. I'm tempted to list it on VFD, but a search on Google shows that apparently this is something that is believed by some occultists, though what I can find on the internet doesn't clarify things sufficiently to rewrite the article myself. As such, I just placed the accuracy, npov, and wikify templates on the page. siafu 02:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This should work to start an intro:

Also called Od and Odyle.

The odic force is a vital energy or life force that permeates all living plants, animals, and humans. It is an historical term from eighteenth-century speculative science, described in Baron Karl von Reichenbach's Researches on Magnetism, Electricity, Heat and Light in their relations to Vital Forces. Von Reichenbach's research found, among other things, that this Force had a positive and negative flux, and a light and dark side. The Odic Force made a scientific case for the universal life force, although since Reichenbach's experiments relied on psychically sensitive and psycho-kinetically adept individuals, it was never accepted in the general scientific community.

Nonetheless, it is interesting for the concept demonstrates that The Force in the Star Wars series has scientific precedence -- of sorts.

sources?

Current popularity of the theory within new age and paranormal communities has arisen at the same time as the success of George Lucas' fictional Force in the Star Wars series to which the Odic Force is an unmistakable antecedent.
Those that are said to drain the Odic Force from other people either willingly or unwillingly are called energy vampires.

Any sources for either of these assertions? -Willmcw 21:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted these two paragraphs because they are unsourced. In addition, the first one suffers from USA-centric cultural bias. --Smithfarm 19:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- The source of these original "Od" claims (sorry!) is Reich's book. It makes fascinating reading, like something by Franklin or perhaps Faraday. Reich was similar to the early electricity investigators: a scientist researching an entirely new branch of physics. His big blunder was to not pursue Od-detecting instruments, but instead to rely on the dark-adapted vision of "od-sensitive" assistants he employed. As with most topics excluded from contemporary science, if other researchers can't measure something, and cannot even see it themselves, then they won't attempt to replicate the experiments, and certainly will refuse to accept its existence unless evidence is overwhelming and "extraordinary." --Wjbeaty 16:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main modern useful use of the od is when playing Scrabble!! :-) Anthony Appleyard 12:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'...'but on perceptions reported by individuals claimed to be psychically sensitive or psycho-kinetically adept. The "sensitives," young women recruited from the poorer social classes, worked in total or near-total darkness,[...]

This part of the text is just not true! I have no idea, who wrote this from which source. No "sensitive" has ever been mentioned to be "psycho-kinetically adept". It is also definitely not true, that he only used poor women. He used men and women and also doctors and richer people... And sure they worked in total darkness, for as Reichenbach stated it usually only if one remains for hours in total darkness the described phenomena become visible. I will wait for some time,and if not anybody gives some facts against it, I will change this part.85.1.174.135 (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

How is the given transcription pronounced?

Odic force (also called Od [õd]^{[citation needed]} and Odyle)

Could you please link the transcription signs to the pages about the sounds or give an explanation in teh article?--Imz 21:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requests

I've inserted requests for proper citation (to include page numbers if the book under references is the source). I'll wait a while, then delete unsourced sections if not sourced Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

I deleted this: "Joseph Jastrow is one of my favorites. The book and page numbers are correct, but this material is selective and greatly distorted. Hysteria is not even mentioned. Just read the book. Oh, I forgot old books don't count anymore. Each generation must learn for themselves. Those who do not study history remain as children." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.143.131 (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding the nomenclature

Von Reichenbach himself contends that the usage of the term ODYLE is for convenience of enunciation. Although he does not give the etymology of the term, he maintains that it is for no other reason than ease of use that the term is offered.

"Reserving for another opportunity the etymological justification of the term, I shall here venture to suggest, for the force here treated of, the short name of ODYLE. Everyone will think it desirable, that for an object, universally occurring in an infinite variety of relations in the material world, we ought, with a view to the numerous compound terms which are required, to select, if possible, a short word, and for convenience, one commencing with a vowel." (Researches on Magnetism, Electricity, Heat, Light, Crystallization, page 164)

--HDBlalock (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de Rochas' photograph

The photo appears to have been shoehorned into the article without much thought. There's no reference to it within the article & no explanation of exactly what it is a photo of. Discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.255.248.225 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific basis

I've been editing this article for punctuation, syntax, and style (not changing any meaning), and I came across an incomplete sentence. It appears at the end of the second paragraph in the section headed "Scientific basis" and begins, "Although...." I don't know what words to add, or how to connect it, in order to make it into a complete sentence. Someone who knows more about this topic than I do would need to do that.CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ææ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.203.95.204 (talk) 15:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]