Talk:Radionics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Why

why is radionics described as a pseudoscience? on what basis is this classification made? Peter morrell 07:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide credible evidence as to why radionics is not a fraud and fakery, that would be most welcome. There are numerous problems with the whole concept, but I do not feel these should be mentioned in the article.

How does the device "know" what is being read from the source well? I would tend to assume that if it can detect the rate for any object, then how does the diagnostician separate out a reading for the well-material itself from the sample material?

Presumably even an empty well should still give a reading since the well itself is a material with a rate, as is the wiring a material with its own rate, and even the wooden box itself that encases the source well. The box could be said to be an insulator for the metal well, but that isn't how this works since the object being read could readily be a piece of wood. How does the well separate the rate of the wood sample inside the well from wooden box surrounding the well? And indeed an empty well is not empty either since it is full of air. How is the rate detector capable of sorting all this out from the actual test material with just a simple collection of knobs?

From what little I've learned about these devices, it seems the metal wiring could just as easily be replaced with nonconductive silk thread, and it would still work. So how are variable-resistance electronics potentiometers capable of reading anything from something that doesn't need metal signal wire to work?

It goes much further and gets weirder than this. Supposedly mystical symbology can be used with these devices. It is not necessary for the subject of the device to even be present. Instead a symbol can take the place of the subject, such as a diagram on paper that the subject also holds or wears, or a personal item of the subject such as hair or blood. The power of the device would flow through the symbols to the subject, and the subject could be diagnosed and treated as if they were linked by direct point-to-point radio transceivers.

Does this device also need to be cleared and purified after each use by being placed in a pentagram made from salt?

Because so much of this does not follow the simple and well-understood rules of mainstream science and technology, how can it be called anything else but a pseudoscience?

DMahalko 05:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

you have missed the point I was making. A pseudoscience is something that presents itself as a science. As far as I am aware radionics does no such thing; it merely exists; it does not present itself in any other way than being just what it is; it has no pretensions of being a science and simply is a world unto itself; it does not claim to have any truck with so-called mechanisms so beloved of official science; it just is what it is; therefore on that basis it is not a pseudoscience. it is simply an empirical system that some/many people find useful and effective. All your answer has revealed are the unwarranted assumptions and ingrained prejudices of official science and nothing more than that. Peter morrell 05:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Please forgive any misdeeds against the Wikipedia conventions, I'm just an reader dropping in, finding your claims a tad bizarre. By your admission, it purports to be empirical. It has a theorical model that it uses to make predictions (the diagnose). By what practical definition of science this thingie does not pretend to be scientific? It appears to me that the three main points of a science are purported. Please dont't take it personally, but saying, "Radionics is not a science" does not make any less pseudoscientific. 87.64.66.245 14:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The biggest maker of Rife Machines, which harness this technology, make all kinds of claims that this is in the realm of science and is a cure for cancer. http://www.rife.org/ 216.39.146.25

Labelling something as a pseudoscience before even defining it is POV. The first sentence does not meet WP guidelines. Jedermann 11:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I reference Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's newest book called " The Science Delusion" ( UK ) and known as "Science Set Free" in the U.S. It addresses the 10 dogmas which Science assumes to be truths like the idea that there is only a material universe so anything that is outside these dogmas does not get addressed. Rupert Sheldrake did a brief talk on TED which was relegated to the naughty section for various reasons including pseudo-science. When they did this, TED got into a spot of trouble from viewers whome, over 5000, asked why they banned the presentation and how dare they do it. TED told Rupert Sheldrake that they were reviewed by an anonymous and independent scientific board which turned out to be headed by the sceptical society of United States. These sceptics are like James Randi who peddles an agenda, notably the very 10 dogmas Sheldrake spoke of. Sheldrake defended and demonstrated to TED that there was no pseudo-science which they removed the toxic notice. He is saying that science is stuck and needs to address itself, as it has become money driven for only those things that matter to big business, including the big-pharma, oil companies, various agro businesses. This negates the smaller scientists who are just as well trained as the rest, and they can address far more than these big corporations can. Sheldrake turns the dogmas into questions designed to open up this scientists who are blinkered, at the moment. He is well published and is fellowed with Cambridge, where he teaches and Harvard. So materialists, time to move over or as my mum used to say when I hogged the couch: move of be moved. I am reminded that the mighty dinosaur ruled the earth and nature threw them a curve ball, so to speak. A meteor his the earth and in a matter of days, the race of dinosaurs were extinct!! They could not adapt fast enough and there were too big to survive. To-day we have corporate dinosaurs which consume a lot of energy and rule the roost, same pattern as dinosaurs of olde. As a human race we need to evolve, all of us and patterns need to change to allow us to adapt and co-operate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.225.199 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

further reading

The further reading section doesn't read like things to read but like a list of items, many of them redlinks. Needs cleanup. RJFJR 14:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

needs more references that are reliable

This article desparately needs more references. And ones that are reliable per the WP:RS. --Rocksanddirt 19:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Edward Wriothesley Russell in his book "Report on Radionics" such as this book? what is it, has anyone read it? what does it say and why is it not referenced? --Rocksanddirt 19:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And no, this article does not need transforming into uncritical adulation. This theory (or method, or whatever) is clearly pseudoscience and should not be written about as though it were perfectly factual. The claims of its practitioners need to be balanced against scientific criticism and review. Moreschi ^Talk 09:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not revert sourced content otherwise you are editing against policies (edit war). You are welcome to add content if sourced Jenny^Len☤ 09:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourced to what? The Radionics Association's website and journals of alternative medicine? This seems dubious at best. Moreschi ^Talk 09:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Searching around for information on William Tiller, he may well be a world-beating engineer but his espousal of "psychoenergetics" seems just as pseudoscientific as everything else in this article. Moreschi ^Talk 10:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with current version

The current version(at the time of this post is this version) has numerous problems that I will elaborate on right here.

1. The article is worded in a way that seems to be written like an Essay rather than an encyclopedia.
2. The paragraphs are not formatted properly and the lead seems to be loosely fitted together.
3. There is not enough information given explaining criticism and too much information given other aspects thus not corresponding to WP:WEIGHT.
4. The citations are incorrectly used and need to be inline rather then listed at the end of each section. See WP:REF for more info.
5. Some of the sources seem to be dubious at best.

Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A list of problems presented by who enters in coalition with editors working from a POV is also highly dubious. Please edit constructively and avoid POV criticism ℒibrarian2 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Please address the criticism not the criticizer. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If there is not enough information about criticism of Radionics is because there are not sources in published bibliography, only in highly POV websites, you are welcome to provide (no quackwatch kind please, more kind of books) I was unable to find RS more than the mentioned. Inline citations are not obligatory and the full sections have different references in the sources given. Please take the time to read the sources not criticizing with no constructive input. Please also, before acting as you do, check the editor capacities and provide respect if you want to achieve a decent talk Jenny^Len☤ 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well allow me to say that firstly, Many of your sources are from individuals who support and believe in Radionics, thus are POV. Secondly, If used as a primary source, we can use POV individuals merely to cite what they are saying. For instance we can say "Some critics criticize it because..." and then cite Quackwatch. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Recruiting others to continue an edit war where you're outnumbered is not on. Ditto spurious warnings and attempts to cast blame on others for your own editwarring. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Need for explanation

I can see here only reverts with no other purpose than deleting well sourced content and administrative privileges abuse. It is expected unprotection of the page or protection at its most recent constructive edit (Jennylen) or a very good explanation for these actions Daoken 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, deletion of POV-pushing material from poorly-sourced cites is the only way forward. The protection of the page is explained above. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Jennylen shouldn't have constantly reverted. Adam explained why he reverted what he reverted and there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page. Anymore reverts after that were unjustified. Moreover, Jennylen attempted to draft other editors to aid in her edit war. This is also uncalled for. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts were not adding constructive edits neither were for deleting non reliable sources. All sources added were published books and I have reviwed the citations in detail all are correct. All reverts have been done from a POV. I was not drafted, I received a thank you with no previous contact, do not drag dirt over honest editors for justifying your actions ℒibrarian2 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on, we can check your talk page history. No previous contact? Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know I meant no previous recent contact, I would seriously suggest to stop your campaign ℒibrarian2 17:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources? I checked just *three* and here was my findings:

• Pavior "Pavior (Transformational concepts brought to life) Welcome to Pavior. Do you know that you are a more wondrous and complex 'Being' than you can now imagine? Which of the many parts of you comes seeking?"....
• Trafford "Trafford is the best way to publish your book. Guaranteed. Our breakthrough process lets you have your book published quickly, affordably, effectively and available worldwide."
• Trencavel "Trencavel Press was founded to publish books that empower people. Areas of interest include complementary medicine, sustainable agriculture and spirituality in its broadest sense."

We're talking one vanity publisher and two which are clearly not likely to be harbingers of independent reportage. I would look through the remainder but it's clear there are issues. I could go out and publish a book tomorrow on any subject but citing it on Wikipedia would be a big no-no. Orderinchaos 17:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fringe theories get treated as such

Some people here need to read Wikipedia:Fringe theories. If mainstream scientific consensus (reflected via reliable sources) is that Subject X is pseudoscience/complete crap, we describe the theory in question as such. We do not launch into an extensive description/defense of the theory, giving it the more complementary label "alternative medicine" and cutting all mention of pseudoscience, sourcing this to self-published books written by authors nuts for all sorts of New Age whackiness. Moreschi ^Talk 19:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Though we should expand the article and elaborate on what radionics is, how it's said to work, It's history, etc. This can all be done without giving any weight to the idea that it actually works. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in integrating into this article RS of all kinds, please inform or post sources of scientific consensus (reflected via reliable sources) in one POV or other. Please provide RS of scientific background or reputable scientific publications. Thank you ℒibrarian2 19:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. However, reliable sources do not include the Radionics Association website and self-published/published-by ridiculous-publishing-houses books written by known advocates of pseudoscience. Such things are not acceptable, and why people were trying to include them earlier today, I don't know. At Wikipedia, we are not especially interested in the non-notable views of cranks. Moreschi ^Talk 19:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Librarian2 mentioned this page incidentally to me, so I poked my nose in without telling her in advance. On the general issue, the question is how extensive it should be--whether a detailed description (and refutation) , or as brief a mention as possible. Personally, I think the age was getting to me much too long--it also seemed unbalanced, but hats because the refutations sections were barely begun. the present version looks about right to me, but I'm not intending to work on it. I think Wikidudeman has it about right.

RSs for this sort of article have been frequently discussed at the RS noticeboard. The general feeling is that self published stuff & even web sites can be used for limited purposes--to show what the authors of those sources believe. Its perfectly reasonable to take a description of how it is supposed to work from the books or sites of the people who devised it. Moreschi, you may be a little too restrictive--though the original state, listing every tract that has every been written supporting this, was totally absurd. We are certainly not restricted to peer-reviewed sources in describing popular beliefs. What is not acceptable is to take any possibly disputable facts from there, like whether it actually cures anyone. "According to X, " quote" is a nice way of doing it. Let them speak for themselves; if the other views are given, sensible people will decide on their own. Our job is just to provide the information, not tell them what to believe. DGG (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but we must be careful to avoid issues of undue weight. Describe the history all we may in "According to X form", but are here to reflect academic consensus, and the fact that this is pseudoscience simply cannot be allowed to elegantly slip under the radar. Moreschi ^Talk 20:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that discussing the history of Radionics would be giving weight to the idea that it works? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I'm simply saying that while discussing the history is the right thing to do, and a great thing, you have to be careful how you do it and where you get your sources from. Moreschi ^Talk 20:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

People also need to bear in mind that WP:Fringe deals with subjects in science (etc), not subjects in popular culture.

Fringe has no bearing whatsoever on something in subjects such as fiction (it can be as stupid and as fringe as you like, but a notable movie about it is still a movie) and only minimal bearing on them in history (the history of research into bnk shold be treated as valid history, even if the research isn't valid research). It also has limited bearing on a subject in urban myth (a myth has to be a real and verifiable/notable myth. Which is a seperate issue from whether the myth is describing true events). - perfectblue 09:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hasting acting unnecessary

I have carefully studied the edits that started the edit war of today. Please do the same calmly. Jennylen started to add content and sources from a POV and when she was ready at that started to add content and sources from the other POV. Her edits were interrupted by the reverts and the rest is history. I cannot avoid to wonder, if there has not been such a haste in reverting her edits, wouldn't she have arrived to a balanced NPOV with as much sources and content from one POV as from the opposite. Then could haave been time for cleaning up any citations not very reliable and the article could be now richer and better. Please do take the time to see the chain of edits, it is very clear what she was doing until the edit war started. Her last edits were adding university press sources showing radionics as not accepted and pseudoscientific, sources that no one of you gentlemen have produced before. I think you acted on haste and error. ℒibrarian2 20:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not the way it works, that's not how we treat fringe theories. We don't list junk books and cite them all as entirely reliable references, and then perhaps start citing reliable stuff when someone complains. Apart from maybe when using the form "X says Y", we don't cite junk books and websites at all, and treat we do treat this topic for exactly what is is: pseudoscientific bollocks. Jennylen's edits were a classic example of violating Wikipedia:Undue weight. Moreschi ^Talk 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, your response certainly establishes clearly not only that you missed totally my point but also that you are acting under extreme POV as shown by your choice of words. Thank you for your opinion ℒibrarian2 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. Why don't we drop the sanctimoniousness, and all go and read Wikipedia:Fringe theories together? The results might prove enlightening. Perhaps after that Wikipedia:Undue weight? Moreschi ^Talk 21:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There are ways to get around aggressive and impatient edit warring: JennyLen should put an {{inuse}} template on the article while she works, and if more time is needed, use {{Underconstruction}}. She should also put a {{POV}} on the article till she is finished balancing. The other editors should let her work.

Editors wishing to treat any subject whatsoever as "bollocks" need to refrain from editing till they read WP:NPOV. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, another one? Is there an invisible noticeboard? Look, junk science is just that: junk science. It's bollocks. Nothing wrong with that. Radionics is a fringe theory, obviously (and verifiably), and as such falls under the editing guidelines at Wikipedia:Fringe theories, which obliges us to treat fringe as fringe. And if Jennylen is going to violate this guideline and Wikipedia:Undue weight, she is going to get reverted until sanity re-emerges. Moreschi ^Talk 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Blocks on articles are not meant for dealing with trolls, but with regular editors who have gotten a bit out of hand. I suggest that this article be unblocked, and if the trolls go beyond 3RR, we report.

Such agressive POV editing only draws other editors who wish to maintain NPOV. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Be careful who you label troll, dear sir. It is not wise to fling such accusations around for no good reason. I would be interested in your definitions of NPOV and reliable sources, since I highly suspect we are operating under somewhat different criteria. Moreschi ^Talk 21:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Trolling refers to your tone, use of the word "bollocks," your edit summaries in your contributions history, aggressive reverts, and incivility- just what's on this page is enough. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We have a very good essay: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. Something else for people to read? I could also say that advocacy of pseudoscience, canvassing, templating the regulars, calling established editors trolls, and violations of our policies on undue weight and fringe theories constitute trolling, but would I be right? No. And would that help as regards producing a version of the article on which we can all agree? No. Argument ad hominem is completely pointless. It will get us nowhere. Perhaps we could discuss the content rather than each other? Sounds much more interesting. Moreschi ^Talk 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

When I referred to trolls, I was not talking to Moreschi, but to the other editors here, and to the admins. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Who were you calling a "Troll"? Me? Adam Cuerden? Please elaborate. BTW, Moreschi is an admin. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Is he? Sure doesn't act like one. But, as you have been the first to point out, being an admin is not really that big a deal. Why do you bring it up here? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You brought it up. BTW, You didn't answer my question. Who were you calling a "Troll"? Me? Adam Cuerden? Please elaborate. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Those who edit warred and POV pushed on the article, not letting JennyLen finish her editing. I didn't know he was an admin. However, I will say that, though I don't want to be an admin, if I were one I would feel duty bound to act in a neutral and NPOV way, and not to be inflammatory. DGG is a good example of how an admin should act, so far as I have seen. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

DGG isn't involved in the dispute. How can you compare the actions of DGG to those of other administrators on this page when DGG wasn't previously involved? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

See below. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

something to start the history with

from the british radionic association or whatever. History of Radionics lets write it up, then worry about pseudoscience labels. The reliable sources for the research will show the quakery. let's get the history of the fringe written first. --Rocksanddirt 22:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

that's the way to go. My personal view, is that when something is truly pseudoscience in the most obvious way--why bother arguing about labels? The true believers will continue to believe, but no sensible person will be fooled. It is safe to rely on the fact that an objective treatment will always make clear that nonsense is nonsense. DGG (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We need to do a history. But we don't need to simply abandon JennyLen's contribution, which obviously took a long time, has sources, and seems to go a long way toward explaining the subject. I think we need to start with that as a base, and expand or prune it where necessary, including the addition of more history. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New material

The following is the new material which JennyLen tried to insert. Please don't edit it, but say what you think needs to be done with it below:

---

Background

Description of Radionics Radionics is a form of alternative healing premised on the existence of a subtle energy field surrounding each living being, and a non-physical connection and unity (sometimes called the "universal mind" ) between living beings that is indifferent to the physical space between them. It holds that this field:

"... sustains and vitalises it [the life of the being concerned]. If the field is weakened, for example by stress or pollution, then eventually the physical body also becomes weak, leaving it susceptible to illness. The aim of radionics is to identify the weaknesses in this field and to correct them, and thereby alleviate or prevent physical or emotional dis-ease. This subtle field cannot be accessed using our conventional senses."

Radionics practitioners use techniques similar to dowsing to focus their own senses, identify weaknesses in the "energy field" of the patient or target and assist in the selection of healing remedies and frequencies to be set in the instruments for broadcasting the "healing energy". These techniques include both physical instruments (as the designed by Abrahams or by George de la Warr} as well as the use of an item "unique to the individual", usually a sample of hair, as "witness" or "tuning" aids for the practitioner may find the correct settings in his/her instrument.

The description of these fields and related connections as universal and non-physical also means that according to its practitioners, Radionics is not directed at the physical body but at the subtle energy fields, "those fields undetected by the normal senses but which support life and are essential for its functioning. The patient can be with the practitioner or many miles away - distance is irrelevant".

Conceptual precedents Subtle energy fields and non-physical linkages between people are proposed in various other healing and spiritual traditions. Auras are one common description of personal energy fields, spiritual healing and energy healing are other alternative medicine practices of healing by means of energy, and both modern extrasensory perception concepts and ancient mystical and nondual concepts are supportive of the idea of a universal non-physical connection or "all living beings being one".

The idea of subtle energy is also paralleled by terms in other fields, including orgone, odic force and qi. Similar to the subtle energy fields proposed in radionics, these concepts were unrecognized by the scientific establishment until the appearance of quantum theory in Physics. At present time, subtle energy healing is still not recognized by medical science, nevertheless, the emerging field of quantum biology is trying to apply or to understand the principles of quantum mechanics when applied to living beings.

Radionics and healing Radionics as a healing technique is based on the idea that all life and matter contains subtle energy fields with unique frequencies which radionics seeks to "tune in" for re-establishing their natural balance.

According to this idea, a healthy person will have certain 'energy frequencies' patterns when healthy which will show different patterns when a health disorders is present. Radionic devices are purported to diagnose and restore persons to health by applying healing frequencies to balance out the 'discordant' frequencies of sickness. Radionics borrows the word frequency to describe an imputed energy type and differs from usual meanings since it does not correspond to any property of the known forms of energy.

Types of radionic devices

The first complete report on Radionics was compiled by Edward Wriothesley Russell in his book "Report on Radionics" , Neville Spearman, First Edition 1973, ISBN 85435-002-0(1983). There he describes that Dr.Albert Abrams was who first proposed the method and created the first radionic instruments. George de la Warr, founder of Delawarr Laboratories was who first made an intensive use and development of radionic devices, standarising some of these.

An study conducted in 1925 by Sir Thomas Horder and a committee, resulted in the publication of "The Horder Report", one of the initial supporting studies of radionics in Great Britain.

There are two main types of radionic devices. The first is simply an analysis tool, that is said to determine what is wrong with the subject being diagnosed. The second is a treatment tool used to attempt to heal or cure the subject of whatever is thought to ail them. These two may also be combined into a single device.

The typical radionics analysis device has a metal cup referred to as the well, a large collection of knobs numbered 0 to 9 on each dial, and a metal plate covered by a thin rubber layer referred to as the stick plate. A cable may also be used to attach a sensor plate to the body of the person receiving treatment.

A radionics treatment device has all the base components of the analysis device, plus additional wells to be used to hold the material used to heal the subject. It may also have a power cord that is said to provide a base frequency to send the healing rate into the patient.

Section references:

Device usage

To operate a typical radionic device, a sample material is placed in the well, such as hair, blood, saliva, or urine. The knobs act as a counter and are used to estimate the frequency at which the sample is thought to be vibrating. The stick plate is operated by the analyst who drags a finger across this plate while adjusting the knobs.

As the knobs are adjusted, there is a point where their finger sticks more firmly to the plate than at any other settings. This is referred to as "getting the stick." This point of greatest sticking is the setting for that knob. The analyst then moves on to adjusting the next knob to the point of greatest stick, and so on, until all knobs have been adjusted. The final readout across all knobs is described as the frequency for the sample material.

This method of operation is highly subjective, since it depends on an analyst experienced with moving the finger across the stick plate and interpreting what the sensations mean.

To broadcast the alleged healing energy to the patient, the practicioner either selects a previously known rate (or frequency) for healing the ailment or places, in the same well (or in a secondary plate), a remedy. The concept is that when the rate of the patient or target is combined with the remedy's frequency or the remedy itself and broadcasted, the subtle energy field of the patient will be re-balanced through entrainment.

Section references:

Assessment of devices Radionic devices do not accord with the theories of biology or medicine. At present time, the merging field of quantum biology is attempting to understand how new concepts in quantum theory can be applied to the understanding of non-locality or remote action.

The effect of radionics is said to lie in the rates or frequencies it measures and then feeds back to the patient. Although a healing remedy can be directly used to feed healing frequencies back into the patient, the substance is not actually needed if its frequency rate is known.

Internally, a radionic device is very simple, and form a conductive electrical circuit with no power supply . In radionics, the wiring in the analysis device is simply used to conduct the frequencies from the well, across the measurement knobs, and to the stick plate. No actual electrical current flows. A radionic device does not use or need electric power, though a power cord may be provided so that the power line can provide a "reference rate". Some devices may use electrical power and/or a radiofrequency amplifier for enhancing the broadcasting capabilities of the device.

Criticism The main criticism of the method is that it bases its alleged effects on an unproven subtle energy field.[1] The structural simplicity of its instruments as well as the subjective "sensitivity" of the practicioners, both of basic importance in the quality and quantity of the results,[2] at present time can only be explained through paranormal (ESP) theories which themselves are not accepted by mainstream scientists.

The use of terminology commonly used in Physics as "frequency", "subtle energy", "entrainment" and the use of instrumentation resembling electronic or electrical circuits is sometimes inducing the acceptance of this method as scientifically based, however, these are loaned terms to describe an unproven theory of operation, with no relation whatsoever with the same terms used in current Physics. The instruments themselves are solely conductive circuits with no circulating electrical or other power which may be measured by conventional instrumentation.

Diagnosis through Radionics is not scientifically validated.

Inserted on talk page by ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

---

An example of bad faith

Not happy with his self-protection of this article, Adam Cuerden has decided to go after many of my edits destroying much of my work ie

• Vegetarianism‎ ‎
• George de la Warr
• Spontaneous remission
• Quantum biology
• Phytoestrogens

I thought it is fair that you all know with the kind of editor you are dealing Jenny^Len☤ 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

None of this is relevant to this article right here. If you have some sort of complaint against him then this isn't the place for it. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, think we will be able to deal with this, JennyLen. Don't worry. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A good place to take it up is on the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; and other editors on this page might benefit from reviewing Please do not bite the newcomers when communicating with JennyLen, since she's only been editing for a short time. It's always good to be helpful and informative, so we can help new editors become familiar with how things work around here. Dreadstar † 20:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If one user is targeting the work of another, isn't that Wikistalking? - perfectblue 09:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality review

I was asked to review this page from a neutral outside viewpoint.

When I checked the article, it didn't have the science side fully written and cited, but did have the description mostly written. Hence there was a balance issue. It also wasn't well structured. It missed clean coverage of some subtopics, and showed all the signs of typical edit war residue -- a number of direct quotes rather than characterization, and so on.

An encyclopedia article does summarize. It does condense things to give a description and characterization, and often uses source material to form this, rather than just quoting. Following some work, the first half is pulled roughly into shape, but no work has been done yet to bring in new material. Hence it still has omissions and balance issues.

Following this, over the last day or so, user:Librarian2 and I have talked briefly. I'm copying the dialog to date below so that it's more easily found.

On user_talk:FT2 Please kindly observe that the definition in the lead of the article doesn't match the definition given at the citation's source. The definition previously changed by user jennylen was a direct citation of the same source fully matching. Also, empty sections or subsections seem to be unnecessary, they could be created when there is some content there but at this time would be logic to delete the empty sections. (I have no opinion on the article itself but I was verifying its sources when the edit war started). ℒibrarian2 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC) On User_talk:Librarian2 Hi, An interesting comment on the definition of radionics, thank you! I didn't think an article like that would lead to thinking about the philosophy of topic descriptions, but there you go :) You asked why the definition of Radionics in the intro isn't the same as that in the source cited. The reason they differ is not accidental. I think it's a combination of 3 things: The article definition is not just the voice of its proponents, it has to be neutral. Thus to take an extreme example, we wouldn't start an article on a deluded person by saying "X was Jesus Christ", even if that was their own claim, and the claim of their cult. We might say "X believes..." or "According to the Church, X is...." but the article intro itself always has to be a balanced description. The article intro description is, in fact, a good neutral description of Radionics, that fits both science and its proponents views. That a matter is cited to a source does not mean its a direct quote from that source. It means the facts stated can be verified via that source. According to the article on the Radionics website, Radionics is "Radionics is a method of sending precisely defined healing energy to people, animals or plants, no matter where they are in the world". The problem is, that according to scientific viewpoints, it isn't. The scientific viewpoint (as yet unsourced I notice) is broadly, "Radionics does nothing, since there isn't any evidence of such healing energy, nor evidence if it existed which is unproven that it can be sent this way." So the introduction can't just quote the article. It could quote it, if it also quoted other views, but that robs the introduction of its place as a short summary of the subject. Instead, the intro words it this way: "Radionics is a body of ideas and practice concerning the concept of subtle energy and its transmission from one person to another (or any living being, including agriculture and horticulture) for healing purposes." This represents it accurately, and the facts in it can be verified from the source cited. It neither says it's true or untrue, nor does it push a given viewpoint over another: It's a subject that concerns the idea of subtle energies. It's a set of ideas and methods and techniques, as opposed to (say) a scientific subject. It concerns the transmission of these energies for healing purposes. Its subjects for healing are people and all living beings, including agriculture and horticulture. All of these sum up radionics to a lay-person; all can be verified from that page. Hope this explains why it's worded as it is, Thanks for asking, it made me think how to explain it! FT2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by FT2 (talk • contribs) 08:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC) On user_talk:FT2 Thank you for the kind and most complete explanation. ℒibrarian2 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) On the topic of that article, have you noticed the latest message from jennylen at the talk page? can that editor make what he is doing? ℒibrarian2 10:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Re-reading your kind explanation of the introduction (I did like it and it is very instructive) I found a slight error which may produce some misunderstanding. Reading about it and consulting some people involved in that kind of practice, it appears that the so called "energy" is not sent from person to target but from a device to the target, the practicioner is not a healer but he operates an apparatus which is assumed to do the healing. I don't know if I am enough clear, the matter is that the definition says "sent from person to person" and that is not the case, there is always an instrument used for sending such "energy" or "rate" tuned in the apparatus, the practicioner has no healing intervention whatsoever beyond to operate the instrument. The ESP connection they claim is related with the diagnostic side in which the operator is "sensible" to the reactions of the apparatus, however there is never a direct connection or "subtle" link between the practicioner and the target. I don't know if my explanation is clear, let me know ℒibrarian2 10:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the above here:

Can you check your sources again, carefully. Here's the relevant cite for that:

"The instrument serves to focus the thoughts of the practitioner and many types are in use, varying in complexity from computerised machines to quite simple devices. Once the weaknesses in the subtle energy field have been identified specific healing treatments ... are conveyed to the patient with the aid of the instrument." [3]

This strongly suggests to me that in Radionics, the practitioner is seen as the source of the asserted "healing energies"; the machine is merely an aid to their focus, and employment. (Or the healing energies come from some undescribed "elsewhere", or the "universal mind", and are "focussed" by the thoughts/energies of the practitioner with the machine aiding them to do so effectively, it's not 100% clear.) This was the souce for the statement "sent from person to person". The statement that "the practitioner has no healing intervention whatsoever" appears to differ from the description on that page.

Maybe it should say "... with the aid of an instrument" though, since this seems an central aspect? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

My name is Brad Morris, I studied and worked at the Delawarr Labs in Oxfordshire UK in 1983/1984/1985. I was working with James(Bell) and Diana (De la Warr) as bosses, some other people and the happy company of Diana's cat. I am not the least interested in your little battlefield here, however I see one genuine question and I will answer it: Radionic healing is from the instrument not from the operator, the operator just need to be sensible enough to find the right rate, but in essence it is an instrumental methodology not a healer capacity. As you know (or should know if you are editing this article), Delawarr was the center for Radionics, so here you have it from the source. You are welcome to ratify this through bibliography and with any radionics operator. Brad Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.191.101 (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to have outside help on such topics. Since Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, I wonder if you could point me to a source - a book, or a well-known radionics website perhaps - that clarifies this. (Online would be the easiest if available.) As it stands, and I'm sure you will understand the reasons, we're obliged to base articles upon verifiable sources than can be widely checked, and at present the main online source I have clearly describes the instrument as an "aid" to focussing the thoughts of the practitioner, or conveying healing energies to the subject. WOuld this mean the UK Radionics Association are in error? I haven't seen radionics described as an "intrumental methodology" so if that's the case it would be interesting and I'd like to use that too. The UK's radionics site at present, seems to suggest strongly the device is an aid or helper; the real healing is done otherhow, but it doesn't say much more. If that's mistaken then I'm confused. Any quotes and citations on this that you can point to (or copy to this page) which might be useful in the article, would be appreciated. Thanks again for the help! FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Fishbein says it's an instrumental method. I'll recheck him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got some places you can look : http://home.earthlink.net/~gkuepper/index/Radionics.htm http://www.radionics.org/ http://www.copenlabs.com/whatsradionics.htm None too good in my view. Books are dozens. One of the things that tells you that it is instrumental is that it is applied to agriculture: "Perhaps the most difficult aspect of radionics to credit is its ability to vitalize the subtle field of a plant or animal by remote broadcast— thus improving its performance. The procedure is likened to that of a radio broadcast, with radionic instrumentation serving as the sending station. Using a properly-obtained specimen to achieve the proper resonance, a broadcast may be "targeted" to the subject. Just as music and speech rides the carrier wave from a radio station to a tuned receiver, vitalizing or healing energy is believed to be transported to crop or livestock." You can also read http://www.creativespirit.net/learners/AUCulminatingProjects/CP-Cox.pdf that has some good explanations and bibliography. There are many scams about radionics mixed with healers and also many who just make bad copies of the instruments and sell those with explanations just made up from bits and pieces and very confusing. Usually who tells you that the radionic operator sends a healing wave himself is knowing very few about radionics and certainly not its principle of operation Brad Morris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.128.191.101 (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced

The article has been marked unsourced. I think all the material which is unsourced should be taken out, and put back in when sources are found. Fair warning (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I made the citation requests specific, so that if not sourced they can be deleted....... ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I think we can source at least some of it to Fishbein. Give me a day to difg out that book. (this is a version from a while back - changes at some point had deleted the definiton oif, you know, what it is...) Adam Cuerden ^talk 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! It actually looks like most of it could be sourced, it's just that as you know these articles sit around for ages without sources. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry to take so long, by the way, I've been kind of ill with flu, and getting a bit distracted. Adam Cuerden ^talk 08:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubious

The museum of quackery page is not to be taken as fact, as it is compiled of radionics bafflegab advertisement from the early 20th century. Someone appears to have mistaken this information a reliable source regarding drug vibrations, which is an incorrect use of this source. Antelan ^talk 11:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishbein

Can we please discuss this reference here like civilized editors instead of merely through edit summaries? Fishbein appears to be a reliable source that 1927 radionics could be accurately described as quackery, and I can find no indication that the minor more modern variants differ in any significant wise. Since medicine has rejected the practice, the due weight policy requires that it be so characterized by the article. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Fishbein was the longtime editor-in-chief of JAMA and an authoritative source on quackery. His book is thus a reliable source for the description. The fact that radionics has been classed as a form of quackery or health fraud is a central aspect of the topic and thus requires mention in the lead, per WP:LEAD. It might be preferable to say it "has been classed" as pseudoscience and quackery, rather than "is classed", since Fishbein's book is 80 years old, but otherwise I agree with Eldereft. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I scanned the Fishbein book on Google Books, and there's nothing about radionics in it. If you're going to start using books that have nothing about the subject in question as sources, taking it on faith that they "appear to be a reliable source", then...well, hang on to your hats, boys, because all bets are off! --Look, radionics surely IS quackery, as you and I or any other rational person might refer to it in conversation. But "quackery" is a loaded pejorative, with fairly inflammatory connotations, that many people find offensive, myself included. It's all well and good to have Helwig say "most physicians dismiss radionics as quackery" (which is certainly not scientific or definitive, just the man's impression of the situation), and that's appropriate for the discussion. The word "quackery" appears there, and if you want it included in the page, there it is. But it really has no place in the main editorial thrust of the conversation, is all I'm saying.Jeff-swanson (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Google books doesn't always show the full book. The printed version certainly DOES discuss Radionics at length. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Well, crap. How retarded of me. Thanks for setting me straight. I still think it's pejorative and that "pseudoscience" is really enough -- but when you get right down to it I guess there's no real advantage to having debunked and valueless pseudoscience even an elided "quackery" closer to some goof taking it seriously. Good mixing it up with you folks. Jeff-swanson (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blog

Removed the Mishlove blog as a source. It has at least one bad error, and is anyway a blog. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Mediation or discussion

Shoemaker, I think we better either discuss things here, or go to mediation. It seems to me that some of your edits have been wrong, especially this one where you take out an essential fact. No, we are not appealing to authority, we are saying the position he had- a very essential fact indeed if people are to understand things. I won't push this, as you may be correct in the form of it. However, it would help your case.

The second issue is that you used it to revert in your WTA, "supposed." This is not NPOV. If you can find a way which you like and which is also NPOV, that will be fine.

The third issue is that you are removing what seems to me to be a reliable source, twice, without discussion and after I asked you not to in an edit summary. I can see that you may have gotten a 404 error the first time, but the second time I had fixed it, and indicated I had. Please put the source back in. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It would be appropriate todiscuss it in the Abram Adams article. It ISN'T appropriate here, particularly as you leave out the fact from the source you cite that he was evidently asked to resign over his quackery. Stop making threats against other editors. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Come again? Threats??? Whatever, I modified what I said above about his being a professor, and also to make it less confrontational. I realize it is to be discussed at his article, obviously a POV piece indeed. You leave out the issue of the POV word "supposed." I could settle for the word "intended," or some such, but "supposed" is a WTA for a reason. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, editing your comments after someone else has responded to them is discouraged; see Wikipedia:Talk#Own_comments. Your softening of your comments, while doubtless well-intended, robs Shoemaker's response of its context. If you feel something needs to be retracted then a strikethrough is better. Basil "Basil" Fawlty (talk) 05:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, or don't see how I could have, I don't know why I didn't get a edit conflict on it. One would think I'd have seen his text below if it were there. However, my original version had no threats in it, so the context is not really that different. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the changes. It's much easier to sort this out if you're not threatening to escalate this immediately. =)

Basically, this article is on Radionics, and does not really discuss Abrams. That Abrams was a professor is true (though you first said he was a professor at Stanford, which isn't quite true, and which led me to Emmanuel Abrams, a much more recent professor of pathology who was at at Stanford proper. If we want to discuss Abrams, we can do that. But to say he was a professor, and not say that the quackery likely cost him his professorship is to only give one side of the story. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Likewise "in an attempt to" is probably more misleading than supposedly - when almost all evidence is against something working, it's very easy to give undue weight to the extreme minority position. Also "supposedly" isn't a word to avoid. Supposed is, but connotation matters, and I think Supposed has harsher connotations. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right on that. The original blog source had it wrong as I remember it. Also, you're right about not giving titles, as that, so far as I can determine, would only be done in his bio. If mediation were really threatening it would have been a threat, yeah, but I don't see it as thratening. Rather, I see it as something which saves time, as usually things just go on and on in these articles. It's a de-escalation, not escalation.

About "supposedly" versus "supposed," I personally can't hear the difference. While I completely agree that it would be "more misleading," I think we still need to be more NPOV. For example, "A quack medicine trick to bilk people of money via a technomagical routine" would be accurate. But we have the limitation of not using tone to bias the facts we present, and the facts we present are, in truth, enough of a condemnation. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

References which can be used

There is a very good link here with many books which can be used for references for this article on radionics

http://www.se-5.com/bib.html 86.10.119.131 (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is garbage

This article is heavily biased and uses ridicule and slander to sway public opinion about the subject matter. What happened to neutrality? Obviously this was written by some hardcore materialist that presents a very closed minded orthodox view of Radionics. I'd like to see the instances where ridicule is used removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.8.148.208 (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)