Talk:Law of attraction (New Thought)/Archive 1

message: According to the way the article is currently written, LoA is bullshit. This is not entirely true, since even from a hard science POV, positive thinking and attitude, to which LoA is a close relative, are effective in solving life's problems (regardless of what skeptics' confirmation bias says). This is not mentioned in the article. Critisism section debunks connections to theoretical physics which are not really claimed in the descripton. Perhaps it should be explained that while some scientists draw parallels between new age beliefs and latest theories about the universe, others take it further and make often pseudoscientific claims in attempts to gain credibility for themselves and their packaged for sale ideas. Yes there are people out to make money selling these ideas to public, but it doesn't mean that the idea behind LoA is BS. It has not been proven or disproven whether LoA is simply a confirmation bias. Perhaps it's that and positive thinking, perhaps it's something more that we don't know. It's really a question of metaphysics and spirituality. Speaking of which, ask scientists - many will tell you they are agnostic; ask doctors or better surgeons - many will tell you that God definitely exists. In their mind, the idea of god might have nothing in common with the one Christian right is worshipping. But you simply don't know what you don't know. 69.107.71.8 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half empty is half full 

message: For Isaac Newton's Law of Attraction, see Isaac Newton??????  What's the matter with you people??????
You mean for the New Age Law of Attraction, the title of THIS page should be rewritten.
Based on the results of this page to date, the entire Wikipedia Project is a failure.  Isaac Newton
discovered the Law of Attraction, not some washed-up New Age Gurus.  Get a life, idiots. (unknown)
I've never heard Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation being called the "Law of Attraction". It isn't mentioned in the Newton article. I think that the association of "Law of Attraction" to Newton is a mistake made by people who are unaware of the term "Law of Universal Gravitation" which is associated with Newton. The link from this article to Newton is probably for these people and is not meant to associate this term with Newton. I'd prefer that "Law of Attraction" not be associated with anything scientific. I'd prefer that it instead be associated with the nutjob crackpots that believe in it and promote it. --Rdnzl 21:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse Me 

message: According to Regardie's earlier works, it appears that this article is misleading. By lumping all of these authors into a group based solely upon the moniker, their individual opinions on the matter, specifically whether "like attracts like" or "like repels like" has become ambiguous by this article. Ste4k 07:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be included and referenced then as an earlier and different interpretation than the one that is in common use now. Tyrenius 07:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see full discussion on Articles_for_deletion/Law_of_Attraction Tyrenius 17:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: Wikipedia is not a web directory. See WP:NOT. There are way to many external links in that section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many EL 

message: Another damaging and highly relevant claim against the LoA is what social psychologists have labeled the "Just World Hypothesis." This is the tendency of many to believe that the world must make sense, therefore when bad or good things happen to people, there must be an explanation - i.e. those who suffer brought it on themselves and are to blame, while those who enjoy good fortune earned it. Researchers theorize that we instinctively want the world to be coherent so that our own plans will succeed; an unjust world would threaten our ability to successfully plan, so any data that would argue in favor of an unjust world is rejected. An example is blaming victims of crimes for behavior that supposedly incited the criminal.  
The relevant link in Wikipedia is to Just-world phenomenon.
UsableThought 12:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just World Hypothesis 

message: I think we should request that this page be protected against unregistered user edits due to the continual spam external link additions.--P Todd 20:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can place a request for protection at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection 

message: There is a serious need for this article to have a criticism section - as of now, the article is written too much with a "this theory is likely true and widely accepted" slant.  Now I won't argue that the article doesn't have a raison d'etre, but it's not neutral Observer31 15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: Please do not add original research. To add that material, which I have deleted several times already on these basis, editors wanting that material need to provide a published reliable source that describes Kashmiri shaivism, as having something to do with this purported law. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: Published literature exists describing the "Law of Attraction" and other New Thought concepts aged over 100 years and generally are written to present material as a quasi-scientific type of philosophy/theology.
The New Age movement on the other hand is only about 40 years old and mostly represents a more mystical or magical type of philosophy. New Age concepts have occasionally borrowed from New Thought writings but the reverse is chronologically impossible.
It is an error to equate The Secret, The Law of Attraction or New Thought articles in general as being in the same category as New Age articles.
I am changing the Category of this article from New Age to New Thought.  Low Sea 03:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, what on Earth would New Thought be, and how is it any different from New Age? It actually looks like you may be creating the concept yourself, which would probably go against the No Original Research Wikipedia rule.   May you at least name a source?  "New Thought" does not even have its own article yet... Luis Dantas 16:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Luis, Please do some basic Wikipedia (or even Google) lookup before you make plainly inaccurate statements. The New Thought WP article has been here since 2005 and there is another article on the New Thought Movement (the former being about the philosophy, the latter being about the various religions based on that philosophy). Low Sea 10:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG CATEGORY - New Thought is not the same as New Age