Water Crystals respond to prayer and emotion

Originally posted by wigit
It could be you're right about water responding to thoughts. A similar study has been done on plants. There are many sceptical about this but also many who have experimented and swear proof to it. Plants are about 99% water aren't they? Look up the BACKSTER EFFECT.

Backster was very like Emoto in that he did crap science with no controls, no blinding and no repeatability.

He was academically raped by his peers. No well-crafted test has ever been able to reproduce his results.

So you're right in one sense, it is a very good corollary to Emoto in that Backster was just as poor a scientist, and made very similar mistakes.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Backster was very like Emoto in that he did crap science with no controls, no blinding and no repeatability.

He was academically raped by his peers. No well-crafted test has ever been able to reproduce his results.

So you're right in one sense, it is a very good corollary to Emoto in that Backster was just as poor a scientist, and made very similar mistakes.

Radin and Emoto did a double blind test results were published in Explore the Journal of Science and Healing. They are currently working on a triple blind study.

The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (p = 0.001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.

Citation: Radin, D. I., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. (2006). Explore, September/October 2006, Vol. 2, No. 5.

www.explorejournal.com...

[edit on 11-6-2007 by etshrtslr]

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Radin and Emoto did a double blind test results were published in Explore the Journal of Science and Healing. They are currently working on a triple blind study.

The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (p = 0.001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.

Citation: Radin, D. I., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. (2006). Explore, September/October 2006, Vol. 2, No. 5.

www.explorejournal.com...

[edit on 11-6-2007 by etshrtslr]

Not withstanding that Explore is sort of a "new age" publication, it sounds interesting. I'll have to read it. thanks for the reference.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

Not withstanding that Explore is sort of a "new age" publication, it sounds interesting. I'll have to read it. thanks for the reference.

Your welcome and I would love to hear your opinions on it after you check it out.

On a side note check out their Editorial Board, there are a lot of people from respected universities. I prefer to think they are more open minded than "new age."

www.explorejournal.com...

Nice work etshrtslr, I remembered reading this thread when it began and was disgusted by some of the responses. Arrogant, egotistical remarks from apparrently educated people, I call it intellectual tunnel vision. It runs rampant in the science community.

I was going to post that link here, I only recently discovered it but you beat me too it by a long shot.

Dean Radin has also replicated Mr Emoto's work
www.schwartzreportconference.com...

Perhaps the "scientists" here can chime back in with thier thoughts?
Do we rewrite the laws of physics now?

Originally posted by squiz
Dean Radin has also replicated Mr Emoto's work
www.schwartzreportconference.com...

Perhaps the "scientists" here can chime back in with thier thoughts?
Do we rewrite the laws of physics now?

Not unless it's been replicated several times by someone a bit less devoted to this sort of thing.

Otherwise you get replications that are like having the Tobacco Institute validating studies that show smoking is safe, or CSPI "discovering" that meat is bad for you.

Originally posted by squiz
Nice work etshrtslr, I remembered reading this thread when it began and was disgusted by some of the responses. Arrogant, egotistical remarks from apparrently educated people, I call it intellectual tunnel vision. It runs rampant in the science community.

...

Perhaps the "scientists" here can chime back in with thier thoughts?
Do we rewrite the laws of physics now?

I'm sorry you feel people wer ebeing arrogant and egotistical, and perhaps I'm one of those you feel was acting that way. it certainly wasn't my intention to do so. But the fact remains, Mr. Emoto's work was done using bad science, and there's a reason it hasn't been reproducible using an actual double blind study.

I'm not trying to say it's a bad idea, I'm saying no one in the scientific community is going to take Mr. Emoto's theries seriously, so long as he continues to ignore basic scientific process to assure his results aren't tampered with, or effected by his own agenda and philosophy.

As much as I'd like to use a test tube to try and prove my religion is the correct one, I wouldn't want to cheat to do so. Doing that would just make the rest of the scientific community have a strong distaste for my ideas and any other scientific experiments I would try.

So show us a scientist who's not agenda driven who can reproduce Emoto's results using legitimate scientific process, and if you can, well, the ideas presented will become much more intruiging to me. But for now they remain in the realm of religious belief and scientific misrepresentation.

Originally posted by squiz

Perhaps the "scientists" here can chime back in with thier thoughts?
Do we rewrite the laws of physics now?

Nice link....Its nice to know well credentialed scientist are working on these type phenomenon without regard for what their peers might think.

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Albert Einstein

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

I think the water experiments clearly fall under the "mysterious". And those that dont understand this then their eyes are truly closed.

Originally posted by Athenion
[

But the fact remains, Mr. Emoto's work was done using bad science, and there's a reason it hasn't been reproducible using an actual double blind study.

Did you read the link I posted a few post up?
There was a double blind study done and results were produced and reported in a scientific publication. They are currently working on a triple blind study.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

Originally posted by Athenion
[

But the fact remains, Mr. Emoto's work was done using bad science, and there's a reason it hasn't been reproducible using an actual double blind study.

Did you read the link I posted a few post up?
There was a double blind study done and results were produced and reported in a scientific publication. They are currently working on a triple blind study.

It's definitely on my list, along with writing up an article on Renaissance memory techniques for Byrd.

From your description, it sounds like Emoto may have done the experiment correctly at long last. It will be interesting to see how he set up his protocol.

However, the next step is to get several someone elses to replicate it, and not in the sense that you get PETA to replicate a study by CSPI, if you know what I mean. It would be more believable if someone were to replicate it while working from the other direction, attempting to falsify it instead of duplicate it, and failing.

Blondlot was able to repeatedly replicate his detection of N-rays, for example, as were Le Bon and Audollet. It wasn't until other labs tried to replicate it and failed, that nearly a year later N-rays went into the trash. One replication by the experiment's originator isn't the signal for tossing physics books.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
[ It would be more believable if someone were to replicate it while working from the other direction, attempting to falsify it instead of duplicate it, and failing.

I agree I would love to see this done but given the fact that these are "intention" experiments would not somebody that has the "intention" to "falsify" effect the outcome of the experiment?

There are more of these "intention" experiments going on with things other than water. Lynne McTaggart and Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona just recently conducted this experiment and are having it published in a scientific journal so they were not able to provide all the information.

Dr. Schwartz picks up the story here: ‘After the ten minute intention period, the leaves were placed in the light-tight biophoton imaging system (a super-cooled digital CCD camera system) and photographed for two hours. The results of the glowing intention were so strong that they could readily seen in the digital biophoton images; in addition, the increased biophoton effect was highly statistically significant.

link

Just so everyone knows Dr. Schwartz is a real scientist here are his credentials.

GARY E. SCHWARTZ, Ph.D., Director of the VERITAS Research Program, is a professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery at the University of Arizona and director of its Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health and its Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science. After receiving his doctorate from Harvard University, he served as a professor of psychology and psychiatry at Yale University, director of the Yale Psychophysiology Center, and co-director of the Yale Behavioral Medicine Clinic. Dr. Schwartz has published more than four hundred scientific papers, edited eleven academic books, is the author of The Afterlife Experiments, The G.O.D. Experiments, and The Truth About Medium, and is the co-author of The Living Energy Universe.

link

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Did you read the link I posted a few post up?
There was a double blind study done and results were produced and reported in a scientific publication. They are currently working on a triple blind study.

I read the link, and scanned the abstracts, but unfortunately in order to read the actual study done by these Doctors to see how they did them, you have to register and pay $10 to view it. If someone's willing to do that and post the article for all to read, then I'd be happy to consider the evidence, but I'm afriad for now I'm with Mr. Bedlam, that until a scientist not connected to Mr. Emoto is able to reproduce his experiments, and then actually publish them for other scientists to review their work, it's going to stay in the realm of science fantasy, not fact.

Originally posted by etshrtslr

I agree I would love to see this done but given the fact that these are "intention" experiments would not somebody that has the "intention" to "falsify" effect the outcome of the experiment?

It's the best verification you could want. If the experiment is properly crafted, the person doing the study won't be directly involved anyway. The slaves/grad students need not and should not know the entire experiment other than their focused part of it, at least for this sort of thing.

Again, if all you have doing studies on eating meat are PETA, HSUS and CSPI, you are going to get predictable results.

There are more of these "intention" experiments going on with things other than water. Lynne McTaggart and Dr. Gary Schwartz of the University of Arizona just recently conducted this experiment and are having it published in a scientific journal so they were not able to provide all the information.

Again, it sounds interesting but...

Just so everyone knows Dr. Schwartz is a real scientist here are his credentials.

GARY E. SCHWARTZ, Ph.D., Director of the VERITAS Research Program, is a professor of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry, and Surgery...Biofield Science....is the author of The Afterlife Experiments, The G.O.D. Experiments, and The Truth About Medium, and is the co-author of The Living Energy Universe.

I dunno, it sounds an awful lot like Ghostbusters to me. On one hand he sounds really impressive, then you hear what he writes about. "biofield science"? What's a biofield? Why do you think that exists? What objective proof is there of them? Are they replicable? Are they redundant, and are really just some other already known energy? Is it another Blondlot example, where well-intentioned people of good repute are just fooling themselves? I think biofields (a nicer name for "aura") fall more into the category of N-rays than X-rays.

I hear a lot of people talk about it, then when you try to get them to pony up to a definition, they start talking about "putative" fields which closely approximates to "imaginary" as far as I'm concerned.

Wouldn't it be interesting to see it turn out to be real? But everything he's writing about in his CV you posted seems to be, well, less provable than most things.

He sort of reminds me of Rauscher-Bise. Used to be respected, went off to chase Atlantis, and now is into fairies and crystals.

Originally posted by Athenion
[I'm with Mr. Bedlam, that until a scientist not connected to Mr. Emoto is able to reproduce his experiments, and then actually publish them for other scientists to review their work, it's going to stay in the realm of science fantasy, not fact.

Mr Bedlam is a scientist and he wants evidence as all of us do. That being said just because you do not want to pony up the 10 bucks does not discount what ever evidence there might be.

As I stated in my previous post there are other ongoing "intention" experiments taking place outside of Dr. Emoto lets see the results of these before we pass judgement.

The initial results of these other experiments do seem to confirm that "intention" does seem to have an effect on "stuff".

Originally posted by Athenion

I read the link, and scanned the abstracts, but unfortunately in order to read the actual study done by these Doctors to see how they did them, you have to register and pay $10 to view it.

Sadly, while we have some Elsevier subscriptions, none of them carry a link to Explore. A lot of times EBSCO or JSTOR or someone will pick up articles of this type, but for whatever reason, there just aren't any full text links I can find of Explore articles at all.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
That being said just because you do not want to pony up the 10 bucks does not discount what ever evidence there might be.

As I stated in my previous post there are other ongoing "intention" experiments taking place outside of Dr. Emoto lets see the results of these before we pass judgement.

And my point is, if someone is making outragious claims like intentions affect the formation of water crystals, then the onus is on them to provide the proof. So far, we have a terrible scientific study that has been thuroughly discredited by anyone who has an even cursory understanding of the scientific process, and now you're new claim that a double blind study was completed, but in order to see the evidence, we have to "pony up $10". Sorry if I'm a little hesitent to throw away money like that, but it seems to me if they had legitimately proven what you claim they have, then it would be all over the news, or the very least, scientific journals, not on a site clearly out to make money by posting pseudoscience.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but don't get spikey with me simply because I don't want to pay money to read something that I'm extremely doubtful will prove anything other than Mr. Emoto continues to be a fraud. The onus is on you to provide evidence of your claims. So far, none of held any water.

And I'm sorry, but do you know what I do for a living? So why the condescention and assumption that I'm not a trained scientist? And even if I'm not, why does that invalidate my opinion? Does all progress in science and mathematics come from trained scientists?

Originally posted by Athenion

And my point is, if someone is making outragious claims like intentions affect the formation of water crystals, then the onus is on them to provide the proof. So far, we have a terrible scientific study that has been thuroughly discredited by anyone who has an even cursory understanding of the scientific process, and now you're new claim that a double blind study was completed,

Its not my claim its Dr. Dean Radins claim and Dr. Emotos claim. It was published in a scientific journal.To my knowledge know one has discredited the latest results. If you want to see the results pony up the money, dont claim its discredited when you have not even read it.

Just for information here is a partial list of the editorial board of the journal.

Jonathan Davidson MD, Duke University,James N. Dillard MD, DC, LAc Columbia University, Russell H. Greenfield MD, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Ted Kaptchuk OMD, Harvard University, Fredi Kronenberg PhD, Columbia University, Eric Leschowitz MD, Harvard Medical School

link

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but don't get spikey with me simply because I don't want to pay money to read something that I'm extremely doubtful will prove anything other than Mr. Emoto continues to be a fraud. The onus is on you to provide evidence of your claims. So far, none of held any water.

You do sound harsh because you have not even read the latest results and you are discrediting the results of the latest experiment before you have even read them. Talk about denying ignorance, you have already made up you mind before even reading the results.

And I'm sorry, but do you know what I do for a living?

No I dont, are you a scientist and do you have a PhD?

So why the condescention and assumption that I'm not a trained scientist? And even if I'm not, why does that invalidate my opinion? Does all progress in science and mathematics come from trained scientists?

Im not assuming anything, all I have done is provided links to the latest published study in a scientific journal. And no I do not think all scientific progress comes from trained scientist but your previous statements make that last statement sound a bit contradictory.

I have also provided an additional link to an "intention" experiment done in conjunction with the University of Arizona and Dr. Gary Schwartz that have also produced positive results.

So before you start calling all this pseudoscience lets see if the results in future experiments match the results of the current experiments. But to make a decision before the experiments are even done is like my signature says below.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." -- Albert Einstein

etshrtslr:

I was going to say that I bet you would like "Amazing and Wonderful Mind Machines You Can Build" by G. Harry Stine, we have one in the share library here at work.

But then I got a look at what they're going for on Amazon. Holy crap! I'm thinking of selling the one we got and going to Tahiti. I think we paid 15 bucks for it. We should have bought a case or two, we could retire.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
etshrtslr:

I was going to say that I bet you would like "Amazing and Wonderful Mind Machines You Can Build" by G. Harry Stine, we have one in the share library here at work.

But then I got a look at what they're going for on Amazon. Holy crap! I'm thinking of selling the one we got and going to Tahiti. I think we paid 15 bucks for it. We should have bought a case or two, we could retire.

Do you recommend it? I just read a few reviews on Amazon and it sounds right up my ally.You should know by now that Im into the controversial interpretation of quantum physics and consciousness.

Not for 300 bucks I don't.

It's interesting in a spacey sort of way, and he writes well without over-hyping it most of the time. But it's worth 15 bucks, not 250-300.

I'm totally shocked at the price, I figured it would be one of those that you could get used for 2 bucks.