Water Crystals respond to prayer and emotion

Originally posted by etshrtslr
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.

Here's the thing. When a scientist has been discredited as many times as Dr. Dean Radin, Dr, Emoto, Gary Schwartz, and many of the other names you list, it's understandable that we are going to be skeptical of this new study. And I would hardly qualify Explore as a scientific journal.

But here are some links with some very valid criticisms of the scientific methodologies used by two of the scientists you've mentioned:

Dean Radin
Gary Shwartz

Originally posted by etshrtslr
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.

I can't say I've made up my mind 100%, but I'm fairly certain that this interpretation of quantum physics is incorrect. If someone came up to me and said "I've read a study that proves gravity doesn't exist", I think most people would be pretty dubious, but would take a look at what they're claiming. And then if the scientists proving that gravity doesn't exist had previously written papers along those lines which had been widely discredited as junk science, I think we'd be even more dubious.

I thought part of denying ignorance was remaining skeptical until solid evidence has been provided. But I guess since I'm not willing to pay $10 to support a "scientific" journal that has published junk science in the past, I must be ignorant, right?

Originally posted by etshrtslr
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.

Well, I hope you've read the links I provided you. The intention experiments done have been shown to be bad science, just like Mr. Emotos work. Gary Schwartz is as bad a scientist as Emoto is. How many times am I expected to fall for their cries of wolf, that science must be rewritten, before I simply disregard everything they say until it's verified by a scientist who's not willing to compromise his scientific integrity to prove his theories?

Originally posted by etshrtslr
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

I hate to break it to you, but there's been a lot of investigation into the claims of Dr. Emoto and his friends. To say it's being condemned without investigation is ignorant. They've been making these claims for years, and have yet to provide any reproducible proof. So being dubious of their claims isn't tantamount to being a close minded bigot like you imply, it's just common sense. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Originally posted by Athenion


But here are some links with some very valid criticisms of the scientific methodologies used by two of the scientists you've mentioned:

Dean Radin
Gary Shwartz

Classic skeptics tactic when you cant argue the science attack the scientist.


Here is Schwartz education and background.

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.

Here is what he had to say about Hymans hit piece.

As I document below, Hyman resorts to (consciously and / or unconsciously) selectively ignoring important information that is inconsistent with his personal beliefs.
Selective ignoring of facts is not acceptable in science. It reflects a bias that obviates the purpose of research and disallows new discoveries.

link

Dean Radins Bio:

I graduated with a degree in electrical engineering, magna cum laude and with senior honors, from the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), a masters in electrical engineering from the University of Illinois (Champaign-Urbana), and a PhD in psychology, also from the University of Illinois.

link

Unless you are willing to post your education and credentials as a scientist, I think Ill stick with the science of Radin and Schwartz.

You can ridicule and make fun of them all you like but that does not change the recent (within the last 9 months) results of their experiments. And there are many more "intention" experiments in process and being planned by labs all over the world.

Oh and BTW the links you posted have nothing to do with the "intention" experiment conducted by Radin and Schwartz.

[edit on 19-6-2007 by etshrtslr]

First of all, we can't attack the science on this particular claim, because no one wants to pay $10 to read more junk science.

And if you'd read the links I sent, you'd see they don't attack the scientist, they attack their scientific methodologies. For example:

First, I will list here the major types of flaws in the experiments described in his first four reports (I will deal with the fifth report separately below):

1. Inappropriate control comparisons
2. Inadequate precautions against fraud and sensory leakage
3. Reliance on non-standardized, untested dependent variables
4. Failure to use double-blind procedures
5. Inadequate "blinding" even in what he calls "single blind" experiments
6. Failure to independently check on facts the sitters endorsed as true
7. Use of plausibility arguments to substitute for actual controls

The preceding list refers to defects in the conduct of the experiments and in the gathering of the data. Other very serious problems appear in the way Schwartz interprets and presents the results of his research. These include:

8. The confusion of exploratory with confirmatory findings
9. The calculation of conditional probabilities that are inappropriate and grossly misleading
10. Creating non-falsifiable outcomes by reinterpreting failures as successes
11. Inflating significance levels by failing to adjust for multiple testing and by treating unplanned comparisons as if they were planned.

Until these "scientists" clean up their act, use good scientific methodlogy, and publish their findings for all to see, not as a money making venture for the gullible, no one is going to take them seriously.

But please, continue to act as though its our fault these scientists have lied so many times in the past, and thus have zero crediblity. it's funny to me that you get angry because I'm "attacking the scientist not the science", and then you follow that with the statement

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Unless you are willing to post your education and credentials as a scientist, I think Ill stick with the science of Radin and Schwartz.

How's that not an attack on me personally, rather than "the science"? Not only that, but it's totally unrelated, as you should be attacking the scientists who wrote the articles debunking their science which I linked to, not me. Youre debate methodology is really quite telling...

Another thought. If you have an account that allows you access to the report, why not post it here for all of us to read and analyze?

reply to post by The Cyfre


the fact that beauty is subjective was my first reaction to claims, but if beauty is defined in terms of geometry and/or symmetry (or “our perception of geometry and symmetry" for all you super sceptics) then its perhaps justified to say that the coherent symmetrical pattern are the 'beautiful' patterns and the mish-mash's are the 'ugly' ones. they can circumvent the 'subjective beauty' argument just by calling them coherent or incoherent structures as opposed to beautiful or ugly, that’s not the issue. The issue is simply the experimental methodology. Do the experiment properly (double-blind, randomised control trial as described above) then we can believe it! no one should believe it before that happens BOTTOM LINE!

Please tell as about paranormal bihaveure on human brain, in every day life on someone, and did somebody can made provocate anntypicale behaveure for someone else.

Have any scientists done an experiment to disprove Emoto's theory? It seems a simple enough experiment to carry out.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Were this true, then you'd have to rewrite physics.

Were this true, then it can obviously coexist with the ideas of physics. Your statement here makes little sense, and your vitriol even less.

Originally posted by stumason
Could it not just have something to do with the sound produced by the different kinds of music/prayer etc?

it doesn't seem to have much detail on exactly how the experiment was conducted. It just says "we froze some water and exposed it too this".. well, HOW did you do it? Where is your control? How do we know the experiment was uniform and fair?

Need more detail really, although interesting...

In the beginning there was the word and the word gives light ....

what is the right lightword for prayer and what resonates through us when the word is spoken, must be true humbleness or concrete power.

reply to post by FlyersFan


read the book, "hidden messages in water" it will change your life.

They mentioned this on a recent ancient aliens episode. And although ancient aliens is mostly a comedy approach, if this research is true it would be incredible. Are there any updates on confirming or debunking this?