bad thoughts make water bad

[Zep]

I'm confused. I thought that Emoto used proper procedure in his tests. He used a distilled bottle of water. Put a drop onto 50 different plates. Froze them. Took a photo of each individual drop. Unfroze them. Then had one blessed by a monk, or another given thoughts of love or kindness, and the rest were not touched or had though directed to them. Then they were re-frozen, and again had up close pictures taken of each one.

Could someone please explain the errors with this procedure or provide more information on what is wrong with his study?

The answer lies in a question: Why are no snowflakes identical?

 

[Zep]

I'm with you on this one Animus. I think that Emoto's tests are a great way of showing that not only DOES the process work, but HOW the process works.

As for the class doing a test of their own, I'll have to say this; The point of this experiment is that what people think can effect the water as it is forming into ice crystals... If you are all convinced that it WON'T WORK, then that is what you will get. It sounds religous but it isn't. It all boils down to science. The point is that Emoto got results because he did it correctly(we should seek to replicate his test with more scrutiny, to verify his results in repeated tests or find out why there were apparent results in the first place). I think that most of the people in here are too focused on the negative aspects of this to give it a fair try.

When this experiment doesn't work it won't be a surprise to me. If it was lead by people who truly were unbiased to the possible results, and focused their MINDS with the intention necessary for the results to occur, then we could move past this "disbelief."

Can't any of you see a possible scientific explanation that PROVES Dr. Emoto's theories ?

Read your own explanation for efficacy carefully - it's the old "skeptical thoughts cancel psychic vibrations" one in yet another form. Which has long since been shown to be twaddle.

Emoto's procedures were panned right from the start as being so uncontrolled as to be useless. Put simply, a process that can produce random results is repeated...and it produces random results (duh!). Some of these results are then selectively claimed as being "important" based on criteria selected at the time. So do the concepts "data-mining" and "subjective evaluation" mean anything?

 

[Normal Dude]

I think that Emoto's tests are a great way of showing that not only DOES the process work, but HOW the process works.

Really? How does it work then? One simple experiment shows the mechanics of how a near miraculous discovery in physics works? Which forces are work on the molcules of water? What are the intermolecular forces involved? What's the equation(s)? Showing whether it works or not is one thing. Showing HOW it works is considerably more work and effort.

When this experiment doesn't work it won't be a surprise to me. If it was lead by people who truly were unbiased to the possible results, and focused their MINDS with the intention necessary for the results to occur, then we could move past this "disbelief."

So any failure can be characterized as not believing enough, regardless of the controls in place. Sounds like this is no longer science. What if a skeptic administered the test but a believer did the actual "thinking/believing". Would that be acceptable, or would negative vibes ruin the experiment?

Can't any of you see a possible scientific explanation that PROVES Dr. Emoto's theories ?

No, not really. Please enlighten me as to the possible mechanics by which this takes place. Or at least why you think this is possible.

 

[Paulhoff]

Something about the findings of Dr Emoto have always rung true with me. Just to verbalize what side I'm on. I think that the thoughts of those present during the experiment do effect the experiment; in this case the thoughts of the scientist effect the shape of the ice crystals.

Aren't there experiments where this has been proven with "light" as well ?

You're funny.

Paul

 

[lionking]

Why am I not surprised? I raised the issue of what the teacher told my daughter's class with the Principal, who gave me the impression that it was a very petty thing to raise, while still agreeing to look into it. She rang back to tell me that the teacher actually said "some people believe that thoughts can effect water etc" rather than state it as fact (as if this made it ok - many 11year-olds treat everything teachers tell them as facts) and that anyway there is some support for this position (Dr Emoto, who I didn't know about before starting this thread), and that just because something was labelled alternative it didn't mean it wasn't a valid thing to teach.
I now give up. It's my daughter's last year at this school and one or more of our children have attended this school for 22 years in a row, and I have been generally satisfied with their primary education.
The defensiveness of the Principal's response, however, leads me to think that I have put the school on notice and there will be less nonsense taught.

 

[athon]

Lionking, it's one of those suck it up moments, I'm afraid. I come across it regularly in education. Teach your kid how to think critically and hope that they'll become a force of influence in years to come.

Athon

 

[Zep]

Why am I not surprised? I raised the issue of what the teacher told my daughter's class with the Principal, who gave me the impression that it was a very petty thing to raise, while still agreeing to look into it. She rang back to tell me that the teacher actually said "some people believe that thoughts can effect water etc" rather than state it as fact (as if this made it ok - many 11year-olds treat everything teachers tell them as facts) and that anyway there is some support for this position (Dr Emoto, who I didn't know about before starting this thread), and that just because something was labelled alternative it didn't mean it wasn't a valid thing to teach.
I now give up. It's my daughter's last year at this school and one or more of our children have attended this school for 22 years in a row, and I have been generally satisfied with their primary education.
The defensiveness of the Principal's response, however, leads me to think that I have put the school on notice and there will be less nonsense taught.

That's a poor attempt by the teacher to excuse herself. It's nothing to do with "labelling" at all. It's to do with teaching children proven science and facts.

She should be asked why she doesn't teach the Earth is flat, and that it is the centre of the universe on the backs of turtles. There's an equal amount of "support" out there for that sort of bilge as there is for Emoto's twaddle. Frankly, she is insulting her profession with that sort of stance.

Incidentally, this is one reason why we withdrew our child from public school at about that age. While the private school she went to was indeed expensive (and a church school), there was none of this sort of nonsense in the science classes.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Incidentally, this is one reason why we withdrew our child from public school at about that age. While the private school she went to was indeed expensive (and a church school), there was none of this sort of nonsense in the science classes.

This also one of the very reasons I home school. Most of the secular private schools in the area, within reasonable distance and cost, are all about the woo. Also why I'm teaching a class on skepticism and critical thinking to a large group of like minded kids and parents. *sigh*

 

[The_Animus]

Really? How does it work then? One simple experiment shows the mechanics of how a near miraculous discovery in physics works? Which forces are work on the molcules of water? What are the intermolecular forces involved? What's the equation(s)? Showing whether it works or not is one thing. Showing HOW it works is considerably more work and effort.

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work. I thought what Emoto found was that all of the regular distilled drops from the same bottle all froze almost exactly the same. It was only after unfreezing them, and having a person direct some sort of thought at the water did it have a different shape upon re-freezing. What is your explanation for this effect?

 

[Normal Dude]

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work. I thought what Emoto found was that all of the regular distilled drops from the same bottle all froze almost exactly the same. It was only after unfreezing them, and having a person direct some sort of thought at the water did it have a different shape upon re-freezing. What is your explanation for this effect?

You've missed my point and maybe the sentence I was responding to. He states that the experiment reveals HOW it works (original emphasis) as well as IF it works.

ETA: I apologize for a Wikipedia link (yuk!), but I'm in the middle of something else and didn't spend too long link hunting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masaru_Emoto

Follow the top link in the External Reading section.

 

[Zep]

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work. I thought what Emoto found was that all of the regular distilled drops from the same bottle all froze almost exactly the same. It was only after unfreezing them, and having a person direct some sort of thought at the water did it have a different shape upon re-freezing. What is your explanation for this effect?

I'll help even further by showing you the correct starting point from ND's link:

Even sympathetic commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls, and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto. Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs. Emoto says that he selects the photos that he wishes for consistency. This is an explicit admission of observer bias.

So much for Emoto and science!

 

[fls]

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work.

But skepticism will not prevent the light from coming on.

Linda

 

[Baron Samedi]

You do not have to know how something works to know that it works. Someone may not know how electricity works, but they can flip a light switch and see it work.

Are you saying that no one knows how electricity works, or only yourself? I somehow thought that there was an entire section of physics that could explain how it works and in quite great detail.

 

[Locknar]

lionking - I could accept that the teacher was misunderstood and said something like "some people believe that thoughts can effect water" line, IF it had been followed with "she/he will make a point to clear up the confusion tomorrow."

Trying to defend alternative teachings and claiming there is support for it is just plain "woo woo".

 

[lionking]

lionking - I could accept that the teacher was misunderstood and said something like "some people believe that thoughts can effect water" line, IF it had been followed with "she/he will make a point to clear up the confusion tomorrow."

Trying to defend alternative teachings and claiming there is support for it is just plain "woo woo".

Agreed, but I think you understand that sometimes it's better not to beat my head against a brick wall and use my remaining energies to fight bigger battles!

 

[Locknar]

Agreed, but I think you understand that sometimes it's better not to beat my head against a brick wall and use my remaining energies to fight bigger battles!

I agree; I'd just keep a watchful eye open....you never know when "woo woo" will strike next.

On a tangent, my son's school requires students to participate in the Science Fair every year....might just have the makings for a interesting project.

 

[Father Dagon]

Not quite. The teacher will embarrass herself.

No, the girl is going to help the teacher emarass herself. (Semantics? Did someone say semantics? I tought just I heard someone say semantics!)

 

[Chimera]

I bet the teacher saw the study talked about in the film "What the Bleep Do We Know?". I seem to remember this "experiment" being mentioned in the movie.

 

[Normal Dude]

A variation of it. I believe Bleep referenced Emoto's crystallization "experiments".

 

[The_Animus]

Zep and Normal Dude: Thank you for that link, that was a good clarificiation of the question I originally raised. I agree then, that is sloppy science. Has anyone repeated his tests but using correct scientific procedure? What were the results?

Are you saying that no one knows how electricity works, or only yourself? I somehow thought that there was an entire section of physics that could explain how it works and in quite great detail.

I hope you are making a joke I simply don't understand lol. No I was using it as an analogy.