Icy claim that water has memory

Olaf/QII said:
I find the entire argument to be quite a S---T----R------E----T----C---H when applied to my studies. just take the results for what they are
Click to expand...

No. Can't be done.

I'll leave you to think about one line from the link I gave you and I might reply if you show some attempt at understanding its importance in the context of the studies you cite;

"you cannot properly say whether a given hypothesis is to be accepted, based on a particular experimental result, unless you also consider the prior probability that the hypothesis is correct"
 
Olaf/QII said:
Other physicists who witnessed and examined Rey's work are confidant that the results are authentic.

they were quoted as saying, "It is trustworthy physics".
Click to expand...
You persist in citing these mysterious "other physicists." It appears to be a comment by Raphael Visocekas selectively quoted from a New Scientist article. Who were the other physicists who have put their names to this statement? What studies has Visocekas carried out? Has he repeated Rey's results? Has he published his results?
 
Olaf/QII said:
I completely disagree. Other physicists who witnessed and examined Rey's work are confidant that the results are authentic.

Which physicists? Names, please!

they were quoted as saying, "It is trustworthy physics".

Even if the protocol was impeccable, which it isn't, "trustworthy" does not mean "true". However, I suspect what they said was that spectrometry is trustworthy physics. Which it is. It is alse very sensitive physics, so sensitive that even tiny contaminations can throw off the results.

Skeptics and pseudoskeptics do not be afraid of this type of research.

Who is a afraid? Who do you call a pseudoskeptic?


BSM,

Concerning bayesian....

I find the entire argument to be quite a S---T----R------E----T----C---H when applied to my studies.

YOUR studies? Which are those?

just take the results for what they are and do not use this odd reasoning to distract you from what really occurs in these in vitro experiments (histamine/basophil, etc)

We do take them for what they are: Single, non repeated experiments with flawed protocols.


BSM and others,

Do not be like Galileo Galilei's persecuters. Try to keep an open mind as difficult as it may be. --and i can state that from experience for once i too attacked SAD's (serially agitated...)

Ahh, so YOU are the pseudoskeptic. Thanks ofr clearing that up.
Click to expand...

Hans
 
JamesM said:
Chemists don't do blinding at all under most circumstances, as it's completely unnecessary.

However, if the implications of your research was to overturn the last two hundred years of chemistry, then I would say that blinding was the least you could do. If I had been a referee for this paper, I would have rejected it.

".
Click to expand...

Yes, but this research does NOT overturn ANYTHING!

Chemistry as we know it still exists. however, these studies have definitely added something new to our knowledge base.
 
Olaf/QII said:
Yes, but this research does NOT overturn ANYTHING!
Click to expand...
Yes it does. Chemical theory rules some phenomena out. This is one of them.
 
JamesM said:
Yes it does. Chemical theory rules some phenomena out. This is one of them.
Click to expand...

Brace yourself JamesM.

science continues to evolve.

http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html

Kuhn's most renown work is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which he wrote while a graduate student in theoretical physics at Harvard.

Kuhn argued that science is not a steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge. Instead, science is "a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions"

contrary to popular conception, typical scientists are not objective and independent thinkers. Rather, they are conservative individuals who accept what they have been taught and apply their knowledge to solving the problems that their theories dictate


The Kuhnian argument that a scientific community is defined by its allegiance to a single paradigm has especially resonated throughout
 
JamesM said:
In your last post you said:

Now you're speaking of Kuhn and scientific revolution. I don't see how it can be both.
Click to expand...

i see your point; however, my post of kuhn is not meant to imply that chemistry will be overturned.
i posted it to show the stodginess of many scientists.

Oxford physicist David Deutsch (parallel universes...) has written about this subject and referenced kuhn many times.

when it comes to the science of SADs it is most appropriate.
 
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817

Claims do not come much more controversial than the idea that water might retain a memory of substances once dissolved in it. The notion is central to homeopathy, which treats patients with samples so dilute they are unlikely to contain a single molecule of the active compound, but it is generally ridiculed by scientists.

Holding such a heretical view famously cost one of France's top allergy researchers, Jacques Benveniste, his funding, labs and reputation after his findings were discredited in 1988.

Yet a paper is about to be published in the reputable journal Physica A claiming to show that even though they should be identical, the structure of hydrogen bonds in pure water is very different from that in homeopathic dilutions of salt solutions. Could it be time to take the "memory" of water seriously?
 
Donks said:
Do you think posting that repetedly will make it any more convincing? Find some independent replication.
Click to expand...

Hey come on - give them a chance that article is dated "11 June 2003", that's only just over two years ago! You can’t expect instant replication.

It's a different thing entirely but look at something like homeopathy, that's been waiting for experimental replication for over 200 years and still people are waiting.

I think you need to develop some patience... ;)
 
Darat said:
Hey come on - give them a chance that article is dated "11 June 2003", that's only just over two years ago! You can’t expect instant replication.

It's a different thing entirely but look at something like homeopathy, that's been waiting for experimental replication for over 200 years and still people are waiting.

I think you need to develop some patience... ;)
Click to expand...
According to Xanta the original study was done in 99, and has been replicated twice since.
 
Donks said:
According to Xanta the original study was done in 99, and has been replicated twice since.
Click to expand...

Pah - so its 6 years, still doesn’t beat the unrelated 200 year wait for replication of homeopathy! :)
 
Darat said:
Pah - so its 6 years, still doesn’t beat the unrelated 200 year wait for replication of homeopathy! :)
Click to expand...
Well, maybe homeopaths will take a page out of the craniosacral therapy research booklet and use only subjects that "respond" to homeopathy. They could do the homeo-version and have them in the treatment group, and have regular responsive folk in the control group.
 
Olaf/QII said:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817

Claims do not come much more controversial than the idea that water might retain a memory of substances once dissolved in it. The notion is central to homeopathy, which treats patients with samples so dilute they are unlikely to contain a single molecule of the active compound, but it is generally ridiculed by scientists.

Holding such a heretical view famously cost one of France's top allergy researchers, Jacques Benveniste, his funding, labs and reputation after his findings were discredited in 1988.

Yet a paper is about to be published in the reputable journal Physica A claiming to show that even though they should be identical, the structure of hydrogen bonds in pure water is very different from that in homeopathic dilutions of salt solutions. Could it be time to take the "memory" of water seriously?
Click to expand...
How long does the memory of the water last?
Since the water used in homeopathy preparations has been here for 4.5 billion years, it has dissolved an enormous quantity of substances and the beating of ocean waves against rocks certainly makes a very good succussion. Why does the water not keep the memory of those various substances?
 
Oaf...

I notice you completely ignored my earlier post, so I'll restate it here.

Even assuming water memory exists, lasts long enough to be useful, and works to mimic the properties of the original substance...

1. How does a mimicry of the substance work better than the substance itself? Why not cut out the middle man?

2. How does this validate any of the primary treatment aspects fo homeopathy, such as 'like cures like'...a concept that is demonstrably false?

3. Why does a mimicry of the original substance, down to the point of identical thermoluminescence, have radically different properties than the original?

While this might be an interesting scientific result, if verified and actually true, it seems to only cause more problems with the homeopathic model of treatment. This does not validate homeopathy in any way, nor even remove problems with the ideas. IT simply trades one set of problems (there's no substance) for another (two substances with identical properites act differently).
 
Huntsman said:
Oaf...

I notice you completely ignored my earlier post, so I'll restate it here.

Even assuming water memory exists, lasts long enough to be useful, and works to mimic the properties of the original substance...

1. How does a mimicry of the substance work better than the substance itself? Why not cut out the middle man?

2. How does this validate any of the primary treatment aspects fo homeopathy, such as 'like cures like'...a concept that is demonstrably false?

3. Why does a mimicry of the original substance, down to the point of identical thermoluminescence, have radically different properties than the original?

While this might be an interesting scientific result, if verified and actually true, it seems to only cause more problems with the homeopathic model of treatment. This does not validate homeopathy in any way, nor even remove problems with the ideas. IT simply trades one set of problems (there's no substance) for another (two substances with identical properites act differently).
Click to expand...


1. I really don't know.

2. demonstrably false? .... what evidence do you have?

3. radically different? .....i don't think that is the actual case. i believe that cinchona gives a roughly similar symptom set whether in crude quantities or SAD quantities.

===================

i believe that there exists research showing that a polar solution might be able to capture a disolved solute (see some of the evidence in my sig). the evidence does need to be repeated, i agree with this.

at the very least a skeptic can not rule it out.

however, a pseudo-skeptic can rule it out.

which are you?
 
Olaf/QII said:
i believe that cinchona gives a roughly similar symptom set whether in crude quantities or SAD quantities.
Click to expand...
Xanta, we know that you believe rather a lot of things, probably up to and including the tooth fairy, but how about some evidence for that statement?

I've already posted the links to show that Hahnemann's originally-reported symptomas for cinchona bark were exclusive to him, probably a hypersensitivity reaction, and are not recorded in anyone else taking the stuff. I have also posted links to the abstracts of the only five published studies where the authors tried to demonstrate that 30C preparations of homoeopathic substances gave any discernible symptoms at all in groups of "provers" - all negative, of course. Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about, you've viciously attacked these studies in the past and (vainly) tried to discredit them.

Nobody has ever published a controlled "proving" of cinchona at any dilution at all. So how about less of the blind assertions that every piece of homoeopathic folklore you happen to hear is true, and a bit more evidence?

Rolfe.
 
Olaf/QII said:
2. demonstrably false? .... what evidence do you have?
Click to expand...
Case 1:
Patient presents with symptoms of Mercury Poisoning. Mercury produces the same set of symptoms. Give patient Mercury...like does not cure like.

Case 2:
Patient presents with Rattlesnake bite. Snake venom produces the same symptoms. Give patient more venom...like does not cure like.

You can continue this all day. Give more flu virus to a flu sufferer, give more dust to a coal miner, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum.

3. radically different? .....i don't think that is the actual case. i believe that cinchona gives a roughly similar symptom set whether in crude quantities or SAD quantities.
Click to expand...
What you think is really irrelevant. See my answer to your second statement. Somehow, the act of diluting and succusing is supposed to "reverse" the effects of the substance. Yet, water memory would mean that the effects would be closer to identical when compared with the original substance. This research provides yet another nail in the homeopathic coffin*.

*--A homeopathic coffin is a 6' by 3' by 18" frame made of coat hangers and suspended 6 feet in the air. I hear it can cure death. Really!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom