21Likes
July 17th, 2013, 10:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAvzsjcBtx8
Hi, I've read that Japanese Scientist Dr.Masaru Emoto Experimented on water and found that that different types of Crystals were formed when water is exposed to a word, picture and emotions?
did blank water sample failed to Produce specific crystals
Did Dr.Emoto's Experiment was accepted?
Does it gave same results when done with same water and word or picture or music
This experiment has never been replicated by anyone under controlled conditions. In fact, Emoto never even performed the "experiment" under anything remotely resembling scientific conditions. It would not be inaccurate to say that it appears that he simply made it all up. In any case, it is yet another crank claim by a crackpot (who is trying to make money off of your gullibility -- check out his website, which offer magic stickers for $10 a sheet, for example), promulgated in online venues and informercial movies like "What the {bleep} do you know?" I recommend reading the following: Masaru Emoto's Wonderful World of Water - Science News - redOrbitOriginally Posted by barathvaj
Don't waste your time on Emoto's nonsense. It'll stunt your mental growth and lighten your wallet.
Last edited by tk421; July 17th, 2013 at 11:39 PM.
Lawks!
This almost makes homeopathy look half reasonable. Which should send up a multitude of red flags in the first place.
Man, and here I thought I was the ultimate water-loving nerd.
Although Dr. Emoto's experiment may require additional proof, I am very much inclined to believe in it, since it seems to be connected to spiritualism and cognition and a lot of interesting things. I wouldn't bluntly say it's nonsense.
And this isn't the first time I heard about this, I first encountered the idea when watching this movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjBB0Cl5K5c
Water is a great mystery, I bet a lot of other things are too.
I would. Hence the move to pseudoscience.
Actually I think the word "additional" is superfluous here.
There is no proof.
What?I am very much inclined to believe in it, since it seems to be connected to spiritualism and cognition and a lot of interesting things.
Because it's connected to spiritualism you're inclined to believe it? WTF?
If you watch crank videos you end up with crank beliefs.And this isn't the first time I heard about this, I first encountered the idea when watching this movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjBB0Cl5K5c
Not really.Water is a great mystery
Yup.I bet a lot of other things are too.
One of those mysteries being: why do people fall for this specious guff?
I just find it interesting that's all, is there a problem in that?Because it's connected to spiritualism you're inclined to believe it? WTF?
This isn't a crank video, this is a top documentary film (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/water-great-mystery/) , if you haven't watched it you shouldn't judge it.If you watch crank videos you end up with crank beliefs.
One of those mysteries being: Why are some people so stubborn and obstinate as to not allow some room for innovative ideas and theories?One of those mysteries being: why do people fall for this specious guff?
You do realize that those experimental evidence are based on observations right? Who's making those observations? Isn't it possible that the observer may affect the observed? How is this 'varying levels of woo'?
You can name a crank video anything you please, but it's still a crank video.This isn't a crank video, this is a top documentary film
Whatever, it's useless arguing with you people.
NOT what you said - I am very much inclined to believe in it, since it seems to be connected to spiritualism and cognition and a lot of interesting things - the "since" indicates that your interest is at least part-predicated on the "spirituality".
Just because it's marketed as a"documentary" doesn't mean it's not woo.This isn't a crank video, this is a top documentary film (Water: The Great Mystery | Top Documentary Films)
And doesn't mean it's accurate.
"Acts outside all physical laws of nature" they're kidding right? (Or amazingly stupid).
I watched enough of it to judge.if you haven't watched it you shouldn't judge it.
You seem to think that classing contrafactual and speculative crap as such isn't "allowing room" for innovative ideas.One of those mysteries being: Why are some people so stubborn and obstinate as to not allow some room for innovative ideas and theories?
Wrong.
The fact that you're educated doesn't imply anything, why are you bringing it up?You mean people with an education who aren't gullible?
'Don't jump into conclusions.' Who said it's crap? You know what, I'm going to do some experiment on this if I get the chance and I'll prove you wrong. We'll see who's right and who's wrong in the future.You seem to think that classing contrafactual and speculative crap as such isn't "allowing room" for innovative ideas.
Because you seem to be a gullible fool. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that you aren't educated, but it's a pretty fair indicator.The fact that you're educated doesn't imply anything, why are you bringing it up?
Maybe your reading is somewhat too selective:
It makes blatantly false claims.You seem to think that classing contrafactual and speculative crap as such isn't "allowing room" for innovative ideas.
I already said I would like to end this argument. Now that I a fool and a person who believes in crap.why are you arguing with me ?
There are people out there who share my views, but you're definitely not.
Yes, they're over on the unexplainedmyteries.com forum, and a bunch of other New Age nut sites.There are people out there who share my views, but you're definitely not.
So what?
Or is it that you find it comforting to have your ridiculous (and incorrect) beliefs shared with other cranks?
Wise people tend to be criticised and laughed at. Please, I beg you continue. You're honoring my name, I appreciate it dearly.
Yes, that's another evident problem.
Despite your (completely unverified 1) claim, you're certainly not displaying any wisdom.
1 Although you have made false claims before...
So do stupid people.Wise people tend to be criticised and laughed at.
Mediocre people laugh at wise people, stupid people laugh at stupid people.
I'm amazed that because of my favoring of some documentary film, I am being accused of being delusional and stupid. What degree of insanity am I dealing with here?
And people who know the facts laugh at those who cling to falsehoods.
Because the "documentary" is wrong. It is not science. It makes false claims. It promotes nonsense.I'm amazed that because of my favoring of some documentary film, I am being accused of being delusional and stupid.
The "documentary" itself is delusional and stupid.
I dunno. Have you considered getting checked out?What degree of insanity am I dealing with here?
You're dealing with folks who require evidence, rather than blindly accepting the claims of some random person. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the required evidence.Mediocre people laugh at wise people, stupid people laugh at stupid people.
I'm amazed that because of my favoring of some documentary film, I am being accused of being delusional and stupid. What degree of insanity am I dealing with here?
As for who laughs at whom, you might want to avoid that argument in future. Wise people also laugh at stupid people, so it's no badge of honor to be laughed at. As Carl Sagan noted,
"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."
Those of a scientific bent do not favor a documentary film for the non-reasons that you do. That's why you're having a difficult time. The gullible always have a tough time when questioned by the non-gullible, especially those who have chosen to call themselves wise.
All that back and forth and yet, WiseMan, you have not presented any evidence for a claim that has never been independently verified.
It seems to me that if you had justifiable cause to accept the conclusions of the experiment, you would present the evidence instead of complaining about the attitudes of Skeptics that ask for Evidence.
I do not understand what further evidence is needed. Those formations of crystals were linked to the emotions of people somehow, what is it that needs further proving? Just because the experiment wasn't performed again doesn't make it wrong, it can only said to require more investigation.
On the sight of the idea that water is affected by our emotions, you call it woo and crank. Who's the one that needs a check up anyways?
If you continue to address me as some psycho that needs treatment, than I will simply ignore you.
Except that there is NO EVIDENCE that this is the case.
Wrong.Just because the experiment wasn't performed again doesn't make it wrong, it can only said to require more investigation.
It needs performing again, and again, in order to show that the conclusion is in fact true.
It is.On the sight of the idea that water is affected by our emotions, you call it woo and crank.
You.Who's the one that needs a check up anyways?
Because that's easier for you to implement than not behaving like a psycho that needs treatment?If you continue to address me as some psycho that needs treatment, than I will simply ignore you.
Then, clearly, you do not have any idea at all how science works.
Wrong. One man claims the crystals were linked to emotions. There are numerous problems with his claims. For example, his results are entirely subjective and he does not use any sort of scientific approach to experimental design.Those formations of crystals were linked to the emotions of people somehow, what is it that needs further proving?
This article is pretty good: Masaru Emoto's Wonderful World of Water - Science News - redOrbit
She also highlights the things that a scientific researcher would have done. Quite a good lesson in the basics of experimental design.Emoto’s popularity is a sad commentary on the scientific illiteracy of our society. His work is a morass of factual errors, misconceptions, misinterpretations, metaphors, and meaningless assertions. He writes in the language of magical thinking and superstition, not of science.
Until you have a mechanism and some scientific evidence that this can occur, it is "woo and crank".On the sight of the idea that water is affected by our emotions, you call it woo and crank.
It does not make it wrong; it makes it dubious.
Further evidence would be showing whether or not emotions are linked to crystals (Whatever that even means) through repeated experiments, showing how they are linked and the probable cause.
Fine, all I want to say is that although this professor's findings might be unreliable at this point, we should still allow the possibility of it being correct. That's all I'm saying.
As forGenius Duck, you ought to be cured of your rude and malicious commenting habit.
Why?
Should we also allow the possibility that Santa Claus is real[1]? Or that the planets are guided in their orbits by invisible winged cherubs?
There is no credible evidence for this idea. It is as close to physically impossible as you can get. Why would anyone believe it?
(And he is not a professor. He is a businessman who made some money and used it to promote his crank beliefs.)
[1] Santa Claus is obviously far more plausible than Emoto's results: millions of people claim to have received presents from, to have seen, or even to be, Santa Claus. As opposed to just one guy saying that some ice crystals are pretty.
Last edited by Strange; July 22nd, 2013 at 10:43 AM. Reason: Footnote
You're getting closer.
What you should be saying is that this "professor's" 1 results ARE unreliable.
As has been pointed out.
I see.we should still allow the possibility of it being correct. That's all I'm saying.
You think that we should allow that something that contradicts known science, that has zero evidence, that has zero rationale, that has zero possible mechanism, that is firmly grounded in specious unscientifc crap, is possibly correct?
The easiest way to "cure" me is to stop posting bullshit.As forGenius Duck, you ought to be cured of your rude and malicious commenting habit.
If you persist in making or supporting stupid claims with no basis in reality I will continue to point out that you are doing so.
1 He's not a professor. Of anything. He has a "medical qualification" from a university of woo.
I don't think treatment would do any good. It's far to late for you to acquire any critical thinking skills, so you'll simply accept anything labeled as a youtube documentary as the gospel.
I have the freedom to accept whatever I want okay? I don't want to convince anyone to believe what I believe at this point, so MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!! I bet your critical thinking skills is so awesome that you do not know when to shut up.I don't think treatment would do any good. It's far to late for you to acquire any critical thinking skills, so you'll simply accept anything labeled as a youtube documentary as the gospel.
If you're posting it in this forum, it is my business. If you don't want anyone to point out what a gullible jerk you are, stop posting like a gullible jerk.so MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!
You can, of course, believe whatever fantasies you want. Just resist the temptation to post about them on science forums.
Of course you have the freedom to believe whatever you want.
That said, we have the freedom -- indeed, the obligation, given the forum in which you have chosen to post -- to point out that your belief has no scientific basis, and is in fact nonsense.
Both Strange and I have posted a link to a well-reasoned article explaining that "Dr." Emoto has not come close to having provided evidence for his claims. In short: He made it up.
To believe in his claims at this point requires active guillibility. Would you accept similarly unsupported claims from a financial advisor ("I have magic beans; give me all your money and I'll quintuple it in a day")? A self-proclaimed "doctor" of who-knows-what ("I have magic beans; give me all your money and I'll cure that brain tumor in a day")?
If you want to believe in BS without being challenged, then all you have to do is not post BS in a science forum. To do otherwise would be...unwise.
Easy!
Very well then.
Speaking as an hydrologist....no, it isn't.
I do hope this short post of yours is not your way of saying "Very well then, if that's what you all think, then I am out of here."
I think you would be surprised to learn how much in common you have with the members who have jumped all over your posts. I believe you and they share a fascination for the world, the universe, nature, life, call it what you will. You are intrigued by the mysteries of it all and wish to know more, to have some of those mysteries uncovered and understood.
Perhaps that is where you and they, at the moment, part company. There is a very successful, thoroughly tested, elegant way of revealing the story behind those mysteries. It is the scientific method. It is a simple method, yet it produces remarkable results. applying aspects of that method to this 'water mystery' shows us it is, as others have said, nonsense.
You may feel that somehow takes away much of the sense of wonder you had. That would be a mistake. Do you really wish to believe in somthing that is nonsense, or do you wish to dicover the underlying truths? I hope it is the latter and that you will hang around, but with a mind more open and critical than up till now.
Cheers
JG
I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel that the more I find out, the more amazing and wonderful - and sometimes mysterious - the world becomes for me.You may feel that somehow takes away much of the sense of wonder you had.
I love that feeling of mysteries and wonders being pulled aside like a curtain to reveal ..... more wonders and mysteries.
| « Steady State Theory | Denis Noble debunking the assumptions of neo-Darwinism » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
