[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

The test is double blind because:

First Blind

TK, when taking photos, did not know whether samples were from treated bottles or control bottles.

Second Blind
The 100 judges did not know whether the photos were of the treated bottles or control bottles.

---
It wasn't double blind because someone knew which bottles were which before the final analysis of the data. I double-checked to make sure what I described to you in an earlier post was an actual double blind test--where the bottles are randomized and nobody who touches them in any way knows which are which.
Blind experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now DR and GH knew, but they have nothing to do with the process of taking the photos or rating them.

doesn't matter

However, DR did raise in his own paper the possibility that his own intentions and GH's intentions may have affected the water samples in some way (that is, the effect is not due, or not exclusively due to, to the effect of the 1,000 praying people in Tokyo, but possibly to DR's and GK's own intentions).

yes, it was clear from the paper that they were assuming their conclusion

Frankly, I can't see why you would worry about it, since your own position is that the thoughts of no one, (whether DR or GH or TK or ME or the group of praying people or the 100 judges or you or me) would be able to affect the molecular structure of the water samples.

I don't like liars and scam artists. Masaru Emoto has made himself wealthy bilking the credulous.

Neverthelss, DR does seem to be concerned about it. DR has mentioned that he plans to do a triple blind experiment, to see if the results can still be replicated; see the last line of this article.

read my link above. There's really no such thing as a "triple blind experiment." It's just more flim-flam

My guess is that for the triple blind experiment, another person will be asked to place two bottles in Room X, and two bottles in Room Y, and that person will be asked to do the labelling later, but the person won't be told at all that two bottles will be prayed over.

four bottles but not 100. It would be too hard to control the trick.

Good point, Mrs Cogan. If I had not previously watched the footage of how the photography is done, I would have made the same point as you.

Basically, during the thaw process, the crystals start forming out of nothing (ie they are very, very small, and they start growing). First they have a simple structure, just a few specks really, and as they grow. . .

Therefore you've just gotta keep taking photos periodically, until the crystal stops growing. Then you'll submit the last photo you took of it.

page 2 of the paper said "If a crystal was observed at the apex (not all ice drops formed discernable crystals,) T.K. photograph it . . . "

In other words, he ignored some of the data.

Each water crystal is grown out of one petri dish, where you only need a little water. So, yes, 4 bottles is enough for a few hundred petri dishes, maybe more than a thousand.

no, a few drops from each bottle is fine. I'm talking about 50 prayed-for bottles and 50 not prayed for and take a few drops out of each of 100 bottles. It makes the results much easier to randomize and it gives you a wider sample base. The bigger the sample base the more reliable the test.

Possibly. However, your point is irrelevant in the present context because all four bottles used the same kind of water.

maybe, maybe not.

Sure, Mrs Cogan. Now you quickly go think of new reasons to substantiate your claims above, then let me know, ok?

done. The experiment was NOT double blind. Any real scientist would have rejected the study on that basis alone. It evaded peer review by getting published in a flim-flam rag that publishes all kinds of silly nonsense.