emoto water crystals

[wolfgang]

emoto water crystals, dr emoto, water crystals, emoto's crystals, emoto water, water crytal photographs, emoto and fraud, emoto and the occult

I dont know. Maybe water crystals can be effected and grow differently.

Too bad this emoto guy didn't help make it more believable for me now that I look at that write up on him.

[Brutha]

I don't think that the article you linked to is particulary well written, but the fact is that there is no third party repetition of his experiments.

Even when you don't like Randy (who challenged Emoto, who denied), there are still a lot of other respected scientists out there who could oversight an experiment like this.

[Acting Like Godot]

Oh, you didn't read the other thread, huh.

Emoto's experiment was replicated by Dean Radin in 2006 under double-blind conditions. Click here and you can read the actual paper itself, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

[Brutha]

Even when the "The Journal of Science and Healing" considers itself peer-reviewed, the people who review there are probably also parapsychologists.
In addition most scientists won't consider a Journal on Healing as scientific.

Then Emoto is one of the authors of that journal article, so you can't really consider that article as independent from him.

Dean Radin is also one of the people behind "What the Bleep do we know", which means that he probably isn't respected in the scientific community.

[Acting Like Godot]

What? You have no criticism of the experiment itself, but only of the character and reputation of the people who did it?

[The David]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

What? You have no criticism of the experiment itself, but only of the character and reputation of the people who did it?

Are we disputing the reality of Emoto's findings, or the scientific opinion of them? If it is the latter, Brutha has a point.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Oh, you didn't read the other thread, huh.

Emoto's experiment was replicated by Dean Radin in 2006 under double-blind conditions. Click here and you can read the actual paper itself, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Actually I have read the other thread too. It was sort of a synchonicity that I ran into the Emoto bashing web page and almost posted a referance in that other long thread to this thread but that other thread wasn't about Emoto.

Thing is I tend to think our mind or vibe can effect things like water and it's frustrating to not find something blatantly clear about it. And I do appriciate your posts of info on this and thorough scrutiny. I'll check out the Dean Radin stuff soon. (Is he involved with the Noetic Sciences group?)

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by The David

Are we disputing the reality of Emoto's findings, or the scientific opinion of them? If it is the latter, Brutha has a point.

I, as the OP, wanted this thread to cover the findings that it's possible thoughts can effect water's crystals. I like that idea that it's possible. It does seem that Emoto didn't do it right (and believes some far out stuff that makes it hard to see his work as valid, in my mind) but maybe Radin did the experiments better.

[Acting Like Godot]

Brutha's very bright. I know she can see the point.

Originally Posted by Brutha

Even when the "The Journal of Science and Healing" considers itself peer-reviewed, the people who review there are probably also parapsychologists.

Substitute with a statement like:

"Even when the Journal of Nuclear Physics considers itself peer-reviewed, the people who review there are are probably also nuclear physicists."

or a statement like:

"Even when the Journal of Medical Science considers itself peer-reviewed, the people who review there are are probably also doctors."

And you see the problem. The argument goes like this:

"The paranormal is paranormal, therefore the paranormal is fake"

Or:

"Scientists who research the paranormal are unreliable because they research the paranormal".

... and you can see why the argument is just not satisfactory.

[Brutha]

Brutha's very bright. I know she can see the point.

And Acting Like Godot is bright enough that she mistakes me for a female.

"Scientists who research the paranormal are unreliable because they research the paranormal".

No, someone who researches the paranormal is not necessarly a parapsychologist. There are also skeptics that research the paranormal.

There is no real reason not to publish results like this which are about studying water in the Journal like "Water Research".

What? You have no criticism of the experiment itself, but only of the character and reputation of the people who did it?

Yes, everybody could claim that they produced a miracle.
There is no reason not to set up the experiment and let a few sceptics check it out.
Repetition of experiments by independent third party's is a key feature in science.

[Acting Like Godot]

That's right, Brutha.

So far, no scientist has managed to refute or falsify Masaru Emoto's hypothesis.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Brutha

There is no reason not to set up the experiment and let a few sceptics check it out.

What makes you think that Dean Radin was not the skeptic in this case?

[Brutha]

What makes you think that Dean Radin was not the skeptic in this case?

For one he appeared in "What the Bleep do we know" where the water crystal study was taken as fact (the film was made 2004).

Then the word "skeptic" (in the way I used it) refers to people who have certain beliefs like the word "Christian" also refers to certain beliefs a person holds.
Someone who beliefs in Remote Healing certainly is no skeptic.

[Acting Like Godot]

This is really a cute little synchronicity, following our discussion.

I just visited Dean Radin's blog, and his second latest post is boldly entitled: "
Why I Am Not A Skeptic".

Before you say, "Aha!" you may wish to read the article. Anyway Dean's blog is always quite an interesting place to visit (unfortunately he does not post frequently).