Hoax Museum Archives
Hoax Museum Hall of Fame
|
Hidden Messages in Water
I got an email from Enio asking me: I would like to know your opinion about Masaru Emoto's "Crystal Water Photos".First, some background. Masaru Emoto's book The Hidden Messages in Water is currently #66 in sales rank on Amazon. That means A LOT of people are buying it. Here's the blurb from the cover that pretty much explains what Masaru Emoto and his crystal water photos are all about:
The Hidden Messages in Water is an eye-opening theory showing how water is deeply connected to people's individual and collective consciousness. Drawing from his own research, scientific researcher, healer, and popular lecturer Dr. Masaru Emoto describes the ability of water to absorb, hold, and even retransmit human feelings and emotions. Using high-speed photography, he found that crystals formed in frozen water reveal changes when specific, concentrated thoughts are directed toward it. Music, visual images, words written on paper, and photographs also have an impact on the crystal structure. Emoto theorizes that since water has the ability to receive a wide range of frequencies, it can also reflect the universe in this manner. He found that water from clear springs and water exposed to loving words shows brilliant, complex, and colorful snowflake patterns, while polluted water and water exposed to negative thoughts forms incomplete, asymmetrical patterns with dull colors. Emoto believes that since people are 70 percent water, and the Earth is 70 percent water, we can heal our planet and ourselves by consciously expressing love and goodwill.
What do I think of this theory? Well, at the risk of giving off a lot of negative energy that's going to make a whole bunch of water crystals get all bent out of shape, I think it's complete baloney. But then, I'm not very 'open minded' about things like this. So I would think that.
(but I have to add: since when has the earth been 70 percent water? Do they mean the surface of the earth? That might make sense. But the earth itself ain't 70 percent water)
Posted By: Alex | Date: Tue Apr 05, 2005 | Permalink |
Total Comments: 114
Category: Photos/Videos, Science
Category: Photos/Videos, Science
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 5 of 6 pages « First < 3 4 5 6 >
Well, I do think that most of this stuff you're criticizing, water crystals included, is wacky nonsense without what I consider to be much poetic value.
Yet I do think it is true that many scientists, and many skeptics, are embarrassed about poetics, or so embroiled in logical debate (correct as it may be) that their ability to appreciate poetics becomes quite limited. Many people I have worked with who are "alexithymic" are also excellent critics. Cynicism can be poisonous to one's quality of life. Sometimes I think it can be healthy to simply smile and nod...letting go of the need to debate. (Of course, that is not the point of this site!)
I don't think my science is on shaky ground. What may be on shaky ground is whether what I allude to is at all relevant or significant to the goings on in the universe. So the movements of molecules in the brain which produce a given thought do affect all other molecules in the universe, but the effect is most likely insignificant...yet we must not say it is "zero", else we contradict basic physical laws. Or unless we posit thoughts or consciousness to be mystical, which I consider a regressive stance.
Posted by garth d in Canada on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 05:19 PM
Yet I do think it is true that many scientists, and many skeptics, are embarrassed about poetics, or so embroiled in logical debate (correct as it may be) that their ability to appreciate poetics becomes quite limited. Many people I have worked with who are "alexithymic" are also excellent critics. Cynicism can be poisonous to one's quality of life. Sometimes I think it can be healthy to simply smile and nod...letting go of the need to debate. (Of course, that is not the point of this site!)
I don't think my science is on shaky ground. What may be on shaky ground is whether what I allude to is at all relevant or significant to the goings on in the universe. So the movements of molecules in the brain which produce a given thought do affect all other molecules in the universe, but the effect is most likely insignificant...yet we must not say it is "zero", else we contradict basic physical laws. Or unless we posit thoughts or consciousness to be mystical, which I consider a regressive stance.
Garth, I think the biggest reason we skeptics pick these things apart is because they are NOT merely harmless fantasies. A lot of this crap is peddled to people who are sick and haven't gotten relief from conventional medicine. That is simply detestable (and criminal).
Also, if things like this are NOT challenged, there is always the chance that they will become accepted by the public and even taught in schools. That, too, is unacceptable.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Thu Apr 13, 2006 at 11:42 PM
Also, if things like this are NOT challenged, there is always the chance that they will become accepted by the public and even taught in schools. That, too, is unacceptable.
Outeast:
So what's the verdict? Sounds like this Cranky Media Guy is down on the ideas in this book, but It seems to me that the message or "the science" if I dare call it that in this Hidden Messages in Water book supports our discussion of evolution in terms of the idea that we were taught in school that the inert chemicals, "that have no sensorial capabalities," as someone put it in this forum, in the ocean were struck by lightening or however the story goes and by some chance, random low-probability chain of events started forming cell walls around themselves, and by random chance developed nucleic acids making them capable of reproducing and a couple of billion years later, vuala we have complex organsims out of the utter chaotic chemical soup that existed in earth's ancient oceans. I mean doesn't the idea that perhaps the elements of nature, like water, are imbued with intelligence and consciousness lend more credence to the theory of the origin of life on earth? It sounds a little bit easier to swallow or at least understand for dummies like me than all that chaos theory crap. What do you think?
Posted by greg in new york on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:00 AM
So what's the verdict? Sounds like this Cranky Media Guy is down on the ideas in this book, but It seems to me that the message or "the science" if I dare call it that in this Hidden Messages in Water book supports our discussion of evolution in terms of the idea that we were taught in school that the inert chemicals, "that have no sensorial capabalities," as someone put it in this forum, in the ocean were struck by lightening or however the story goes and by some chance, random low-probability chain of events started forming cell walls around themselves, and by random chance developed nucleic acids making them capable of reproducing and a couple of billion years later, vuala we have complex organsims out of the utter chaotic chemical soup that existed in earth's ancient oceans. I mean doesn't the idea that perhaps the elements of nature, like water, are imbued with intelligence and consciousness lend more credence to the theory of the origin of life on earth? It sounds a little bit easier to swallow or at least understand for dummies like me than all that chaos theory crap. What do you think?
Let us consider intelligence or consciousness to be quantities which exist on a continuum. Certainly we can find examples in daily human experience, where one person may be more intelligent, or conscious, than another, based on clearly-defined criteria (e.g. an IQ test, a neurological exam, ability to compose a symphony, paint a picture, or write a novel, etc.).
The origin of intelligence or consciousness must be the brain...but the brain is simply a collection of atoms organized in a particular way. As brain tissue disappears, intelligence and consciousness diminish (as in strokes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.).
Why should one particular organizational style of atoms give rise to consciousness and intelligence, while other organizations do not? Do we not excessively aggrandize "brains" vs. "non-brains" or even create a spurious distinction?
Perhaps all interactions of atoms, particles, or energy, in any configuration, give rise to some sort of consciousness or intelligence...it's just that in the human brain these qualities are extremely "dense" or concentrated, also finely attuned to magnify and store various percepts in a temporal scale varying from less than a second to a hundred years.
So inanimate objects around us may be imbued with some form of consciousness or intelligence -- yet to claim that we can control water crystallization telepathically is magnifying this subtle principle into a giant hoax.
Posted by garth d in Canada on Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 03:51 PM
The origin of intelligence or consciousness must be the brain...but the brain is simply a collection of atoms organized in a particular way. As brain tissue disappears, intelligence and consciousness diminish (as in strokes, Alzheimer's disease, etc.).
Why should one particular organizational style of atoms give rise to consciousness and intelligence, while other organizations do not? Do we not excessively aggrandize "brains" vs. "non-brains" or even create a spurious distinction?
Perhaps all interactions of atoms, particles, or energy, in any configuration, give rise to some sort of consciousness or intelligence...it's just that in the human brain these qualities are extremely "dense" or concentrated, also finely attuned to magnify and store various percepts in a temporal scale varying from less than a second to a hundred years.
So inanimate objects around us may be imbued with some form of consciousness or intelligence -- yet to claim that we can control water crystallization telepathically is magnifying this subtle principle into a giant hoax.
yes there are skeptics. and you have freewill to believe what you want to. in fantasies like in holy books and the media.
even scientist will tell you that we know only a very small percentage of what this world is all about and the experiements that they do can only be interpreted by what they already know. they are only observers. that's why they are always coming out with tests that contradict previous tests. in other words everything is a theory. but under first amendment rights everyone has the right to say what they think. if you think you can debunk emoto's theory then go ahead and do it, then publish your findings. putting something out of circulation just because you don't agree with it is a communist act, just like book burning. free speech.
he used high speed film because they generally melt while handling them, you have to get the picture before their gone.
as for most of the emails i read on this page, get some common sense and a little bit of education.
a favorite quote of mine. "a teacher's job isn't to teach, it's to open a closed mind." when you putting someone else down because you don't agree with them just makes you look uneducated.
Posted by shell on Sun May 07, 2006 at 07:31 PM
even scientist will tell you that we know only a very small percentage of what this world is all about and the experiements that they do can only be interpreted by what they already know. they are only observers. that's why they are always coming out with tests that contradict previous tests. in other words everything is a theory. but under first amendment rights everyone has the right to say what they think. if you think you can debunk emoto's theory then go ahead and do it, then publish your findings. putting something out of circulation just because you don't agree with it is a communist act, just like book burning. free speech.
he used high speed film because they generally melt while handling them, you have to get the picture before their gone.
as for most of the emails i read on this page, get some common sense and a little bit of education.
a favorite quote of mine. "a teacher's job isn't to teach, it's to open a closed mind." when you putting someone else down because you don't agree with them just makes you look uneducated.
shell, your long posting basically reduces to the tired old "prove it's wrong" argument. Sorry, that dog won't hunt. It's up to Emoto to prove that his wacky theory is real. The way to do that is via SCIENCE and demonstrating that what he claims is reproducible. I doubt he can meet that standard.
Oh, by the way, why do you assume that the people here who question the "intelligent water" thing believe in "holy books?" I sure don't.
"a favorite quote of mine. "a teacher's job isn't to teach, it's to open a closed mind."
Uh, I'd say the job of a teacher is try to impart accurate information to people. Having an "open mind" shouldn't mean that you believe any silly-ass thing someone tells you, like, oh say, "intelligent water."
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Sun May 07, 2006 at 10:35 PM
Oh, by the way, why do you assume that the people here who question the "intelligent water" thing believe in "holy books?" I sure don't.
"a favorite quote of mine. "a teacher's job isn't to teach, it's to open a closed mind."
Uh, I'd say the job of a teacher is try to impart accurate information to people. Having an "open mind" shouldn't mean that you believe any silly-ass thing someone tells you, like, oh say, "intelligent water."
Yet another poster whose mind is so open his brains fell out...
Posted by outeast on Mon May 08, 2006 at 11:34 PM
A teacher may have a role in passing along information, or perhaps even in "opening minds" but I think this is aggrandizement of the teaching process, implying that a student is a passive recipient of knowledge or wisdom transfer. This may be a recipe for an unimaginative thinker. Even then, most (but not all) great thinkers, in my opinion, have not been dependent on having "good" teachers or not.
I consider a good teacher to be a knowledgeable guide, who can admit his/her own shortcomings, who can try to establish rapport with students, who can show enthusiasm and love for the subject matter, and who can encourage and expect hard work.
The beauty of shell's post is that it doesn't really require a critical retort. In fact, I have to wonder if shell actually holds the opposite opinion of what he/she appears to state, and the post is an ironic and humourous way to make a point.
Posted by garth d in Canada on Wed May 10, 2006 at 01:02 PM
I consider a good teacher to be a knowledgeable guide, who can admit his/her own shortcomings, who can try to establish rapport with students, who can show enthusiasm and love for the subject matter, and who can encourage and expect hard work.
The beauty of shell's post is that it doesn't really require a critical retort. In fact, I have to wonder if shell actually holds the opposite opinion of what he/she appears to state, and the post is an ironic and humourous way to make a point.
part 1
ok
this water thing has me bothered. I want to believe! and I see a lot of reasons why it could be so...
Metal has a memory. bend it once and it's weaker, its molecular bonds get changed - damaged?
Molecules do seem to form crystaline structures which vary according to their environment.
Our thoughts affects our physiological state. In fact they can make us sick. Atoms appear to respond to the affects of observation. Alot of what has been expressed here as scientific skeptism seems to be a simple lack of imagination at putting together some of the latest evidence about our world. If our thoughts can affect our physiological state it means that they affect matter. Again a lack of insight and imagination might lead one to conclude that our bodies are different from the world beyond them. Whatever the case those little quarks start playing up when we look at them.
Therefore its not so hard to see that our thoughts could translate as energetic frequencies into the physical things we do such as write a word. In fact from a pure scientific perspective it seems unlikely that they wouldnt. I know places that have bad vibes and other that have good vibes and so I bet do all of you.
to be continued
Posted by adrian in NZ on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:17 PM
ok
this water thing has me bothered. I want to believe! and I see a lot of reasons why it could be so...
Metal has a memory. bend it once and it's weaker, its molecular bonds get changed - damaged?
Molecules do seem to form crystaline structures which vary according to their environment.
Our thoughts affects our physiological state. In fact they can make us sick. Atoms appear to respond to the affects of observation. Alot of what has been expressed here as scientific skeptism seems to be a simple lack of imagination at putting together some of the latest evidence about our world. If our thoughts can affect our physiological state it means that they affect matter. Again a lack of insight and imagination might lead one to conclude that our bodies are different from the world beyond them. Whatever the case those little quarks start playing up when we look at them.
Therefore its not so hard to see that our thoughts could translate as energetic frequencies into the physical things we do such as write a word. In fact from a pure scientific perspective it seems unlikely that they wouldnt. I know places that have bad vibes and other that have good vibes and so I bet do all of you.
to be continued
part 2
So essentially I am arguing that we dont understand the interconnectivity of our physical world although a pinch of intuition suggests that alot of "spiritual wisdom" is trying to explain this still hidden world.
Finally in favour, the natural world has a propensity for patterns. Patterns that are mysteriously repeated from snails to galaxies. Actually not so mysterious, these are forms arising from energy dynamics, the mystery is in why. But for our purposes we can say that nature forms patterns AND these patterns are pleasing to us. Why not? We are part of nature too, are we too intelligent to notice that what is beautiful to us might actually be our way of registering function? Our eyes in other words might just be meters of function? Makes you stop and consider how the urban environment makes you feel right?
Now it would be rash of me to jump swiftly to the idea that we dont know what about the urban envirnomnet makes us feel not as good as a natural one. Perhaps its the effect of that environment on the water in our bodies. Perhaps our consciousness is the water in us? Im sorry, of course we know thats not true because we know what consciousness is and what makes it occur and where the organ is that creates it dont we. NO WE DONT. Which is a real big problem for skeptics really isnt it cause really you guys shouldnt believe in consciousness.
And this love business. Again, stunted unimaginative intellects might think that love is a human construct. What if its a name for a state of being that is perhaps perfect health beyond the terms of health as we understand it?
Well I like the patterns the water makes. My feelings respond to them.
The problem? Too many charlatans riding the money wagon. Skeptics are right to be cautious. Where o where is the replicated evidence? Maybe we cant have perfect replication with this. Where at least are the other samples. You know do 20 batches of water and freeze them all under the same conditions and see if the crystals are the same. Thats whats bothering me?
Hope this was enlightening.
Love
(he he he)
Adrian
Posted by adrian in NZ on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 08:18 PM
So essentially I am arguing that we dont understand the interconnectivity of our physical world although a pinch of intuition suggests that alot of "spiritual wisdom" is trying to explain this still hidden world.
Finally in favour, the natural world has a propensity for patterns. Patterns that are mysteriously repeated from snails to galaxies. Actually not so mysterious, these are forms arising from energy dynamics, the mystery is in why. But for our purposes we can say that nature forms patterns AND these patterns are pleasing to us. Why not? We are part of nature too, are we too intelligent to notice that what is beautiful to us might actually be our way of registering function? Our eyes in other words might just be meters of function? Makes you stop and consider how the urban environment makes you feel right?
Now it would be rash of me to jump swiftly to the idea that we dont know what about the urban envirnomnet makes us feel not as good as a natural one. Perhaps its the effect of that environment on the water in our bodies. Perhaps our consciousness is the water in us? Im sorry, of course we know thats not true because we know what consciousness is and what makes it occur and where the organ is that creates it dont we. NO WE DONT. Which is a real big problem for skeptics really isnt it cause really you guys shouldnt believe in consciousness.
And this love business. Again, stunted unimaginative intellects might think that love is a human construct. What if its a name for a state of being that is perhaps perfect health beyond the terms of health as we understand it?
Well I like the patterns the water makes. My feelings respond to them.
The problem? Too many charlatans riding the money wagon. Skeptics are right to be cautious. Where o where is the replicated evidence? Maybe we cant have perfect replication with this. Where at least are the other samples. You know do 20 batches of water and freeze them all under the same conditions and see if the crystals are the same. Thats whats bothering me?
Hope this was enlightening.
Love
(he he he)
Adrian
Lovely thoughts, Adrian. Here's the problem: the world isn't the way we would LIKE it to be. The world is the way the world IS, whether we like it or not.
Wishing doesn't make things so. Most things are testable. Either they pass or fail. The thing to do is test this silly "intelligent water" thing. It will either pass or fail--and I'm betting on the latter.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Wed Jun 14, 2006 at 11:32 PM
Wishing doesn't make things so. Most things are testable. Either they pass or fail. The thing to do is test this silly "intelligent water" thing. It will either pass or fail--and I'm betting on the latter.
hmm
I would like to see it tested too. Im sure you are betting on the latter for the very obvious reason that its all just to implausible. And sure it is. But can I ask - do you say any kind of grace or blessing over your food? For what we are about to recieve etc etc? I presume you dont. Has science ever tested the effects of saying grace either on the food or on our own physiology? What would your bets be about the outcome of such testing? No effect? Then of course there are the tested unexplained phenomena like the fact that after trialling meditation sit ins to reduce crime in areas of LA the LAPD sponsored the TM group to keep doing it so obvious were the results. A notable decrease in the order of 25% violent crime corresponding to the meditation sessions. If you have further info on that or can debunk it I am objectively interested.
Viva la rigour de science!
but down with myopia masquerading as reason!
all the best
A.
Posted by adrian in NZ on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:14 AM
I would like to see it tested too. Im sure you are betting on the latter for the very obvious reason that its all just to implausible. And sure it is. But can I ask - do you say any kind of grace or blessing over your food? For what we are about to recieve etc etc? I presume you dont. Has science ever tested the effects of saying grace either on the food or on our own physiology? What would your bets be about the outcome of such testing? No effect? Then of course there are the tested unexplained phenomena like the fact that after trialling meditation sit ins to reduce crime in areas of LA the LAPD sponsored the TM group to keep doing it so obvious were the results. A notable decrease in the order of 25% violent crime corresponding to the meditation sessions. If you have further info on that or can debunk it I am objectively interested.
Viva la rigour de science!
but down with myopia masquerading as reason!
all the best
A.
Enough. You are chasing your tail. Please become educated in these areas before spewing more errata. The meditation study has been thoroughly debunked in relation to those crime rates.
This is case in point of how these things keep getting perpetuated in the US. Details on the debunking please see the James Randi website at randi.org or check out this report.
http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/?m=200509
Posted by Sandy on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 05:16 AM
This is case in point of how these things keep getting perpetuated in the US. Details on the debunking please see the James Randi website at randi.org or check out this report.
http://www.conradaskland.com/blog/?m=200509
Adrian, recently the results of a study on the efficacy of prayer were released. The outcome was that prayer had NO measurable effect. Yes, the faithful have made and will continue to make excuses, but that's the bottom line: it WAS tested and it failed.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 12:22 PM
"Enough. You are chasing your tail. Please become educated in these areas before spewing more errata. The meditation study has been thoroughly debunked in relation to those crime rates."
Sorry about the errata spewing. I would like to be as educated as you Sandy. Im not sure however which part of my tail I am chasing. Perhaps you could argue by points instead of by flinging poo.
I couldnt find the info at the site you linked. I probably could have looked harder but could you ever so graciously direct me to a specific treatment of the TM study please. I did however look around and I came across an entirely conventional looking scientific appraisal of a TM experiment that was done in Washington state. It finds that crime rates did drop significantly even when controlling for temperature and other variables.
here it is,
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/soci/1999/00000047/00000002/00198917?
Cranky, are the results and a description of the study you mention on prayer available online?
Regards
Adrian
Posted by adrian in NZ on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 10:32 PM
Sorry about the errata spewing. I would like to be as educated as you Sandy. Im not sure however which part of my tail I am chasing. Perhaps you could argue by points instead of by flinging poo.
I couldnt find the info at the site you linked. I probably could have looked harder but could you ever so graciously direct me to a specific treatment of the TM study please. I did however look around and I came across an entirely conventional looking scientific appraisal of a TM experiment that was done in Washington state. It finds that crime rates did drop significantly even when controlling for temperature and other variables.
here it is,
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/soci/1999/00000047/00000002/00198917?
Cranky, are the results and a description of the study you mention on prayer available online?
Regards
Adrian
Adrian
I think that CMG was probably referring to the Study of Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer; you can read more about it in this BBC article or in this Time article.
This is far from being the only study to have found no results in rigorous trials of intercessionary prayer: Mayo et al, Matthews et al, and the MANTRA study, for example, all found that when the subject does not know he or she is being prayed for there is no evident effect to intercessionary prayer. There is some evidence that knowing you are being prayed for can help, as noted in one of the abstracts I've linked to and in this study, indicative of a placebo effect (not that there's anything wrong with placebos). Interestingly, the STEP study found that those who believed they were praying more actually suffered more complication, though, so maybe how you respond to prayer is not so simple:)
Your link to the Washington study was dead, but a search on that site for 'meditation crime' turned up the abstract. It does look interesting: I'll try to find out more.
Outeast
Posted by outeast on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:13 PM
I think that CMG was probably referring to the Study of Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer; you can read more about it in this BBC article or in this Time article.
This is far from being the only study to have found no results in rigorous trials of intercessionary prayer: Mayo et al, Matthews et al, and the MANTRA study, for example, all found that when the subject does not know he or she is being prayed for there is no evident effect to intercessionary prayer. There is some evidence that knowing you are being prayed for can help, as noted in one of the abstracts I've linked to and in this study, indicative of a placebo effect (not that there's anything wrong with placebos). Interestingly, the STEP study found that those who believed they were praying more actually suffered more complication, though, so maybe how you respond to prayer is not so simple:)
Your link to the Washington study was dead, but a search on that site for 'meditation crime' turned up the abstract. It does look interesting: I'll try to find out more.
Outeast
Here is a working link to the article you found:
Link shortened by moderator
It is not peer reviewed.
The study is addressed specifically in the previous report link on my last post.
I encourage you to read some of the weekly commentaries at http://www.randi.org - Here is a link:
http://randi.org/jr/archive.html
Especially enlightening would be the forums where entries for the one million dollar paranormal prize are summarily dismantled. Here is a link:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
Here is in reference to James Randi and the study:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm16.html
Some years ago a prayer study was said to prove the power of intercessory prayer. It was hailed all over the web as finally showing proof. It was a coverup, the study actually showed the opposite. Here is an article on that:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,982245,00.html
The most recent prayer study, which took 10 years to complete. It was a long wait for these results. The most comprehensive study of it's kind:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Mr. Shermer addresses the 2006 prayer study:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
And this is an excellent essay and quick read by Mr. Shermer:
Twenty five fallacies that lead us to believe weird things:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm
Posted by Sandy on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:18 PM
Link shortened by moderator
It is not peer reviewed.
The study is addressed specifically in the previous report link on my last post.
I encourage you to read some of the weekly commentaries at http://www.randi.org - Here is a link:
http://randi.org/jr/archive.html
Especially enlightening would be the forums where entries for the one million dollar paranormal prize are summarily dismantled. Here is a link:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
Here is in reference to James Randi and the study:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm16.html
Some years ago a prayer study was said to prove the power of intercessory prayer. It was hailed all over the web as finally showing proof. It was a coverup, the study actually showed the opposite. Here is an article on that:
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,982245,00.html
The most recent prayer study, which took 10 years to complete. It was a long wait for these results. The most comprehensive study of it's kind:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?ex=1301461200&en=4acf338be4900000&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Mr. Shermer addresses the 2006 prayer study:
http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43
And this is an excellent essay and quick read by Mr. Shermer:
Twenty five fallacies that lead us to believe weird things:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/sherm3.htm
Adrian (pt II)
The study you pointed out appears to have been heavily criticized for selective use of data - for example, although there may have been a decline in violent crime there was apparently a spike in murders during that period, a point which the report authors failed to mention. (Disclaimer: since I'm not going to fork out 30 bucks to read the paper I can't do a proper factcheck myself and am having to rely on secondary sources such as this. Additionally, although there was a rise in murders in 2003 this trend continues into 2004... I'm not suggesting the TM study had anything to do with it!!)
I am not a statistician. However, if - as claimed - the meditation caused an 18% fall in violent crime over the course of 2 months, this should have been observable as a notable fall in crime over the year: that is, that year should have been a noticeable outlier in violent crime trend lines. A quick glance at the official data suggests this is simply not the case. Violent crime was lower that year than the year before, true (with 514.6 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, as opposed to 534.5 the year before). However, violent crime continued to fall over the next seven years (and maybe longer), reaching just 369.7 in 2000 - suggesting that any statistical correlation with the TM study was almost certainly coincidental.
If there are any statistician out there, maybe you could look at the figures and see if I'm right?
WARNING: What the bleep do we know can seriously damage your cognitive faculties.
Outeast.
Posted by outeast on Thu Jun 15, 2006 at 11:59 PM
The study you pointed out appears to have been heavily criticized for selective use of data - for example, although there may have been a decline in violent crime there was apparently a spike in murders during that period, a point which the report authors failed to mention. (Disclaimer: since I'm not going to fork out 30 bucks to read the paper I can't do a proper factcheck myself and am having to rely on secondary sources such as this. Additionally, although there was a rise in murders in 2003 this trend continues into 2004... I'm not suggesting the TM study had anything to do with it!!)
I am not a statistician. However, if - as claimed - the meditation caused an 18% fall in violent crime over the course of 2 months, this should have been observable as a notable fall in crime over the year: that is, that year should have been a noticeable outlier in violent crime trend lines. A quick glance at the official data suggests this is simply not the case. Violent crime was lower that year than the year before, true (with 514.6 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, as opposed to 534.5 the year before). However, violent crime continued to fall over the next seven years (and maybe longer), reaching just 369.7 in 2000 - suggesting that any statistical correlation with the TM study was almost certainly coincidental.
If there are any statistician out there, maybe you could look at the figures and see if I'm right?
WARNING: What the bleep do we know can seriously damage your cognitive faculties.
Outeast.
IGNORE SECOND PART OF ABOVE POST.
Curse google! No, that's not fair: curse my own carelessness. I searched for 'crime rates in Washington DC' and the site I linked to above was the top link; however, they are figures for Washington state, making my point invalid.
Well, almost. Wikipedia has stats on murders in Washington DC which show 1993 as having the third-highest murder rate the city has ever known. Figures here certainly show a steady fall in aggravated assault from 1993-1999, a fluctuating fall in robbery, etc etc. However, I can't find the figures for before 1993. It may be that my case holds even though my stats were wrong:) At any rate, statistical analysis on figures throughout the decade should test the claims of the TM report.
Apologies for my fuckup!
Posted by outeast on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 01:10 AM
Curse google! No, that's not fair: curse my own carelessness. I searched for 'crime rates in Washington DC' and the site I linked to above was the top link; however, they are figures for Washington state, making my point invalid.
Well, almost. Wikipedia has stats on murders in Washington DC which show 1993 as having the third-highest murder rate the city has ever known. Figures here certainly show a steady fall in aggravated assault from 1993-1999, a fluctuating fall in robbery, etc etc. However, I can't find the figures for before 1993. It may be that my case holds even though my stats were wrong:) At any rate, statistical analysis on figures throughout the decade should test the claims of the TM report.
Apologies for my fuckup!
Adrian said:
"Cranky, are the results and a description of the study you mention on prayer available online?"
I believe so. I know for sure that James Randi has referred to it and I think if you go to randi.org and do a search for it ("prayer study" perhaps?), you should be able to find his reference to it.
Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Fri Jun 16, 2006 at 12:13 PM
"Cranky, are the results and a description of the study you mention on prayer available online?"
I believe so. I know for sure that James Randi has referred to it and I think if you go to randi.org and do a search for it ("prayer study" perhaps?), you should be able to find his reference to it.
Page 5 of 6 pages « First < 3 4 5 6 >