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)
Comments
Now if thoughts impact water crystallization formations or not, it is a significant claim. It should put to test by the scientific method, and taken seroiusly.
Because its not like anyone knows where matter and space came from anyway, at least not in this time in history.
My personal opinion I don't know if Dr. Emoto is speaking the truth. If he were, then if I were a god I will be laughing down at your ass thinking on how blantantly ignorant some people can be. Muahahaha
Interesting. But that doesn't explain how thoughts or words can affect formation, considering that this Emoto is telling the truth. And does anyone know of other reputable people/schools that confirm his studies?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
"Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble."
Sorry, no can do. It's "magical thinking," I believe that, at least in part, led to the current war in Iraq. As in, "We're in line with what God wants so we cannot lose."
Irrational thinking can lead to death, especially when it's practiced by "leaders."
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
It is NOT our obligation to disprove him, he has never proved it in the first place, but yet deceptively has presented it so it seems that it IS proven.
That is the problem with pseudoscience, it disguises itself as science, but it is not. You are falling prey to the deception and propogating pseudoscience with those comments.
"Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not."
What "proof" has he provided? For the record, just claiming that something has happened does not constitute "proof."
But about the water christals i'm not so sure.
According to quantum mechanics reality does get only 'shape' once you look/feel/think--> observe something. Positive / Negative feelings/thoughts when putting a paper with a certain text on a bottle of water should have impact on the reality of the water when you look at it later.
I'm sceptic; this doctor might make extra money using photoshop on his pictures, but thought/concentration/feelings do effect other water-bags that browse this planet in quantum-probabilities' wierd-ways I "believe" ;-p
-tap
-microwave
-bottle loved
-bottle hated
and then crystalised in some different ways please.
😛
Instead of fact, it seems all that's on this site is bitter dogmatic predetermined oppinion. Nothing but a bunch of "As-if!" postings.
Oh, well.
"Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary."
You're asking us to prove a negative. How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing? Given the nature of his claims, that should be easy, no?
I have his book and this described some kind of not-2-proper scientific testing.. ..I don't expect to get better testing from the inventor himself more than I expect proof of god from the pope.
No nobody disproved this guy he... ...maybe he is right. Reading his book did give me some feeling he is on a right track...
I did see the move 'What the bleeb do we know' recently; also about this special water.. ..and about quantum mechanics and thoughts changing quantum-possibility-fields:p
you are not being asked to do anything... not even believe. the challenge is to provide evidence that what is being claimed is a false positive.
this claim is not entirely unlike the claim that plants are affected by their environment. it could be that the photography used and the type of water (polluted and spring) were factors. it would be interesting if someone were to do similar experiments. but, as with all comparative experiments, there are going to be different results. nothing is entirely conclusive. more results from scientific experiments will likely only provide you with more reason to argue and disbelieve. just don't be directing your crystal-distorting thoughts and energy my way. lol
go, now do it
Hi, who is or are "us" by the way?
And proving a negative is not so hard, like disproving "all things fall up" by one 'negative'; something falling down...
I stil like thus water theory, but seen nog provind or disproving at all...
However, there are lots of reasons to suppose that our assumptions about chemistry are right - for a start, if theywasn't then we wouldn't have the technology to be having this discussion! - and there is nothing but a single crank's unreplicated and highly improbable assertions to support that thesis that our knowledge of chemistry is mistaken.
When someone makes a claim that goes against all extant knowledge it is reasonable to expect that person to prove the claim; it is not reasonable to demand, instead, that it be treated as credible in the absence of any substantive evidence. Apart from everything else, nonsensical hypotheses can be formulated at a rate of thousands per second (prove me wrong!) while testing them takes a long time and a lot of money...
This having been said, should those who regard Emoto as credible wish to fund a programme of research, I am sure that responsible scientists could be found to do the work... who knows, you could win a million:)
Why? Because a lott of things work? Because cars can drive? I don't think this is logic..
In my opinion quantum mechanics shows our whole atom-model is wrong; just a model that worked to invent all kind of technology...
>Emoto's claims would require pretty much everything we know about chemistry to be wrong
Uhm, isn't it also without his claims quite sure we know only a few % of what could be known about chemistry and are we not quite suire most is 'wrong'... ...might be correct according to the proven-wrong atom-model; but still wrong if you have to choose between right and wrong; we know almost nothing I think!!!
(allthough it's quite human to think we know much.. ..see classical mistakes in this).
Gee, thanks God!
It's just a model my dear. What we do does not prove the 'atom-model' to be correct. It's just a model that is proven to be incomplete and therefor in a way 'proven wrong'.
What you say is like saying that because we don't understand gravity exact, things would stop falling down or something...😛
Uhm, the atom model says atoms and like balls. And Quantum mechanics says it's loads more complex then this (days it's wrong).
I believe this is more Einstein than Chopra:-)
Actually, your weak analogy equips me with a far better one - what you are claiming is much akin to saying that because relativity and quantum mechanics show that Newtonian gravitational theory was incomplete, it was therefore wrong. 'Incomplete' is far from 'wrong' - this is a common fallacy often favoured by anti-evolution types and other cranks.
Quantum mechanics deals with activity at the subatomic level, not the molecular levels which is where Emoto claims his effects are observable. Our understanding of atomic behaviour is such that we can (for example) manipulate the genome - something which both depends on and verifies the correctness of our model of molecular physics.
"incomplete is far from wrong".
But the obsolete atom-model might work to manipulate the genome, but it's not a 'correct' model of reality.
being lazy i quote wikipedia:
The Bohr model is not a complete model of the atom, and fails to explain many of the finer structures seen in atoms. As a theory, it has been replaced by quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics.
did I miss your strong analogy by the way?
What's more, this is all rather irrelevant, since there is nothing about quantum theories, either, that is consistent with Emoto's DreamworldTM 'physics' - and I know of no model, obsolete or otherwise, that offers any mechanism for molecules to be able to read in any language.
😊
This offering SPECIFICALLY TO EMOTO on the topic of his water crystal claims has now been public for several years.
This single issue is what led me to be involved with the Skeptics Society, etc. What for some is just a topic of conversation, for me was a life changing paradigm shift.
Two years later, only rebuttals I see are constant logical fallacies and magical thinking. If Emoto's camp has something to bring to the table, then bring it.
So Emoto's story is most probably a hoax (I do think) ...:-(
I still do think mind/thought changes water; by intuition 😊
And migth Emoto be almost as wrong in 'real' explanation as our current atom model ..!?
(ok, Bohr's model is damn old..)
>since there is nothing about quantum theories,
>either, that is consistent with Emoto's
>DreamworldTM 'physics'
I am thinking about 'reality being changed by our minds on all kind of quantum-like levels', as in not being able to just be just an observer in reality. In my dreams its DreamworldTM :p
Bye!
Was this deliberately ironic?
Anyway, who here is showing intolerance for anyone's beliefs? Arresting you, are we? Oppressing you? Nah, saying rubbish is rubbish isn't intolerance - tolerance and respect are not the same thing, you know:)
I suspect what you dislike is having people rubbisah your beliefs - and such nonsensical claims that we should have respect for other people's beliefs stick crossways in my craw. Of course people have a right to hold their own beliefs (it's your head; if you want to fill it up with rubbish that's your affair); there's no obligaton on people to respect 'em, though. As I said, rubbish's rubbish.
Furthermore, respect is something to be earned: if this book is so worthy of attention, why not spend an hour or so scanning it and stick it up on the web? I see it's a pretty slim volume - at 160 pages it'd take just 80 scans, so it wouldn't be that big a chore. I'm sure as dammit not going to put money in this guy's pocket.
"I don't know how much longer I can put up with all of this intolerance of other peoples' beliefs. I am currently reading "the Hidden Messages of water" and it's actually pretty interesting. If you are a sceptic, you should really read it for its philosophical issues assuming you don't care to understand the scientific basis. I love you all."
Well, golly, I love you, too, Betty. You may not have read any of the thread here on the Museum site about LifeWave patches but on it I asked a person who has been defending LifeWave to test my new mind-enhancing product by jumping out a high window. You see, my product allows me to protect anyone I am thinking about from harm.
I extend my challenge to you, Betty. I challenge you to jump out of a high window. Fear not, my amazing product will allow me to protect you from injury or death. You aren't intolerant of my unshakable belief in my product, are you? Of course not, so when can I expect you to take the Big Leap? I need to know in advance so I can be thinking about you when you jump.
My belief that this cannot fail is based on my own philosophy. If you refuse to take me up on this, you will be demonstrating your own intolerance.
"With statementes like "Those "predetermined beliefs" are called SCIENCE. We believe in it/them because they are the best system by which humans can understand the world around us that anyone has yet devised. If you have a better one, please tell us about it so that mankind can benefit." You sound like some Bible beating Christians I know."
No one here thinks that science is a religion, Greg.
Let me explain the difference. Religion requires that you take things on faith, even though they cannot be proven. Science, on the other hand, constantly tests what it proposes. When it is able to successfully challenge a theory, it UPDATES ITSELF. This is a fundamental difference, not a trivial one. Religion tends to stay "stuck in amber," so to speak, precisely because it does NOT test its assertions.
Perhaps I should start with what 'science' is. Science is not - whatever you think - a belief system: if it is anything it is a methodology, and an approch to the world. A scientific approach involves a number of basic steps:
a) looking at observable data and searching for a falisifiable hypothesis to explain that data. When a hypothesis is 'falsifiable' means that it is possible to disprove it - one consequence of this is that by definition the scientific method excludes supernatural explanations as these are not falsifiable. Why not? Well, take this reasoning: if there is a God we cannot know that he is not directly interfering with experiments - in the recent study of the efficacy of prayer, for example, we cannot know that God was not deliberately opting to refuse the scientists conducting the research any clear proof of His existence because proof denies faith.
b) making testable predictions based on the hypothesis and testing those predictions.
c) rinse and repeat: scientific hypotheses that stand up to experimental testing are called 'theories'. Theories are never 'proven' - a theory which accurately describes the world remains a 'theory', no matter how true it may be. And yes, theories get overturned and updated all the time.
The theory of evolution is one such theory; Darwin developed a hypothesis in the 19th century, which he and others subjecte to rigorous testing. With time, however, further scientific advances have been made (again through the scientific method rather than through revelation!) and the initial basis - Darwin's theory of natural selection - has been greatly expanded. This is one reason why those of us who know anything abot evolution hate the abuse of the term 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' - it seems to imply that evolutionary theory as it now stands has come no further than Darwin's morphological observations.
This comment has gone on quite ong enough, though, and I can't hope to even begin to remedy your lack of knowledge of science here. However, if you are really interested is learning how evolution can explain complexity I'm willing to try and discuss it by email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). I stress, though, that I'm merely an interested layman studying the subject for pleasure rather than actually being a working scientist in any discipline!
Greg, I hear what you're saying (I think). However:
- Your post betrays a mistrust of science and scientists which is quite alarming - as well as a tendency to lump different scientific debates and issues together as though they are one. This latter is very worrying: the question of whether or mot Merck scientists were entirely forthright in the issue of side effects from Rofecoxib is unrelated to the question of any health impacts of GM foods, and both are wholly unrelated to veracity of evolution.
- Science is a methodology, and is the best one we have; scientists are people, and as such make mistakes (though one beautiful thing about he scientific process is that these are self-correcting in the long run*); and pharmaceutical companies are businesses. Yes, its obvious - but you are using the example of Vioxx to smear science itself. (Oh, and fwiw in this case it was Merck who withdrew the drug, suggesting that even if errors of judgement were made the company had sufficient integrity to back down in the face of the evidence in the end - though how far that was to avoid litigation is hard to know).
- Scientific knowledge can, in the main, be trusted: experiments can be flawed, even faked, and interpretations can be wrong, but ultimately when we say 'ok, show us the money' the data there for us to see. Say we hear of something that really boggles the mind - identifying the sequences of genes, for example. We can say 'oh yeah? Prove it!' and scientists can actually show us how they sequence genes (you want any textbooks?).
- As to how evolution is taught: evolution is a theory; there is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is wrong. With evolution, it's a question of ever-increasing understanding of mechanisms - there simply is no valid alternative theory (bearing in mind the definition of theory above).
Creation? OK: sure God (or some other 'intelligent designer') may have created life which behaves exactly as though it had evolved and a world which behaves as though it were entirely naturalistic. However, as a hypothesis this cannot be tested, and in terms of testable predictions (or anything practical, actuially) it is valueless: as such, it is not valid science.
How would you want evolution taught? Would you have meteorology taught the same way (intelligent weatherworkers)? Astronomy? Physics? We teach the most robust theories in science as fact because they describe the world as it really is.
*By 'self-correcting' I mean that the processes of peer review and peer testing mean that errors made by individual scientists tend not to last: indeed, your own example of Rofecoxib is pertinent here - is was scientists who identified the risks, through clinical studies (notably the VIGOR study) which made use of the scientific method.
OK, I've just seen your newest post. Yikes.
First, I agree that there are ethical issues (currently being explored) in the areas of genetics and bioengineering. However, you're spouting a combination of conspiracy wackiness, urban myth, misrepresented fact, and the odd kernel of accuracy in there too.
Are the big GM corporations unethical? Almost certainly they are not more so than any other large corporation (take an anticapitalist stance if you like: don't pretend that's about the science, though). Yes, Monsanto among others forbid those who use their improved crops from keeping seed reserves. They are doing so for an economic reason, of course: it costs literally billions to develop such crops and they need a return on that. But think about it - firstly, if repurchasing an improved (pest-resistant, say) wheat every year provesless economical than farming a normal wheat and reserving a seed crop, farmers simply will not buy it; standard wheat will still be available. Secondly, by allowing a more efficient use of farmland per-acre yields will rise, slowing the continuing destruction of fallow land. (Note: though terminator gene technology is being explored it has not been used in any commercial crop; additionally, one of the principal reasons for exploring terminator genes is fos environmental protection - if the crop is infertile the risk of viable crossbreeds ('superweeds') becomes negligible.)
As to lawsuits against organic farmers who are corrupting the genetics of GMO crops, I've never heard of such a thing. There was a lawsuit against a farmer called Schmeiser, who was accused of stealing Roundup-ready seed but who claimed the seed was spilled and accidentally grew on his land. In that case, however, the facts (as the court found them) were somewhat different: some Roundup-ready seeds were accidentally spilled on his property, so he sprayed 'a good three acres' of his non-GM fields with Roundup to isolate the Roundup-ready crops to use. That's theft.
Finally, patentability: in Europe at least the rules are quite strict (if maybe not a strict as they could be). However, you cannot patent plant or animal varieties. Details here - must rush, do the research yourself.
Cheers.
Didn't really think it was you, CMG... As to you (not) posting on this thread, if you didn't post the comment 7 or so posts up then someone is appropriating your moniker.
Anyway, to get on to more serious topics: why are we all talking in italics?
Greg, I am not making a passionate defense of either Monsanto or Merck, though it's true that I doubt they're as evil as you paint them. My 'defense' of Monsanto is simply an observation that in the specific instances cited the rumours are unsubstatiated; I daresay that, as with all large corporations, there are plenty of morally questionable activities: but this is in danger of turning into a poltical debate, since the issues here turn on the interplay between market forces and regulation...
Big pharma, certainly, does far more good than harm: without medical research on a scale that only big pharma is willing and able to fund we (that is, the human race) would be pretty fucked, frankly. It would be great to have that research funded by governments instead, of course, but they're rarely even willing to fund basic medical care let alone basic research:)
FWIW, I've no qualms about the healthiness of GM food and assume that I eat it all the time. I have yet to see or hear of any evidence of any health risks to GM foods, and in the absence of such see no reason not to trust it; what I know about genetics, too, makes me think there is little reason to expect so-called 'frankenfoods' to be unhealthy. I have my own concerns over GM crops, but these pertain to their potential environmental impact. Even here, though, I think that with proper regulation there is no cause for alarm. Again, ths brings the issue back into politics...
I'll add that any negative impacts of commercial research in terms of marketable products and market practices do not negate the value of the pure knowledge gained along the way. A corrupt source need not imply corrupted knowledge: and it is that knowledge we must master and teach to our children. This is in part for its own sake, and in part so we and they can spot when we're being hawked nonsense by charletans - from Ken Ham to Masaru Emoto.
"Didn't really think it was you, CMG... As to you (not) posting on this thread, if you didn't post the comment 7 or so posts up then someone is appropriating your moniker."
Gee, it would probably help if I either could remember what the hell I wrote here or just checked before I said I didn't write anything, huh?
"Hi All, Please tell me if this makes any sense: that everything from objects to thought is a pattern."
Well, maybe. The thing is, though, that even if everything IS a pattern, it isn't necessarily a pattern that we're designed to recognize.
Just as a quick example off the top of my head, we can see light, right? We can't see all forms of light, though, like high-frequency ultraviolet. We're just not set up to perceive it.
Nor can we feel, see, hear or taste X-rays or radio waves. We ARE able, however, to prove that those things exist by the fact that we can utilize them. Believers tend to use the fact that there are things we can't perceive via our senses alone to "prove" that the thing(s) they espouse exist.
It don't work that way. If and when it can be proved, via demonstrable and repeatable means that water contains "messages," then it will become an accepted part of science and not before then. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.
PS:please have a sense of humor, hee hee, science is only scratching the surface, and EVERYTHING is a theory. Some of us are not trying to push merchandise, just playin with Ideas, which is where it all starts. 😊 LUV'N'HUGS!
Yet I think a few unambiguous observations are in order:
1) thoughts and emotions in the brain are at the very least a product of localized, dynamic chemical events within a complex neural strucure
2) all dynamic chemical events, such as those within the brain giving rise to thoughts and emotions, involve energetic movements of particles (i.e. neurotransmitters, molecules, atoms, etc.)
4) While quantum-mechanical phenomena may be most significant at dimensions much smaller than the dimensions of a neuron, that does not render their effects nil at a larger scale...extremely small or insignificant does not mean zero. They can be assumed to be zero for the sake of calculations--and those calculations can lead to meaningful and accurate results with tangible applications--but they are not ACTUALLY zero.
5) Many distinctions in the world are a product of extremely small relative differences (e.g. a single gene differing by a few amino acids among thousands of other genes; a surface of the earth itself (the biosphere, crust, and atmosphere) which represents an incredibly small percentage of the earth's volume, yet is imperative for life; perhaps even at the big bang itself the slightest nuances in which the explosion unfolded led to the destinct unique evolution of the universe which permitted the earth to form the way it did)
6) following point #3, a distant star, or the thoughts of a person across from you (both being the products of dynamic systems of moving particles), literally do have effects on each individual and on each individual's thoughts -- it's just that the effects are extremely small, and presumably irrelevant, to other forces (such as the north wind, or the guy next to you pushing you on the bus, or this sentence you're reading).
7) So even in classical physics, the most ardent skeptic must admit that a person's thoughts have a physical effect -- through gravity among other forces -- on all other matter in the universe, including the thoughts of each other individual. And one has to admit that there ARE quantum mechanical events at the cellular level, and even at the interpersonal level, and at the scale of the whole universe -- it's just that the effects are very, very, very close to zero, especially compared to other effects.
9) Whether they are relevant or not may not be measurable.
10) If we were to produce a perfect experimental model of the universe, we would need a computer that could have a representation in memory for each particle of the universe. Even in the most perfect computer, the memory bank itself would have to exceed the size of the universe. Which would be impossible. So it is impossible to model the universe completely, only make incomplete--and some might say artistic--manifestations or representations of it, with partial understanding.
And I think there is some beauty in that fact.
11) I think a healthy skepticism of hoaxes ought not to employ reflexive dismissiveness. Some empathy or even whimsical respect for those adhering to the hoax I think is in order. Occasionally the hoax can have some meaningful or poetic value even if no scientific merit. And occasionally, even if there is no scientific merit, it could lead the minds of scientists into a unique new direction of inquiry.
I understand many mystical beliefs to be psychological phenomena which are either a natural result of a person's temperament, or which may serve a purpose for the person that is valuable for them. Sometimes simple dismissal can cause such a person to be even more entrenched in their beliefs, and whatever positive or imaginative influence their beliefs had in the first place is lost. This reminds me of religious dogmas, where the fanatical zealots in a group gain power when the belief system as a whole is attacked from outside, and as a result the belief system itself becomes a rigid dogma, losing whatever poetic truth or wisdom it might have had...so I encourage a stance of "empathic skepticism" rather than reflexive dismissal.
The only thing I'd say is that yes, there is a space for this kind of relativism in philosophy: an inaccurate view of the physical world may arguably have some kind of metaphysical value. However, if a belief is factually wrong then it's factually wrong: no amount of metaphysical virtue is going to make a false belief anything other than metaphorically true (as it were). There may be a 'poetry' to the idea of water having Emotoesque memory, but this doesn't make it in the least bit true!
Personally, I think there is enough poetry to be found in the real world without making up nonsense, and I find myself feeling that the people with the real paucity of imagination are those who insist in chasing after delusions. Pick up any textbook of molecular biology, or chemistry, or physics, or whatever branch of the sciences takes your fancy and if you can just get a grip of the language of the discipline you will find the richest thought mines - with plenty of philosophical meat to chew, if you'll excuse the mixed cliches...