Water Research

[In Sorte Diaboli]

For fuck's sake.

This is the exact same bollcoks that bloody spritualists, homeopathics, crystal waving idiots and the like. It winds me up so much when people claim proof based on absolutely no formal study.

Don't believe it.

If these people could really do half of what they claimed they do, they wouldn't be working from small offices, homes or have the odd badly written webpage.

They'd be bloody nobel prize winners for having redrawn the rules of physics and chemistry.

Well said. All of the above goes for religion too. Nice tales, but don't believe or act like it's true.

[formerly known as hf]

There have been a number of studies - academic, scientific ones - on the 'power of prayer'.

I can think of at least two meta-studies off of the top of my head. Both of which happen to be medical, as that's where I was at the time. Both agreed that there is no evidence that 'prayer' has any effect above and beyond a standard placebo effect.

Sure. Single studies may show any number of things. Such is the reality of normal variance. If 100 people were to take four bean plants. Two in a red pot, Two in a green pot. I promise you a few would return and claim that red pots make the beans grow taller.

In reality, overall, the results would be neutral.

Heck. If a scientist ever did claim that a meta-analysis (a group analysis of related studies) resulted in prayer being positive. We wouldn't hear the end of it, I'd see it brought up all the time. As such, the actual studies which show no results aren't thrown around, because anyone who know their worth knows that they are useless to convince the people who need convincing.


If you started dancing and sacrificing to some rain god for rain. I'm pretty sure, if you did it consistently, you would come to feel that you were having some effect. It's called observer bias. We remember the positive outcomes (i.e: my prayer came true). But not the negative ones, and thus get a skewed, biased, view. A proper analysis would show that the positive outcomes are no more than expected random variation.

As for your link to the water, it quotes:

"After the lengthy review of Emoto’s research methods and results, I have come to believe that Dr. Emoto is offering pseudoscience to the masses in the guise of defensible research."

These poeple really. Really piss me off. I don't care if people get ripped off by claims not based on scienece. Their own damned fault.

It's not based on science. Does not refer to any science, does not stem from science and has no grounding in scientifi enquiry.

Dr Emoto's theory is no more a scientific theory than me saying:
"I theorise that there are green fairies at the bottom of my garden. They always hide form humans, so we can't see them. But they're the ones that send me happy dreams at night"




Using scientific jargon, or going thorugh supposed scientifc motions to justify ripping people off. Really winds me up.

Then again, I'm not the one being ripped off. If you want to spend $35 per bottle of 'emotional water'. More fool you.
If you want to pray over soya beans. Or anything else for that matter. Go ahead. It's not my time being wasted. But just don't claim that a concerted, scientific study would proove effectiveness. It won't

They haven't.

I really am half tempted to perform a study on soya bean growth and prrove that a repeated study would yield no statistically significant result. But I know that my effort would mean nothing anyway.

[formerly known as hf]

I'm however going to go ahead and say that by absolutely no possible way of interpreting any science that we've discovered can anything like this be even remotely possible. This is just stupid pseudo-science,

I never said I believed or disbelieved, but remember that pretty much all science we have today was at some point considered stupid pseudo-science (a round world, or the earth not being the center of the universe come to mind).

Also, if you've read up on your quantum theory, you'll know that all subatomic particles operate on probability, and that subatomic probability can be altered by observation. So based on that, the idea that an organism (in this case human) can affect an experiment by just observing it is not at all pseudoscience, although extending this principle to the macroscopic world is no doubt controversial. However, seeing as how the macroscopic world is composed of subatomic particles, I personally fail to logically see how observation would not be able to affect macroscopic objects.

As I said to HF, feel free to actually disprove it. Anyone can grow bean plants.

Not bloody quantum theory again.

I wish people who refer to it would actually really read up on it.

Saying prayer, or crystals, or chanting, or psychic crpa can affect the 'quantum world' I like me saying that I can read people's mind by putting my little finger in their ear, because it is thorugh that which my psychic powers control the quantum world and read their inner most thoughts.

Not science. Not based on science. Not grounded in science. Nothing to do with quantum physics whatsoever. Bloody charlatans appropriating scientific jargon to gain creedance and thus delude themselves and others.

[Doug R.]

My comments were in regards to spindrift only. I agree the water is dodgy, which is why I posted the link.

I really am half tempted to perform a study on soya bean growth and prrove that a repeated study would yield no statistically significant result. But I know that my effort would mean nothing anyway.

You're probably right. People that believe would refuse to believe your research was conducted properly, just as you refuse to believe that the validating research was conducted properly. It is a highly charged issue, and it's little wonder then that no serious science can take place in the field of spirituality, because both positive and negative results are dismissed out of hand.

[Doug R.]

Saying prayer, or crystals, or chanting, or psychic crpa can affect the 'quantum world' I like me saying that I can read people's mind by putting my little finger in their ear

All I said is that observation affects quantum probability. This is a known and established fact.

[formerly known as hf]

I don't doubt that the spindrift study was done correctly and scientifically. I have my suspicions that they may have done more studies, and only chosen to release the validating ones.

I [i]know[/i[ of some very scientific studies done on prayer (amongst other things) in the medical world, and I wouldn't doubt their validitiy. Some of those studies, on their own, indicate that prayer does have an effect beyond placebo.


My argument is that the odd positive result is to be expected. Random variation would result in it. In some instances at a surprising degree.

My annoyance at spindrift is that they use a handful of studies, which have some inconsistencies in their methodology, and whose results are inconclusive, and announce then as proof.

My argument is that if the studies were replicated. When studies are replicated. Overall, the results indicate no overall affect of prayer (and other things) above and beyong an expected random variation.

[formerly known as hf]

Saying prayer, or crystals, or chanting, or psychic crpa can affect the 'quantum world' I like me saying that I can read people's mind by putting my little finger in their ear

All I said is that observation affects quantum probability. This is a known and established fact.

It's often misused in lay terms. Quantum thoery does not dictate that the cat is both dead and alive. Nor does it maintain that it is neither dead nor alive. Contemporary quantum thoery requires that the observer and the act of observing be understood as part of the quantum system. As far as current thinking tends to go (not to say it is unanimous), there are quantum systems, within which the observer exists.

The 'observer effect' is heavily misused and misunderstood. Observation does not affect quantum probability. Not directly or indirectly. I don't know where to beging to describe it in easy terms. It's not my area of expertise. But, as best a summary as I can get: observation and measurement does not directly affect the quantum level. It affects how we percieve it.

Which could just as well be said for all sciences.

The uncertainty theory states that measurement on a quantum level cannot be exact. Therefore, certain measurement of one area results in less accuracy in another. The observer is only affecting the outcome by the method of measurement.


The old argument, which is often known, is whether or not there are actual arbitrarily exact measurements, or whether all measurements are on a probability scale.

i.e:30 inches isn;t 30 inches. The actual length may be somewhere between 29.99999999999999.... etc and 30.00000000000000001 etc. But 30 inches suffice. On a quantum level, we cannot measure accurately enough to do anything but work with a probability scale.



I apologise for the lack of clarity. It really isn't my area. I've read a fair bit out of interest, and haven't come across any scientific work, or academic study, which gives any credence to the pseudo-science which claims a basis in quantum mechanics.

[Doug R.]

I don't doubt that the spindrift study was done correctly and scientifically. I have my suspicions that they may have done more studies, and only chosen to release the validating ones.

I [i]know[/i[ of some very scientific studies done on prayer (amongst other things) in the medical world, and I wouldn't doubt their validitiy. Some of those studies, on their own, indicate that prayer does have an effect beyond placebo.


My argument is that the odd positive result is to be expected. Random variation would result in it. In some instances at a surprising degree.

My annoyance at spindrift is that they use a handful of studies, which have some inconsistencies in their methodology, and whose results are inconclusive, and announce then as proof.

My argument is that if the studies were replicated. When studies are replicated. Overall, the results indicate no overall affect of prayer (and other things) above and beyong an expected random variation.

Your points and concerns are valid, but of course your final statement is speculation. I'm buying a house, so I'll finally have room to do stuff. Maybe at some point I'll set something up and we can collaborate (tandem experiments?). Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised at either a positive or negative result.

[formerly known as hf]

I'm moving soon, and would be up for that.

But ditto, neither a positive or negative result would suprise me.

If we both came out with prayed-over soya beans which grew significantly and consistently beyond expected variation, then we would be on to something...

[the_antisocial_hermit]

For fuck's sake.

This is the exact same bollcoks that bloody spritualists, homeopathics, crystal waving idiots and the like. It winds me up so much when people claim proof based on absolutely no formal study.

Don't believe it.

If these people could really do half of what they claimed they do, they wouldn't be working from small offices, homes or have the odd badly written webpage.

They'd be bloody nobel prize winners for having redrawn the rules of physics and chemistry.

Well said. All of the above goes for religion too. Nice tales, but don't believe or act like it's true.

And don't believe or act like there's no possibility that it is true, or if you are going to, then don't tell others what to believe or act like. I think most are not, or they are exaggerated, but I'm not going to be the one to say that they are absolutely not true because it cannot be proven (nor am I one to say what others ought to believe or not believe). Nothing really can. There's always some external stimuli that aren't thought of or known. And there are always unexplainable things that happen.

[Doug R.]

Saying prayer, or crystals, or chanting, or psychic crpa can affect the 'quantum world' I like me saying that I can read people's mind by putting my little finger in their ear

All I said is that observation affects quantum probability. This is a known and established fact.

It's often misused in lay terms. Quantum thoery does not dictate that the cat is both dead and alive. Nor does it maintain that it is neither dead nor alive. Contemporary quantum thoery requires that the observer and the act of observing be understood as part of the quantum system. As far as current thinking tends to go (not to say it is unanimous), there are quantum systems, within which the observer exists.

The 'observer effect' is heavily misused and misunderstood. Observation does not affect quantum probability. Not directly or indirectly. I don't know where to beging to describe it in easy terms. It's not my area of expertise. But, as best a summary as I can get: observation and measurement does not directly affect the quantum level. It affects how we percieve it.

Which could just as well be said for all sciences.

The uncertainty theory states that measurement on a quantum level cannot be exact. Therefore, certain measurement of one area results in less accuracy in another. The observer is only affecting the outcome by the method of measurement.

I apologise for the lack of clarity. It really isn't my area. I've read a fair bit out of interest, and haven't come across any scientific work, or academic study, which gives any credence to the pseudo-science which claims a basis in quantum mechanics.

You're obviously more current on your reading (I haven't picked up a book on this in years), so I'll yield to your correctness.

I was specificly thinking of the experiment where a single photon, fired at two slits, having an equal probability of passing through either, had which slit it -would- pass through predicted in advance by the observer in all cases. This seems to me to be less a matter of perception as it is a matter of altered reality, but I admit that this is not my area of expertise and I have a very rudimentary understanding of it.

[formerly known as hf]

I was specificly thinking of the experiment where a single photon, fired at two slits, having an equal probability of passing through either, had which slit it -would- pass through predicted in advance by the observer in all cases. This seems to me to be less a matter of perception as it is a matter of altered reality, but I admit that this is not my area of expertise and I have a very rudimentary understanding of it.

I would be interested in reading that. I have read only a couple of individual studies. Most of my reading on the subject is laregly text books, most up-to-date, but deal with the historical background. And largely quantum mechanics than other fields.
As far as I was aware, there was no indication observation / prediction could have a significant and consistent effect on outcome.

[Doug R.]

I learned about that study from an out of print book who's purpose was to link spirituality with quantum phenomenon (The Dancing Wu Li Masters by Gary Zukov), but of course I would need to find the original study. I'll look into it after I get my books unpacked (I'll probably have to re-read the whole book to find the reference).

I can't honestly say I've read an unbiased book on the topic, although I do have some on my reading wish list.

[Dee]

Now you guys are talking about things I do not understand

[MakeBeliever]

Mainly they are on about physics Dee. About the way certain nature works which is so very hard to explain or be explained in mathematical terms and mostly done in theories, which as it can't all be explained in one theory a few are used together to try to explain things to try to give a physical picture of the world. It's the mathematical reasoning into our insights into nature. If i remember rightly Relativity and Quantum theory trying to explain the nature of matter and radiation. Which gives us a picture in reality in which particles behave like waves and waves as particles where our normal physical descriptions become subject to essential uncertanties, and where individual objects can manifest themselves in several places at the same time. The deeper you look into physics the more confusing it becomes Dee. Just when you think you have found an answer through maths you hit hurdles that is so very hard to explain the molecular- kinetic theory of liquids not to mention the equations are mind boggling.

Truely i think it often comes down to faith, if you think prayer blessing water is benefitial to you, it just may well be. Because all things truely can't be explained in nature for us all to read in black and white. Which is why there will always be people with ground breaking theories in physics trying to explain our world, but unless you know equations like an everyday thought, you really are not going to get what they are trying to explain. Even if you do understand them to take in what they are trying to explain it's just incredible to believe that just maybe our world is not all it seems from your eyepoint of view. But i would advise anyone to try taking a peek into physics, the more you learn the more it confuses you of the very weird nature of our world. All is definately not as it truely seems when you look deeper at the molecular and Quantum dynamics.

It's hard to explain i like the subject but it's a hobby interest more then an academic interest. So maybe there are others here that can explain it in more depth and in it's proper reasoning in theory terms then i ever could no doubt.