Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation

DM5 wrote:You have not read the study but trust it was done wrong based on what someone else said???

Ok. The studies done by Radin were not criticized in Wikipedia....that was leveled against Emoto in his first experiment. The criticism Raxe posted came from a physics forum and had 2 questions about the methodology of the study....1 of which was answered and can be put to bed in regards to aesthetics in that thread.. "Perceived beauty - aesthetic appeal - can be a measure of symmetry. This is largely what we "measure" when we judge people's looks. Also, the results are mostly reproducible in that there is a clear preference for who we consider to be beautiful." Here is the second experiment done by Radin and Emoto published in Explore: The of Science and Healing
http://www.explorejournal.com/issues/contents?issue_key=S1550-8307%2806%29X0012-5:

Here is Dean Radins' blog where he is asked and answers a multitude of questions about the second study:
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2006/10/effects-of-distant-intention-on-water.html

I think we're confusing each other here- or maybe I'm confused. I was referring to the double-blind placebo study that showed intention affected the aesthetic aspect of the formation of water crystals. I had not read the third (triple-blind) study whose results did not support intention having an effect. Perhaps I was referring to a different study.

I can produce my own list of issues with the study which the physics forum did not mention.

The objective measure of beauty is a bit more complex than symmetry alone.

Okay, I see. We were both talking about the same study. Sorry about that.

I don't think you can, based on the studies, say whether the effect is real or not. There's not enough evidence either way.

That is, if you consider the studies already done legitimate. But there are far too many opportunities for bias to confound the results of the studies done.

You can find potential problems with any study if you look hard enough and there are many bad examples. If you read the third study posted above....it does confirm...just not as statistically significant as those do before. This could be attributed to some of the newer concerns cited with the 3rd study. There are 2 of Radin's blogs I linked to above that follow up questions to both the 2nd and 3rd studies. The studies were not pristine by any means but do seem to show a correlation between distant intention and ice crystal formation. More studies should be done improving on methodology to confirm......... but it is certainly interesting and seems to corroborate earlier experiments using plant and other matter.

Empty, just save your breath, he posted this study in support of IONs without even investigating it. As he said on "blind faith".

Under his logic, if I have two studies conducted by myself that indicate I can shoot laser beams out of my eyes, and one objective study (not conducted by myself) that says otherwise, the one conducted by ME must be true since there are two of them, regardless of how bad the method is.

Additionally, the significant tests are performed in this study as one-tailed tests. This has the effect of lowering the bar - a one-tailed test at p=0.05 is like a two-tailed test at p=0.10. Because it can increase the probability of a type I error (rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true), one must be very careful about when and where one-tailed testing is used. This test, like many in parapsychology, does not warrant one-tailed testing, and yet it is very typical for parapsychology experiments to depend upon this lowered standard for their 'positive' results. If all the comparisons were made using two-tailed tests, only one would have been considered positive. And then once you take into account that corrections should be made for multiple comparisons (18 comparisons were reported on), none of the comparisons are even remotely 'positive'. Essentially, they gathered a lot of fairly noisy data, made a whole bunch of comparisons, and then picked out four comparisons which happened to pass an unreasonably low standard as somehow significant (they say that one of these comparisons (which had a one-tailed p=0.05) was the main comparison of interest).

Of even more interest is the finding that the untreated water actually had slightly more beautiful crystals than the treated water. You might think that this finding would at least make it very difficult for them to tout this study as a 'positive' replication, yet what you find is a set of excuses for why these results 'don't count' as a test of their hypothesis.

Among medical research, regardless of whether or not the authors wish to report a study as positive, whether or not a study is considered positive depends upon the actual results - the authors' conclusions are essentially ignored in evidence-based-medicine. Could it be that what Radin and Emoto are really talking about, when it comes to considering "scoffers" as unreasonable, is that they somehow don't expect others to look at their results, only their conclusions?

Finally, If DM5 had actually done research before posting this study he'd know that Emoto was actually interviewed about the critiques of his study.

In the interview (which can be found here http://www.masaru-emoto.net/newemoto2/index200710.html)

He says that what they are doing can't be called "science", yet.
(まだまだ科学と言えるようなレベルでは有りません。)

It is still in the level of art or fantasy.
(アート、あるいはファンタジーのレベルです。)

However, he also says that he wishes that it will be proven by the "real scientist" in the near future.
(科学的な証明は、本物の科学者達によって、近い将来されるであろう事を願っています。)

Even HE admits its not real science.

Moreover, his only degree Emoto has is in international relations, NOT any science. This should be clear as day when looking at his suspect statistical analysis and methodology.

DM5, just stop. Maybe ION's research is valid, maybe the effect in this study actually occurs..

BUT, THIS study is ATROCIOUS and easy to understand logical criticism can be found all over the internet.

Frankly, I was going to let this go, because I've had these types of arguments with people vastly more qualified. Its usually not worth it to argue with people suffering from confirmation bias who are ignoring objective logic and evidence. But, I saw DM5 exhibiting validation-seeking behavior by trying to troll me in another thread (which is suspect given that he is a moderator), so it is appropriate to respond. DM5, if you do choose to respond, do not try and bait me in other threads, this is a hairloss site and that is why I am here.

Raxe-

First and foremost you come into Magickgro's "Teleportation" thread out of nowhere and tell me in regards to citing IONS research ....................with detectable sarcasm and notable condescension:

"DM5, there are a lot of studies showing prayer doesn't work.

Most "supernatural" studies are never peer reviewed.

If so, someone would have won james randi's million dollar prize by now."

This puts my bullshit meter on high as it seems an utter provocation. So I respond in kind and give you the peer reviewed stuff. Then you follow me into this thread and start trying to rip apart anything you possibly can because I responded to you in the other thread and you got miffed. All the while, you cite James Randi(quack) whose job it is "debunk" everything. So we go back and forth on this subject solving nothing.

I do check other threads by the way as I am not only a moderator but a member and interested in all things on this site. And, I just so happen to find you in the RIFE thread, embracing something that James Randi would laugh at. Why didn't you pose the same questions about RIFE??? As a skeptic don't you think you should fairly attack all "scientifically unproven" concepts or were you just taking out your frustrations on me?? You know...you embracing RIFE kinda blows away your "skeptic" credibility.

Raxe wrote:I'll add a question to this thread, do people share rife machines? More specifically, if I wanted to try it out once or twice, is there somewhere you can go for this?

In regards to this thread. I took statistical analysis for my psych degree back in 1998....so I am a little rusty. But, I said what I beleive and presented elements of all studies done..regardless of how "tight" the methodology was. Aboveall, I am putting the emphasis on Radin(who has done research and conducted studies) here. In regards to that fake Emoto interview.....I think more people would of called bullshit here in the US and at IONS if it was all a joke.

The purpose of this thread was to show there has been some research done(albeit not perfect) showing this effect.... This research seems to backs up previous studies done with plants and such. My goal was not to say this is 100% solid evidence and shouldn't be further tested. But If you are this concerned about the validity...send me message with all your concerns and I will forward this to Radin for some answers. Otherwise...it seems to me you are just here for your grudge.

I am not trashing RIFE in any way BTW..just using it as an example. I just want to know how Raxe can embrace RIFE with no studies done and lecture me in Magickgro's "Teleportation" thread about IONS. Mind you...at that point in time...this study was not even mentioned.

I rest my case. It is plain to see that mood, grudge or frustration was his motivation. In the end what did this solve??? James Randi?

DM5, just stop. Its enough.

I didn't "embrace" RIFE. I barely know anything about it and I was asking a question. I don't give my support or NON-support to anything without having some mastery of the subject. You should think about doing the same.

I suspect I will have problems with RIFE, but I don't know enough yet (I haven't read a study about it). So really, I "embraced" RIFE as much as I "embraced" this thread. Except in this case it was easy to see the terrible "science" behind it. Mostly, it was easy to see because I am very researched in studies on parapsychology.

Admittedly, its easy to criticize a study when the main researcher felt that it was fantasy and so many people in the physics community laughed at it.

FYI. Saying things like "rest my case" at the end of your post does not add to its probative value.

Even in court that's frowned upon.

As that was your only question, I think we can we can put this matter to rest.

DM5 wrote: Plain to see that mood, grudge or frustration was his motivation.

You're projecting with your trolling.

Done.

Raxe wrote:

I didn't "embrace" RIFE. I barely know anything about it and I was asking a question. I don't give my support or NON-support to anything without having some mastery of the subject. You should think about doing the same.

Raxe wrote:I'll add a question to this thread, do people share rife machines? More specifically, if I wanted to try it out once or twice, is there somewhere you can go for this?

Trying it out seems like embracing it to me Raxe. LOL! Let me guess you'll say that was a hypothetical right???

Right as in, if I wanted to try it in the future, could I share one, or would I have to buy one.

You're grasping on thin air.

Raxe-

About you "hypothetically" wanting to try RIFE....uhhhh..........yeah

Are you a lawyer .......Cause I'm calling bullshit on that one.

I think you are simply "grasping" for anything to help your hair.

Just a note. An intention experiment is easy enough to try for yourself. No need to rely on these studies. You can use other forms of matter too...like rice. If you look on Youtube there are some example videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sbzCaEsHfw&feature=related

Chill out guys- really. Not worth getting pissy over.

Raxe's interest in rife is not applicable to the conversation, DM5. Ad hominem doesn't win arguments.

Anyways, no, those studies are poorly constructed with lots of inherent bias. I can explain in more detail if you'd like, but it may take some time. I'd focus on sources of bias rather than statistics as Raxe covered the stats problems.

Empty-

Regardless of the studies and their flaws......Raxe's intentions were poor. In addition, the sources he used were biased and bent things out of proportion. And yes, because he repeatedly has made it clear he doesn't beleive in unexplained phenomena and pseudoscience, Rife, which he expressed interest in trying.....would be in the same category. Why? Because its not accepted by the mainstream. In that vain its pretty hypocritical for him to attack this on science and not that. Not to mention, he could of left it alone after saying it a number of times. No need to argue for the sake of argument. Tone gives intention and speaks for itself regardless of eloquence. There are ways to say things without being an agitator. Pretty easy to see who is being trolled here.

And I never said the studies were %100 perfect. Even Emoto.... in those videos above, which I'm sure you ignored...... said it is difficult to accurately measure for the rigors of the scientific community. If you have a better way of measuring these things....by all means forward it to Emoto or IONS. But the studies don't negate the concept. I and many others beleive quite the opposite. In fact as stated above.....you can do these kind of things at home and confirm for yourself the reality of the situation.

" frameborder="0" loading="lazy" allowfullscreen >

I never said Raxe had good intentions, and I apologize if it seemed like I was supporting his approach. I try to be more open-minded if possible and avoid personal attacks.

I do see your point in the Rife issue. Question: were people in the Rife thread pushing the technology onto people based on results from poorly designed studies? It's not rhetorical - I don't know the answer.

Whether or not I, personally, watched the videos is irrelevant, because I don't recall questioning the context within which the study was run. I also didn't criticize Emoto or IONS. Emoto's opinion about the ability of science to measure the effects of distant intention does not solve the problems with the methodology used in already-run studies. His opinion doesn't matter at all really - the study is out in the open for us to interpret as we please. It's in its final form. If the studied effect were easily identified, such as "bucket diameter's effect on rain collection," and they used a poor measure, I'd still be here criticizing the study. And it's still on the burden of the RESEARCHER, not me, to find an adequate measure to use in his study. Don't use the FunkyStumpFighter burden of proof flip on me.

Anyways, you seem to be taking what I say personally. Yes, I did ask you, "Why can't you admit you're wrong?" I apologize for that. I really want to focus on the study itself. The discussion took a bad turn. When I attack these studies, I attack them and that's it.

The intelligent thing to do.....and if your intentions were benign....would of been to start out with tact. Maybe even a PM with your criticisms. Everything that needed saying between you and I was already said in regards to this study cited. Obviously your stance is utterly combative or you just plain don't know how to interact with people. Nothing that you have said here changes one's ability to verify this concept on their own. There are videos above with instructions. So even attacking the validity of the studies doesn't falsify the information here. If you are just here to remind me of statistics.and bias..we've covered that and now its time to move on. School is over. View the study as you wish! Spread that darkness elsewhere. If you are interested in talking about the profundity of this concept and its implications......then by all means. But we both know that's not why your here.

DM5,

Thought you might be intersted. Wilcock mentions some info regarding Patrick Flanagan's Mega H (microclusters) and ormus. In short, when our grandparents said grace before eating, they were onto something. "You can change the structure of your "food [and water]" based on intent"



fast forward starting at 6:50 on first video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy2ICjtcouY&feature=related



& ends at 4:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZt8XZYSkvc&feature=related

That's fascinating JDP! Absolutely fascinating! And seems to make so much sense within this construct were all working. I'm still watching it now..... But had to say.....awesome! May have some other videos to add based on that.

This is interesting as all get out. It seems to tie in everything those guys above and even Royal Rife was talking about. I'm pretty sure this is what Dan Brown was talking about in his new novel "The Lost Symbol". Concepts of us all getting an evolutionary upgrade in 2012.

DM5 wrote:The intelligent thing to do.....and if your intentions were benign....would of been to start out with tact. Maybe even a PM with your criticisms. Everything that needed saying between you and I was already said in regards to this study cited. Obviously your stance is utterly combative or you just plain don't know how to interact with people. Nothing that you have said here changes one's ability to verify this concept on their own. There are videos above with instructions. So even attacking the validity of the studies doesn't falsify the information here. If you are just here to remind me of statistics.and bias..we've covered that and now its time to move on. School is over. View the study as you wish! Spread that darkness elsewhere. If you are interested in talking about the profundity of this concept and its implications......then by all means. But we both know that's not why your here.

You've crossed the line, sir. This is an open forum; there's no need for me to PM anyone. And nothing I said was a personal attack toward you, your beliefs, or the phenomena described here. I objectively stated my concerns with the studies you posted. I remained completely reasonable while you have not.

The validity of the studies done regarding this phenomenon are at the core of the conversation. You're deflecting away from what we have been discussing. Anecdotal accounts posted on youtube are neither valid nor applicable to our conversation. When I have time, I will surely watch them with interest.

I accept your admission that the studies are questionable and that the behavior can be confirmed through individual experiment - experiments I have not looked at yet.