Anyone come across this before? Any opinions?
DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (p = 0.001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.
Citation: Radin, D. I., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. (2006). Explore, September/October 2006, Vol. 2, No. 5.
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield
I keep getting this terrible feeling of deja woo.
I'm sure I've read a debunking of this intention ice nonsense before. Ages and ages ago, but have vague recollections that experimental error can make it a very convincing effect.
Mousse from a bowl is very nice, but to put it on a person is demented!
Oct19-06, 06:37 PM
Doesn't this experiment merely "prove" that the positive thoughts of the 2000 people affected the judgements of the 100 judges? Were the judges wearing tin-foil hats?
"I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer" - Zaphod Beeblebrox
"This post may be edited to make it more wrong" - skb
"Ignorance is no basis for rewriting the laws of physics" - Pebble
"I am a scientist, with a beard to prove it. This makes me an authority on nothing other than the growing and maintenance of facial hair" - skb
I'm afraid I have little faith in any experiment that uses judges, blind or otherwise, to assess aesthetic appeal. If they'd used a mathematical formula instead, it might have been more impressive. I predict that if a group of skeptics repeated the same test, the result would be insignificant.... resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (p = 0.001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.
The ice crystals with the good intentions focussed on them were all in one freezer cabinet and the controls were all in another freezer cabinet ... Oh dear!
So, one cabinet accidentally produces prettier ice crystals than the other ... 50% chance of success ... and of course if it had been the other 50% then the results would have claimed that the good intentions made the crystals less pretty. Can't lose!
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
Ice crystal formation is essentially chaotic, unpredictable and highly dependent on initial conditions. Thus the crystals in any given formation would tend to resemble each other and differ from those in another separate formation with different initial conditions.
If I was doing this test, I would use thousands of fridges and take a single sample of a few crystals from each. Budget? What budget?
Last edited by Mulder; 11th June 2009 at 03:27 PM.