How do Water Crystals Grow?

[GoldenEagles]

That's all well and good, but the obtaining of proof begins inside the experiment or the math.

 

Yes, if Columbus sat at home all of his life, and just theorized about a New World, and pontificated about it endlessly in the coffee shops of his day, then his idea would not have been worth much. However, Columbus was certainly a Type A personality. He believed in his idea so intensely that he devoted his life to it. And persuaded the Queen of Spain to finance his experiment. His experiments of course, and there was more than one, (contrary to the above history-distorting comments) proved his theory. That is why Mr. Emoto is just not writing books. He has a staff, a laboratory, and is constantly making the effort to improve his techniques, and experimental methodologies. Clearly, that is why he made a considerable effort to do the "Double Blind" experimentation that so many people were calling for. I provided the article link above which describes the results. The experiment was considered a general success on behalf of Mr. Emoto's theory. It had enough of a successfull outcome, to justify moving forward with additional experiments, which I understand, they are doing.

 

Many people like to follow the explorer in their rowboats, calling for the crew to abandon ship. These are not true scientists.

[Bignose]

Indeed, we can imagine some of Queen Isabella's "scientific" advisors of the day, sincerely arguing, as you are doing, "no, don't waste your time, or spend a penny on this wild idea, until we have tangible evidence that there is something out there." The pursuit of truth begins inside of the heart and mind. Just as the voyage of Christopher Columbus demonstrates.

 

As stupid as you make it sound, here, there is a little kernel of right in this. And there are debates about what experiments should and should not be funded, especially when the grant-giving organization only has a limited about of money to fund projects with and more people asking for money than the organization has. And, very often, the people deciding what projects are also scientists who use their best judgment as to what experiments will being in the best or most interesting or more useful results. Those people certainly aren't always right. Those people have to use their instinct and try to figure out what is best -- which is imperfect since instinct certainly isn't always right. Judgment calls will always need to be made whether an experiment is worthwhile or not. Just as a for example, it is a fair debate whether or not building bigger and higher energy particle accelerators is worth it or not. There are good arguments on both sides.

 

Nevertheless, this actually has nothing to do with my main point, which you have (deliberately?) misinterpreted again. At its most basic, the scientific method says absolutely nothing about whether experiments are worthwhile to be funded or not. The scientific method only gives us the method by which to interpret the results that we have in hand now, and tells us whether more experimentation in the future is needed or not. That's it. Human politics and money and all the other issues have nothing to do with the method itself.

 

So, again, let's review in the context of Emoto's ideas here.

 

1) He has an idea about the formation of ice crystals.

2) He posts pictures and post his idea on the Internet

3) Science evaluates those pictures and his idea and comes to the conclusion that the evidence as presented to date is insufficient and that further testing in a more unbiased, more objective, more impartial method needed. Hence, science makes no conclusions about it, except that the ideas of Emoto's are unsupported by good evidence. Without good support, skepticism in the idea is fully justified.

4) What happens next? Again, I ask why no further more rigorous testing? If this idea turns out to be true, the best way to convince people is to re-perform the experiments in an unbiased, objective, impartial way. Then there will be good evidence, and science will accept it. It really and truly is as simple as that.

 

This is what science and the scientific method does for us. It gives us a way to use the evidence we have in hand to either confirm or reject the hypothesis. Or tells us that the evidence we have on hand is insufficient for confirmation or rejection. And, without confirmation, skepticism is still justified.

 

All these strawmen about Columbus and persecution are just distracting from the main thrust of the topic here.

 

Post some better, more objective, less biased, more impartial evidence and everyone will change their mind! Emoto's ice crystals have absolutely nothing to do with Columbus! Post some good scientific evidence that Emoto's idea is right and all this other crud will go away! Every time you post something other than good evidence, you just make your case look weaker and weaker! And makes us more and more convinced that there is no good evidence, which makes our skepticism more and more valid. Show us skeptics why we are wrong!

 

Post the evidence that objectively, unbiasedly, and impartially shows why we are wrong! I make this public promise that I will change my mind and will become one of the strongest supporters -- if and only if strong unbiased, objective, impartial evidence is presented.

[Kyrisch]

I'm going to point something out. This 'evidence' is all well and good, but a mechanism still needs to be identified. A suspect cannot be convicted without a murder weapon. The how is what science is all about -- the theory extrapolated from the data. Dr Emoto says "this happens" and may be able to demonstrate it in semi-controlled experiment, but until a mechanism is established (like in the Cold Fusion fiasco), it is more likely statistical noise, bias, or lack of control. This is especially important in cases in which the apparent findings contradict most of established science (i.e. that little pieces of paper with graphite or pigment designs on them should not affect the freezing of water inside a glass, or that fusion cannot occur under the circumstances described by Fleischmann and Pons). So, in the words of Mooeypoo, put up or shut up. Do the experiment yourself (it really isn't a high-tech endeavour), or wait for more evidence. Talking about Columbus is going nowhere fast, especially since you're stuck on the false belief that everyone thought the Earth was flat anyway.

 

Most of all, stop ignoring my posts. I have posted three times in this thread and you have not addressed me once. It's disheartening and implies that you cannot, which will only hurt your reputation of intellectual integrity.

 

EDIT: Cross-posted with Bignose. Forgive me for any apparent redundancy. It seems to me that his post is more thorough anyway.

[Bignose]

Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation

 

I looked through this paper this evening, and came away pretty unimpressed.

 

Firstly, the number of tests was pretty small, which means that the difference between the treated and control groups probably isn't statistically significant. (What statistics are presented don't seem right to me, but I didn't actually do the math because I don't have the time tonight.) The variance in the control group was almost twice the mean -- if that isn't a huge red flag that more tests are needed, I don't know what is. That huge of a variance means that the confidence in the mean is very, very low! It is well within the realm of possibility that the treated group's mean is actually around 2 and the control group is around 3 -- completely the opposite of Emoto's idea. Much, much more repetitions are needed to button this up.

 

Secondly, the treated group was found to be a little more "aesthetically pleasing" than the control group -- but what does that even really mean? If the two groups were made of different people, than different people are going to find different things more or less aesthetically pleasing.

 

Thirdly, the journal it was published in has a reputation for being very non-rigorous in that they won't reject papers that aren't supported very well.

 

Fourthly, has anyone ever replicated this work anywhere? The only citations to that paper are from the same group, so no one else has published anything about it.

 

Fifthly, the authors actually present about a dozen different explanations on why the two different batches of crystals may have formed differently (and none of them actually citing any of the crystal growing literature -- the actual science of growing crystals is probably at least an order of magnitude more complex than the authors of that paper even mention). If there are so many other possibilities, why publish such an incomplete work?

 

Sixthly, the citations in the paper seem pretty weak, too. Lots of citations to 1) his own book which is unscientific 2) lots of journals on parapsychology. One of the citations was about how to judge how aesthetically pleasing a web site is -- what exactly does that have to do with crystals? No citations at all about crystal growth, of which there is a very, very rich literature out there.

 

Seventh, scientifically, it would be nice to propose a mechanism by which the crystal growth is affected. I.e. how does the energy level on the faces change so that the growth is different. gain, there is a very rich literature out there on crystal growth. And then, where does that energy come from or go? The laws of thermodynamics are very clear that energy isn't free and has to come from and go somewhere, so the energy to change how the crystals grow must come from somewhere. This may be a little beyond the scope of the current paper, but these are obvious follow up questions that have to be addressed before being convincing. (edited to add: this is exactly what Kyrisch posted about above.)

 

Those are the critiques I saw just from a quick scan. I am sure that I could have more, but I simply don't have the time tonight. Perhaps at a future date.

[GoldenEagles]

Post some better, more objective, less biased, more impartial evidence and everyone will change their mind! Emoto's ice crystals have absolutely nothing to do with Columbus!

 

My post concerning Christopher Columbus proved a valid point, that the reactionary negative postures taken in relationship to the endeavors of a true explorer, whether that explorer was Columbus, or is Mr. Emoto, is not a posture worthy of modern scientists. In your last post, you have expressed some far more reasonable sentiments, which I appreciate.

 

If you, and others, want me to do these experiments, please send me a check for $270,000 (US Dollars). When I receive the check, I will rent some office space (a lease is required - though much space is available at reasonable costs in the current economic climate), and I will order the walk-in freezer (large enough to accommodate a microscope work station), not just any walk-in freezer, but one that can maintain a steady -5C temperature, with humidity control, and arrange to have it installed. I will order the smaller laboratory grade freezer required to bring the samples to -25C. I will hire a qualified lab assistant. I will order the equipment necessary for the micro photography work. These are my cost estimates:

 

1. Office Lease for one Year - $25,000

2. Purchase and Installation of walk-in freezer - $25,000

3. Purchase of (cabinet size) laboratory grade freezer (-25C) - $5000.

4. Purchase of equipment for Micro Photography - $25,000

5. Miscellaneous Instrumentation - $25,000

6. Utility bills for one year - $15,000

7. One year Salary for a lab assistant - $40,000

8. Misc. Office Expenses - $10,000

9. Logistical Support for off-site experimental scenarios over one year - $100,000

 

Total $270,000

 

The high cost of the experimental scenario, coupled with the almost certain attacks upon the character of anyone who might step up to the plate (as evidenced by the irrationale negativities thrown around by some of the members of this forum) may well be a partial explanation for why people are not flocking into this line of enquiry.

Edited April 13, 2009 by GoldenEagles

[UC]

my god, what a heap of crap.

 

lock please?

[GoldenEagles]

my god, what a heap of crap.

 

lock please?

 

What in the world does such a statement have to do with scientific enquiry? If you have objections to ideas or principles stated, why don't you express them in a rationale manner? I can see, in my mind's eye, the conference table where you are seated, gathered with your collegues, and when you hear something you don't like, and not liking something is a purely emotional reaction, out of your mouth spouts this "what a heap of crap." After even one such outburst at a real world conference table, without an apology, you would not be invited back.

[iNow]

GoldenEagles,

 

The scientific-based objections have already been stated, and have repeatedly gone unaddressed.

 

 

Your thread reminds me of this:

 

 

T69TOuqaqXI

[Sisyphus]

Since pointing out gaping flaws in the Emoto's methods and the fact that he has completely failed to reproduce his results in front of a qualified outside observer (the money I was referring to, BTW, was the million dollar prize offered Emoto by the James Randi Institute) hasn't gotten us anywhere, can we at least talk about Columbus?

 

1) Comparing yourself (or the person you're defending) to Columbus or Galileo or Einstein is a universal red flag for quackitude. It never ever helps your case.

 

2) By the time of Columbus' voyage, it had been known among educated people that the world was roughly spherical for thousands of years. Ancient and medieval astronomy is based on that fact, and it had even been calculated within a few percentage points the Earth's size (see the Wikipedia article on Eratosthenes). It certainly wasn't Columbus' idea, and in fact he was grossly misinformed about the details and the size of the Earth.

 

If, in fact, it had been his idea, and he hadn't any particular evidence for it, the various rules of Europe would have been absolutely in the right to refuse to fund an expedition. The fact that the theoretical basis was already in place made the experiment worthwhile and necessary.

[Bignose]

The high cost of the experimental scenario, coupled with the almost certain attacks upon the character of anyone who might step up to the plate (as evidenced by the irrationale negativities thrown around by some of the members of this forum) may well be a partial explanation for why people are not flocking into this line of enquiry.

 

The cost is not my problem, the forum member's problem, or science's problem.

 

ONE MORE TIME, Science only tells us how to interpret the results. Science has nothing to say about how the results are obtained, except that the results are impartial, unbiased, and objective. Science also tells us to be skeptical of results and any conclusions drawn from evidence that is biased, partial, and non-objective. Or incomplete. Or not statistically significant.

 

Look, yours is not the only idea that science rejects because of lack of evidence. The first one that comes to mind is the idea of the graviton. While the current model is consistent with the existence of the graviton, and some particle being the force carrier for gravity just like there are particles for the weak, strong, and EM force seems like a very logical continuation -- there still is no conclusive evidence for the existence of the graviton particle. Until such conclusive evidence does exist, skepticism in the belief of the graviton particle is perfectly justified. That hasn't stopped physicist to build different devices to attempt to detect it.

 

And, you know how the vast majority of them get the money to build the devices to attempt to detect the graviton? They write grants and find sponsors. If you think you need a quarter of a million dollars, I guess you better go find someone to sponsor you or you better start writing grant proposals.

 

But, that isn't our problem, and bringing it up is again only a distraction from addressing many of the valid scientific questions that should be addressed. And, it also isn't our problem that you don't have the unbiased, objective, impartial evidence to convince us with. That is your problem, if you want to convince us, because what has been presented to date is scientifically very unconvincing.

 

Here's a farcical and yet similar example. Say I told you that there is an invisible troll that lives in my attic and solves math problems in its head. Are you just going to believe that? Are you going to believe that idea until someone comes along a proves that it isn't true? What if I said that the evidence that causes me to know that he lives there is because I find math books open that I know he is reading at night when I sleep? And then I tell you that I can't prove he exists any better unless someone buys me an infrared camera so that I can catch him on film. Are you just going to accept that his existence is real?

 

I would sincerely hope not, otherwise you are a very gullible person.

 

And this situation is pretty similar. What has been presented so far is unconvincing, and there are many questions need to be answered about the evidence. We aren't just going to believe because you want us to believe. It isn't our fault that your evidence is unconvincing to us. The onus is on you to bring better evidence. It isn't on us to give you money to provide the better evidence.

[GoldenEagles]

I don't see any knee jerk repudiations of my cost estimates, so I will assume from that that those who are reading this forum thread consider those stated costs to be a reasonable first estimate. Perhaps not perfect, but in the ballpark.

 

And if it is indeed a reasonable first estimate, then I would hope that an objective mind could agree with this thesis, that the capital expenditure associated with this line of experimentation does constitute one valid factor that would effectively put a cap on the number of people who would be in the position to do this kind of research.

 

Can we agree on that one narrow point?

[stereologist]

Thanks iNow for that wonderful video.

 

Back to Columbus. Clearly GoldenEagles you completely misunderstand the entire situation. For instance, Columbus was not looking for a New World.

 

Your costs estimates are foolish. You are refusing to attempt to duplicate a trivial experiment through a shallow artifice. Yes trivial.

[GoldenEagles]

Your costs estimates are foolish.

 

I genuinely believe that my estimates are reasonable. Please explain to me why you believe these cost estimates are foolish. Please take a few moments to offer your own set of estimates, if you believe you have a better sense of physical and economic reality in this area. I would welcome the correction.

 

And moreover, along with your own estimate, it would be useful if you would offer an outline of the general parameters of the experiment you have in mind, so we are comparing apples to apples.

 

In regards to the parameters of the experiment, we can use the post above by Bignose as a general guide, as to what it ought to include. It must be a valid double-blind experiment, with sufficient scope for the results to have any substantial meaning. The general outline of the double blind experiment conducted by Emoto, et. al., had some serious deficiencies as Bignose has pointed out. So the experiment must have a better design, and upscaled in scope, to have any value. Agreed?

Edited April 14, 2009 by GoldenEagles

[Sisyphus]

Those costs are a bit absurd. There's no reason you can't do everything with a kitchen freezer and a $100 microscope, especially considering Emoto's "always" and "never" claims. In fact, if that were true, you probably wouldn't even need the microscope.

[stereologist]

Agreed?

 

No. The first step is to see if you can duplicate something. Why waste money like a politician if there is no need to.

 

So let's see. You need a freezer, some drinking glasses made of glass that can be turned upside down, thermometer to calibrate the freezer, hand lens, notebook, and a plastic bottle to collect water samples.

 

If I were going to do this experiment I'd throw in an ample supply of quality beer. That would be my actual cost right there.

 

So see if you can duplicate the experiments - affect the growth of ice by good and bad thoughts. You could bring over a friend and tell them to do the good versus bad and place the answer in a hermetically sealed envelope, that you the Great Karnak, will not open until you have made observations about which ice was pretty and which was not. Then you open the envelope and are the first to learn if your friends thoughts affected the growth.

 

So if it looks like it is working then try 4 more friends and it works and you still have not run out of beer you can sit down and write to us about how your experiment met the 95% confidence interval.

 

Estimated cost: beer for 5 friends and yourself $50

[John Cuthber]

Those costs are a bit absurd. There's no reason you can't do everything with a kitchen freezer and a $100 microscope, especially considering Emoto's "always" and "never" claims. In fact, if that were true, you probably wouldn't even need the microscope.

 

Actually, I think that some people could do it more cheaply still.

What we need is someoone with a working understanding of Japanese and a copy of the Tokyo yellow pages.

Phone any of the plumbers and ask them if they have ever had to repair a pipe that burst when it froze.

If they have, then we know that Tokyo tap water freezes (at least once) asd we can dismiss Emoto's ideas completely.

 

Roughly equivalently, we can seek to find out if this sort of product

http://www.plumbworld.co.uk/arctic-spray-2-high-0-3509?CAWELAID=205025317

is on sale there.

 

Sometimes, you don't need Galileo or Columbus- you just need a Japanese plumber.

[GoldenEagles]

The basic structure of the experiment must reproduce the conditions found in nature that cause snowflakes to form. We are looking for crystal growth from symmetrical hexagonal cores. These are the conditions that Mr. Emoto has set up in his experiments.

 

You need to begin with a very low temperature, -25C (-13F) a temperature which commercial kitchen freezers don't get down to, let alone your standard kitchen refrigerator freezer combination. From what I understand, the design goal for a home-use freezer is 0 deg F. By comparison, we need to get down to -13F (-25C) for the initial freezing of the samples. The home freezer will not get close to the target temperature. I further understand that the design goal for a commercial grade freezer, is -10F. Better, but still shy of the goal. Because ice cream and frozen food does not have to reach a -25C freezing point, engineers don't design that capability into home or commercial freezers. Designing a capability into a product that your customers will never use, is a waste of money. And so, they don't do it.

 

In our situation we need a laboratory grade freezer that can get down to, and maintain a -25C temperature. Additionally the more samples you must freeze, and this would be the case with a large experimental matrix, the larger freezer you will need. The cost of an appropriate laboratory grade freezer start at about $6000. See these examples.

 

Next, your microscope work station must be kept at a constant -5C. This temperature differential, -25C to -5C is what the crystals need to grow. They do not grow under any other conditions. While any kitchen freezer will give you a -5C temperature (23F), the problem is, you and your microscope will not fit inside of it. You need a walk in freezer in which you can install your work station desk, your microscope, your photography equipment, and your chair, and in which these tools never leave. The whole work atmosphere must be maintained at -5C.

 

Perhaps the last commenter's missed these particular facets of the experimental matrix. We need to realize, that Mr. Emoto and his researchers, over ten years of experimentation, have determined that these are the temperature conditions which produce the growth of these crystals in the most predictable and reproducible manner. Though, I don't want to make it sound like they thought this up on their own. They just discovered, through experimentation, that the more closely they can mimic, in the laboratory, the conditions in nature that produce snowflakes, the more of these kinds of crystal structures they can produce and photograph.

 

I hope upon reflection of these important facts, that we can agree that this experiment cannot be accomplished in your kitchen or my kitchen. Again, you need a walk-in freezer in which your workstation must be kept and used, and which never goes below -5C, and you need a smaller freezer, stored inside of the walk-in, that will get your sample freezing temperatures down to -25C. The smaller freezer must be kept inside of the larger freezer, so that the samples, when they are removed, and transported to the microscope work station, are not exposed to temperatures any warmer than -5C.

Edited April 15, 2009 by GoldenEagles

[GoldenEagles]

It was not my intent to embarrass anyone into silence, by demonstrating in such a clear and concise manner how far various participants in this thread had allowed their minds to become untethered to the standard, or the reference point, of objective truth. When the mind is driven wholly by emotion, primarily negative emotion, the thoughts generated therein are most likely wholly in error, as we have seen demonstrated above, in regards to the must fundamental and scientifically valid rudiments of this experimental matrix, i.e. the general framework of natural law associated with the production of symmetrical water crystals (snowflakes) a framework that must be replicated and maintained in the laboratory as the essential context for this line of experimentation.

 

The scientist who can learn to identify, and set aside, the distorting influence that negative emotion has upon the thought processes , that scientist will have set his or her feet upon the path that will lead to clear thinking. The people, in general, are clearly in need of leaders in this regard. And I would ask you, who will it be that will lead the masses up this trail of light and reason if it is not the scientists of this world? And so, those who associate themselves with the disciplines of science have a more than ordinary responsibility in this regard.

 

I will stipulate to this fact, that, as Children of God, each of you deserve the respect inherent in that relationship, which I give you without reservation. And this is a level of respect without room for denigration. However, the Children of God (on this planet at any rate) have much to learn concerning the principles of right thinking. Much of the chaos on this planet can be traced to the neglect of, or ignorance of, one of the most fundamental principles thereof, which points to the deleterious effects that negative emotions have upon the thought processes. Thought processes driven by powerful negative emotions especially in the domain of science will always exhibit the characteristics of error.

 

And so, it seems to me, that one of the first steps in establishing the integrity of any scientific endeavor, would be to make the sincere effort to identify and cast out from the process any negative emotions one can identify, as these will always be pollutants in the crystal lake of scientific discovery.

 

Isn't it true therefore, and who will have the courage to agree with me, that this experiment cannot be accomplished in your kitchen or my kitchen. That the experimenter will need a walk-in freezer in which your workstation must be kept and used, and which never goes below -5C, and that you will need a smaller freezer, stored inside of the walk-in, that will get the water samples frozen down to a temperature of -25C. And that the smaller freezer must be kept inside of the larger freezer, so that the samples, when they are removed, and transported to the microscope work station, are not exposed to temperatures any warmer than -5C?

[Bignose]

Let me be perfectly clear, I have stopped replying in this thread, not because "I have been embarrassed into silence" or because I agree with you, but simply because you don't actually address any of the points I bring up. You have a penchant for trying to change the subject (like this whole diversion about Columbus which hss NOTHING to do with ice crystals and this latest one about the cost of the experiments which again has NOTHING to do with actual results or proposed mechanisms) -- stick to the topic at hand rather than trying to divert attention away from the holes in the idea! So, I lost interest because you haven't demonstrated any real interest in discussing the idea in a scientific way. If you do start, I'll come back and participate more fully, but until then, I just don't care anymore.

[GoldenEagles]

...

So.... again, the question is: why the reluctance to further scientific inquiry here? Why can't the experiments be repeated? The evidence presented to date is very biased, very nonobjective, very partial. All science is asking for is more impartiality so that it can be made much clearer whether the idea is right or not. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that really too much to ask?

 

In this statement of yours, posted on April 12, which was five days ago, you posed this question --- "Why can't the experiments be repeated?" And others have posed similar questions. By addressing the subject of experimentation cost, I have addressed your question, and proposed at least a partial answer. That the cost of experimentation may be a factor that keeps people out of this line of enquiry. In response to this thesis, we got some rather wild opinions thrown out about the experiment being simple, even trivial, and so forth, and that it could be accomplished using one's kitchen refrigerator. I gave a definitive response, that illustrates that simply establishing the most basic framework for doing proper tests in this area, without even considering the issue of the scale of the experiment, was high.

 

This was a line of inquiry that you helped push to the forefront. And then you come back at me and say that I am not responding to your concerns. The record tells a different story.

 

This is the question you posed - "Why can't the experiments be repeated?"

 

In your own mind, it appears you have an answer to this question. Your answer would be, that it cannot be repeated, because many people have tried to repeat the experiment, and they have failed. If this is so, then where are THEIR REPORTS? There are no such reports of people trying this experiment, and failing to achieve similar results. This is one indicator that your assumption is in error.

 

Another real-world factor that would cast further doubt on your assumption, is the question of experiment cost. I have responded with the idea that high costs may keep a lot of people out of this line of enquiry. And I have presented some EVIDENCE that supports this idea. Now, you need to put yourself on the record, in terms of responding to my answer to YOUR QUESTION. What is your sense of this? Could the high cost of experimentation be a factor in keeping people out of this line of enquiry? Can we agree on that?

Edited April 19, 2009 by GoldenEagles

[iNow]

Lack of funds is never a good enough reason for a lack of repeated results. There is always a source of funding to be found somewhere, so the short answer is, no. Cost is not a good enough reason why the results have not been replicated.

[GoldenEagles]

Lack of funds is never a good enough reason for a lack of repeated results. There is always a source of funding to be found somewhere, so the short answer is, no. Cost is not a good enough reason why the results have not been replicated.

 

When people are indulging a condition of highly negative emotion in relationship to a particular idea, they will often say irrational things just for spite. I think that is the case with this comment.

 

You will notice that all comments up to this point, in relationship to the high cost issue, have been predicated on the acceptance of the premise, that is, if the costs of the experiment were indeed high cost, that indeed, this would be a deterrent, which is common sense. Therefore, a lot of misguided energy went into making (spurious) arguments trying to show that the cost of the experiment was not high, arguments which I have effectively answered. I have given evidence that the cost of the most rudimentary experimental framework is high.

 

Also, a sign of the highly active presence of negative emotion, is this propensity to refuse to agree with anything that the "opponent" has to say, even if what the opponent has to say is correct, accurate and rationale. Perhaps this too is a reason why the advance of science into this particular area has been so slow in coming.

 

The idea that large amounts of money grow on trees, is quite an absurd position to take, when thousands of experiments go unfunded every year because there is no source of funding. And of course, if this is the attitude that is prevalent on funding review boards, this profound negativity that makes every effort to stay outside the circle of objectivity, then we have our finger on another important factor that works to suppress research in this area. Yes, the very people who will argue against funding research in this area, will turn around and ask where is the evidence for repeatable results.

Edited April 19, 2009 by GoldenEagles

[iNow]

All of the negativity goes away the moment you share more data which supports your contention and is replicable. Until then, have fun posting to this thread by yourself about off topic irrelevancies.

[GoldenEagles]

All of the negativity goes away the moment you share more data which supports your contention and is replicable. Until then, have fun posting to this thread by yourself about off topic irrelevancies.

 

Of course, discussing the question of what it takes to run such experiments, even with the intent of pinning that down, would go a long way to helping those who are interested in doing these experiments, understand what they need. An objective and lucid discussion of exactly this element of the subject, is exactly what will facilitate the bringing forth onto the public record of exactly the data you say you are interested in. Can we agree on that?

 

Moreover, in as much as the definition of the experimental matrix, is required to pin down all of the logistical requirements, and costs, it might be worthwhile to discuss what kind of an experimental matrix would be sufficient to persuade highly skeptical minds, such as yours. In this regard, data that you consider irrelevant would have no persuasive power. On the other hand, data that you consider to be relevant might have great persuasive power. What, then, would be an experimental matrix that you would consider valid, and of sufficient scope, that would produce date that would be relevant to you?

 

You, and others who are interested in this thead subject, could help define that, and the perspective of one who would surely stand as a highly critical judge of the outcome would be important, and then we could cost that out. In other words, we could then consider what it would cost to implement an experimental matrix (which skeptical minds help to design) that would produce data that would be persuasive to those very skeptical minds.

[Bignose]

The medium of communication (this forum) may have made my intention a little unclear, but I wasn't looking for the nuts and bolts (and dollars and cents) of why the experiment couldn't be repeated. I was looking for the big-picture point-of-view as to why there was so much hesitation and reluctance to try to be objective and unbiased about it.

 

You completely ignored my post #35 which I expanded on why the costs are nobody's problem but the believer.

 

You also completely ignored my post #29 which details several of the issues I had when I looked over the published paper.

 

That's why I feel like there hasn't been any discussion of substance, and feel like there isn't much point in continuing to participate.

 

By analogy, I feel like we are discussing opening a nationwide chain of stores and you have spent the last month arguing over whether the stripes painted in the parking lots should be yellow or white instead of any of the truly substantive issues such as distribution, advertising, or manpower. Or, by another analogy, you are trying to straighten the tables and lay out the place settings just perfectly on the sinking Titanic.

 

In other words, don't worry about the smaller details until the larger ones have been addressed! If you can solve some of the large problems, then two things: 1) then you can start to discuss the finer issues like cost and 2) you'll be in a much better place to actually request and improve your chances to receive funding if you can satisfactorily address concerns brought up by the proposal reviewers. So, if you get back to addressing the major issues, maybe this discussion will reignite, otherwise, I see it as pretty pointless.