Talk:Masaru Emoto/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Masaru Emoto. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Balancing the criticism

Experience has been replicated in 2008, and still no reference? I don't know how to edit articles properly so here's the info:

Radin, D., Lund, N., Emoto, M., Kizu, T. (2008). Effects of distant intention on water crystal formation: A triple-blind replication. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 22(4), 481-493.

found here: http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/01/water-crystal-replication-study.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.114.69.48 (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A useful and fairly impartial and balanced look at Dr. Emoto's work is online at is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com

I'm glad he has made the books. At the worst they are a positive uplift on your own thoughts. -65.24.52.135

This page is unnessicarily untrusting of Dr. Emoto -68.100.150.179

I agree...there's nothing written about what people like about his work or anything that would represent his POV. It focuses too much on what scientists think of some of his claims. --Madis<font="002299">o<font="000099">n 14:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree there is room to add material to balance the substantive critical section. I put up much of the current biographical content and critical content since that was what I had researched for a debate with a friend. Anybody who has done or wants to do some research on other aspects of Emoto should help fill in the gaps and improve the article.--Niku 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This article remains horribly biased. Rather than simply convey Emoto's work, explaining the positive response to it as well as the criticism, it takes swipes at him every chance it can - in everything from science he never claimed to do to the school he attended. If he were an author, would the entire article focus on the flaws of his writing and the value of his educational background? No. The people fighting to keep this perspective are "fundamental theorists" who hold a grudge against his work, demanding that science explain everything first then ask questions later. Even with double blind tests done, he is dismissed because they have not been published in a journal deemed "respected" by the theoretical fundamentalists. Emoto's work has raised interesting questions and for that it deserves a balanced presentation. This article needs to be drastically changed or completely scrapped in light of its hijacking by a specific POV. It's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. I wish I were the one with the knowledge to make these changes, but I am not.

Science explains phenomena, but a phenomenon must first be shown to exist before a theory can be developed for it. Emoto so far has not done this. Bennie Noakes (talk) 19:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That is all well and good, but it has nothing to do with the fact that a Wikipedia entry is simply supposed to convey the facts about a subject and the support and criticism of those facts. This isn't the ultimate stand on whether Emoto's work is scientifically valid. It's a place to learn about Emoto's work. Anyone who resists that under the guise that they are protecting science is both ignoring the purpose of Wikipedia and projecting their point of view (in this case whether the scientific validity of Emoto's work has anything to do with how his work is portrayed on Wikipedia).

This article is about Masaru Emoto. That means anything he has done, be it true or not, should be included without being subject to bias remarks in the article. I do not feel that there should be a heading stating Water crystal works and Criticism. Instead there should be a heading solely on his Work with water crystals and possibly a sub-heading stating some of the criticism, but it should be done in a way that is not biased. That section of the article does not come from a neutral point of view like a Wikipedia article is supposed to do. Also, the offer by Randi is out of place. I don't feel this should even be mentioned as he is not really a credible source.Niklak (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Emoto's response to critics

If anybody can find a meaningful response by Emoto to his critics, please let us know. All I can find is this:--Niku 06:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

"MRA is beyond the conventional scientific common sense."[1]
A 2005 reply by Emoto to an interviewer’s question about scientific criticism [2]:

Interviewer: I've heard you say that your work hasn't been very well received by the scientific community. I'm wondering if that has changed, or if more people in that community are starting to look and study it also.

Emoto: In regards to that, it actually hasn't changed, but I have been receiving more comments or complaints because it's proportedly [sic] considered not scientific within the scientific community. I, myself, haven't approached them to reconcile this fact and they haven't approached me either. As a rebuttal, I would like to announce in this particular article that my response to the scientific community is to say that water, anything that has to do with water, isn't scientific in itself—it is a bit ridiculous or funny actually. I have actually been thinking that they really don't have the right to say or comment on anything about work that I do at the moment because, when you think about it, water is the basis or is fundamental to everything that exists on this planet and the universe. And they have been neglecting the most fundamental source—water—for so long and have not been studying. Now, when I come out with my research results and announcements, I see no right for them to be in the position to make any comment.

Im Studing Chemistry....are you freaking kidding me?? This is not even close to be real, Im so sad this articule dont talk about the real stuff!! This really sucks!

209.232.148.109 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There is one such argument presented by Dr. Emoto to denounce the possibility of a biased perspective while photographing these crystals. In his recent book, "The Secret Life of Water", Dr. Emoto mentions that he takes several photographs of about 50 crystals from within a single frozen drop of water. He then classifies the photograph into any one of 8 categories. These categories range from "Beautiful" to "Deformed" or "No Crystal Development". He then chooses the one photograph that he feels represents the photographs as a whole. This process eliminates photographic bias. Althought the selection process is unscientific, We must assume that Dr. Emoto has a rational, scientific mind and therefore, Dr. Emoto has honestly chosen the photograph that does truly represent the drop of water as a whole.

Again, you may find this argument from within "The Secret Life of Water" by Dr. Emoto.

And yes, I do agree that this article does take quite a non-neutral perspective of Dr. Emoto and rather, looks at his work with skepticism. Instead of simply providing the information as to his work, he criticizes it more. This is evident because the critique of Dr. Emoto itself is four times as long as the explanation of what Dr. Emoto does, and is in MUCH more detail. The biography section of Dr. Emoto is minimal and superficial. Logically, detrimental to the critique itself since it clearly shows a biased perspective, and therefore cannot be trusted as a neutral source of information.

70.187.169.252 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

We must assume that there is bias in Emoto's mind until demonstrated otherwise. If, for example, his work passed double-blind, which it does not. HE SELECTS HIS PHOTOS BASED ON WHAT HE EXPECTS TO SEE. That is the essence of observer bias. He expects to see "beautiful" crystals, he takes 50 pictures, he finds a "beautiful" crystal, he concludes 'this water contains only beautiful crystals because I expected it to'. That is a classic logical fallacy. See my user page for a discussion of why this article's biases are a good thing. Being skeptical of Emoto is a virtue, not a flaw. The only reason that Emoto merits inclusion in Wikipedia is his notoriety. His ideas are complete bollocks. Michaelbusch 18:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

70.187.169.252 23:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some pictures of certain crystals which were under exposure of words such as "unhappiness" or "despair". Naturally, one would assume that these are negative thoughts and emotions and therefore, create disfigured crystals. However, "unhappiness" had produced a beautiful crystal, not indifferent from "happiness". "despair" created a crystal that was somewhat moderate, but still had some beauty to it. Logically, With these words, Emoto would expect horribly disfigured crystals, thus causing the crystals to be horribly disfigured, correct? But alas, they are not. Also, you don't realize, Emoto never takes these pictures physically himself, he always has an assistant take them for him. The room in which the photos are taken is chilled to -5 degrees celsius, and Emoto himself, at his lecture that I've just attended, testifies that he has not once entered this room simply because he cannot stand the cold. Wouldn't the average person, taking these pictures, expect the logical outcome of "unhappiness" and "despair", et cetera, to be ugly crystals, affecting the crystal itself? The results prove otherwise.

AGAIN, he selects his photos as they represent the WHOLE of the other 49 photos. It's simple arithmetic mean.

Also, as I've already mentioned, the crystal photographs taken (50 of them or so per drop), at any given session, RANGE between "beautiful" and "No Crystal Development" categories. HOWEVER, the frequency of "positive-thought" crystal photographs tend to fall more in the "Beautiful", "Rather Beautiful", and "Moderate" categories, and vice versa. Supposedly, if the assistant had imbued "Beautiful" expectations within these crystals, wouldn't it be logical to assume that "No Crystal Development" photos would be virtually nonexistent?

Not to mention, if you will scroll just a bit further down, you'll see that Emoto HAS had his experiments pass double-blind, (Read the "Cleaning up this Article" section), and that he is repeating the double-blind process yet again.

And please do not forget the 4 tiers(~) so people do not confuse your argument with mine. Thank you.

Oh, yes, and what proof do you have that "his ideas are complete bollocks"? There was once a time in which people thought it'd be "complete bollocks" for man to walk on the moon, and that it'd be "complete bollocks" to think that the Earth was round. If we time-traveled a century ago and told the average person about an amazing new device called the "computer", they'd think we were completely "bollocks".

You act exactly as I have seen before. See my user page, particularly 'Objection 4'. That his 'experiments' fail under anything resembling proper procedure is why his ideas are bollocks. He has been debunked many times before, and again, that is the entire reason for this article's existance. You add nothing new, and merely confirm the rational for the current version. Michaelbusch 23:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I certainly don't think Emoto took an arithmetic mean of the photo - while it certainly can be easily done by treating them as matrices, it doesn't result in what you seem to imply. As for the double-blind test which you reference, again, it doesn't satisfy the conclusions of the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision, which sets precedent on acceptable sources for scientific studies, among other things. Also, this isn't the appropriate place to argue about Emoto. The talk page is for discussion of the article—in most cases, it isn't acceptable to try to explain his work here. --Philosophus ^T 01:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

76.81.57.230 03:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for the lively debate, Mr. Busch. I enjoyed exchanging articulate phrases with you. It gives me new ideas for debate at my high school's debate club. But right now, i really must be getting back to geometry homework. I am in the 10th grade and a sophomore at University High School, Irvine by the way. I encourage you in your planetary science studies at Caltech. As a response to philosophus, I understand this isn't the appropriate place for a debate, but my original intention was to present a response by Emoto to his critics, (as the title clearly implies). I didn't intend to start up a debate, but michaelbusch led me to do so. Nevertheless, i'll end it right now. Thank you for your moderation of our mediation.

08:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Format: Emoto's Claims, and an Encyclopedic Response to those Claims

The first sentence, and the first paragraph of any written work are the most critical. Emoto is known for making some claims. I suspect it's the only reason why he merits a wiki article. His claims are provocative, and the reader immediately wants to know if they are legitimate. If so, they may continue reading, but if not they may no longer care to read any more about him. So I propose that a basic framework for the 1st paragraph be constructed, such that it fits this "Question and Answer" or "Call and Response" format. As it is now, his claims are stated, but encyclopedia offers no commentary on their validity, only saying that "someone else" thinks it's pseudoscience. Note, the question of the legitimacy of the claim is not addressed, only the opinions of someone else thinks of them. No effort is placed on the wiki article to explain what "changing the molecular structure of water" even means. It may as well have said "changing the di-lithium crystals in the flux capacitor".

Not saying he is a charlatan, but charlatans use this technique all the time. The make some kind of outrageous claim and use it as a "hook" to get the reader interested. The National Enquirer and the Vampire Baby comes to mind. As it is, wiki is complicit in this by failing to take the question on directly, and immediately.Jonny Quick (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with J. Quick. We do readers a disservice by dancing around the issue. Reve (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Blinded Studies" section

This paragraph: "A better-controlled "triple-blind" follow-up study published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration did not yield positive results.[10] More than 1,900 of Mr. Emoto's followers focused gratitude on water bottles in a vault over a period of three days. The water was then frozen and compared to two different sets of controls. Crystals from all three groups were not considered to be particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples.[11]"

Seems to be utterly not what that triple blind study concludes! That is bad summation. This needs, it seems to me, to be corrected.

From the Abstract of "Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication," Radin, Lund, Emoto, Kizu: "Results suggested that crystal images in the intentionally treated condition were rated as aesthetically more beautiful than proximal control crystals (p 1⁄4 0.03, one-tailed). This outcome replicates the results of an earlier pilot test."

From the last paragraph: "It should be noted that the distant controls were judged as being slightly (nonsignificantly) more beautiful than the treated samples when considering all trials, but nevertheless for the comparison of main interest (treated vs. proximal controls) the difference was in alignment with the previously reported pilot test."

To me those appear to say that this test does show some degree of variation in results of aesthetic appearance based on "directing intentions from a distance" or however one wants to describe that more accurately. Comments? This seems like extreme bias to me (that this paragraph is here, rather than a more neutral description of that paper's findings. Mtkoan (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Both papers were published in unreliable fringe journals, neither of which comes close to being peer-reviewed. Even so, we would need an relaible independent SECONDARY source to describe them in relation to the mainstream view. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Doctorate.

Hey wiki-pals.

While it appears that most references to a doctorate have been deleted already, I removed the last couple. As far as I can tell the Open University of Alternative Medicine is -- at best -- an unaccredited institution. I also removed it from the education infobox.

I also correct the link to the "Beyond Words" site. It may still be a press release written by a publicist without any attempt at verification, but at least the link is right now.

Cheers! Reve (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

missing reference

Reference 5 is broken. I would really appreciate a working link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.59.52.74 (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a list of snapshots by the wayback machine, and this is the most recent one. Hope that helps. James^x1 2345 16:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section name change other material to add

Should the criticism section have the name changed? Possibly Reception, Evaluation of work or Scientific assessment etc. Should the studies by Radin in the further reading section be discussed and used as references? I don't know what the WP:DUE weight is per WP:FRINGE but I suspect it's pretty light. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Gwyneth Paltrow

Gwyneth Paltrow has recently made statements to the media endorsing this man's ideas. Would it be appropriate to mention this in this article as an example of a notable person who believes in this nonsense? Just asking.--Smcg8374 (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Million dollar challenge

The recent addition of Emoto being offered the million dollar challenge and not accepting it needs a reference, a secondary source needs to find it notable enough to have reported/discussed it for it to be included in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph removed. – S. Rich (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: I am adding the paragraph back with a single source. In looking around I have found this mentioned in multiple places but not much in the way of RS. I would not object to the paragraph being removed again if the book I cite is evaluated here with rationale that significantly questions it's status as RS. Not looking to EW here just interested in improving the encyclopedia and definitely open to discussion. It is my opinion that the general discussion on the internet that mentions this combined with the book cited makes this due. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems with sources

The Hall 2007 ref is linked to a "convenience copy" which may or may not be accuarate and is possibly a copyright violation.

The "Authors: Dr. Masaru Emoto" ref is from the publisher of his books, not WP:RS

The "International Water for Life Foundation" ref is a dead link (archive provided). Is there any RS that shows this organization exists or notes Emoto's position?

The "How to Take a Water Crystal Photograph" ref points to Emoto's website (diary section) and does not contain content cited. On his website there is a page How the Water Crystal Photographs are Taken: The Procedure of the Water Crystal Experiment but it does not give the information in the article (no discussion of "exposing water in glasses to different words, pictures, or music").

The Tiller 2004 quote contains a wl generally frowned on, not sure how to handle that.

The Radin et al. citation does not refer to any publication mentioned in the article.

The further reading section needs to be pared down, the articles are either worth using as sources or the three or so most useful links can be left.

The unsourced material or poorly sourced material is subject to removal per WP:BLP.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

As the International Water foundation is a self-published source, it cannot be used to talk about anyone other than Emoto. The info about his wife & children has been removed. – S. Rich (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Ref improve tag

I think enough work has been done improving the references to remove the ref improve tag at the top of the article. In doing research everything I found was universally critical of Emoto's work. I think there is room for some counter points, limited per WP:DUE and WP:FRINGE. If the added content creates an issue with due, the criticisms of methodology and study design are more detailed than is currently included so that could be expanded. Some explanation of the ideas that "explain" the effect of human intention on frozen water crystals could be provided if identified as a fringe minority opinion. Also a mention of the popularity of Emoto's ideas in the fringe community could be included if well sourced. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of info

Adijou seems determined to remove less than flattering info. I believe "biased" is being used to describe that which accurately portrays Emoto's work as pseudoscience. [3] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor indeffed so I guess we're done. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Blind studies

Until 2 July 2013 the article included a subsection called blind studies. After that, it was deleted. The information included in-line citations, including references to two published studies:

Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication
[^{[deprecated source?]} Double-Blind Test of the Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation]

Note, however, that these studies were co-authored by the same Masaru Emoto. In addition, other sources, critical ones, were provided:

This latter reference echoes the results from the triple-blind study, stating: "the crystals, both 'treated' and not, on average were not particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). And while the treated crystals were rated slightly more beautiful than one set of controls, they were rated ever-so-slightly less beautiful than the other set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples."

I think this section should be recovered, and if there were any concerns regarding the quality of the text, then let's improve it, but in any case this relevant published information should be included in the wikipedia article.(talk) user:Al83tito 17:58, 08 October 2014 (UTC)

I see now that this topic had already come up in an archived entry. One wiki user pointedly said in that discussion: "Both papers were published in unreliable fringe journals, neither of which comes close to being peer-reviewed. Even so, we would need an relaible independent SECONDARY source to describe them in relation to the mainstream view.". I believe that the 3rd and 4th sources I listed above, are those secondary sources that analyze the results in relation to the mainstream view. There may be others that we can look for as well... I suggest that a mention to these studies is included again, describing the results as portrayed by them, and the counter-interpretation offered by the other sources listed.(talk) user:Al83tito 20:13, 08 October 2014 (UTC)

While those two secondary sources can be used in accordance to WP:PARITY, they don't really add much than what is already in the article: that Emoto has not published any work in reliable sources about his "theory". The two blind studies don't appear to be notable enough to mention specifically. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Concur with DV. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. They are good comments. agreed. (talk) user:Al83tito 22:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I suspect some additional publication on Emoto may occur soon given his death. If these two studies are discussed/evaluated there may be a reason to create new content based on what the reliable sources say. Of course at this point this is crystal ball speculation but I will keep an eye out for new sources. Thanks for collaborative work on this article. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this aritcle include the fact that two blind studies are not mentioned in the text and far too much of the source material comes from skeptics magazines. Results from the two studies that are cited above should be included in the text and more objective source material should be included. Theanswerman109 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP articles are based on secondary sources, not primary involved sources published in fringe journals see WP:UNDUE. If these studies are significant they will be discussed in scholarly sources if not WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE lead to the application of WP:PARITY. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would this material be added several months later with no discussion or consensus here, by an editor aware of this discussion? This is not in keeping with policy such behavior is likely to inspire a request for discretionary sanctions or a report to ANI. Secondary sources providing analysis, evaluation and commentary regarding Emoto's work are needed for adding content. Primary original research not published in a reliable source is not the basis for content on WP, this has been made clear in this discussion and is clear in policy. Waiting three months and surreptitiously adding content is not the behavior of an editor who is here to improve the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Biased?

The article seems a bit biased due to various opinions from some scientists in the critics section. While not directly supporting Masaru Emoto's work, I found Quantum Theory's "Observation Affects Reality" studies noteworthy regarding it. Why? Because it would be a factor in reproduction of the experiments Masaru Emoto did. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm Further, their are other studies on how thought effects the physical world -- an EEG would not even work if there was not truth to this reality. Christopher Theodore (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"Because it would be a factor in reproduction of the experiments Masaru Emoto did." No, it wouldn't. That's absurd. Your EEG argument is a complete non-sequitur. The article is actually too nice to "Dr." Emoto, if anything. VdSV9•♫ 14:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The Rice experiment

Do you try it ?

Experience make the difference. -- CyrilDelacour (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you do not want to talk about it is a big problem of neutrality, experience is simple and full of lessons : consequences are important, no censorship ! -- CyrilDelacour (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you proposing we perform WP:OR? VdSV9•♫ 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

publication

IDEAS/ In 2008, Emoto published his findings in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a peer reviewed scientific journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration.

vs

Scientific criticism/ Reville noted the lack of scientific publication and pointed out that anyone who could demonstrate such a phenomenon would become immediately famous and probably wealthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.151.146 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masaru Emoto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923090023/http://www.beyondword.com/blog/dr.-masaru-emoto-1943-2014 to http://www.beyondword.com/blog/dr.-masaru-emoto-1943-2014

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)