Talk:Masaru Emoto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Balancing the criticism 1.1 Emoto's response to critics 2 Swiss institute 3 Lorenzen, Weinstock, and MRA 4 References 5 Cleaning up this article

[edit] Balancing the criticism

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. --Madison 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)

[edit] 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)

1. "MRA is beyond the conventional scientific common sense."[1]
2. 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 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!

[edit] Swiss institute

Here [3] Emoto mentions that he set up a non profit organization in Zurich, Switzerland called Wise Crystal, that he “had to give up the center later”, and that he "learned from the mistake". WISE stands for World Institute of Subtle Energy. Does anyone know anything more about this?--Niku 06:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lorenzen, Weinstock, and MRA

Dr. Lee H. Lorenzen and Ronald J. Weinstock mentioned in the article are both businesspersons/researchers who were or are active in areas such as water clusters and magnetic resonance, controversial fields just like Emoto's. It would be helpful for the article to figure out what the Magnetic Resonance Analyzer promoted by Emoto actually does. These are the info sources I have found so far:

1. Some info on Weinstock is here [4]
2. Emoto describes the purpose of his MRA device here [5]
3. US Patents can be looked up here [6] and describe the alleged functions of inventions. Ronald J. Weinstock and his wife Sigrid Lipsett have been issued patent numbers:

5,592,086

5,517,119

5,317,265

Dr. Lee H. Lorenzen has been issued patent numbers:

5,711,950

6,033,678

--Niku 06:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

In an interview of Lee H. Lorenzen [7] published in 2000, Lorenzen mentions working with Ishibasi and Emoto. “We published these findings in the Japanese journal Snow and Ice, a scientific peer review journal, last year”. Although the findings Lorenzen mentions relate to the method of photographing water crystals, not to claims about how crystals can be influenced by thoughts, it would still be interesting if somebody could track down the article, and provide a reference and description. The Journal of the Japanese Society of Snow and Ice, also known as SEPPYO or Seppyô, is here [8] but its online archives only go back to 2001.--Niku 06:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a reference to the statement that Tokyo's tap water won't crystallise? I find this pretty hard to believe.

Replying to the one above... In "The Hidden Messages in Water" he says , " The water of Tokyo was a disaster-not a single complete crystal was formed. Tap water includes a dose of chlorine used to sanitize it, utterly destroying the structure found in natural water." He also said that crystals form better off of natural water.67.150.232.104 08:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I added links to a double-blind study of Emoto's claims by Dean Radin of IONS. The results were strongly significant. Sdaconsulting 03:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning up this article

Now that Emoto has worked with an external team at IONS and successfully completed a double-blind study of some of his claima, this article needs to be radically cleaned up.

Basically all the references on how Emoto is not practicing real science are silly and irrelevant at this point, since he just completed such a double-blind study (a replication study is underway as we speak).

If I do not hear any objections on this page over the next week or two I'll take a crack at it. Sdaconsulting 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I would hold my horses. IONS is known its own controversies[9]. I wouldn't be surprised if the experiment is done by another party but the outcome will be totally different. It should be noted that two scientist featured in What the Bleep are also from IONS. I personally don't think this new study by IONS will change the stance of most mainstream scientist. --priyadi 10:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Do they pass out "mainstream scientist" badges somewhere?

Sorry, those are weasel words, as defined in Wikipedia's "Avoid Weasel Words".

The fact is, this is a double-blind independent replication, and so all of the attacks based on a lack of double-blind studies are now out of date. Regardless of the results of other studies from scientists who are certain they will fail to confirm the studies and, surprise, will fail to confirm them (see confirmation bias) Sdaconsulting 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

ok then go ahead editing the article, i'll try to balance it out. --priyadi 10:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ok, i tried to rebalance the article. deleted all references of double blind outside its own section. added a few things in 'double blind' section. changed the section title to be more appropriate to recent updates. --priyadi 10:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

and FYI, confirmation bias also works both way.

LOL that's because we create our own realities.... ok I know that was a cheap shot Dndn1011 01:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi!

Are there any links to more information about the double blind test? As there is a lot of skeptic information available and I didn't manage to find any scientific confirmation on the internet about Masaru Emoto's statements and findings.

I find it verry logical that the structure of water changes by energy that we don't know of today. There are parrots that can respond to thinking, you can think of a word and the parrot will say it. Also dogs can become happy when you're driving 2-3 streets from your house.

Best Regards, Mees Pierson