Talk:Masaru Emoto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do:

Contents

[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!

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.

[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)

In his book, Emoto spends about 2 pages detailing how much his work is admired by Joan S Davis, an "accomplished scientist" at the Zurich Technical University. Of course, Emoto's book contains no references or citations, so I tried to dig up something myself. Google seems to have no record of Ms Davis, nor Zurich Technical University. Can anyone attest to either's existence? Messiahxi 19:48, 18 October 2007 (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

As an aside, no one understands how conscious thought manages to cause physical effects at all. Not even for the human brain. Somewhere, our thoughts influence our bodies (even as crudely as moving a limb) and there is a lot of philosophical questions that are yet to be answered to explain how this works. At a fundemental level, being able to influence water by thought is not any more strange than the reality we observe everyday as it is. One thing though there were studies I believe on how thought could effect the growth of plants. This would seem related. I am sure double blind experiments must have been carried out by now by someone on that question. As for the parrot and the dog, this is not at all clear; dogs have a very sensitive sense of hearing and smell. The recognise the sound of the vehicle. The parrot may be reading your face. Dndn1011 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Mees, I have never seen a single study in a reputable peer-reviewed journal that supports either of the claims you make. If there has been such a study, I would be very interested in finding out why the authors don't have an extra million dollars from the JREF. As for the "structure of water changes by energy that we don't know of today", such a statement is entirely irrelevant to thought or writing changing the structure of water. Even then, it is highly unlikely that there are non-trivial effects in the structure and dynamics of water that we don't know about. Water has been very closely studied, and there are models based on sound physical theories that describe water very accurately. Most of the difficulty in applying the models lies in the fact that it is a many-body problem, not that we don't understand what is going on. And even with that issue, reputable snowflake (water crystal) researchers (there are around three of them, as far as I can tell) have made what appear to be significant (as yet unpublished) breakthroughs in computational modelling of snowflake formation in the last few weeks.
The study you are looking for was not published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. There is no scientific confirmation of Emoto's work, and if the article portrays the work in a scientific light, that is in violation of WP:V as there are no appropriate sources for that portrayal, per ArbCom precedent in the Pseudoscience case. --Philosophus T 09:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I am no advocate of one view or the other, but your statements have a lot of unverifiable claims. "Even then, it is highly unlikely that there are non-trivial effects in the structure and dynamics of water that we don't know about.", how can you demonstrate this in a verifiable way? Just for fun I typed "unanswered questions about the molecular structure of water" into google and found lots of unanswered questions, such as:
"Researchers continue to tussle over how many bonds each H2O molecule makes with its nearest neighbors." (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencemag.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Ffull%2F309%2F5731%2F78b&ei=ScOaRdriE5bgnAOmz4D1Dg&usg=__0RwSwB22vOi5IFmOTSUdtlWvYfE=&sig2=_uKfIZNGObJe8yaqTNbIKw)
"No one understands, for instance, why liquid water is able to carry so much heat. "If the heat capacity of water were half of its actual value," says chemist Ken Jordan of the University of Pittsburgh, "the temperature fluctuations in our environment would be more extreme, and this would have important implications for life itself."
"No calculation carried out to date," Jordan says, "is able to account quantitatively for the surface tension of liquid water." (http://www.psc.edu/science/Jordan/Jordan.html)
Dndn1011 20:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a fundamental theorist. All of those are trivial mathematical details to me... More seriously, what I meant was that while the things you describe could be plausibly explained by mathematical phenomena which we don't understand, Emoto's theories would require that there be fundamental discrepancies in physical theories. It would be extremely difficult for such discrepancies to have slipped by far more precise and controlled tests. --Philosophus T 01:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

I have reviewed this article, and made major revisions. Most of them involve clarifying and de-commenting the criticism section. Re. the proported double-blind study: I and others have reviewed this study. It is approximately as bad as Emoto's usual procedure, and is not in fact double-blind, so it does not merit special mention. See Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know for further discussion. I don't know if the CSICOP will do another debunking, but the obvious problems with the work have not been corrected: flaws in double-blind methodology, high probability of false positives, unclear evaluation criteria, clear systematic and cognitive biases.

I make this edit at the request of a fellow Caltech student who is watching the article. Michaelbusch 04:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Don’t even get me started on this thread. Clean up your own research prior to making changes. Alternatively see What the Bleep discussion. Cheers. AS 61.68.120.191 05:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You flamed there. Don't start here. Michaelbusch 06:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Like I've said I am open to discussion. Are you willing to participate? Otherwise you are the one flaming. I have backed all my edits with discussion. You aren't. As far as I can tell you are the one vandalising and simply deleting what you don't like. I am intending to formally issue intervention for mediation. Will you participate to reach a constructive solution or keep dodging answers? How credible are you if you are afraid to stand up to scrutiny? AS Tinsue 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


I have rewritten a portion of the Criticism section, specifically the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. While I agree with the spirit of the original wording , I think it sounded more editorial than encyclopedic. I tried to improve the wording while retaining the primary points. I did keep a slightly altered version of the original in my "For Example". I'm sure it could use some some citations, but I think my changes are appropriate. Thoughts? Messiahxi 16:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Randi

I really get irritated by referrences to Randi, even though I actually agree that this is pseudoscience, and agree that the lack of a double blind study creates a big hole in the theories of Masaru. A double blind study should be pretty easy to organise. But I have observed that Randi's rebuttles generally against any non-scientific view use misleading and unfair arguments. Randi is no more a scientist than Masaru, in my opinion. Randi often weakens the case for the scientific view by presenting arguments that are not in themselves scientifically water-tight. On a side note, people believe in all kinds of things that are not scientifically proven, and some things that are scietifically 'proven' and later turn out to be false (like absolute time, for example). Often scientists ignore counter evidence and continue with their research into something they have a passion for. Often these tracks bear no fruit, but occasionally they do. Ordinary people believe whatever they want to believe in a similar way. The scientific method is not the only way to guide one's life. It is vitally important to respect other people's ideas regardless how improbable the reasoning behind them. There is evidence to show that having strong beliiefs changes the behavior of the people believing. Believing in things that are scientifically unproven does not (inspite of what people like Randi say) invariably result in negative consequences. These beliefs can have positive consequences. If for example there is no scientific evidence for the healing power of thought and prayer, there is plenty of evidence that many people gain comfort from such thoughts. What is wrong with that? There is nothing scientific in a comforting word. Let people believe what Masaru says if they wish. It is up to them. For the purposes of wikipedia, it would be incorrect to call Masaru a scientist and his research science. Funnily enough he says that himself. The article is tagged as pseudoscience. Reasons why this is not considered scientific are given. There is no more to see here, move along please....

I'm sorry, it seems like you have a distorted view of what science is. Nobody lives their life by the scientific method, and I don't think that's what Randi advises anyway. Emoto is not a philosopher, he is making scientific (testable) claims. He's not saying, "Thinking good thoughts will make you a better person", he's saying, "Thinking good thoughts will change the structure of water crystals." So, Randi is saying, "OK, prove it", and Emoto is ignoring him.
The danger here is that if Emoto's claims go unchallenged, then people have a greater chance of believing that what Emoto is doing IS science. Sure, if somebody wants to believe that talking to water makes better water, and they're an ordinary person, no big deal. But suppose that that person has power. What if a city has a polluted stream, and instead of paying for a clean-up crew, they decide to save money and pay for a group of mystics to stand by the water and pray to it? If Emoto's claims are false, then it would be a waste of taxpayer money. Despite what you say about him, I really doubt that Emoto is going to stand up and say, "Now wait a minute! That's not what I meant!" He wouldn't sell very many books that way.
As to the article itself: I understand that Emoto's fans are offended by the references to Randi and keep deleting them. However, the JREF Million Dollar Challenge has been around a long time, and has been offered to many people, not just Emoto. The fact that he has been offered, and hasn't taken up the challenge, is very relevant. Bennie Noakes 15:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
And I completely agree with you. My issue is more to do with the direspectful attitude that Randi takes when presenting his arguments and as I said the arguments he uses are often quite unscientific in themselves in my opinion. Ultimately, references to Randi are not really science either, and so it is questionable whether they really belong here. Or maybe they do, if this is not a scientific article. Kind of paradoxical I guess. heh. Dndn1011 23:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Randi may be a jerk, but he is a very competent jerk. His science is usually good, and he takes very few chances. Michaelbusch 23:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


I removed the statement about next expecting to pay out. He never expects to pay out. As far as I know he never has paid out... and yes, you are right, he is competant. He is very good at what he does. Dndn1011 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It is important that this stays, because it makes it clear that when Randi invites someone to take the challenge, that person is most likely promoting complete nonsense. Michaelbusch 00:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
You are so tiresome, Michaelbusch. The statement does not add anything to the article. I say this not because I think there is anything in Masaru's thoeries from a scientific standpoint (I do feel it is unlikely to be proved scientifically), but because it is a silly snipy comment that is unescessary. It is more suited to a newspaper article than wikipedia. Please open your eyes. I speak as an neutral editor. I have been trying to push for NPOV, but every attempt has been deflected.Dndn1011 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Randi is well-known as a debunker. This is the guy that took down Uri Geller! So, if you have someone of that caliber challenging you, it is very relevant. There is nothing POV about this fact. I still do not understand your position. Bennie Noakes 07:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you assign god-like qualities to Randi, you would do well to investigate the stories of others who have taken him up on his most famous slight of hand, the so-called million dollar prize. I have read numerous stories, complete with transcripts and correspondence, and whatever it was the hopeful was hoping to prove, it would not matter; I could just as well say that I will give a million dollars to anyone who can successfully claim a Randi prize, because, like Randi, I don't have the money either. I can forgive the mass media for jumping to attach this 'debunking' challenge, because Randi is in show business and PR is his game, but Wikipedia should be immune to Randi's press agents; if you want to quote a debunker, quote me the man's domain peers, not some boastful antagonistic stage magician. 216.185.253.130 15:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you’d like to pass on some of these “numerous stories,” then. — NRen2k5 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of Own Content

I added a comment here that turned out to be pointless, and so removed it. Sorry for any inconvenience. — Eric Herboso 00:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)