RE: Affecting Water (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: Affecting Water (5/15/2011 9:29:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

the mixed results show there is much more that scientists may never be able to explain going on.

Attempts to study the effects of conscious intention confront unique difficulties. Prayer studies are the worst of the lot, because it is practically impossible to definitively specify the operation to be performed. But even where the operator has a clearly defined task, unexpected effects abound.

For example, there is a reason why the Radin et al study kept Emoto, Kisu, and the providers of the treatment condition blind to the existence of the control bottles. When operators are aware of the existence of controls, telling them not to focus on them is like saying, "Don't think of a pink elephant." If they are aware of the controls, you typically risk getting treatment effects in the controls too. And that destroys any statistically significant difference between them and the treatment group.

This may because there seems to be a part of our mind involved that does not decode negatives. Worth remembering when you tell someone, "Do not smoke!" Because while part of our mind understands the statement, another part only gets "Do smoke!"

The effect seems to be particularly noticeable in healing studies, however. It is almost as if there is a part of our mind that cannot (or will not) preferentially direct healing intention only to a specified target while leaving another to suffer if it is aware of its existence. Which is really rather nice, I think. But in any case, that sort of thing confronts our experimental protocols with some wild new design challenges.

K.




Kirata -> RE: Affecting Water (5/15/2011 10:35:04 PM)

...



heartcream -> RE: Affecting Water (5/15/2011 11:09:26 PM)

Well DK you submitted it as some sort of evidence or something.



Kirata -> RE: Affecting Water (5/16/2011 8:21:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It is very relevant in considering the study. Bad protocols produce bad results. the numerous flaws in the double blind protocol as well as the flaws in the actual conduct of the experiment render its results useless even if you do not believe the design of the experiment was to insert bias, which is what most skeptics who have looked at these claims believe.

Unh... purely as a detail here, but so far you haven't been able to establish that there were "flaws" in the protocol.

K.



DomKen -> RE: Affecting Water (5/16/2011 9:39:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

It is very relevant in considering the study. Bad protocols produce bad results. the numerous flaws in the double blind protocol as well as the flaws in the actual conduct of the experiment render its results useless even if you do not believe the design of the experiment was to insert bias, which is what most skeptics who have looked at these claims believe.

Unh... purely as a detail here, but so far you haven't been able to establish that there were "flaws" in the protocol.

K.

Yes I did. The sequential labeling of the samples. The failure to produce equivalent numbers of ice crystal photographs from both the experimental and control samples. The fact that a tech involved in the experiment chose which crystals to photograph and at what magnification.

A truly double blind protocol could be developed but it would bear little resemblance to the experiment conducted in this paper.

For instance, 10+ samples could be exposed to prayer. After the exposure an equal number of control samples could then be drawn from the same original source. All samples receive a random label (of sufficient length and complexity that it is unlikely anyone would remember which labels went on control or experiment samples) assigned by a computer program. Each sample is divided into many dishes or metal plates to be frozen, maintaining most of the original liquid for later examination. Each frozen plate is then photographed at the same magnification and using a stationary camera so that the image field in each case is identical. Then conduct the rating experiment on all several hundred photos. Only after the ratings are concluded would the photos be sorted out to which came from the prayed for samples and which came from the control. If one or more samples showed an unusually high degree of beauty then those maintained samples could be subjected to chemical and physical analysis to rule out contamination (dust acting a crystal seeds for instance).



Kirata -> RE: Affecting Water (5/16/2011 12:04:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Yes I did. The sequential labeling of the samples. The failure to produce equivalent numbers of ice crystal photographs from both the experimental and control samples. The fact that a tech involved in the experiment chose which crystals to photograph and at what magnification.

Okay look, let's not repeat outselves. I've already responded to your claim about the labeling, and explained why it is not a design flaw. I've pointed out that the fact that the treatment condition produced more crystals is a result, not a flaw. I've responded to your claim that the tech "chose" which crystals to photograph by pointing out that all crystals were photographed -- and I'll add that the magnification options were preset, to be determined by the size of the particular crystal.

Since repeating your claims does not make them true, how about explaining the basis for the assertions you've made that the tech knew which samples were which and selected which crystals to photograph. Specifically, how any random order of labels, sequential or otherwise, would enable someone who did not know which samples were which to obtain that information, and why the treatment condition must necessarily produce a nearly equal number of crystals absent tampering or deception.

With regard to the design you propose in your post, the beauty of a crystal is independent of size. So I see no benefit to the stationary camera with fixed field of view and magnification. And in my opinion, the rating of the images was more than sufficiently independent in the original study. I do think, however, that the possibility of accidental contamination (dust) introduces an interesting angle. I'm not sure how that would play in the ratings, but it might offer an alternative explanation for why more crystals formed in the treatment group. Thanks.

K.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Affecting Water (5/16/2011 12:20:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

With regard to the design you propose in your post, the beauty of a crystal is independent of size. So I see no benefit to the stationary camera with fixed field of view and magnification.



Not true. Different levels of visible detal could easily influence subjective reactions.



Kirata -> RE: Affecting Water (5/16/2011 12:28:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

the beauty of a crystal is independent of size


Not true. Different levels of visible detal could easily influence subjective reactions.

Different levels of visible detail do not translate to size except in the special case where you're using a stationary camera with a fixed field of view and magnification, which is exactly why I said I saw no benefit to that design. Accomodating different levels of visible detail was precisely the reason for having two magnification options in the original study and using the higher one when necessary to capture the details of smaller crystals.

K.



DomKen -> RE: Affecting Water (5/16/2011 3:45:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Yes I did. The sequential labeling of the samples. The failure to produce equivalent numbers of ice crystal photographs from both the experimental and control samples. The fact that a tech involved in the experiment chose which crystals to photograph and at what magnification.

Okay look, let's not repeat outselves. I've already responded to your claim about the labeling, and explained why it is not a design flaw. I've pointed out that the fact that the treatment condition produced more crystals is a result, not a flaw. I've responded to your claim that the tech "chose" which crystals to photograph by pointing out that all crystals were photographed -- and I'll add that the magnification options were preset, to be determined by the size of the particular crystal.

Since repeating your claims does not make them true, how about explaining the basis for the assertions you've made that the tech knew which samples were which and selected which crystals to photograph. Specifically, how any random order of labels, sequential or otherwise, would enable someone who did not know which samples were which to obtain that information, and why the treatment condition must necessarily produce a nearly equal number of crystals absent tampering or deception.

With regard to the design you propose in your post, the beauty of a crystal is independent of size. So I see no benefit to the stationary camera with fixed field of view and magnification. And in my opinion, the rating of the images was more than sufficiently independent in the original study. I do think, however, that the possibility of accidental contamination (dust) introduces an interesting angle. I'm not sure how that would play in the ratings, but it might offer an alternative explanation for why more crystals formed in the treatment group. Thanks.

K.



You can handwave away the flaws but they remain serious flaws. A study might survive a single serious flaw but 3 serious flaws? No way.

The purpose of a double blind study is to remove all possible bias from the experiment. Any choice by anyone at any point in the process is a serious problem. Care must be taken to prevent bias from affecting the choices. I've already explained that more crystals were formed than they claimed. The sequential labeling is a problem. Choosing at what magnification to photograph each crystal is another possible injection of bias.

Now I've produced a better protocol with no significant effort which is fairly obvious in all details which casts extreme doubt on the study's design. All in all the study is useless and could never make it through peer review in a legit journal.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.100586E-02