Hidden Messages in Water

Thats gross

Here's some more about "Talking Water." Jesus, people are stupid!

http://www.mybiopro.com/VoicesInHarmonyEvent.aspx?ID=awengrove

i didn't expect the spanish inquisition.

"I didn't expect the spanish inquisition." Noone does...

The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?
There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism...

Kyger said:

"The comments about this book are more hooey than the book itself. The pictures are there for you to see. (Have any of you actually looked at it)?"

I'm sorry, how do PICTURES prove that water can respond to emotions or do anything other than be wet? Please explain.

"There was not one thoughtful factual rebuttal in all the comments I read, just repitition of predetermined beliefs. This site promotes a sad commentary on intelligent criticism..."

Those "predetermined beliefs" are called SCIENCE. We believe in it/them because they are the best system by which humans can understand the world around us that anyone has yet devised. If you have a better one, please tell us about it so that mankind can benefit.

You DO understand, don't you, that WE don't have to prove anything? It's up to the author or a supporter of the author's premise to demonstrate that the theory of "intelligent water" or whatever it's called is anything other than bizarre irrational nonsense.

If you can prove that water can indeed respond to emotions under controlled conditions, the James Randi Educational Foundation has a million-dollar prize waiting for you. I direct you to their site, randi.org, for the details. Good luck.

Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?

I am totally serious. http://www.randi.org/jr/052005la.html#4

I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?

One of the ministers was my own minister at my RS church I attended for 17 years. Unbelievable.

Can anyone say: Galileo?

Conrad Askland said:

"Would you believe it if I told you ministers were preaching from the pulpit that Mr. Emoto's work is proven science and that we can purify water with our minds?"

Yes, unfortunately, I WOULD believe it. There is no definable line between "religion" and "superstition." Those ministers are straddling any line anyone could point out. They're nuts.

"I have talked with two ministers at the Church of Religious Science about preaching pseudo-science and I am told that the truth is "my reality"?"

Yup, in the same sense that gravity is just "your reality." Tell these goofs to jump off a high building. After all, crashing to Earth is just "their reality."

you know how he said that unpolluted water (pure?) creates colourful and beautiful crystals, and the polluted water creates dull, ugly crystals. well my theory is that the more pure the water the less non-water particles there are to a) muck up the ideal water crystal lattice and b) create different colours by not allowing the clear water particles to refract light as the pure water would. no pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure. of course pure water is gpoing to bond better to itself thus creating perfect water crystals, if there's pollutants in there then they'll 'get in the way' how technical, but i bet i'm right.

woops, typo, i mean: pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure

Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble.
Now if thoughts impact water crystallization formations or not, it is a significant claim. It should put to test by the scientific method, and taken seroiusly.
Because its not like anyone knows where matter and space came from anyway, at least not in this time in history.
My personal opinion I don't know if Dr. Emoto is speaking the truth. If he were, then if I were a god I will be laughing down at your ass thinking on how blantantly ignorant some people can be. Muahahaha

"woops, typo, i mean: pollutants = light refracting differently and hence there's not brilliant white or pretty rainbows shining through the crystal's structure"

Interesting. But that doesn't explain how thoughts or words can affect formation, considering that this Emoto is telling the truth. And does anyone know of other reputable people/schools that confirm his studies?
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

JasDub said:

"Let people believe whatever they want to believe. Because if it makes them happier, and live a better life, then so be it. Don't burst people's bubble."

Sorry, no can do. It's "magical thinking," I believe that, at least in part, led to the current war in Iraq. As in, "We're in line with what God wants so we cannot lose."

Irrational thinking can lead to death, especially when it's practiced by "leaders."

I agree, irrational thinking can lead to death. But first of all water formation do have crystals. If you read what I stated earlier, I said Emoto's claim needs to be proved by other scientists over and over again under tight provisions, before we can disregard his stuff as "magical thinking." Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not. BTW, if anyone knows of independ studies that confirm this or not please email me or reply.
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

You are entirely missing the whole point. He has not proved anything. His work has never been submitted for peer review. James Randi has offered Emoto the one million dollar paranormal prize just to prove what he says he's already doing.

It is NOT our obligation to disprove him, he has never proved it in the first place, but yet deceptively has presented it so it seems that it IS proven.

That is the problem with pseudoscience, it disguises itself as science, but it is not. You are falling prey to the deception and propogating pseudoscience with those comments.

JasDub said:

"Yes, his research is extreme and in "la la land," but he's providing his proof and its our turn to prove it otherwise or not."

What "proof" has he provided? For the record, just claiming that something has happened does not constitute "proof."

The human-like God from the Bible; that's something utterly weird to believe in, in my opinion. 'Wise' man like the president of the united stated believe things I would call backwards. Well, some wise man believe that.
But about the water christals i'm not so sure.

According to quantum mechanics reality does get only 'shape' once you look/feel/think--> observe something. Positive / Negative feelings/thoughts when putting a paper with a certain text on a bottle of water should have impact on the reality of the water when you look at it later.

I'm sceptic; this doctor might make extra money using photoshop on his pictures, but thought/concentration/feelings do effect other water-bags that browse this planet in quantum-probabilities' wierd-ways I "believe" ;-p

can somebody with the tools needed please take some photos of the water that is from:
-tap
-microwave
-bottle loved
-bottle hated
and then crystalised in some different ways please.

😛

Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary.

Instead of fact, it seems all that's on this site is bitter dogmatic predetermined oppinion. Nothing but a bunch of "As-if!" postings.

Oh, well.

joedogjoe said:

"Dang. I saw this site in my Google search hits and was hoping there would be something here devoting some time to debunk the book with facts to the contrary."

You're asking us to prove a negative. How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing? Given the nature of his claims, that should be easy, no?

> How about asking the author of this nonsense to prove what he claims under proper scientific testing?

I have his book and this described some kind of not-2-proper scientific testing.. ..I don't expect to get better testing from the inventor himself more than I expect proof of god from the pope.

No nobody disproved this guy he... ...maybe he is right. Reading his book did give me some feeling he is on a right track...

I did see the move 'What the bleeb do we know' recently; also about this special water.. ..and about quantum mechanics and thoughts changing quantum-possibility-fields:p

"You're asking us to prove a negative."

you are not being asked to do anything... not even believe. the challenge is to provide evidence that what is being claimed is a false positive.

this claim is not entirely unlike the claim that plants are affected by their environment. it could be that the photography used and the type of water (polluted and spring) were factors. it would be interesting if someone were to do similar experiments. but, as with all comparative experiments, there are going to be different results. nothing is entirely conclusive. more results from scientific experiments will likely only provide you with more reason to argue and disbelieve. just don't be directing your crystal-distorting thoughts and energy my way. lol

seenit for myself, very easy to prove. just grow 2 plants, shout abuse at 1 , and praise and.thank the other . great and rapid success over twelve weeks with marijuana plants.
go, now do it

"You're asking us to prove a negative."

Hi, who is or are "us" by the way?

And proving a negative is not so hard, like disproving "all things fall up" by one 'negative'; something falling down...


I stil like thus water theory, but seen nog provind or disproving at all...

It's not actually asking anyone to prove a negative - it's shifting the burden of proof. Of course someone could design an experiment to test Emoto's hypotheses (at least if they were clearly formulated - I'm not sure if that is the case); the question is why anyone should make the substantial investments it would take to test something for which there is no evidence? As has been observed, Emoto's claims would require pretty much everything we know about chemistry to be wrong. That's OK, I guess - it would be great to have some new major scientific paradigm shift.

However, there are lots of reasons to suppose that our assumptions about chemistry are right - for a start, if theywasn't then we wouldn't have the technology to be having this discussion! - and there is nothing but a single crank's unreplicated and highly improbable assertions to support that thesis that our knowledge of chemistry is mistaken.

When someone makes a claim that goes against all extant knowledge it is reasonable to expect that person to prove the claim; it is not reasonable to demand, instead, that it be treated as credible in the absence of any substantive evidence. Apart from everything else, nonsensical hypotheses can be formulated at a rate of thousands per second (prove me wrong!) while testing them takes a long time and a lot of money...

This having been said, should those who regard Emoto as credible wish to fund a programme of research, I am sure that responsible scientists could be found to do the work... who knows, you could win a million:)

> However, there are lots of reasons to suppose that our assumptions about chemistry are right.

Why? Because a lott of things work? Because cars can drive? I don't think this is logic..

In my opinion quantum mechanics shows our whole atom-model is wrong; just a model that worked to invent all kind of technology...

>Emoto's claims would require pretty much everything we know about chemistry to be wrong

Uhm, isn't it also without his claims quite sure we know only a few % of what could be known about chemistry and are we not quite suire most is 'wrong'... ...might be correct according to the proven-wrong atom-model; but still wrong if you have to choose between right and wrong; we know almost nothing I think!!!

(allthough it's quite human to think we know much.. ..see classical mistakes in this).

Scientific practices are rather more dependent on the accuracy of theories of molecular chemistry than you appear to assume - take the genetic work done in the field of molecular biology, for example. If the 'atom-model' had been 'proven wrong', as you allege, we should certainly not be able to do what we can! Quantum mechanics in no way undermines the 'atom-model', incidentally; where do you get your physics from - Deepak Chopra?

Thank you for that last post. It reassures me that science is alive and well, and hasn't been totally taken over by new age snake oil salesman.....From the posts before I was starting to have my doubts.

::blushes::

Gee, thanks God!

>If the 'atom-model' had been 'proven wrong', as you allege, we should certainly not be able to do what we can!

It's just a model my dear. What we do does not prove the 'atom-model' to be correct. It's just a model that is proven to be incomplete and therefor in a way 'proven wrong'.

What you say is like saying that because we don't understand gravity exact, things would stop falling down or something...😛

>Quantum mechanics in no way undermines the 'atom-model', incidentally; where do you get your physics from - Deepak Chopra?

Uhm, the atom model says atoms and like balls. And Quantum mechanics says it's loads more complex then this (days it's wrong).
I believe this is more Einstein than Chopra:-)

Yikes, what an analogy!

Actually, your weak analogy equips me with a far better one - what you are claiming is much akin to saying that because relativity and quantum mechanics show that Newtonian gravitational theory was incomplete, it was therefore wrong. 'Incomplete' is far from 'wrong' - this is a common fallacy often favoured by anti-evolution types and other cranks.

Quantum mechanics deals with activity at the subatomic level, not the molecular levels which is where Emoto claims his effects are observable. Our understanding of atomic behaviour is such that we can (for example) manipulate the genome - something which both depends on and verifies the correctness of our model of molecular physics.

Your story hangs on:
"incomplete is far from wrong".

But the obsolete atom-model might work to manipulate the genome, but it's not a 'correct' model of reality.


being lazy i quote wikipedia:
The Bohr model is not a complete model of the atom, and fails to explain many of the finer structures seen in atoms. As a theory, it has been replaced by quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics.

did I miss your strong analogy by the way?

Who said anything about Bohr's model? Your references to the 'atom-model' led me to understand that your referred to a model of physical relations based upon the existance of atoms... In any case, it is irrelevant: as I said, quantum mechanics is a description of subatomic bahaviour, not of behaviour at the level relevant to Emoto's claimed observations.
What's more, this is all rather irrelevant, since there is nothing about quantum theories, either, that is consistent with Emoto's DreamworldTM 'physics' - and I know of no model, obsolete or otherwise, that offers any mechanism for molecules to be able to read in any language.
😊

Just a reminder, back on topic, that Emoto has specifically been offered the one million dollar James Randi prize to simply prove what he says he can do.

This offering SPECIFICALLY TO EMOTO on the topic of his water crystal claims has now been public for several years.

This single issue is what led me to be involved with the Skeptics Society, etc. What for some is just a topic of conversation, for me was a life changing paradigm shift.

Two years later, only rebuttals I see are constant logical fallacies and magical thinking. If Emoto's camp has something to bring to the table, then bring it.

Owkee..:-p

So Emoto's story is most probably a hoax (I do think) ...:-(

I still do think mind/thought changes water; by intuition 😊

And migth Emoto be almost as wrong in 'real' explanation as our current atom model ..!?

(ok, Bohr's model is damn old..)


>since there is nothing about quantum theories,
>either, that is consistent with Emoto's
>DreamworldTM 'physics'

I am thinking about 'reality being changed by our minds on all kind of quantum-like levels', as in not being able to just be just an observer in reality. In my dreams its DreamworldTM :p


Bye!

I don't know how much longer I can put up with all of this intolerance of other peoples' beliefs. I am currently reading "the Hidden Messages of water" and it's actually pretty interesting. If you are a sceptic, you should really read it for its philosophical issues assuming you don't care to understand the scientific basis. I love you all.

I don't know how much longer I can put up with all of this intolerance of other peoples' beliefs.

Was this deliberately ironic?

Anyway, who here is showing intolerance for anyone's beliefs? Arresting you, are we? Oppressing you? Nah, saying rubbish is rubbish isn't intolerance - tolerance and respect are not the same thing, you know:)

I suspect what you dislike is having people rubbisah your beliefs - and such nonsensical claims that we should have respect for other people's beliefs stick crossways in my craw. Of course people have a right to hold their own beliefs (it's your head; if you want to fill it up with rubbish that's your affair); there's no obligaton on people to respect 'em, though. As I said, rubbish's rubbish.

Furthermore, respect is something to be earned: if this book is so worthy of attention, why not spend an hour or so scanning it and stick it up on the web? I see it's a pretty slim volume - at 160 pages it'd take just 80 scans, so it wouldn't be that big a chore. I'm sure as dammit not going to put money in this guy's pocket.

Betty said:

"I don't know how much longer I can put up with all of this intolerance of other peoples' beliefs. I am currently reading "the Hidden Messages of water" and it's actually pretty interesting. If you are a sceptic, you should really read it for its philosophical issues assuming you don't care to understand the scientific basis. I love you all."

Well, golly, I love you, too, Betty. You may not have read any of the thread here on the Museum site about LifeWave patches but on it I asked a person who has been defending LifeWave to test my new mind-enhancing product by jumping out a high window. You see, my product allows me to protect anyone I am thinking about from harm.

I extend my challenge to you, Betty. I challenge you to jump out of a high window. Fear not, my amazing product will allow me to protect you from injury or death. You aren't intolerant of my unshakable belief in my product, are you? Of course not, so when can I expect you to take the Big Leap? I need to know in advance so I can be thinking about you when you jump.

My belief that this cannot fail is based on my own philosophy. If you refuse to take me up on this, you will be demonstrating your own intolerance.

Since when did science become a religion? With statementes like "Those "predetermined beliefs" are called SCIENCE. We believe in it/them because they are the best system by which humans can understand the world around us that anyone has yet devised. If you have a better one, please tell us about it so that mankind can benefit." You sound like some Bible beating Christians I know. Yes I know Jesus, I mean science, is the best way, I mean, system whereby humans can understand te world. I know if I dont believe in Science, I mean Jesus, (or which one did I mean?) my life will be terrible. And man I'd hate for you to hit me over the head with some of those lame science texts I remember back in high school. I recently read in my nephew's 8th grade science text that irradiating foods is a good thing because the FDA approved it. Is that the science I should believe in? Or maybe I should believe the science provided by the big drug companies that tell me "this drug is safe" and two years later I'm blind and my heart doesn't work right anymore. Yeah, that's science you can really count on. I would have loved to have had this conversation 200 years ago with you guys trying to explain to you that someday we will be able to communicate with anyone, send images and messeges etc all over the world using a small hand held wireless device no bigger than the size of a small child's hand. I'm sure you "scientists" would have ridiculed me, or even worse stoned me or burned me at the stake. The truth is that quantum science and even Einstien's science showed very clearly that that there are subtle energies and forces at work in the universe that humans are just barely beginning to discover and understand. And science is limited because it relies a great deal on human senses to "validate" and "prove" that it's real. And I have yet to meet someone who has the "senses" to pick up cellphone conversations without that handy little gadget. Does that mean it's not real or a hoax? Becuase my senses cant see or hear it? Is that what science is? Until I prove it then its not real? Again try convincing real "scientists" like you 200 years ago that cellphones will be real some day. Does that mean that cellphone technology was "baloney" or a "hoax" 200 years ago? Or were the sublties of wireless science and technology indeed there all the time and it was the limited capacities of science at the time to recognize it or even prove it? The truth is that science is not a religion and cannot be counted on so blindly as the person whom I quoted above so easily does. That's no better than some of the crazy Christians I know. There's a lot of theories that are considered quite valid and widely accepted that scientists have yet to "prove." isnt that the definition of a theory?

There's a lot of theories that are considered quite valid and widely accepted that scientists have yet to "prove." isnt that the definition of a theory? Take Darwin's theory of evolution, which most scientitific morons take as fact and indesputable, despite the fact that it's utterly simplistic when you take into consideration the infinitely complex biological systems that were completely unknown to Darwin at the time and which now make his "theory" dubious at best. Add to that that no "real" scientist in the modern age has even attempted to prove Darwin's theory because of the complexities involved in trying to squeeze the evoloution of those complex biological systmes into the time frame provided by Darwin. To me you might as well call Adam and Eve your great, great, great, great...grandparents just as readily as you believe in Mr. Darwin's theory. Science is not a religion and it is fallable and there are things about this universe "like the mysteries of water" that it cannot prove with the current limitations of technology. which leaves the possibliy that water is an inert chemical with absolutely no consciouss awareness or that it is imbued with intelligence and consciousness both equally acceptable possibilities. Since when did scientist=skeptic? And some of you talk about science like my crazy Christian friends talk about Jesus. BELIEVE IN SCIENCE [Jesus} for it can set you FREE!!!!!!

greg said:

"With statementes like "Those "predetermined beliefs" are called SCIENCE. We believe in it/them because they are the best system by which humans can understand the world around us that anyone has yet devised. If you have a better one, please tell us about it so that mankind can benefit." You sound like some Bible beating Christians I know."

No one here thinks that science is a religion, Greg.

Let me explain the difference. Religion requires that you take things on faith, even though they cannot be proven. Science, on the other hand, constantly tests what it proposes. When it is able to successfully challenge a theory, it UPDATES ITSELF. This is a fundamental difference, not a trivial one. Religion tends to stay "stuck in amber," so to speak, precisely because it does NOT test its assertions.

Greg, this is so utterly erroneous it's hard to know where to start. I'm not wholly convinced that post is not just trolling, but in case it's simply a case of genuine miscomprehension I'll try and answer atleast some of the points you make.

Perhaps I should start with what 'science' is. Science is not - whatever you think - a belief system: if it is anything it is a methodology, and an approch to the world. A scientific approach involves a number of basic steps:

a) looking at observable data and searching for a falisifiable hypothesis to explain that data. When a hypothesis is 'falsifiable' means that it is possible to disprove it - one consequence of this is that by definition the scientific method excludes supernatural explanations as these are not falsifiable. Why not? Well, take this reasoning: if there is a God we cannot know that he is not directly interfering with experiments - in the recent study of the efficacy of prayer, for example, we cannot know that God was not deliberately opting to refuse the scientists conducting the research any clear proof of His existence because proof denies faith.

b) making testable predictions based on the hypothesis and testing those predictions.

c) rinse and repeat: scientific hypotheses that stand up to experimental testing are called 'theories'. Theories are never 'proven' - a theory which accurately describes the world remains a 'theory', no matter how true it may be. And yes, theories get overturned and updated all the time.

The theory of evolution is one such theory; Darwin developed a hypothesis in the 19th century, which he and others subjecte to rigorous testing. With time, however, further scientific advances have been made (again through the scientific method rather than through revelation!) and the initial basis - Darwin's theory of natural selection - has been greatly expanded. This is one reason why those of us who know anything abot evolution hate the abuse of the term 'Darwinism' or 'Darwinian evolution' - it seems to imply that evolutionary theory as it now stands has come no further than Darwin's morphological observations.

This comment has gone on quite ong enough, though, and I can't hope to even begin to remedy your lack of knowledge of science here. However, if you are really interested is learning how evolution can explain complexity I'm willing to try and discuss it by email: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address). I stress, though, that I'm merely an interested layman studying the subject for pleasure rather than actually being a working scientist in any discipline!

first, I thought that I made it clear that with my use of the quote that I'm not the one who used the word belief. that was someone else. And based upon that statement and others I've read here it seems a lot of what is reported as "science" is taken as faith and believed without question. But, maybe I'm just misinterpreting what I'm reading here and of course that is possible. And as far as the explanation of the scientific method I thank you for the refresher because I didn't remember exactly what my 7th grade science teacher had taught me, but you summed it up quite nicely. I wonder if that rigourous method was used when they started pushing Vioxx on people. And Im sure that the patients who take these drugs have taken the time to apply the scientific method before consuming these pernicious drugs and not just taking them on faith and believing that the drug companies and doctors have done that for them and are ligitmately interested in their health. I wonder if its being used to examine the effects of genetically modified organisms on the health of human beings? I wonder if that type of energy and integrity of the scientific method is really being pursued or if they are pursuing something else ($$$$$$$$)? That whole summary of my 7th grade teacher's lesson sounds really great, full of integrity, and idealism; it even sounds like an honest pursuit of truth, which is what I always thought science was. But that is not what is being passed on as "science" to the masses by the greedy corporations and the Big Boyz who run them whose intentions are far from as honest, idealistic or honorable as your summary would have me believe. You're correct about the erroneous nature of my description of evolution because that is exactly what is taught in schools and forced down people's minds as facts with no encouragement given to see if that's the whole story. Im not arguing that evolution is not legitimate or that it is the way that life came to be on this planet because I think the idea has a lot of validity. And I am aware that the idea has been taken further, but the fact remains it's still a theory and that is not what is taught or how it is presented to the mainstream morons or by people who use evolution as a way of dismissing other possibilities as if evolution has been "proven" and that's it end of story. Somewhere along the way your beautiful definition of theory is conviently lost or forgotten in the process.

It seems to me that the biggest hoaxes, or at least the one's we should be worried about are not Dr. Emoto's theories on water, which many here are so quick to dismiss and lambast because the guy gets a little touchy feely, and dare I say spiritual. And yes he's probably made a nice buck off of them. But it seems to me that we should be talking about the science being used by huge multinational biotech companies using science to set us up for the biggest frauds and hoaxes ever committed. It seems to me you guys are way to trusting of scientists. This whole field of genetics, genetically modified organisms and the like is very scary. We are all aware of course that these companies are obtaining patents on the genes to nearly every plant and animal that they can and that they are in the process of claiming these genes as "intellectual property" and working to make it illegal for anyone to produce seeds for something like corn or sell corn without paying them first because they own the rights to the genes. Ive heard of lawsuits against organic farmers who are corrupting the genetics of GMO crops. can anyone confirm or deny this? I know for sure That they are using gentetics to try to produce suicide seeds that are incapable of maturing past one generation in order to make farmers dependent on them for the seeds they need to produce a crop. They already tried to do it here in India with the Neem tree that has grown here for thousands of years and if it was not for politically active scientists who really cared they would have "owned" the rights to the Neem tree and any seeds produced by it. Do you need me to explain the implications here? We're talking about gentetic slavery here people. If you take this far enough (and Im sure Ill be ridiculed for even presenting the idea because scientist are honorable, dignified people in search of truth and cannot be influenced by money and greed and they would never do something like this) they could make it a crime or charge you a tax for making love to your girlfriend or wife and discharging your seminal fluid into her because technically your "seed" aint yours partner, they own the patent on it and your using their intellectual property. At least Dr. Emoro's research is uplifting and hope-giving, but the research being done now by these biotech companies is down right evil or dare I say diabolic and at the very least sick (can a scientist think in these terms) and could easily be used to oppress all of us. It seems like we're talking about the wrong things here. Please direct me to the forum where we are discussing real, real hoaxes the kind that could spell destruction for human health and life as we know it because Dr. Emoto's work is not the hoax we need to be talking about.

(Cranky Media Guy, if this is you trolling I'll have your nuts for starters...)

Greg, I hear what you're saying (I think). However:

- Your post betrays a mistrust of science and scientists which is quite alarming - as well as a tendency to lump different scientific debates and issues together as though they are one. This latter is very worrying: the question of whether or mot Merck scientists were entirely forthright in the issue of side effects from Rofecoxib is unrelated to the question of any health impacts of GM foods, and both are wholly unrelated to veracity of evolution.

- Science is a methodology, and is the best one we have; scientists are people, and as such make mistakes (though one beautiful thing about he scientific process is that these are self-correcting in the long run*); and pharmaceutical companies are businesses. Yes, its obvious - but you are using the example of Vioxx to smear science itself. (Oh, and fwiw in this case it was Merck who withdrew the drug, suggesting that even if errors of judgement were made the company had sufficient integrity to back down in the face of the evidence in the end - though how far that was to avoid litigation is hard to know).

- Scientific knowledge can, in the main, be trusted: experiments can be flawed, even faked, and interpretations can be wrong, but ultimately when we say 'ok, show us the money' the data there for us to see. Say we hear of something that really boggles the mind - identifying the sequences of genes, for example. We can say 'oh yeah? Prove it!' and scientists can actually show us how they sequence genes (you want any textbooks?).

- As to how evolution is taught: evolution is a theory; there is also no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it is wrong. With evolution, it's a question of ever-increasing understanding of mechanisms - there simply is no valid alternative theory (bearing in mind the definition of theory above).

Creation? OK: sure God (or some other 'intelligent designer') may have created life which behaves exactly as though it had evolved and a world which behaves as though it were entirely naturalistic. However, as a hypothesis this cannot be tested, and in terms of testable predictions (or anything practical, actuially) it is valueless: as such, it is not valid science.

How would you want evolution taught? Would you have meteorology taught the same way (intelligent weatherworkers)? Astronomy? Physics? We teach the most robust theories in science as fact because they describe the world as it really is.

*By 'self-correcting' I mean that the processes of peer review and peer testing mean that errors made by individual scientists tend not to last: indeed, your own example of Rofecoxib is pertinent here - is was scientists who identified the risks, through clinical studies (notably the VIGOR study) which made use of the scientific method.

---- Later ----

OK, I've just seen your newest post. Yikes.

First, I agree that there are ethical issues (currently being explored) in the areas of genetics and bioengineering. However, you're spouting a combination of conspiracy wackiness, urban myth, misrepresented fact, and the odd kernel of accuracy in there too.

Are the big GM corporations unethical? Almost certainly they are not more so than any other large corporation (take an anticapitalist stance if you like: don't pretend that's about the science, though). Yes, Monsanto among others forbid those who use their improved crops from keeping seed reserves. They are doing so for an economic reason, of course: it costs literally billions to develop such crops and they need a return on that. But think about it - firstly, if repurchasing an improved (pest-resistant, say) wheat every year provesless economical than farming a normal wheat and reserving a seed crop, farmers simply will not buy it; standard wheat will still be available. Secondly, by allowing a more efficient use of farmland per-acre yields will rise, slowing the continuing destruction of fallow land. (Note: though terminator gene technology is being explored it has not been used in any commercial crop; additionally, one of the principal reasons for exploring terminator genes is fos environmental protection - if the crop is infertile the risk of viable crossbreeds ('superweeds') becomes negligible.)

As to lawsuits against organic farmers who are corrupting the genetics of GMO crops, I've never heard of such a thing. There was a lawsuit against a farmer called Schmeiser, who was accused of stealing Roundup-ready seed but who claimed the seed was spilled and accidentally grew on his land. In that case, however, the facts (as the court found them) were somewhat different: some Roundup-ready seeds were accidentally spilled on his property, so he sprayed 'a good three acres' of his non-GM fields with Roundup to isolate the Roundup-ready crops to use. That's theft.

Finally, patentability: in Europe at least the rules are quite strict (if maybe not a strict as they could be). However, you cannot patent plant or animal varieties. Details here - must rush, do the research yourself.

Cheers.

Just saw this morning that Merck has a billion dollar fund set up to fight any lawsuits against Vioxx. Where's the integrity you speak of? If they were really that honorable as you say they would do right by the people they hurt. But youre right its a business and its all about the $$$$$$$. still not sure where integrity is involved because the truth of the matter is if they could make a few billion $$$$$$$ off their fake science, do their drug deals, kill people in the process and get away with it they would do it, no questions asked. Would you doubt that? And I'm not smearing science in the pure sense because in its pure sense its just like my 7th grade science teacher taught me and the way youve described it now twice. You know the whole scientific method and the noble pursuit of truth all that but a lot of what is passed off as "science" today has been corrupted by the Big Boyz and their corporate schemes so separating capitalism and pure science is not so simple. Scientific studies have to be paid for by somebody right? And how many noble and honorable scientists are out there these days? I really hope there are as many as you seem to think there are. Im not so sure that your very eloquent defense of Monsanto is convincing enough to make me trust them though and honestly would you feed their genetically modified foods, seeds and hormones to your children? If you would or do, that could be an interesting scientific study in itself? You know seeing if they turn out ok, Little room for error though dont you think? I mean your defense sounds like something right out of the mouths of their very high priced public relations consultant firm. Arent they they the ones who started injecting cows with rBGH? And I hope to God or Science or whatever you believe in that the integrity of the scientific method was used on that study before they started pumping gallons of that stuff into us. Youre right though Europeans seem to have more sense when it comes to patents, steroids and rBGH but here in the U.S. it's all open to patents whatever you want genes, species, hormones whatever? Its all legal here. But I digress, the main point is that it seems like some people here (maybe not yourself) talk about science the way some people talk about religion, accepting it with blind faith as the person i quoted above, but as you said its just as corruptable as the latter and the blind faith that some people put in it should be met with an equal amount of scepticism that is directed towards the former. I mean if we are going to be sceptics right, lets be equal opportunity sceptics. that sums it up.

outeast, you have my word that it isn't me trolling. In fact, I don't think I've posted anything to this thread at all (although I'd have to check on that).

:)

Didn't really think it was you, CMG... As to you (not) posting on this thread, if you didn't post the comment 7 or so posts up then someone is appropriating your moniker.

Anyway, to get on to more serious topics: why are we all talking in italics?

Greg, I am not making a passionate defense of either Monsanto or Merck, though it's true that I doubt they're as evil as you paint them. My 'defense' of Monsanto is simply an observation that in the specific instances cited the rumours are unsubstatiated; I daresay that, as with all large corporations, there are plenty of morally questionable activities: but this is in danger of turning into a poltical debate, since the issues here turn on the interplay between market forces and regulation...

Big pharma, certainly, does far more good than harm: without medical research on a scale that only big pharma is willing and able to fund we (that is, the human race) would be pretty fucked, frankly. It would be great to have that research funded by governments instead, of course, but they're rarely even willing to fund basic medical care let alone basic research:)

FWIW, I've no qualms about the healthiness of GM food and assume that I eat it all the time. I have yet to see or hear of any evidence of any health risks to GM foods, and in the absence of such see no reason not to trust it; what I know about genetics, too, makes me think there is little reason to expect so-called 'frankenfoods' to be unhealthy. I have my own concerns over GM crops, but these pertain to their potential environmental impact. Even here, though, I think that with proper regulation there is no cause for alarm. Again, ths brings the issue back into politics...

I'll add that any negative impacts of commercial research in terms of marketable products and market practices do not negate the value of the pure knowledge gained along the way. A corrupt source need not imply corrupted knowledge: and it is that knowledge we must master and teach to our children. This is in part for its own sake, and in part so we and they can spot when we're being hawked nonsense by charletans - from Ken Ham to Masaru Emoto.