Way too much pseudo-science for me to stand.
What the Bleep Do We Know!? -anyone seen this movie?
by ithinkisee 20 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
GentlyFeral
I'm taking a course in
ooga boogalet's call it "the cultivation of realistic optimism", and this was on the curriculum list.I took the alleged science with a spoonful of salt, but I'm still grateful to that Ramtha lady for introducing me to Amit Goswamy and Mihail Ledwith.
I hear Ledwith has been branded an apostate by the church, but they did that to Matthew Fox, too, just as the Episcopal church tried to do it to Bishop Spong.
Just remember (Ralph Waldo) Emerson's Law: "leave the chaff, and take the wheat" – and enjoy.
GentlyFeral
too lazy for colored .sigs today -
bikerchic
Andi:
I prefer Walter's philosophy: "Aw, [edit] it dude, let's go bowling."
*giggle*
Love that movie!Who's Walter and why is he swearing?
Leolaia:
Way too much pseudo-science for me
I agree totally. I did however like the part about the water and changing your thoughts to loving ones about yourself, but then again there is nothing scientific about this age old Gastalt if you ask me.
-
patio34
I did like the cartoon animations of the neuropeptides making eyes at each other
-
ithinkisee
Has anyone else in the scientific community attempted to duplicate Dr. Masaru Emoto's "Chi of Love" water experiment? I found one supposed "peer review" article regarding it - but even it was debated as to whether it was truly peer reviewed.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=511382
Anyone find any additional info regarding this water experiment?
-ithinkisee
-
rem
ithinkisee,
I think the link you provided above pretty much spells out the credibility of this "experiment". It looks like James Randi is offering the million dollar prize to anyone who can replicate this, as it would most probably be magic. :)
I did find it interesting from what I've read about the movie (I have not yet seen it) that they claim that the Native Americans literally could not see the European ships as they approached because they had no concept of them in their mind. From the link you posted above, here is a pretty damning rebuttal:
"A common labourer... brought the news that he had seen 'a range of
mountains, or some big hills, floating in the sea'. Montezuma...
ordered one of his four chief advisers... to go to ask the Mexican
steward near the sea if there was something strange, on the water;
and, if there were, to find out what it was...
The people concerned came back to say that the news was true: two
towers, or little hills, were to be seen on the sea, moving backwards
and forwards. The agents of Montezuma insisted on going to look for
themselves. In order not to expose themselves, they climbed a tree
near the shore, They saw that... there certainly were mountains on the
waves."
From page 48 of "CONQUEST: CORTES, MONTEZUMA, AND THE FALL OF OLD
MEXICO," by Hugh Thomas.
I don't know where the primary source is, but I'm not sure where the Ramtha cult got the idea that the Native Americans couldn't see the ships. Could they just be making crap up??? :)
rem -
Leolaia
Well, not even knowing much about Emoto's technique or the physics of crystal formation, I would guess there could easily be a selectivity bias here. Each water crystal is different (cf. snowflakes) and each droplet of water could potentially have different proportions of impurities and behave differently under freezing. When Emoto does his "experiments", does he test a statistically significant sample and tell us what proportion displays the claimed characteristics and what proportion does not? Does he give us the results of repetitions of the experiment so we can see a recurring pattern? How well does he measure these against controls? Or does he just give a photo essay of selected examples of his "experiments" and not give us the raw data to evaluate his claims for ourselves? How do we know that his control samples do not contain examples similar to ones he chooses from the non-control samples?
Not having seen his work, I don't know the answers to these questions but such questions should be asked by anyone who finds Emoto's work scientifically credible.
-
Leolaia
Just found this..........
An experiment attempting to replicate Dr. Emoto's work..., May 26, 2005
Introduction: In an Advanced Placement Psychology class at Durango High School our group attempted to replicate Dr. Masaru Emoto's water experiments. In his studies, Dr. Emoto showed a correlation between thoughts or messages and the formation of water crystals.
Original Methods: In his experiment Dr. Emoto used about fifty different water sources varying from glacial water in Japanese mountains to filtered water from a faucet. Dr. Emoto attached different messages to each water sample and even had a Buddhist monk bless some of them. Some of the messages were: "Love and Gratitude," "Thank you," and "You make me sick." He included a variety of positive and negative thoughts. He then froze the water samples on Petri dishes in a freezer at -4 degrees Fahrenheit for 3 hours. His stated results showed a strong correlation between the message and the formation of the water crystals. Water samples with optimistic messages on them created "nice-looking" crystals and the ones with pessimistic messages created "ugly" crystals.
Critique: Dr. Emoto's experiment appears to have overlooked certain variables, and some of his conclusions may be based on assumptions that are not necessarily true. For example, Dr. Emoto failed to realize that there are hundreds of crystals in one drop of water, and through "experimenter bias" he may have subconsciously noticed certain crystals while disregarding others because of the suggestion of a certain message. In other words, he could have looked through thousands of crystals to find a beautiful one if he knew the message was a positive one, and -- consciously or unconsciously -- he could have looked for an ugly crystal if he knew the message was a negative one. Dr. Emoto does not state if the experiment was a double blind study, in which he was unaware of which messages were attached to which water sample, a measure that would eliminate this kind of experimenter bias. Because of this, we do not know if Emoto only photographed the "pretty" crystals because of the positive messages or was unconsciously drawn to "scary" crystals when he looked at samples with negative messages. His experiment is also open to diverse interpretations. He implies that certain crystal structures may reflect the thought that was attached to them, but he fails to recognize that there may be other relevant interpretations for analyzing the crystal formations. Because of the unnoticed variables in the experiment, our high-school A.P. Psychology group decided to try to remake Dr. Emoto's experiment.
Our Methods: Replicating Dr. Emoto's experiment proved to be a little more challenging than we originally thought it would be. Dr. Emoto got most of his water samples from the mountains of Japan; we had to settle with water from the Animas River, and other various water samples. This may have created a discrepancy in our conclusions, but both experiments tested the effect of thought on water, so the water type should have had no bearing on our results. We also used a control group for each type of water: A sample that had no message attached. We had five different types of water: Dasani, tap water, river water, filtered tap water, and tap water from a different location. Each type of water was labeled with a color, and for each type we attached 5 different messages to 5 different microscope slides containing the water sample, as well as having one "control" slide with no message. So all together we made 30 slides. The messages we used were "I despise you," "You make me sick," "Thank you," "Love and Gratitude," and "You are beautiful." We taped the messages, as well as a piece of colored paper that corresponded to the water type, onto the bottom of each slide. We were unaware of which message was on which slide in each water group. Although we took special precautions and were careful about experimenter bias, our experiment was not as wide-scale as Dr. Emoto's. We didn't have nearly as many samples as Dr. Emoto did. Another difficulty we faced was the temperature of the freezer and the time that we left the water in the freezer. Our freezer ranged from -2 to -10 degrees Fahrenheit, while Emoto's was at -4 degrees. This created different freezing times for the water samples. We had to wait until a thin layer of crystals was just beginning to form on the surface of the water before we could analyze them underneath our microscope, but at the same time, we could not let the water freeze completely or else we could not observe any crystals. We also used glass slides instead of Petri dishes, another source of possible discrepancy.
Conclusion: We did not find sufficient evidence to refute or accept Emoto's hypothesis that thought influences water crystal formation. We noticed one interesting similarity between two separate groups of water samples: Similar crystals formed on the same message, "I despise you." But, for the most part, the crystal formations in each water sample resembled each other, regardless of the messages attached to them. We concluded that in order to make a significant finding, further research would have to be done. So, for now, we will have to live with our curiosity and continue to wonder if our thoughts have the power to influence water and ultimately ourselves.
Amanda White,
Robbie Else,
Scott Wilson,
Damian Nash (teacher).
AP Psychology Class
Durango High School
May 25, 2004
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2RCJEU89QNVMS/102-4231407-0512913?_encoding=UTF8
-
Leolaia
I don't know where the primary source is, but I'm not sure where the Ramtha cult got the idea that the Native Americans couldn't see the ships. Could they just be making crap up??? :)
I had exactly the same thought too when I saw this. I wanted to know what their source material was and how it could represent what the Native Americans were thinking. I have personally done a lot a research on "first contact" situations in the Pacific and have never encountered cases in which the European ships were "invisible" to the natives. Typically, Polynesians construed them as floating islands, in fact the Hawaiian word for "ship", moku, is also the word for "island" (= mokupuni). Native Hawaiian historian Samuel M. Kamakau (1815-1876) described how Captain Cook's ships looked to Hawaiians on the shore as they first approached the island in 1778:
Chiefs and commoners saw the wonderful sight and marveled at it. Some were terrified and shrieked with fear. The valley of Waimea rang with the shouts of the excited people as they saw the boat with its masts and sails shaped like a gigantic sting ray.
One asked another, "What are those branching things?" and another one answered "they are trees moving on the sea." Still another thought, "A double canoe of the hairless ones of Mana!" A certain kahuna named Kuohu declared, "that can be nothing less than the heiau of Lono, the tower of Keolewa, and the place of sacrifice at the altar." The excitement became more intense, and louder grew the shouting.
Upon seeing these terrifying things, the Hawaiians first fled, went into hiding, and prayed in fright. Then, becoming bolder, they began venturing closer to their shores, and braver ones began waving aloha to these visiting gods. Eventually, after fearful inhibitions had been declared, the Hawaiians took to the water and slowly paddled out to sea -- in outrigger canoes and on surfboards -- to marvel at these fair-skinned deities at close range.
It would be interesting to track the "legend" of the invisible Spanish ships as articulated in the movie back to whatever source it came from. I have doubts it derives from any genuine 16th-century source, not to mention whether it is historical either.
-
Leolaia
The movie's official website gives a pathetic attempt to explain where the story about the Native American inability to see the Spanish ships comes from:
http://www.whatthebleep.com/herald3/quandries.shtml
The inquirer asks a simple, straightforward question ("Where the information on Columbus and the Native Americans came from") and 90% of the reply is more gobbley-gook designed to shore up the idea behind the story without addressing the question at hand. Then the final paragraph that addresses the question simply says:
Co-writer and producer Betsy Chasse says, “Other scientists related the same story to us.” [Who????] And, apparently, there are references to the tale in an historical document made by an early missionary in the South Americas. This document, unfortunately, has not yet been found.
It hardly needs to pointed out how this statement is entirely unsatisfactory.