Does Water Have A Memory?

[current]

I am not patient. I asked for evidence.  You gave a youtube video.  I call BS. Put up or shut up.

 

I call it the evidence you asked for .

[JMJones0424]

Woohoo, current provides no evidence whatsoever for a claim that is on its face ludicrous, and when asked for evidence, the only reply that is given is that current calls it the evidence you asked for.  It should be noted that this is decidedly not the evidence asked for.  Nor is it any evidence of any kind.  It seems plain to me that current is a troll, and should be dealt with accordingly.

[current]

Woohoo, current provides no evidence whatsoever for a claim that is on its face ludicrous, and when asked for evidence, the only reply that is given is that current calls it the evidence you asked for.  It should be noted that this is decidedly not the evidence asked for.  Nor is it any evidence of any kind.  It seems plain to me that current is a troll, and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

yes of course something new , challenges you and perhaps others , is being a troll ?

 

yet I find it fascinating . 

[JMJones0424]

put up or shut up troll

[current]

the video gets there , you'll see 

[exchemist]

the video gets there , you'll see 

JM Jones is perfectly right.

 

YouTube is full of sh1t. Some videos are fraudulent. Some are faked. Many are misleading. Most science videos fail to explain in detail the experimental setup being demonstrated.  And finally, most are incredibly long-winded, compared to a written summary of the idea being allegedly described.

 

If you understand the claims being made, you should be able to summarise them in words, yourself, so that we can discuss them on this forum. 

 

Merely linking to YouTune videos is not acceptable as evidence or argument, about anything, on a science forum.

[current]

JM Jones is perfectly right.

 

YouTube is full of sh1t. Some videos are fraudulent. Some are faked. Many are misleading. Most science videos fail to explain in detail the experimental setup being demonstrated.  And finally, most are incredibly long-winded, compared to a written summary of the idea being allegedly described.

 

If you understand the claims being made, you should be able to summarise them in words, yourself, so that we can discuss them on this forum. 

 

Merely linking to YouTune videos is not acceptable as evidence or argument, about anything, on a science forum.

 

disagree 

 

 it is acceptable . because ; 

 

 youtube videos , give a through listening and visual examples .  a through understanding of their research .  

 

view the video then lets discuss .

[exchemist]

disagree 

 

 it is acceptable . because ; 

 

 youtube videos , give a through listening and visual examples .  a through understanding of their research .  

 

view the video then lets discuss .

No chance. 

[current]

No chance. 

 

yes chance . not all youtube videos are nonsense . 

 

view the video . from my post #38 .

Edited March 10, 2017 by current

[exchemist]

This admittedly lengthy article on "water memory" might give amusement to some readers. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_memory

 

The "Tap Water of Death" section made me laugh aloud. :)  Basically it points out that if the homeopathic idea of potentiation - retention of water memory - by dilution is right, then the sheer cleanliness of tap water ought to make us all drop dead of overdoses, brought on by the low concentrations of the numerous chemical substances that are or were present in it. Great stuff!  

Edited March 10, 2017 by exchemist

[current]

This admittedly lengthy article on "water memory" might give amusement to some readers. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_memory

 

The "Tap Water of Death" section made me laugh aloud. :)

 

it shouldn't 

[current]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bx-CvvV-ofY

[current]

[exchemist]

Good review here of a series of homeopathy papers : http://www.csicop.org/si/show/homeopathy_a_critique_of_current_clinical_research

 

The concluding para reads : " This critical analysis is, of course, limited by the fact that only the publications of one research group were scrutinized. Thus, generalizations across the field of homeopathy are not permissible. Nevertheless, my evaluation suggests numerous flaws in the design, conduct, and reporting of clinical research in homeopathy recently published by the most prolific research unit in this area. It also reveals multiple publications of similar data, which might be regarded as ethically debateable. Most important, it points to a phenomenon that, according to my experience, seems to be common in this line of investigation (Ernst 2010): relatively weak data tend to be over- or misinterpreted to such an extent that the casual reader of such publications can be seriously misled. Consequently, homeopathy appears to have clinical effects which, with critical analysis, can be attributed to bias or confounding.

 

 Well exactly. 

 

And another, damning, one on the subject of water "memory" explicitly: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_memory_of_water 

 

It seems this was all started by an eccentric called Jacques Benviste in 1988. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste 

 

Homeopathy seems dispiritingly difficult to kill off. This is true of quack medical treatments in general, as it is so easy to exploit the wish of a gullible patient to become well again. But quackery it assuredly is. 

[current]

homeopathy is what it is .

 

but has nothing to do with my point .

 

water has memory .

[exchemist]

homeopathy is what it is .

 

but has nothing to do with my point .

 

water has memory .

Bilge. 

[current]

Bilge. 

 

not at all . 

 

if you can tell me that water doesn't change its geometry because of what it is exposed to , then I will think about it . 

 

otherwise your wrong .