Science of Water Memory?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by KUMAR5, Nov 15, 2020.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,116
    An excellent question, which I think everyone here wants to put to you.

    What is the sense in claiming or checking it?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    This is also last line of your that post. I sccept my mistake, I should have slso quoted it.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. river

    Messages:
    17,307


    Because the research upon water proves otherwise .
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    No sense, when molecular presence is justified. I am just confused, how these molecular's existsnce or their effect in water was not practically traced while doing the exoeriment and varification? Science had quite precision testing tecnology.
     
    river likes this.
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,706
    Because then it's not plain water, as we just explained.
    Nope. Once again:

    If there is something dissolved in it, it is not plain water. It is water with something dissolved in it.
    If there is nothing dissolved in it, it is plain water. There's no "memory."

    Very simple. Do you disagree?
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307

    Look up water research .
     
  10. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    I agree.

    Whatever way you can take it. Whole sense if information of active substances remain present in higher potentized remedies.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,116
    Because there are two different types of people involved:

    1. Homeopaths - who are not scientists but make money off convincing gullible people that they should pay homeopaths good money for the homeopaths to sell them plain ol' water at outrageous prices so they can make a living. These people have a powerful motivation ($$$) for homeopathy to seem valid.

    2. Scientists - who actually studied homeopathy scientifically, and found there's no science behind it. These people have no motivation to fake results of their tests.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
  12. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Neither there is sense in above esp when it is justified here that molecular information of active substsnces exist in all potencies nor it is within the scope of discussion in this topic.
    The main purpose of claiming memory of water was to justify information presence in higher potencies, which did or could not be justified by science community but did justified in this topic.

    This is over and all.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,706
    Great!
    No so great. Now you are back to woo.

    You must be a very confused person.
     
  14. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Then, what was the real purpose behind claiming and varifying memory of water theory?
     
    river likes this.
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Its bullshit, plain and simple woo bullshit. Are you connected in any way to that other questionable fringe stuff they call homeopathy?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water...urported,arbitrary number of serial dilutions.
    Water memory is the purported ability of water to retain a memory of substances previously dissolved in it even after an arbitrary number of serial dilutions. It has been claimed to be a mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work, even when they are diluted to the point that no molecule of the original substance remains.

    Water memory defies conventional scientific understanding of physical chemistry knowledge and is generally not accepted by the scientific community. In 1988, Jacques Benveniste published a study supporting a water memory effect amid controversy in Nature,[1] accompanied by an editorial by Nature's editor John Maddox[2] urging readers to "suspend judgement" until the results can be replicated. In the years following publication, multiple supervised experiments were run by Benveniste's team, the United States Department of Defense,[3] BBC's Horizon programme,[4] and other researchers, but no team has ever reproduced Benveniste's results in controlled conditions.

    extract:
    Homeopathic coverage[edit]
    To most scientists, the "memory of water" is not something that deserves serious consideration; the only evidence is the flawed Benveniste work.
     
  16. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Thanks for explaining. Yes it is routinely judged alike your post.
    But you are missing, whatever is now justified in this topic i.e. information of active substsnces in lieu of memory of water is consistently present in higher/all potencies by a scientific term adsorption and desorption on bottle glass walls, which was never taken into account previously. I am also surprised, how it can not be traced by modern precision testing technology.

    Although therupstic effects from these remedies is beyond the scope of this tooic but still we need to study these differently from higher chemical based conventional meds. Obiously, if we account by taking real effects+side/toxic effects, apparent effects from conventional meds will be quite strong with more side effects, unnatural n easily recognizable in short term. Whereas these will be lighter, natural , least side effects n difficult to recognize in short term. Hence these are not compareble to study at par. Millons of people in most part of the world is opting homeooathy consistently since long back n repeatedly, is itself is a live proof. Simpy it is like slow n steady wins the race,
    A single blow of a blacksmith is equal to a hundred blows of a goldsmith. But goldsmith adds more value.

    It is normal that train whistle continue and should continue till all obstacles in it way is cleared.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
  17. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    No.
    It's "proof" only that some people are gullible.
     
  18. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    Yes.

    We can/should not say/consider that these millions modern well educated and well informed are illitrate, innocent or idiots.
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Except that - with regard to the scientific facts on this subject - they are NOT well-educated or well-informed.
     
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,116
    It is a well-known fact that an alarmingly large fraction of the public distrust science but trust woo.
     
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,706
    Money. If people can sell water as a remedy they can make a lot of money.
    Millions of people in most parts of the world believe in Santa Claus. Millions think one side of the moon is always dark. Millions think that the seasons are caused by the Earth getting closer to, and farther from, the Sun. Millions think that microwave ovens make food radioactive.

    None of that makes their belief "proof."
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2020
    exchemist and DaveC426913 like this.
  22. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,116
  23. KUMAR5 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,221
    No, now it is not plain water. Molecular or information presence is now justified in thís topic. Why you want to keep yóur eyes still closed?
     

Share This Page