Talk:Water memory/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 19 February 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Journal

You've got to get online access to the whole journal...it's...disturbing...--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 12:37, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Its been published for free on a blog. I will find the link. tmtoulouse ^torment 12:43, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Here is the link to the whole issue, he got special permission to publish it all for open access. tmtoulouse ^torment 12:45, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Im having trouble deciding on format and detail level here.--PalMD^{-Ars longa, vita brevis} 13:12, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh, dear--I'll have to take a look at this in a bit. Sterile^{blah, blah, blah} 13:15, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Formating and details

I think we can do like a "claims of homeopaths" and have sub-headings for various weird explanations they have offered along with refutations. Then like a "general problems with water memory" type section sub headings like the thermodynamics, how regular drinking water would be so full of stuff by now, ect. Than maybe a summary section. tmtoulouse ^torment 13:49, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Silver?

Anyone concur this should be silver? - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't believe in any of this bunk but to me there is a glaring omission. Homeopathy does not just claims that water has a memory they say it needs succussion to imprint the memory. Now this is just as much bollocks but it does mean that many anti-homeopathy jibes are based on a straw man.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a silver thing, as the main article is gold, it doesn't need it, it's a supporting article type thing. While I agree with Lily's reasoning above, I have to say that the succussion procedure appears to be poorly defined and has slight variations. Mostly it seems to be there as an excuse for people rejecting tests of it by saying the succussion is wrong, like "it needs to be tapped this way not that way!" and while yes, it means quite a bit of it is straw man, it's only straw man because of the moving goal posts on the other end. ^narchist 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The strawman is being quoted out of context in regards to throwing elephants at the moving goalposts. ħuman 19:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

^narchist 20:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, no homeopath claims that mere dilution of a substance is required to make it a homeopathic medicine. So the 'memory of shit' thing is a strawman. If we seriously want to debunk something we should debunk what they say and not what we like to think they say.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as I added to the succussion thing, the procedure is so poorly defined it's very plausible that water just sloshing around in sewage will be "remembering" the shit. ^narchist 20:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you look into the history of it, and just think about it, diluting a cc of something in a liter of something works a lot better if you shake it up baby, now. The charlatans who say "you're doing it wrong" are just trying to ignore negative scientific test results. ħuman 21:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Article ad-hominem

This a clasical example for pseudorefutation: "Mark Chu-Carroll of scienceblogs has a full refutation of the work at his site" No refuting the text of David Anick. Thus only opinion based in a priori arguments. In the coments of this site (site of Mark Chu), the coments y only opinions, based in similar conditions a this article: falacies ad-hominem, false analogies, etc. Over the article is based in poor referencies, only two: homeopathy, and David Anick. The other referencies that demonstrates evidences (no only mathematical models), brighting for your auscense. This site is similar a Quackometer: falacies ad-hominem, appeal authority, post hoc and ad-hoc, and staw man falacy. Not objetive, based in primacy premise "is a simple effect placebo". For the cite of Tim Michin is clear appeal false authority, Michin is a music, no scientist. In this case, the article is a buffon article. Note: The link for "pop science" no is rational argument, appeal to ad-misecordiam falacy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 189.241.38.226 / talk / contribs}

Could you explain this a bit more clearly? Sam ^Tally-ho! 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I've always said that knowing the dog latin for the major logical fallacies doesn't mean you know how to actually use them. ^gnostic 11:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible expansion

There has been plenty more research put into this after the Nature/Benveniste thing. See here. I mention this because this is what I was looking for in the hopes of linking to WOMBAT.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"Tap water should be the most dangerous substance on the planet"

Further up, this article says that the idea is that succussion is supposed to remove all the bad side effects of a poison, retaining any good effects (I think the effect is that the water becomes an antidote?). This implies that, according to homeopathic beliefs, tap water would be very safe and beneficial to drink, after processing, not very poisonous. This invalidates that particular argument against homeopathy. Don't worry, there's still the much stronger argument of thermodynamics.^{— Unsigned, by: 68.37.180.29 / talk / contribs}