Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 9 August 2007

This article is of low quality because it is biased. The writer of this article presumes to speak for "modern science" when in fact, physics Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson has spoken in defense of Benveniste's work. One would think that a Nobel Prize winner would be considered a member of "modern science".

A scientific hypothesis doesn't have to be shown to be wrong in order to be rejected or ignored - it is rejected if it can't be shown to be right - which is what has happened with water memory (so far, at least: new evidence could change that, of course).

This is a common misunderstanding among proponents of fringe theories: They think that once something has been proposed, it has to be accepted unless it is disproved. ("No one has ever found an error!" is a common cry amongst the true believers.) The way science works is that hypotheses can safely be ignored until they are shown to be right (or at least close enough that it's worth the effort to bridge the gap).

Which is why I reverted the last edit. - DavidWBrooks 00:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disagree with the links attached to the article

I am not arguing that it's right or wrong. I am saying that it has not been proven to be right or wrong, therefore it should not just be considered "Bad science" or "Scientific misconduct" as the attached links suggest.

Which is why I am going to remove these links than. Yurivict

The fact that the scientific community at large considers the issue of water memory to be associated with junk science / bad science and scientific misconduct is all that is necessary for the links to be included in the article. If you dissent, that is fine; but you cannot over-rule mainstream scientific consensus. I encourage you to add a (NPOV) dissenting section to the article, outlining support for water memory, rather than simply cutting out the bits you disagree with. Best wishes :) -- FP 09:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Remember that in any article, "see also" links are not necessarily directly associated with the given topic, nor do they constitute a "judgement" of the topic. Rather, they have some relevant association. I'm sure everyone interested in water memory would also be interested in the concepts of junk science and scientific misconduct, irrespective of their position on the existence of water memory. Fair enough? -- FP 09:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide references that "scientific community at large considers the issue of water memory to be associated with junk science / bad science / scientific misconduct"? As I understand community has only rejected this theory. There are two experiments that I am aware of showing no proof of water memory. But there is no evidence known to me that affiliates of this theory are insincere, therefore why "misconduct"? There is no proof that such memory does not / can not exist. If any -- references please. Yurivict

I don't want to get into an endless debate on the evidence for and against homeopathy (I could, but it's not necessary). All I want to do is demonstrate the rationale for the links as they exist in the "see also" section.

• Start by reading homeopathy and its talk page. That should demonstrate to you that the topic is at least controversial, and certainly a good many intelligent people do not believe in water memory. These pages also list plenty of evidence that casts doubt on the idea of water memory and the motives of some proponents.
• Read Jacques Benveniste's obituary in Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journal (here) (Quote: "widely disbelieved by scientists").
• The above-mentioned Benveniste was sacked from INSERM after his infamous experiments were shown to be poorly designed and erroneous. Sloppy procedure, with improper data recording, inexplicable artifacts and repeated failures of replication suggest scientific misconduct, bad science and/or junk science. Many other scientific magazines said as much in various editorials (I imagine I could find precise issue and page numbers, but I hope that won't be necessary).

These references should convince you that irrespective of whether water memory actually exists, the linked pages have some relevance to the article. For instance, let's say a hard-core supporter of Benveniste visits this page. He might appreciate the "see also" links which you object to, as they tell him about these ideas that have been associated, rightly or wrongly, with Benveniste and water memory in general. The mere fact that these pages are linked in "see also" does not constitute a definitive verdict on water memory. They belong.

Finally, I'm interested why you object to these three terms (junk science, bad science, scientific misconduct) but don't seem to mind pseudoscience and pathological science. Can you tell me why you don't want to remove these terms? (If you accept that water memory constitutes pseudoscience, you must tacitly admit it is also bad science!) -- FP 11:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

These different pseudo, junk, pathological, proto and bad science, together with scientific misconduct definitions need to be linked in one article. The effect of referring to them as a list of different links in this way could be considered intimidatory. Please remove them: they are all self-referential in any case - that is, pursuing one leads to the others. Alternatively, add examples where the scientific community has first ridiculed and then had to accept advances in knowledge and understanding.

I am not making a judgment on the issue of water memory Jeffrey Newman 05:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest, as well as above, also adding, e.g holistic science and others as necessary, to preserve NPOV Jeffrey Newman 09:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In retrospect I agree that the list of links was "intimidatory." I have made some provisional changes in the interests of NPOV. If anyone desires more changes, please go ahead and make them, and we will discuss it here if any more disagreements emerge. -- FP 03:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Polywater

In what way could polywater be thought of as similar to water memory? This statement seems to be suspect. Polywater was, as the name implies, believed to be a polymerized form of water. I am unaware of any "memory effect" involved, nor do the properties have anything in common. Maury 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point: aside from involving water and being a scientific-sounding belief that was debunked, it has no connection at all. How did that stay in so long? I'm removing it. - DavidWBrooks 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"pseudoscience" label

I have removed the statement that water memory is pseudoscience. Though the idea may very well be wrong, that does not mean it is pseudoscientific. The pseudoscience label only applies to ideas claiming to be science but which cannot be checked by the scientific method. Water memory, however, can and has been checked (with mixed results of course). A wrong or controversial theory is not the same as a pseudoscientific theory. nadav 08:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. As the page here on the wiki states: "is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.". The difference is an important one; to be pseudoscience the belief has to be non-scientific. There is no suggestion that it cannot be tested scientifically, just that the people involved don't do so. Maury 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, "pseudoscience" is pejorative anyway, might as well call it "crap" or "BS" or "nonsense" ...well, at least IMHO...:) There's a whole discussion going on about using the term at: RfA on Pseudoscience. I'm following it to see what they decide. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my paraphrase was wrong. Regardless, my point stands that "water memory" is not some project or endeavour masquerading as science, just an idea that is probably wrong. However, homepathy does seem to qualify for the title. nadav 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - speaking as something who agrees that water memory is almost certainly wrong. "Pseudoscience" is for quack machines sold on late-night infomercials that babble incoherently about "quantum" or "energy" without content. - DavidWBrooks 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree. I think that water memory is indeed an example of pseudoscience. It's basically a non-real effect that has no basis in any known science, yet talks about itself in technobable terms and claims to be the scientific basis for homeopathy. It doesn't exist on it's own, its a synonym. Unless you separate the two concepts the distinction becomes difficult to see. Don't get me wrong, if water memory pre-existed homeopathy and was co-opted, that would potentially be a counterargument for automatically labeling it, but that's not the case. So then if you believe homeopathy to be pseudoscience, how does one not automatically assume the same here? 12:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your judgements are unfair. Firstly, the idea has indeed been treated as a physical theory separately from homeopathy. Louis Rey's experiments gave some support to the theory and were published in a respected journal. Additional evidence for altered properties of extremely diluted solutions can be found in the articles of Elia et al published in the Journal of Molecular Liquids, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Annals of the NY Academy of Science, etc. Just because these findings contradict current understanding of the physical processes does not mean we can already label it as pseudoscience before it has been scientifically tested. True, proponents of homeopathy may pretend that water memory has already been proven, but that makes only those claims pseudoscience. For now, we should reserve final judgement until more tests are done. nadav 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ennis email incorrectly attributed

Okay, first, someone hadhere (before I came along) mention of Ennis' objection to how Horizon performed the experiment. I then moved her e-mail reference to a 'ref' tag. Here is the wiki code prior to my removal of it:

• However, Ennis claimed that Horizon did not faithfully reproduce her experiment.<ref name="Ennis email">{{cite web | url=http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/by_category.jsp?id=37 | title = Email from Madeleine Ennis detailing differences between the BBC Horizon program's experiment and her own | date = 2003-12-9 | accessdate = 2007-08-08 | quote= }}</ref>

I then saw this, from , authored by Dana Ullman (a homeopathic advocate who was interviewed by ABC's 20/20 and who first suggested the Ennis experiment as a reasonable experiment to replicate; however, both the BBC and ABC created a separate experiment that had never before been conducted and suffered from serious design flaws:

ABC News' 20/20 program with their reporter John Stossel is presently

scheduled to air a segment on homeopathy on Friday January 30th. This report will include a seemingly legitimate laboratory experiment that seeks to prove or disprove the effects of homeopathic medicines.

The experiment that 20/20 produced was supposed to be a replication

of an experiment that had been conducted numerous times in the past and had been published in scientific journals. This study used extremely small doses of histamine to reduce the number of basophils, a type of white blood cell that increases in numbers during allergy symptoms. This study was even conducted successfully several times by Dr. Madeleine Ennis who is a professor of biochemistry and a former skeptic of homeopathy. And further down

Turnbull used a chemical, Ammonium chloride, in

this experiment which is widely known to kill basophils, making the study impossible to any homeopathic medicine or any drug to have any effects. So I'm confident it this experiment that Ennis objected to, not the one that was performed in front of Randi.

And to drive one final point, Ennis' experiments were not the same as Benveniste's.

Despite my reservations against the science of homoeopathy," says Ennis, "the results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for a rational explanation for our findings." She is at pains to point out that the pan-European team have not reproduced Benveniste's findings nor attempted to do so. Lionel Milgrom (March 15, 2001). "Science: Thanks for the memory: Experiments have backed what was once a scientific 'heresy'". The Guardian. London. as quoted from

--Otheus 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

After having read the e-mail in question, I am confident she was referring to the Horizon experiment. In particular there were several mentions of the primary Horizon experimenter's name. Either I am misreading what you are trying to say above, or, well, I don't know at that point. Anyway the quotes seemed more than on-topic, and I have restored them in the newly laid-out article. Maury 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article

I have been watching the development of this article over the years and it is improving and becoming more informative all the time. I have now traced the basis of the anonymous comment at the head of the discussion page about the Nobel Prize Winner and added an external link and the comment from Prof Josephson in the body of the article. I do not yet know how to do a citation rather than an external link and I'm also not entirely convinced how valuable that it is, anyway.85.210.255.81 12:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It still reads like a bad news report, giving too much credence to water memory. Something lost on most journalist, and apparently Wikipedians, and indeed anyone who is not scientifically literate, is that balanced discussion does not need to occur when the issue itself is imbalanced. Why is no mention made about the inverse relation between the quality of studies done and the amount of effect homeopathic concoctions have? The fact of the matter is that there is not a single shred of decent evidence for this concept that defies the basic laws of physics. Calling this a good article is a bit of a stretch. Shawn M. O'Hare 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a meta-analysis or a similar source that backs up what you are saying? nadav (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I hope I've beaten this into shape to everyone's satisfaction. I have added a largish section on the original test series and the whole Nature controversy that resulted. I have also gathered the follow-up experiments into groups, with full cites on each one. From what I can see of the cites in this article, and others that I found as a result of tracking these ones down from REF to cite format, it appears that every "success" experiment has a corresponding direct "non-success" one that followed it. There appear to be three such experimental runs, the original ones from Nature, the telephone/internet ones that followed in the 90's, and finally the Ennis/Horizon test runs. I think it's safe to leave it at that. Maury 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite was a lively and interesting read. A couple of points for what changes I think should be done now: 1) more sources and inline citations should be provided for the details of the story. Is it all taken from the Time magazine article? 2) There have been a few more experiments in the past four years or so. These should be added. Note that these suggestions are not directed at you in particular, since you've already done quite a lot to improve it. Thanks and good job! nadav (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually most (but not all) of the material in the upper section I got from the two Nature articles, which are available online. The Time article was just a few pithy quotes and some history. I highly recommend reading the second of the two Nature articles BTW, because it's extremely succinct in terms of summing up everything that went on in that first rush, both from Maddox and Benvenist. As to the second point, if you have any more cites, please drop a note here and I'll try to work them in too (even an url or article title is fine, I can look these up on medline quick like a bunny). I'd really like every "positive" to have a "failed" if one exists, and vice versa; that way the reader can simply look up the cites and decide for themselves. Maury 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaplin's site has a great deal on the scientific aspect. It explains in what ways water can and cannot have memory. There are a lot of very useful papers cited in it, with recent review of the matter having been published just now. nadav (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I very much approve of the edits. I would still caution against too much balance in presentation. The vast majority of positive studies for pseudoscientific claims do tend to suffer from subtle to not so subtle methodological errors, or simply misuse of statistics. The layperson is not prepared to find these flaws, and so it is the duty of the editors to make them, if any, clear. Shawn M. O'Hare 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree. And on that note I welcome everyone to read the second of the FASEB links, here. There's an excellent section on how they controlled the possibility of he-said-she-said problems, clearly improving on the system Maddox used (ie, nothing). Maury 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro statement

Is it just me, or is the intro statement somewhat misleading? When I think "homeopathy" I think "like cures like". The whole small-doses thing is sort of secondary, it's certainly a part of classic homeopathy, but by no means its definition. There's nothing in the original homeopathic concept that demands water memory, at least not that I'm aware of (not being an expert by any means). Would it not be more accurate to state that the concept of water memory has been "adopted" by modern homeopathy? Or perhaps "latched onto"?

Another terminology issue is a portion that is now removed that claimed water memory was a pseudoscience (see this page, above). I would agree that it's definitely not an example of pseudoscience. However it does seem to fit every definition of pathological science, a different issue. I found that by typing "pathological science water memory" into Google the first hit returns an article on just that topic from Columbia U, here. The definition in bold here is pretty much exactly what Maddox stated in the Nature article. Is this worth mentioning, or is it too unbalancing?

I'm tempted to make both of these changes, the later being cited makes it worth mentioning, but I'd like to hear your comments first.

Maury 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Water memory wasn't just latched on to by homeopaths, it was invented in order to explain homeopathy. However, it is true that water memory is now often studied independently of it. I have no opinion on the latter change for now. nadav (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the way you describe it here is a definition of pseudoscience. But given that I don't have any direct quotes saying this, and everything hates the word no matter how suitable it might be, I'll just leave that one alone! Maury 12:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)