Water has four phases...and why homeopathy works (possibly)

[holwellcourtfarm]

That's not true. Conventional science is just a case of testing the theory/ hypothesis. It doesn't mean it ceases to exist - it means the evidence to say that it does exist is not there. Science is updating all the time

There are far too many "scientists" who do not exhibit the true scientific open-mindedness though. They refuse to believe anything that hasn't yet been proved, and differs from their own views, could be true.

Generally it's the media luvvies misunderstanding of the scientific method and current science that's the main problem. Being pure humanities folk they don't understand that just because there is no current robust evidence does not mean that something could not be true. They then spread their misinformed opinion as fact.

 

[Daniel Larn]

There are far too many "scientists" who do not exhibit the true scientific open-mindedness though. They refuse to believe anything that hasn't yet been proved, and differs from their own views, could be true.

Generally it's the media luvvies misunderstanding of the scientific method and current science that's the main problem. Being pure humanities folk they don't understand that just because there is no current robust evidence does not mean that something could not be true. They then spread their misinformed opinion as fact.

There is an important distinction to be made between being open minded of an alternative theory, and entertaining the delusional.

It's arrogance for someone to discredit string theory, when there is at least some tangible proofs that support it's existence.

It's reckless to allow people to spread "theories" without ANY shred of evidence or even fundamental basis within the bounds of current scientific theory.

This fella here with his 4 phases of water hasn't discovered anything new, it's not even an unknown, however he is misrepresenting even simple science in order to sell books.

...he shouldn't really be given a platform to exploit people in such a way imho.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

There is an important distinction to be made between being open minded of an alternative theory, and entertaining the delusional.

It's arrogance for someone to discredit string theory, when there is at least some tangible proofs that support it's existence.

It's reckless to allow people to spread "theories" without ANY shred of evidence or even fundamental basis within the bounds of current scientific theory.

This fella here with his 4 phases of water hasn't discovered anything new, it's not even an unknown, however he is misrepresenting even simple science in order to sell books.

...he shouldn't really be given a platform to exploit people in such a way imho.

I have no comment on the 4 phases of water contention but reckless abuse of science is endemic. Such abuse leads many "scientists" to only ever publish those studies that confirm their pre-concieved ideas and "bury" the studies that do not or else they skew their data to prove their original ideas. This is particularly evident in current dietary "research", not least the recent "EAT-Lancet" report. It is an abuse of science to conduct "epidemiological" studies and then claim to have proven simple causal relationships.

Ben Goldacre's "Bad science" is essential reading on this.

 

[Daniel Larn]

I have no comment on the 4 phases of water contention but reckless abuse of science is endemic. Such abuse leads many "scientists" to only ever publish those studies that confirm their pre-concieved ideas and "bury" the studies that do not or else they skew their data to prove their original ideas. This is particularly evident in current dietary "research", not least the recent "EAT-Lancet" report. It is an abuse of science to conduct "epidemiological" studies and then claim to have proven simple causal relationships.

Ben Goldacre's "Bad science" is essential reading on this.

Dietary science, a real quagmire.

Diet research is notoriously poor full stop, I agree with your notion that the way the research is presented is by media or whatever is usually even more damaging than the questionable results within.

 

[SilliamWhale]

There are far too many "scientists" who do not exhibit the true scientific open-mindedness though. They refuse to believe anything that hasn't yet been proved, and differs from their own views, could be true.

Generally it's the media luvvies misunderstanding of the scientific method and current science that's the main problem. Being pure humanities folk they don't understand that just because there is no current robust evidence does not mean that something could not be true. They then spread their misinformed opinion as fact.

If you want to make a scientific claim then you must be able to back it up with scientific evidence.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

If you want to make a scientific claim then you must be able to back it up with scientific evidence.

If only that were how it still worked

 

[SilliamWhale]

If only that were how it still worked

Science still trumps it though. I take your point about bad science and poor data interpretation etc but at the end of the day its still science that gets you there

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Watch this and then repeat that

The abuse of science in pursuit of an ideology (and self-interest ).

 

[Doc]

Peer review provides check and balance. Most ‘media’ science is either not from peer reviewed source or if so, puts a spin on the context. There are Journals and there are journals. Proper evidence has a weighting of significance of the data and conclusion.
There is huge resource of information on dietetics in humans and the term dietician is a protected title. Anyone can call themselves a ‘nutritionist’, so it is meaningless. Your doctor will refer you to a dietician, the guy down the road will give you nutrition advice from google etc.
One of my favourite expressions is ‘it’s not the answer which wins the Nobel prize but the question’. I’m not anti question at all but am pretty sceptical of answers which lack rigour of proof.

 

[mikep]

Peer review provides check and balance. Most ‘media’ science is either not from peer reviewed source or if so, puts a spin on the context. There are Journals and there are journals. Proper evidence has a weighting of significance of the data and conclusion.
There is huge resource of information on dietetics in humans and the term dietician is a protected title. Anyone can call themselves a ‘nutritionist’, so it is meaningless. Your doctor will refer you to a dietician, the guy down the road will give you nutrition advice from google etc.
One of my favourite expressions is ‘it’s not the answer which wins the Nobel prize but the question’. I’m not anti question at all but am pretty sceptical of answers which lack rigour of proof.

Science today is a poor second to Facebook unfortunately. Most people lack the ability to accept anything that doesn't confirm their own prejudice or fantasies and will look to find 'proof'that they are right even if the proof had little or no merit.
Politicians look for herd movements in the public and react accordingly such as the demonising of glyphosate we all know gives you cancer but alcohol doesn't.
I accept that there is much we don't know but I think a lot of the popular crap is from a society that has plenty of worldly goods but lack any ''spiritual' security.
I'm not overly religious as such but wonder about the biblical warnings of the worship of false gods. Society as a whole is finding comfort in all kinds of possessions and drivel whereas in the past they got comfort from religion.
Nature hates a vacuum.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Peer review provides check and balance. Most ‘media’ science is either not from peer reviewed source or if so, puts a spin on the context. There are Journals and there are journals. Proper evidence has a weighting of significance of the data and conclusion.
There is huge resource of information on dietetics in humans and the term dietician is a protected title. Anyone can call themselves a ‘nutritionist’, so it is meaningless. Your doctor will refer you to a dietician, the guy down the road will give you nutrition advice from google etc.
One of my favourite expressions is ‘it’s not the answer which wins the Nobel prize but the question’. I’m not anti question at all but am pretty sceptical of answers which lack rigour of proof.

That's why the EAT-Lancet report was so worrying: The Lancet has previously been held to be a proper scientific journal subjecting papers to robust peer review yet it put it's name to the distorted avertorial that is the EAT-Lancet

 

[Doc]

The Lancet is a coffee table mag for GP’s these days. Much like the Vet record unfortunately.
It’s a BMA (Wiley Blackwell publishes) voice piece rather than a scientific journal and loaded with opinion, politics and populism.
As I said, there are journals and there are journals.
The general public don’t understand the difference which is the worrying bit. Indeed some of the professionals, who should know better, don’t seem to. It’s dangerous. The Wakefield crap of spurious and false link between MMR and Austism illustrates this well.
Correlation is not causation.
The dumbing down of science eroded its credibility and boils my pee, if you hadn’t noticed.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

The Lancet is a coffee table mag for GP’s these days. Much like the Vet record unfortunately.
It’s a BMA (Wiley Blackwell publishes) voice piece rather than a scientific journal and loaded with opinion, politics and populism.
As I said, there are journals and there are journals.
The general public don’t understand the difference which is the worrying bit. Indeed some of the professionals, who should know better, don’t seem to. It’s dangerous. The Wakefield crap of spurious and false link between MMR and Austism illustrates this well.
Correlation is not causation.
The dumbing down of science eroded its credibility and boils my pee, if you hadn’t noticed.

 

[T.Elliot]

If conventional science can't explain it, then it "ceases to exist" and that's the flaw.

This might be slightly different, although an important difference. If conventional science can't validate the results (or if it finds other negative consequences), then it is not recommended.

Homeopathy was not found to bring benefits so it is not recommended (being understood was not a factor IIRC) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/4502.htm

This sort of applied science is heavily experimental, lots of treatments or conditions are not as understood as we might like. But it's the best method we have.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I received this today. Thoughts?

Water Quality and Continuums Today, one of the most obvious problems confronting us is water. This letter will attempt to establish the basis for overhauling our understanding and tools of water. I will be adding a unit on water and hydrology to my upcoming regenerative agriculture course. If your municipality or local water resource is struggling with, or perhaps even roiling with controversy over contaminated water, then the reality of bad water is immediately present. But what is good water? Great water? What about the best water ever!? We don't have to go that far; we can stop at necessary water. Maybe. My relative lives next to a lake that is officially unfishable and un-swimmable. The lake is downstream of a major city. It's bad enough that the water quality is what it is. What's worse is that such situations are increasingly regarded as normal. Part of the reason for such expectations is that quality is not always "cordoned." Where quality is not well-defined, we slide freely across quality continuums. We qualify meats as prime, choice, select grades. We note the differences. We qualify eggs, investments, lumber, steel, tires. We note the differences. Water? In certain contexts, on very limited bases, we qualify water. In human consumption: potable versus non-potable. Agronomically speaking: acidic versus basic. I recognize the risk of over-simplifying here, but I am trying to condense (not reduce) a lot of human action into meaningful aggregates. These binary qualifications are not sufficient. Our world and our lives are far too complex for water to be merely "drinkable." Farming, too, is far more precious than to consider all water as roughly the same. Water moves. Not just tides and currents and flows. Water, the way we should want it, is kinetic on the molecular level. Think of all those little H2Os - rolling, dancing, and bouncing over one another. Hydrogens flashing here and there, leaving H here and OH there. Water moves, and the more the better. But not just any movement will do. The swinging movements of water molecules (which are barely discernable in the above imagery, I admit) might be described as "layered up," or "fractal." What happens in the above image, also happens among a larger body of flowing water, and in a larger stream still. Like threads in a rope - first twisting to form a single strand, then wrapping around two more strands. Instead of a rope that lies idle, the spiraling of H2O leads to rivers which "snake." When water chooses its own course, it does not choose straightness. Straight aqueducts and man-made rivers are at war with water. Where water flows its own way, it grinds up river banks. When it cannot, water ceases to be fully itself. Its electrical qualities diminish. And the less that water moves, the less nurturing that water is. At the final movement of still, un-oxygenated water, it is stagnant. Having (mistakenly) tasted stagnant water on a few occasions, I can attest to its unpleasantness. It's not just the anaerobic microbes that make stagnant water unsavory. It's the stillness. We are alive with water. Sixty percent water. Water that moves in vortex (tornado) patterning can move without friction. Such water is better for drinking. It is even more soothing as shower water. Bear with me... How? How the hell can water be better for you if it is has "spin?" To make a long explanation short: Everything is fundamentally electrical. As John Kempf says, that's true even if you're Amish. Human bodies, being electrical, are enhanced by electrical properties of what that is moving and exchanging electrons. That exchange is facilitated by movement, and it matters which shape the movement takes. That's as far I want to take this vein. Let one idea from this (inadequate) section spiral into light: little, invisible, seemingly impossible things do add up. We have laid out some points, along which we can begin to form a continuum of water quality. On one end we have something on the order of a stagnant pool containing feces, mercury, and plutonium. Or just stagnant. Stagnant will do. On the other end, is clean, unadulterated (no chloramine, no fluoride), non-calcareous, "vortexed" water. We'll add more qualification, but this is represents water worth drinking. Maybe we'll meander our way to a fountain of youth. For now, let us turn to an agronomic focus. Somewhere between the to ends of the water spectrum above there is a range of water quality that we might call "good enough." In that range might be "good enough for drinking," "good enough for swimming," "good enough for cows," and "good enough for the spray tank." Not great, maybe not even "healthy," but good enough. If it will serve no other purpose, the aim this edition is to reconsider good enough and consider the upside of great water. What matters in agronomic water? If it's coming out of a water line fed by a water company, does that make it fit for row cropping purposes? The simple answer, because farmers use such water every day, is yes, rural water or city water is just fine. But what if just fine is one-tenth as optimal as the best possible water for your farm? --Farmers who use reverse osmosis filtering, mainly to remove excess grains of hardness which all water has, reportedly see that they can use 30-50% less herbicide. On this note, it is my understanding that labeled rates for most agronomic herbicide products are twice as high as necessary to kill plants, were it not for the diminishment of the herbicide by low quality water. Interesting, no, that the rule acknowledged by herbicide makers, not the exception, is poor quality water? What qualifies the water as poor? Mainly, it is the calcium carbonates which are binding herbicide and fertilizer molecules. And if you're applying microbes, chloramine and other water-sterilants are killing those organisms. --A few farmers who have also added water structuring devices to their farms have decreased their fertilizer inputs by as much as 90%, while getting HIGHER yields. Good Enough Water Is Expensive It has been asked, "How much is cheap costing you?" The answer to that question, with respect to water, is "far more than we have considered." That's usually the case. When we treat water as just water--a ubiquitous commodity that's fine so long as we can stomach it, there's plenty that goes unseen. What if we treated water as something that we could turn into wine, if you will? What if we acted like it is our responsibility to build a fountain of youth, so that the utmost nurturing, life-enhancing water flowed from it? What would be the outcomes? Healthier, longer lives; more robust ecosystems; more profitable farms. That's what we could have with regenerative water. Best regards, Cary Yates

 

[Doc]

?
Clearly not a chemist but nice use of imagery to make the story.