What we know is a drop-- unusual semi-pseudoscientific(?) movie

[Michael Perelmutter]

Um, hi

I was encouraged to post this after speaking to mooeypoo; a few days ago I stumbled into a movie which is called "what we know is a drop."

 

Link (part 1/5):

 

 

(the forum says i'm not allowed to post links to all five parts, so just open the movie on youtube and go to the next part from there).

 

It partially seems as your typical homeopathic bullshit speaking about "water memory" etc; However, I was unable to immediately dismiss it as such because the movie featured people who appear to be quite prominent scientists; for example it features one prof. Eshel ben jacob, former president of Israeli physical society, appearing in this movie extensively.

 

A quick google found his website with papers (http://star.tau.ac.i...complexity.html); however, not being a physicist I was unable to comprehend it.

 

I therefore consulted with mooeypoo; according to her the papers on the website are valid science; however what they claim is quite different than what is implied in the movie.

 

The main thing I want to understand is-- what in the movie is bullshit, what are actual valid claims and why do prominent scientists appear in a movie like this? Were they manipulated by soime people with homeopathic bias and agenda? I am inclined to write prof. Eshel ben Jacob and ask whether he really intended to mean what is implied in this movie; however I want to better understand what does he really mean in his papers as opposed to what is implied in the movie.

 

mooeypoo said this forum is a great place to get help on this (I also hope this is the correct forum to post this in and not "physics"; feel free to move this thread if it does not belong here), so I do hope to get helpful insights about this one.

 

thanks a lot!

 

Michael.

Edited June 4, 2012 by Michael Perelmutter

[imatfaal]

Michael - I hope you get some answers. Some of the video (I watched the first 15 mins) was a bit crackpot and non-scientific - other sections seemed just as controversial but this time scientific as well. I must admit I hate the production values and soppy voice-over. A few things to bear in mind, just because someone is a prof doesn't mean she/he isnt a publicity hound willing to jump on a bandwagon for a bit of free press. Scientists are necessarily hyper-curious - they probe the edges of knowledge and sometimes this honest investigation can appear to be confirmation of wacky ideas - and can be used by the unscrupulous to wrongly bolster carkcpot notions.

[mooeypoo]

A couple of quick comments that Michael and I have discussed before he posted the video, it may help others help me too.

 

So, I watched the video and some things were major major red flags while some were only small red flags. As far as I'm concerned, here's the general rundown:

1. Their account of "water memory" is not scientific in the least. It's not just claiming that water might have properties that *allow* it to "remember" (store information, whatever) but they claim that the water in the river has the information about the river's path because it 'collects' that information as it goes.
   What a load of crock.
    
   Unless, of course, they're refering to whatever chemicals/compounds that the river water "picks up with it" as it goes, and can tell us where the river passed. Sure, why not, take a sample at the end of the river and you can likely know if the water were contaminated -- but that is a far cry from actual "memory".
   Total crap statement.
2. The samples of water that they're discussing and showing how wonderfully "organized" the "information" is inside the structures was also, in the past and multiple times, shown to be bunk. First, that is usually not just water, it's usually the contaminants IN the water, and since they didn't say if the water was purified or not, it's a big problem.
3. The experiment *itself* is completely unscientific:
   1. It was NOT double blinded. It wasn't even blinded at all.
   2. The sample size was ridiculously low.
   3. There were no controls to speak of.
   4. There was no proper hypothesis. They told people to look for patterns and found them. Whoopdidoo.
   5. The conclusion doesn't follow the actual experiment. People checked for patterns, and patterns were found in crystal formation (we already know these are pretty and symmetric, and we know WHY they're that. Big whoop?)
      From that they concluded that water has information in it. Huh?

As for the scientific papers:

I read the abstract of Dr. Ben Jacob's papers and let me tell you -- his premise, hypothesis, method and conclusion are not even CLOSE to what they're claiming in this video. It's quite offensive, honestly.

 

The moviemakers claim water has memory, like a little harddrive computer, it seems. And yet, here's a quote of the abstract from one of Dr. Ben Jacob's papers:

• 
  

Water formatics
Engineered formation of nanobubbles networks in water and aqueous solutions
Induced long range order, water structure and water memory
 
We present the idea that the anomalous effects of rf-treatments of water and aqueous solution resulted from the formation of pliable network of gas nanobubbles that has special hierarchical organization [1]. The emerged nanobubble network is the out come of a self organization process due to the collective effect of bubble-bubble exchange interactions. These exchange interactions are mediated by the ordering of the water molecules surrounding the nanobubbles. Here we discuss the specific example of engineered formation by rf-treatment. Such nanobubble networks are likely to be formed also by acoustic treatment or combination of rf and acoustic treatments.

 

What *he* is doing is forcibly trying to create structures in water. He's using a method of eradeation to examine the anomalous structures that are created. As far as I could see, he does NOT say anything about storing data or even refers to any of this as data at all. He simply states you can create stable crystaline structures in nanobubbles in the water using eradeation or acoustic treatment.

 

The main difference here is that it's not that he "discovered" the memory/data inherent in the water, but rather he *created* some structure in the water itself. It's a cool notion because *maybe* we can use it to deliver data (no clue, it was a bit over my head this part, honestly) but the water don't just automatically 'save' data from the environment and then keep it like a memory.

 

It's like saying electricity has data in it because we can use it to deliver information, so every lightening has a message from our ancestors in it. Huh?

 

The entire thing sounds like a complete waste of youtube space. It won't be the first time a movie twists scientists' work for their own agenda. That said, I have *not* watched the other parts of the movie, so I don't know if Dr. Ben Jacob proposes water has memory in the movie itself, I can only judge from his published papers, where he does no such thing.

 

 

 

The actual method in the papers is extremely interesting, but it's a bit over my head, so if a physicist/chemist can go over the papers briefly, that will help -- they actually seem to be really really cool and the effect is even cooler.

 

Hope that helps,

 

~mooey

[rigney]

A couple of quick comments that Michael and I have discussed before he posted the video, it may help others help me too.

 

So, I watched the video and some things were major major red flags while some were only small red flags. As far as I'm concerned, here's the general rundown:

1. Their account of "water memory" is not scientific in the least. It's not just claiming that water might have properties that *allow* it to "remember" (store information, whatever) but they claim that the water in the river has the information about the river's path because it 'collects' that information as it goes.
   What a load of crock.
    
   Unless, of course, they're refering to whatever chemicals/compounds that the river water "picks up with it" as it goes, and can tell us where the river passed. Sure, why not, take a sample at the end of the river and you can likely know if the water were contaminated -- but that is a far cry from actual "memory".
   Total crap statement.
2. The samples of water that they're discussing and showing how wonderfully "organized" the "information" is inside the structures was also, in the past and multiple times, shown to be bunk. First, that is usually not just water, it's usually the contaminants IN the water, and since they didn't say if the water was purified or not, it's a big problem.
3. The experiment *itself* is completely unscientific:
   1. It was NOT double blinded. It wasn't even blinded at all.
   2. The sample size was ridiculously low.
   3. There were no controls to speak of.
   4. There was no proper hypothesis. They told people to look for patterns and found them. Whoopdidoo.
   5. The conclusion doesn't follow the actual experiment. People checked for patterns, and patterns were found in crystal formation (we already know these are pretty and symmetric, and we know WHY they're that. Big whoop?)
      From that they concluded that water has information in it. Huh?

As for the scientific papers:

I read the abstract of Dr. Ben Jacob's papers and let me tell you -- his premise, hypothesis, method and conclusion are not even CLOSE to what they're claiming in this video. It's quite offensive, honestly.

 

The moviemakers claim water has memory, like a little harddrive computer, it seems. And yet, here's a quote of the abstract from one of Dr. Ben Jacob's papers:

 

 

What *he* is doing is forcibly trying to create structures in water. He's using a method of eradeation to examine the anomalous structures that are created. As far as I could see, he does NOT say anything about storing data or even refers to any of this as data at all. He simply states you can create stable crystaline structures in nanobubbles in the water using eradeation or acoustic treatment.

 

The main difference here is that it's not that he "discovered" the memory/data inherent in the water, but rather he *created* some structure in the water itself. It's a cool notion because *maybe* we can use it to deliver data (no clue, it was a bit over my head this part, honestly) but the water don't just automatically 'save' data from the environment and then keep it like a memory.

 

It's like saying electricity has data in it because we can use it to deliver information, so every lightening has a message from our ancestors in it. Huh?

 

The entire thing sounds like a complete waste of youtube space. It won't be the first time a movie twists scientists' work for their own agenda. That said, I have *not* watched the other parts of the movie, so I don't know if Dr. Ben Jacob proposes water has memory in the movie itself, I can only judge from his published papers, where he does no such thing.

 

 

 

The actual method in the papers is extremely interesting, but it's a bit over my head, so if a physicist/chemist can go over the papers briefly, that will help -- they actually seem to be really really cool and the effect is even cooler.

 

Hope that helps,

 

~mooey

It's almost as interesting as the distinct difference in snowflakes.

[mooeypoo]

It's almost as interesting as the distinct difference in snowflakes.

 

I was thinking the same thing. But no one is claiming you can learn about messages from history from snowflakes.... :\

 

The scientific papers are incredibly interesting. The movie seems to be an offensive twist of the intention of those papers, though... Maybe I should keep on watching, but that first part was so incredibly pseudoscientific I couldn't bear it.

[imatfaal]

I was thinking the same thing. But no one is claiming you can learn about messages from history from snowflakes.... :\

 

The scientific papers are incredibly interesting. The movie seems to be an offensive twist of the intention of those papers, though... Maybe I should keep on watching, but that first part was so incredibly pseudoscientific I couldn't bear it.

 

"water is the commonest element on earth..." AAAGGGHH! The Austrian Experiment was just hoopy - and I was genuinely interested in it; it's the water bridge between to jars with voltage between them. I would have thought an electromagnetic reasoning would have been the most obvious way to explain though - and the researchers interviewed didnt say anything about their ideas.

 

I must admit I had a few 'wha!' moments - bacteria multiplying rapidly in pure water? 4 hand-chosen results are meant to prove anything? etc . But then - Prof Ben's stuff direct to camera was much the most acceptable stuff - I just worry, like Michael, that he has been edited out of all context and meaning.

 

Even good science programmes have to dumb down and elide huge amounts of detail - but this wasnt even a good science programme. I watched a genuinely good sceptical investigation into memory of water - if I can remember who made it I will post it; the upshot was that nothing has been proved and that much that was claimed has been shown to have been faked.

[John Cuthber]

As far as I can tell, the only true statement that they make in the first 2.5 min or so is that water expands on freezing and that we would be in trouble if it didn't.

That's not a good hit rate. Most of it is BS. So I gave up on it.

[mooeypoo]

"water is the commonest element on earth..." AAAGGGHH! The Austrian Experiment was just hoopy - and I was genuinely interested in it; it's the water bridge between to jars with voltage between them. I would have thought an electromagnetic reasoning would have been the most obvious way to explain though - and the researchers interviewed didnt say anything about their ideas.

It's a rather known experiment, we saw a demo in lab, it's very cool.

 

What drove me crazy abotu that part was the intro to it, where the moviemakers presented it as if scientists are completely baffled by this phenomenon, and are gathering to figure it out... Also, the fact they're mixmashing crap is extremely annoying. What does that have to do with water memory? Are you now suggesting water "remembers" its neighbor and is attracted to it? And lastly, their statement that water then "CLIMBS UP!" was the kicker.

 

I stopped watching around that point. Should I go on?

 

I must admit I had a few 'wha!' moments - bacteria multiplying rapidly in pure water? 4 hand-chosen results are meant to prove anything? etc . But then - Prof Ben's stuff direct to camera was much the most acceptable stuff - I just worry, like Michael, that he has been edited out of all context and meaning.

Michael suggested he writes the Professor and ask him. That might be a good idea.

 

Even good science programmes have to dumb down and elide huge amounts of detail - but this wasnt even a good science programme. I watched a genuinely good sceptical investigation into memory of water - if I can remember who made it I will post it; the upshot was that nothing has been proved and that much that was claimed has been shown to have been faked.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

The only good thing about homoeopathy is that it generates lots of jokes

http://xkcd.com/765/

BTW, did you hear about the homoeopath who forgot his remedy and died of an overdose?

[mississippichem]

Homeopaths make cheap bar dates.

 

"I'll have a Guiness and the lady will have one drop of whiskey in 10 liters of water."

 

And that's only if she's not a big drinker. The women who are alcoholics require a serial dilution to get a drink mixed.

[ydoaPs]

As far as I can tell, the only true statement that they make in the first 2.5 min or so is that water expands on freezing and that we would be in trouble if it didn't.

That's not a good hit rate. Most of it is BS. So I gave up on it.

 

So you missed the part where they said science can't explain EM breaking the bonds between the hydrogen and oxygen. And that it can't explain the burning of hydrogen if you light the hydrogen? Seems legit.

[Michael Perelmutter]

some things that caught my bullshit-o-meter: part 4, 05:10, prof bernd kroplin: "homeopathy works the same way..."

also, googling for bernd kroplin-- i found relatively few hits for him. one is his cv: http://www.cimne.com/cm-master/Doc/prof/stu/BerndKroplin.pdf

having nothing whatsoever about water research

and NO UNIVERSITY WEBPAGE. NONE. Not even a simple one. I think this is the first prof. I encounter who doesn't have any webpage whatsoever.

 

also: prof eshel ben jacob, in part 5, starting from 03:10.

 

so, yeah, if I write to one of them, it'll probably be to prof. eshel. I need some help with the questions to ask in my email though. examples:

1. to what extent does the movie represent what he meant to say?

2. what does he mean by "information"stored in the water and by "water memory" and does the movie refer to the same thing he means or intends to mean. stress about a molecule in each glass of water having passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell etc.

3. ask about his opinion of homeopathy

 

... suggestions?

 

On another note, I think it's quite clear who's behind this stuff:

 

http://www.grander.com.au/index.php?page=water_filter_works

 

Who is this grander dude and what is the "water revitalization" quackery? One doesn't have to look very far...

 

http://quackfiles.blogspot.co.il/2006/09/grander-water-esoteric-humbug.html

 

it seems those dudes have an international distribution network etc.

 

Yikes.

[imatfaal]

some things that caught my bullshit-o-meter: part 4, 05:10, prof bernd kroplin: "homeopathy works the same way..."

also, googling for bernd kroplin-- i found relatively few hits for him. one is his cv: http://www.cimne.com...erndKroplin.pdf

having nothing whatsoever about water research

and NO UNIVERSITY WEBPAGE. NONE. Not even a simple one. I think this is the first prof. I encounter who doesn't have any webpage whatsoever.

 

also: prof eshel ben jacob, in part 5, starting from 03:10.

 

so, yeah, if I write to one of them, it'll probably be to prof. eshel. I need some help with the questions to ask in my email though. examples:

1. to what extent does the movie represent what he meant to say?

2. what does he mean by "information"stored in the water and by "water memory" and does the movie refer to the same thing he means or intends to mean. stress about a molecule in each glass of water having passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell etc.

3. ask about his opinion of homeopathy

 

... suggestions?

 

On another note, I think it's quite clear who's behind this stuff:

 

http://www.grander.c...er_filter_works

 

Who is this grander dude and what is the "water revitalization" quackery? One doesn't have to look very far...

 

http://quackfiles.bl...ric-humbug.html

 

it seems those dudes have an international distribution network etc.

 

Yikes.

 

Michael - firstly I have written to many academics completely out of the blue and never failed to get a friendly and detailed response so I would say "go for it". I would ask if there was a place I could read up on his work in a slightly less formally academic version than his published papers - because as far as I can see, his work is being used to give credence to homoeopathy and I think that is a distortion. Homoeopathy, and other forms of non-scientific non-evidence based healing are huge business for those willing to exploit the desperation of the sick who are in need of a cure or a bit of hope. I presume you have read the quintessential pop-sci book in this area Bad Science by Ben Goldacre - here is a link to Dr Ben's site http://www.badscience.net/

[mooeypoo]

We would also very much love to have him on the forum, in case he wants to discuss his research and how it does (or does not) fit the movie, if you want to invite him here to a larger context forum.