Talk:Water memory/Archive 2

Subsequent Research
An editor added the following section. I moved it here for discussion, for the following reasons:


 * 1) It was in the wrong location in the article, and had the wrong section level.
 * 2) The tone is unencyclopedic: Phrases such as "not afraid" and "heresy" suggest problems in the comment, as well as of the Guardian article itself.
 * 3) It's not clear to me that has not been refuted further. In any case, if it (was) "to appear in Inflammation Research", we should use that article as the reference, rather than The Guardian.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ennis' article in Inflammation Research was already cited in the article, I have added the Guardian source to it. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Subsequent Research
An article in the "The Guardian" brought new evidence to Dr. Jacques Benveniste’s original experiment in “Thanks for the Memory Experiments have backed what was once a scientific ‘heresy’ says Lionel Milgrom." Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University Belfast didn't believe that a medicinal compound diluted out of existence should still exert a therapeutic effect and was an affront to conventional biochemistry and pharmacology, based as they are on direct and palpable molecular events. The same goes for a possible explanation of how homoeopathy works: that water somehow retains a "memory" of things once dissolved in it. Professor Ennis who, being a scientist, was not afraid to try to prove Benveniste wrong. So, more than a decade after Benveniste's excommunication from the scientific mainstream, she jumped at the chance to join a large pan-European research team, hoping finally to lay the Benveniste "heresy" to rest. But she was in for a shock: for the team's latest results controversially now suggest that Benveniste might have been right all along. The result, shortly to be published in Inflammation Research, was the same: histamine solutions, both at pharmacological concentrations and diluted out of existence, lead to statistically significant inhibition of basophile activation by aIgE, confirming previous work in this area. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2001/mar/15/technology2

Contradictory account of retraction
This comment seems contradictory: "Maddox was unapologetic, stating 'I'm sorry we didn't find something more interesting.'" To me, saying you're sorry constitutes an apology. Verberate (talk) 21:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not an apology, that's another way of phrasing "I would have really liked to find something more interesting". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Resistance to mention of support
Hi there. Since this article is largely about the controvesy surrounding this claim, it seems bizarre that no mention of any supportive views is made in the lead. I agree that the claim probably has no basis in science, but it is nevertheless not without supporters. I disagree with the statement that 'Support of B is rare'; I would imagine that most homeopaths would be quite supportive. Judging by the size of the homeopathy market, the opinion is also widespread in the general population. The lead goes into a lot of detail outlining the opposition in the scientific community, so it seems to me that not mentioning supportive positions at all contravenes NPOV, especially if the rest of the article declares a 'controversy'. I frankly do not see how opposition is more notable than support and is therefore the only opinion allowed in the lead. I also do not think that Luc Montagnier is generally seen as a 'discredited "scientist"' just because some of his more recent publications and views are a little on the odd side. The statement 'Citing discredited "scientists" should be explicitly mentioned as that, appears to be actual science, which it's not! ([)' sounds more like there is a strong personal opinion driving the reversion of this edit than a disinterested argument. The study itself is 'actual science', even if it is not necessarily good science. If you want to declare that it is not science, all scientific arguments against it become irrelevant and have no place in the article; 'water memory' becomes a question of faith and any scientific arguments against it in the article would be as out of place as in an article on, say, Ganesha. As it stands, water memory is a scientifically largely dismissed scientific theory that has some minority support in the scientific community (you cannot simply label that minority as "discredited" because you, and most scientists, disagree) and substantial support in the practitioners and followers of homeopathy. Whether homeopathy itself is supported by science is completely irrelevant in that part of the discussion. It is not like cold fusion which really does have very little support outside of the loony fringe. As much as I would like to see homeopathy relegated to the loony fringe, it still has widespread support. The article makes the scientific objections and reservations very clear. Please justify why you think that any mention of support should be avoided before reverting edits. Cheers, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you cite sources which show that a non-negligible portion of respected scientists support homeopathy? Your addition is being reverted because you're making claims which are unsourced (and counter to the sources we do have). Also, please stop edit warring. Thank you.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:42, 16 August 2011

(UTC)


 * I am not claiming that a large minority of scientists support the claim of water memory. I am claiming that water memory is almost unanimously rejected by the scientific community. The original phrase implied total and unanimous absence of acceptance, but there is nothing in the two cited references that supports this (in case I have missed this I do apologize, but I could not find it). My claim of general rejection is therefore supported by the sources, whereas total non-acceptance is not. There may be a consensus within the community, but that is distinct from the community itself. The claim of unanimous rejection is easily refuted by the existence of prominent adherents within the scientic community (e.g. Brian Josephson and Luc Montagnier). Also, reverting to enforce overriding policies is not edit warring. In this case, the original claim is not supported by the cited sources. If you can find a reference for total non-acceptance, please insert it. In the meantime I will change the phrase to 'rejected by the scientific consensus'. I don't really have a ref to back that up either, but at least we're not leaning out of the window quite as far... Rainbowwrasse (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, it is unanimous, except for a fringe minority, which per policy does not warrant any coverage in the article. Please read those two policies I just linked (WP:FRINGE and WP:Weight). To demonstrate that the minority support warrants coverage, you'd have to provide sources which show that the support is substantial or notable. I'll also note that you're still edit warring, despite warnings. Please stop.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no indication that it is unanimous, and the fact that notable proponents exist within the community demonstrates this. That fact will not go away simply because you or I do not like it. The two policies you linked are very clear; please read them. It's interesting how you define any ever-so-slight deviation from your opinion as edit warring, seems very convenient. My latest edit is simply more accurate the previous statement, and gives no undue weight to the (scientific) minority view. How could this possibly be a problem? Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You still have not provided any sources which demonstrate that the minority view is significant enough to warrant any coverage. I'm very clearly not "defining deviations from my opinion as edit warring". I'm defining edit warring as continually reverting other editors, as it is defined in WP:EW, and as you keep doing. You're at 10 reversions now. You need to hash out changes to the section on the talk page first, before reverting other editors. You have no consensus for any change to the wording, and as such, I'd suggest you revert to the version which does have consensus, until a new one is formed.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * What a happy coincidence, I too am defining edit warring as continually reverting other editors, as it is defined in WP:EW, and as you keep doing. Except that I have on multiple occasions demonstrated that the previous statement was not supported by the cited sources (or reality). You on the other hand limit your discussion to saying 'No!' without providing arguments to support your view or demonstrating any desire for discussion. Please provide arguments to support your view, and notice that consensus is not necessary if one of the parties has not provided supporting arguments or participated in a discussion. I may also have made ten edits to the page, but only a fraction of those were reversions, whereas all of your were. I invited discussion on the talk page, but all of my edits (except the ones that support your views, of course) were reverted without further comment. Please stop trying to monopolize this article. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know what else to say. This is degrading rather quickly. You are attempting to make a change to the article which includes minority support of the topic. We need sources showing that it is not a negligible minority view to do that. Until you provide sources, there's no discussion we can have. Claiming I was "editing warring more than you" is silly. You were reverted by multiple editors, multiple times. If you want clarification on WP:EW, you're welcome on my talk page. For now, we need sources to make your change, and there's little more to do until we have them.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I am getting very tired of this. You simply keep reiterating your claim that I need to show that there is more than negligible support. I have provided sources for this (Luc Montagnier, and the original source listing a number of researchers ); so far you have not provided a single source to back up your claim, in spite of me inviting you to do so multiple times. The only reason we are not having a discussion is that you are failing to engage in any meaningful way. I can only conclude that this is because you do not actually have anything to back up your opinion, or you are unwilling to provide that information. I really do not see why you think that the insertion of the word 'generally' (which really isn't a huge concession) provides any minority support. It instead implies overwhelming consensus against the claim of water memory. I had included Luc Montagnier as one of the few notable exceptions, not to add support to the idea. Apart from that it would be perfectly permissible to state that the claim is widely supported by homeopaths, as it is one of the main rationalizations for it. It is the majority view in that case, why was this deleted as well? I understand that you don't like homeopathy and think it's load of rubbish (as do I), but it's hardly a fringe thing (e.g in the UK ). I can't help but think that your hard stance on this is to a large part driven by personal dislike of the matter. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither of those articles provide what I asked, which is evidence that the minority view is not a negligible fringe minority. Nature says: "Scientists, though, tend to side with the poets in rejecting any notion that water can hold lasting impressions." and "Indeed, Homeopathy 's editor, Peter Fisher of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital admits that "the 'memory of water' casts a long shadow over homeopathy", indicating that scientists reject it, and even homeopathists admit its lack of acceptance. Science is no better; their title is "French Nobelist Escapes "Intellectual Terror" to Pursue Radical Ideas in China", and quoting the lead: "What has shocked many scientists, however, isn't Montagnier's departure from France but what he plans to study in China: electromagnetic waves that Montagnier says emanate from the highly diluted DNA of various pathogens", indicating again that his work has no acceptance within the scientific community. Thank you for now providing sources for your proposal, but these are insufficient to reflect changes to the article (much less the lead). Per your other suggestion, I would be fine with stating that the idea is central to homeopathy (although, I think this idea comes across quite clearly with our current lead), but in any way suggesting that the scientific community does not wholly reject the notion is, as of yet, currently unsupported. &mdash; Jess · &Delta;&hearts; 18:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to be totally clear, the type of source that we'd need would have to say something like "The concept is gaining support within the scientific community", or "many notable scientists support...", or something equivalent. The opinion of one Nobel laureate isn't enough; Nobel laureates say all kinds of things, from holocaust denial to telepathy and vitamin c curing cancer, but these don't (and cannot) affect our report of the overwhelming scientific consensus, even one bit. That's why we have policies like WP:FRINGE and WP:DUE, because such opinions are due exactly 0 coverage. I'll admit that I am dubious that such a sufficient (reliable) source actually exists, but if you have one, we can introduce it to the article. The only issue is that we don't, as of yet, have one to introduce.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * (Hit edit conflict with you. Will read your response, and potentially strike (or refer to to) this one based on it.)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the detailed response. I agree with you that water memory has no scientific basis, and that it is nearly universally rejected (or not accepted...) by scientists. However even the Nature article makes the concession that 'Scientists tend...' (emphasis added). Also the mere fact that Science deigns to comment on Montagnier's support of this dross indicates that he is a notable proponent. By adding 'generally' I was attempting to curb accusations of false statements. I do not insist on adding Luc Montagnier to the lead (although I would like to see him inlcuded in the main text, at least), but I think that an absolute statement is just never sourceable (and opens the article and it's contents up to dispute from supporters), which is why I would prefer 'scientific consensus'. I can't see how credibly claiming absolute consensus is possible when there are two Nobelists (nutters or not) supporting it. The lead does state that Benveniste suggested this as a rational explanation, but to what extent this is accepted by homeopaths is not made clear; I think this should be included. Again, thanks for detailing your thoughts on this; I previously felt that my opinions were being dismissed without further comment or consideration, which I found very frustrating. I am sure you understand and I hope that you accept my apology for any abrasiveness. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, the Nature article does say "scientists tend to", however, that is the sort of thing you'd expect to see in a journal article discussing the "radical" opinion of a dissenting Nobel laureate. When discussing that one radical opinion, such wording makes sense, but it does not in our case. We have to operate differently here than they do, since we're presenting coverage of the entire topic, and not just its relation to one radical opinion. In our case, his radical opinion is granted no weight when it comes to reporting the opinion of the scientific community, because it is wholly rejected by such a sizeable portion of it that his opinion is negligible. (BTW: The same is true of every other topic for which one or two big names disagree with everyone else, which is a phenomena you will encounter fairly regularly on wikipedia) With that said, I don't actually have a problem saying "scientific consensus" in place of "scientific community", so long as it's worded well. I'm not a fan of the previous proposal, but perhaps another wording would suffice, which places the same emphasis as currently, while using the new term. Perhaps "The concept is not consistent with natural laws, and the scientific consensus is that water does not have a memory for more than a fraction of a nanosecond ." We'd need to have a source for the underlined bit (I know I've seen one). Would that work?
 * The only problem I had with claiming any absolutes for the scientific community is that it's such a fickle thing to prove because there is no central body that speaks for it. 'Consensus' seems much less problematic to me, and isn't an undue concession. I'm happy with your proposal if you can find that ref. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As for adding Luc Montagnier to the body of the article, I think that would be an improvement. However, we would obviously need to emphasize that his work was not received well. Checking his article, there are three sources for that, two of which are acceptable. We could also include other proponents of the idea, but we would still need to be careful not to give undue weight to any one of them or their ideas. After adding to the body, a very brief summary of Luc's media coverage may be appropriate for the lead as well, right next to Benveniste. I'd welcome you to pull up sources and add whatever content you feel appropriate to the article in that regard. If I disagree with anything, I'll revert or improve it, and we can discuss everything further. I'm sure you'll put everything together nicely, though :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I will draw up a section on Montagnier for the main body and post it here first before putting it in the article. I was actually just thinking of a sentence or two about his support, his own experiments and the reaction. I don't think including other proponents is necessary since they are not nearly as prominent (although I'm not opposed to it either). I think the ref you had on the skepticism in the homeopath community is interesting as well, will you add that to the lead? Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this? Obviously I will add the sources if I post it to the article
 * "In a late 2010 Science magazine interview, French Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier hailed Benveniste as "a modern Galileo" and claimed that “[t]hese are real phenomena which deserve further study." In 2009, Montagnier himself had published two articles claiming the detection of electromagnetic signals from high dilutions of bacterial DNA in a journal for which he served as chairman of the editorial board. His claims contradict several fundamental principles of physics and of chemistry and were widely criticized by the scientific community, with “fellow Nobel prize winners … …openly shaking their heads” at the 2010 Lindau Nobel laureate meeting in Germany." Rainbowwrasse (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ennis
Opening this to discuss the Ennis issues. Wondering what the problem was with my edit?Cjwilky (talk) 19:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've read the cite. The article text is incorrect insofar at it refers to this debunking Ennis's work (the cite doesn't mention Ennis at all and instead debunks author "Dana Ullman").  The piece is a labelled as "commentary" and describes research that doesn't appear to have been published.  If there weren't many cites available then yes, this probably meets the minimum requirement of reliability.  But as we have plenty of good cites I'm not sure this adds much.  Garamond Lethe  23:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with Garamond. I reverted (and asked for discussion) for a few reasons: Sourced content was removed without a stated reason. I understand that reason now to be that the 'experiment' run by ABC wasn't a scientific study, but I don't see how that's relevant. It's sourced news coverage of the topic, so it seems relevant to me. More importantly, the new content added doesn't seem to meet the quality of sourcing that I'd really like to see. It uses a source from a homeopathy journal which (unsurprisingly) disputes the findings of the the previous study. That alone might be something we could cover, but I'm not sure of what benefit it would be. However, the content inserted based on that source was worded in a way to synthesize the previous source with the homeopathy journal, commenting on both using novel text. For instance, "although, as acknowledged by one of the scientists involved...". I don't see that in the source, and we don't have a source discussing both AFAICT. We can discuss this more, but I'd like to see us stick closer to the sourcing, and not try to contradict a peer reviewed scientific publication with some commentary found in a homeopathy article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First I don't understand what Garramond is referring to - where is there debunking of Ullman? Its Ennis debunking Randi, and the experimenter himself debunking Randi. There are also other people involved in the experiment debunking Randi. Randi didn't follow the protocol, simple.


 * The ABC experiment IS the Horizon one. There was no new experiment by ABC. If you read the cite as I suggested you would have seen that. Reference to ABC serves no additional purpose to the article whatsoever except as a reference to an experiment which has already been discussed - which I note is already done. Further, I made this clear earlier - sorry you are all finding it difficult to understand... it isn't really is it?


 * One of the scientists did say exactly what I said - again you should read the sources, its not as if its a long piece.


 * That its a homeopathy journal has no relevance when we are talking about exactly what happened. The email is what Ennis herself said, the other email is what the scientist concerned said, and what others involved in the experiement said.


 * Its clear if you read the sources I gave that Randi failed to replicate the protocols. Are there no skeptics here who have the nouse to see this? Was Randi peer reviewed? Where? Cjwilky (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I was discussing this edit. Based on the above I'm guessing you meant this one.  I might get to this later.   Garamond Lethe  01:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * @Cjwilky This whole issue stems from Benveniste's original study. If I am reading the article correctly, there have been many peer reviewed publications since his study, some of which we are covering. Contradicting those with commentary found in a Homeopathy journal is providing undue weight to the journal, and unduly dismissing the scientific research (which was noted as methodologically sound in these same sources) on the basis that they don't follow Benveniste's original protocal (which in the past had not been methodologically sound). This seems plain to me. The sourcing allows us to discuss that Benveniste didn't agree with the findings, but that seems obvious and not in need of repetition. Our sourcing doesn't support the wording used, which is attributed to "one scientist involved" and general public "criticisms of the experiment", which makes it appear as though the previous scientific studies on this issue were done poorly. Our sourcing indicates they were not. You are correct that you mentioned the ABC source is a repetition of the Horizon experiment. I got confused in my reply to you after others had claimed that it was an unexplained removal, which is why I said it was "unexplained" too. If the ABC source really is repeating what we've already covered (the ABC source doesn't say it is), then it can be removed or incorporated better. My primary concern (as I indicated above and in my edit summary) is the new content added. Thanks.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cjwilky made similar changes to the article on Madeleine Ennis, which I have reverted as unreliably sourced and giving undue weight. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article really is messy. The Ennis experiments stand by themselves, they were not about repeating Benvenistes experiments - where is that claimed? BUT they are relevant to the claims made in the lead of this article and do relate very much to the concept of dilute dynamised solutions, which is essentially the area where Benveniste was working. So the part in the article where it says "An international team led by Professor Madeleine Ennis of Queen's University of Belfast claimed in 1999 to have replicated the Benveniste results." should be removed or be backed up, because at present they are not - and if you know anything about the whole story, you'd know they are not, if you don't then go read :)
 * I'm not sure what part of "So we set it up, in Europe, where similar published tests claimed to find that kind of effect.(ie no mention of the Randi test - which of course there would be if it was different) Scientists at Guy's Hospital in London prepared samples of the type of histamines that Ullman said would relieve allergy symptoms. (yep, thats what the Randi experiment did) " in the ABC cite you aren't seeing? ABC AND Horizon set this up - I'm not sure exactly which company led it, but its clear its the same experiment - please show some evidence as to the details of the experiment if you disagree - or are we saying that a hollow, undefined news report stands as fact? If you can offer me a date for this ABC experiment - that would show its different to the Horizon one - maybe there would be a case for its inclusion, otherwise not. Maybe there are some mentions of who conducted the ABC experiemnt? There is nothing to say or even suggest its not the one and the same. So I'm also left here wondering if we are having double standards as to what is allowed here and not.
 * Back to the Ennis - its not trying to follow Benvenistes protocols - where is that cited? Look at her procols and those of Benveniste. Ennis disagreed with the protocol in the Randi mock "replication" BEFORE the results were given, as well as after. And the scientist who performed the make up of the remedies and examined the cells, agrees on at least a few points. I'd like to know where it is verified that Randi did actually replicate it? Are we going on the word of a stage magician or his supporters, all who have £1m dollars tied up? Really, come on :) And why are the comments of one of his chief experimenters and those of one of the main moderators discounted in this? I'm seeing a great deal of misunderstanding here.
 * To summarise:
 * 1) we currently have a confusion about Ennis replicating Benveniste - unsubstantiated.
 * 2) Randi is currently accepted as replicating Ennis, whilst *his* researcher AND three moderators AND the person who conducted the original trial, Ennis, ALL disagree with this. This information is repeated in mumerous places and has not been challenged.
 * 3) It is claimed that ABC repeated the Randi experiment - unsubstantiated - whilst they actually performed a study IN CONJUNCTION with Horizon.
 * Garramond - hope this helps clarification :) Cjwilky (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

If nobody has any further comment, I'll make the changes. Cjwilky (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Three editors have said they don't agree with your changes. You haven't provided reliable sources, just your own opinion that the ABC and BBC experiments are the same experiment, claiming that if they were different ABC would have mentioned the BBC experiment. A claim, nothing more. These "undefined news reports" are each saying they did an experiment (neither of them saying they did it alone nor they did it together, but why would they need to say that no other program was involved?), you're saying that it's clearly the same experiment - who do you think is the more reliable source?
 * The article doesn't say that Ennis tried to follow Benveniste's protocol - it says the team claimed to have replicated the results (i.e. found that dilutions beyond material doses had an effect) - did they not do that?
 * We might change that Horizon "followed Ennis' experimental procedure" to "used a procedure similar Ennis's", or use their wording - "repeat[ed] Ennis's experiments under controlled conditions".
 * "Randi" didn't do any experiment (and the article doesn't claim he did), he offered a prize if the experiments showed that impossible "dilutions" were distinguishable from plain solvent. --Six words (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hang on... I took your word that the ABC experiment and Horizon experiment were the same, because I thought you could back that claim up. Now you're saying you assume the experiments were the same because you think one would have mentioned the other if they weren't? The burden of proof isn't on me to disprove your claim. We have two sources independently discussing studies with different details. These reliable sources should both should be represented in the article. If you have a source to back up your claim, then we can modify the article accordingly. Your assumptions about the motivations of the writers and experimenters doesn't help us.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Lets deal with the ABC issue first. There was no proof *for* the ABC low brow journo rant, or report if you like, having any validity as being a unique experiment - strange you consider the burden of proof seems to come for the need to disproove it :-/ Check the transcript here for the ABC prog Catalyst http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s805448.htm and compare Cjwilky (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We have one source by ABC that says they set up a test at Guy's Hospital, and another source by the BBC that says they tested it at the University of London. These were apparently broadcast on different news stations, and the articles refer to different participants. I'm not going to engage in OR by combing through transcripts to find similarities. If the sources refer to the same experiment, you need to corroborate that with proper sourcing. Making assumptions about what a journalist would have written doesn't cut it. Frankly, I'm pretty busy right now, so I don't have the time to argue further about the burden of proof and sourcing; a few editors have commented in opposition to the change. We need to address those concerns or move on.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 01:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * No, keep up :) We have a very poorly written source that doesn't say a lot, and one ABC transcript that details it and a BBC transcript thats IDENTICAL even at a quick glance. Keep your comb in your pocket, but either engage here or don't. Cjwilky (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The transcript you linked isn't the source we're using in the article, which you're trying to dismiss. Look, you made a claim. Back it up. That's the last I'll say on the matter.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for the hassle :) I did finally find enough evidence to support the ABC being a different experiment to the BBC one, albeit a repetition with exactly the same faulty protocols performed by the same people. Of course neither experiment is published, and the ABC show is particularly well lost. Cjwilky (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Earlier Experiments?
Many years ago I read a book covering this research, and recently needed to recover some of the details. - The problem is that they are missing and there is no mention of them in the article at all. (the original source was a library book and I no longer remember the exact title) As I remember it the original experiments in water memory involved electro-magnetic induction, and it was only later experiments that involved 'homeopathic' techniques. It is the earlier experiments that interest me - mainly as I would like details on how to repeat them. (if they actually exist) If they do exist they would be an important part of this article. Lucien86 (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Link between local relaxation and global memory (reversion)
I predicted to the person who informed me of the invalid argument that we see in this section that this revert would happen pretty soon: it was as inevitable as autumn being followed by winter. What is happening here? The psychologicst Jean Piaget discussed the various stages in cognitive development, of which the highest levels involve formal reasoning. A significant proportion of the population never reach this level even in adulthood, and thus cannot see connections that are obvious to people used to such reasoning. WP editors on average are probably no better than the population at large and thus may be prone to see OR where no exists. The question is, do WP pages have to be dumbed down in this way? --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest you follow policy and not attack other editors. Your edit was clearly not about water memory. Period. Otherwise, constructive edits are very welcome. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * My apologies, but your statement 'your edit was clearly not about water memory' proves my point very well (to those able to understand the issues involved). Do you, by the way, dispute my assertion that a large proportion of the population do not reach the level of formal reasoning?  If you do a google search on 'formal operations variability adults' you'll find at the top of the list a quote from a book that says
 * "There is considerably more variability in performance on formal operations tasks at all adult age levels. A significant proportion of adolescents and adults fail such tasks as volume conservation, proportionality, and combinatorial reasoning ... ."
 * In the light of that statement, I do not see my comments as being an attack, and it would have been more considered of you not to criticise 'me' on those grounds. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I understood you the first time, and I do understand and fully agree (about "formal reasoning"), but that is not the subject here. We are creating an encyclopedia, so it is best to stay on topic and follow the rules for talk pages. Your edit was not about water memory, so it was removed. That's how it works here. That also explains why Jojalozzo's comment below is correct. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think you may not understand what OR is. Unverifiable editorial contributions based solely on "connections that are obvious to people used to such reasoning" are a excellent examples of OR and SYN. Please avoid ad hominem arguments for your point of view. Joja  lozzo  20:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not ad hominem if my statement is correct. Anyway, this predictable reaction is rather boring and I shall move on now and apply my talents more productively for the rest of the evening. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I had intended to leave this alone for the rest of the evening, but suddenly remembered I had intended including a link to my talk Heretical Science, in the course of which I reviewed the many 'readily comprehensible but wrong' arguments for memory of water being impossible. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hatted, per WP:NOTFORUM.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Josephson's COI
I have noted his COI at the top. Although direct editing of articles by COI editors isn't totally forbidden, in practice it's rapidly becoming that way. In the future, it would be best if Josephson not edit the article directly, but make suggestions here, where his expertise and knowledge of the situation can greatly benefit this article. While wishing to avoid any semblance of COI editing, we are still more than willing to cooperate with him. In principle this applies anywhere at Wikipedia. He should not add links or references to his own work, or directly edit articles about himself or which mention him, but he is VERY welcome to use the talk pages. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I consider the generalization of restriction to a specialist to insert a reference by him nowhere on wpedia is getting ridiculous.--5.15.0.118 (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The contributions of experts are welcomed. It is self-promotion that is frowned upon, but it can be done on the talk page so other editors can weigh the merits of possible inclusion. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is bizarre calling my contributions to W'pedia self-promotion. In fact, experience shows that doing anything that makes this kind of interest known diminishes my reputation (and experience strongly suggests that people who actually want to invite me to talk about the subject at their conferences, etc., are far more likely to know about these interests from sources other than w'pedia. I have never yet met anyone who claims to know about my interest in memory of water as a result of reading my edits in w'pedia articles.  This is not self-promotion).


 * In short, the COI suggestion on this page bears no weight and should be removed.


 * By the way, this is the first suggestion from people who have reverted my contributions on controversial topics that they welcome contributions from experts. All the evidence indicates the reverse (my apologies, if this remark is considered off-topic for this page). --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, now you have been informed about the COI policy and its practical application here. The notification at the top will not be removed. This is standard practice here, just as is the placement of such a notification on the talk page of your biography.
 * It is the "appearance" of self-promotion which must be avoided. Talk pages can be used to suggest inclusion of your own work. That is allowed and encouraged. Expert opinion, especially from a Nobel laureate, is always welcome, but being an expert doesn't give one any special rights. That's where many experts feel the pinch. They feel they should get a privileged status, but their great knowledge of their topic doesn't mean they know much about Wikipedia culture, its policies, or even much about things outside their topic area. One never knows.
 * Even a notable scientist like Linus Pauling tarnished his legacy by venturing too boldly outside his area of knowledge. At Wikipedia, collaboration with experienced editors works best. Such editors are usually willing to work with experts who show a collaborative/cooperate spirit. No one knows everything, but we all know something, and by pooling our resources we'll make this encyclopedia even greater. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I am not venturing outside my area of knowledge, my Ph.D. was in condensed matter physics, and as it happens I raised this very issue (how much local properties constrain memory at the macroscopic level) with our head of group some time back and he agreed with me entirely.
 * "An apparent conflict of interest arises when P does not have a conflict of interest, but someone would be justified in thinking P does". That's what the rules say.  Your argument based on my venturing outside my area of knowledge has been shown to be unjustified, would you like to have another go before the case is closed? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about causing confusion. I was not referring to you when mentioning "outside their topic area," but was speaking in generalities. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not referring to me. I see: in that case, it would seem that your case for COI is based entirely on a generality that is inapplicable to the case at hand. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't confuse the two very different issues:
 * I was NOT referring to you when mentioning "outside their topic area."
 * I WAS referring to you when mentioning your COI. That matter still stands.
 * My case for your COI is based on a very specific fact: You are mentioned a number of times in this article, and are intimately and personally involved with the subject, ergo you have a VERY strong COI.
 * What I wrote at the beginning of this thread still stands: "He should not add links or references to his own work, or directly edit articles about himself or which mention him, but he is VERY welcome to use the talk pages." The talk page is still here for you to use, so if you have suggestions for improvement, please don't hesitate. We have discussed these other matters more than enough to make them clear, so direct future comments toward article improvement. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't recall having added a link or reference to my own work to this article, only to the talk page, which you say I am welcome to use. But perhaps my memory is at fault. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Venturing outside certain areas of knowledge is a vague and rather baseless/untenable allegation considering the dynamics of emergent hybrid areas like nuclear condensed matter physics, both conventional and unconventional. It is rather about subtle deviations from the scientific method which can be founded in the mentioned case of Pauling who exaggerated the merits of vitamin C and had a rather preconceived idea concerning the non-existence of quasicristals.--5.15.177.124 (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not completely clear what point you're trying to make, but à propos the question of whether I may be deviating away from the scientific method or not my point about ferromagnetism refuting the idea that the experiment cited in some way argues against Benveniste's claim is a completely rigorous one which would be understood by any theoretical physicist (e.g. as already shown by the case of our HoG who has no involvement with this issue), regardless of whether any editors here would have the training needed to appreciate it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I was referring strictly to the use of vague allegations on wpages such as that of venturing outside a certain area by some wikieditors as counter-argument and the misconceived comparison to some opinions of Pauling.--5.15.177.124 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry about causing confusion. I was NOT referring to Josephson when mentioning "outside their topic area." I WAS referring to his COI. See my comments above. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There's still the question of why you brought this issue up in this context at all, if it didn't apply. But I'll accept that this was a innocent oversight on your part. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Reproducibility
Is somehow reproducibility one reason of denial of water memory?--5.15.53.77 (talk) 10:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. In Water_memory, paragraphs #4, #5 and #7, there are descriptions of failed replications. Last paragraph is not a direct replication, but the observations contradict one basic assumption of the experiment (the assumption that liquid water structures persist for a long time).


 * In the lead, the second paragraph says it wasn't replicated, but it doesn't make a direct link between replication problems and lack of acceptance. It says that it's not accepted, but it never says why. Compare the lead of cold fusion, where a direct link is explicitly made: "It has been rejected by the mainstream scientific community because (...)" --Enric Naval (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggested link (lecture on 'Heretical Science')
In accord with recommendations, I am suggesting on this talk page inclusion of one of my own lectures, either as a reference or as an external link, rather than adding it to the article myself, namely my lecture on Heretical Science. This lecture discusses a number of 'heresies', including water memory, and among other things gives the scientific case for dismissing the theoretical arguments against water memory, which I characterise as 'easily understood, wrong arguments' (the section relevant to memory of water starts at 6:55, if anyone wants to skip straight to that part). --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for making this suggestion. It sounds like an interesting possibility, but I'm not sure exactly how to deal with this type of source in such a situation. It's a primary source. Is it published somewhere else independently of yourself? That would make it much easier to deal with. Let's pursue the matter. Do you know of such an independent source? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The programme for the conference on Spannungsverhältnis von Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (the Tension between Science and Society) in which the talk featured, organised by the Foundation of German Business (SDW), can be found at http://www.sdw-uk.de/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Spannungsverh%C3%A4ltnis-von-Wissenschaft-und-Gesellschaft.pdf. Hope that helps. -- Brian Josephson (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I should perhaps add, given all the talk here of 'self promotion', that this was an invited lecture not a contributed one, and that I had had no contact with the organisation at all prior to the invitation to contribute to the meeting on this subject. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to move the discussion of this issue on, as it seems to have stalled. A criterion is needed for editors to determine whether my critique of the arguments commonly given for dismissing memory of water (e.g. 'no molecules, no effect') is a valid one and hence worthy of inclusion in the article, as a reference or otherwise.  I suggest the following.  The arguments in my critique are all pretty straightforward, and someone with a degree in physics should have little difficulty following them. For example, I argue that the assertion 'no molecules, no effect' would, if valid, rule out tape recording, which does not involve adding molecules to the tape to make a recording.  Since tape recording does work, the assertion 'no molecules, no effect' must be dismissed as misconceived.
 * I suggest therefore that if no-one watching this talk page can come up with a genuine error, as regards the part of the lecture relating to memory of water specifically, this be taken as indication that it is safe to link to the lecture. I put this as a challenge. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not a physicist, but even I can tell that you're comparing apples to oranges. The basic argument about "no molecules, no effect" implies "no change, no effect", if I understand it correctly. No evidence of water memory, or effect from it, has ever been proven to the satisfaction of mainstream scientists. Only a small (single) handful of fringe scientists believe in it. OTOH, magnetic tape recording involves actual changes of a measurable magnetic nature, and we obviously know it works, so your argument breaks down in multiple ways. See: Magnetic storage. Two things are of interest: effect and explanation. We do know that understanding the cause of an effect (for example with some medications) is not an absolute requirement for acceptance of using the medication. Evidence of an effect is proven, and that is the primary concern for acceptance, with the search for an explanation continuing in the background. If homeopathy could prove an effect worth blinking at, it would have a chance of being accepted by scientists, but it can't even manage that. So it is lacking on both fronts: effect and explanation.
 * The decision about whether to use this source needs to be made with expert input from uninvolved editors. I suggest you take this over to the reliable sources noticeboard. Please open a thread there and make your case. Also leave a link to that thread here. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In science it is quite normal to use features of one system to understand properties of a sometimes quite different one, so your argument that it's like comparing apples to oranges is misconceived. In any case your analysis does not apply to the lecture itself, as I've just checked and see that there I gave as my counterexample the difference between liquid water and ice. Anyway, I'll follow your suggestion (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Memory_of_water_issues) and trust that there people will see the sense of my proposal. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an example of use of the transfer principle which is quite natural in science.--5.15.185.254 (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Pollack's 'water conferences'
Open-minded editors might like to consider for inclusion matters relating to the water conferences organised by Gerry Pollack of the University of Washington, discoverer of the 'fourth phase of water'. The lectures of the 2013 conference, a number of which are connected with water memory, are now on line. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Anticipating a reply like that below, I wanted to ask what are the credentials of the organizer?5.15.14.236 (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no possibility that could be considered a reliable source, or even a pointer to reliable sources. — Arthur ooRubin  (talk) 07:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to be simply conference talks - basically self-published findings. No mention of peer review or what, if any, criteria are used to filter the speakers. It appears that one can go and talk about anything as long as it has "water" in the title. I do not see how any of us with an understanding of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources would think this meets the requirements. Joja  lozzo  22:39, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a misguided comment, as I never suggested the conferences be considered a source. Articles use sources, but not all the text of an article consists of sources.  Reflection on the difference should pay dividends for anyone confused about this.  And with a little effort, and the use of a search engine, editors can discover Pollack's credentials for themselves. --Brian Josephson (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You said we should consider including this content. We can't do that without a source. Nowhere on wikipedia do we allow the inclusion of unsourced content.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We could assume for reasoning purpose that a source would be needed. What kind of source will that have to be? A one that says that articles from the conference are RS? This is becoming ridiculous! For assessing reliability of sources certain WP:Competence is required.--5.15.34.97 (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A Bayesian analysis indicates that any source I produce would be declared 'not RS' with high probability. Accordingly, I will not use up any of my valuable time looking for one. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Declaring such sources not RS would be an example of persistent tendentious editing/objections.--5.15.34.105 (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed Pollack′s credentials in biomedical engineering that I have somehow missed noticing before. Usually the articles from conferences are RS. Conferences are not venues where no qualification persons ramble about what pleases them.--5.15.18.4 (talk) 12:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And in any case that 'going to talk about anything' is almost certainly incorrect, suggesting unfamilarity with how conferences are actually run. Speakers would have had to submit an abstract before being accepted for the programme, allowing for the filtering out of crank or otherwise unsuitable papers (in the case of the water conferences, you can see the abstracts for all previous years on the conference web pages).  I'm sure the conference details would have said abstracts should be submitted before some specified date, and applicants would not have expected blind acceptance for the conference (with certain exceptions: the American Physical Society has special 'crank sessions' in some of its conferences where any member of the society can talk about anything, but that is not the norm).


 * Furthermore, a number of the speakers would have been invited ones, invited on the basis of knowledge of their previous contributions to the field. One might add, also, that usually there is a programme committee that decides these things, it is not just the work of one individual. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This has gone on long enough. Neither of you understand how wikipedia operates. That's not a problem in and of itself, but it's been explained to you and you're persistent in arguing to break our core content policies. There is no benefit to continuing to engage this. See WP:DR if you'd like to seek outside input, but frankly, I'd suggest both of you look into mentorship. In the interim, please stop posting here about the same issues that have been addressed; I won't be repeating myself further on this issue.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed it has gone on long enough. If the Cowan reference had simply been deleted, given that while technically it refers to 'water memory' it has little to do with 'memory of water' as normally understood (i.e. the Benveniste expt.), then there would have been no need for this prolonged discussion.  Or, a cautionary remark could have been included to prevent readers being misled, which any thinking person would think a consideration that should override anything that the guidelines (which are not written in stone) might suggest.  And the fact of the matter is that there have been a number of comments here which experts will understand are quite out of place, and it is right that they be challenged.
 * And I see one of your edits refers to the order of entries. When there are many comments on the same thing there can be confusion.  I commented on two rather different issues together as a single item, and realised later that it would have been better had the second comment be placed more appropriately.  When I later added to that comment, I took the opportunity to move it to where I judged it should have been placed in the first place.  Before doing this I checked carefully to make sure the whole thread was coherent (there was a bit of a problem with someone else's edit but the indentation helped to avoid confusion so I left it).  Do you have a problem with any of that?
 * Your comment adds to my suspicion that you are watching everything I write and, whatever I have to say, as a matter of routine you write something to contradict it, automatically. Such behaviour does rather tend to support some of the things said about w'pedia editors listed in my compilation 'The World is Watching'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * From the link offered for the conference I was unable to find anything about a program committee or any academic sponsorships. Maybe there are other sources that would illuminate how the presenters are selected. Also the conference was identified as organized by a single individual (Pollack) and I'm unable to find anything to suggest this is a peer reviewed event. I was also concerned that the web site is also serving as a promotion for Pollack's book. I do not think that demonstrates an academic orientation. One way to learn how such a source is viewed on Wikipedia is to ask at WP:RSN. Joja  lozzo  16:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Really!!! You expect all conference organisers to archive all the details of how past conferences were organised on their web pages, just to satisfy the demands of some sceptical wikipedia editor some time in the future? No sir (or madam as the case may be)! The 2013 conference is over, that's why you can't see any organisational details. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * And re 'web site is serving as a promotion for Pollack's book', that's a pretty weak point. It is a book concerned with research related to the theme of the conference, so it is hard to see this as a 'lack of academic orientation'.  The main use of the web site is publicising the conferences, and there is much material there even now, in between conferences.  On the site itself, there is only a link to the book information, which is hosted on a different web site, and even on the links page on this site the main feature is the conference proceedings.  Please don't go on bringing up these feeble objections. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Being self-published is never a good sign, particularly when it's an academic - he obviously couldn't find a publisher. And he's chosen to show an endorsement by this guy] (and see also - that's definitely not encouraging. As for the conference, not all conferences are created equal. Many have little vetting over what papers are going to be presented, others are quite happy to have new and untested ideas - even controversial ones - presented.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The conference web site has a page that promotes Pollack's self-published book, not a separate site.
 * Before we can determine that this is a reliable source, I think we'd need to know who organized it, who reviewed the papers to be presented, and what academic sponsors it has. I see nothing to suggest that this is something other than Pollack's personal conference in which anyone who wants to present (and pay the conference fees) may do so.
 * One of the papers presents evidence of increased "energetic activity" of waters after exposure to "information copies" of medicines transmitted via the Internet using CDs to absorb and retransmit the "information copies" from and to water. I do not think this sort of content suggests the conference participants are well vetted. Joja  lozzo  22:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that the work was done by a group of four biologists at Moscow State University rather suggests to the contrary that the claims should be taken seriously. The usual boring principle seems to be at work here: their work supports Benveniste's claims, therefore it must be wrong.  All work that supports Benveniste is wrong, so Benveniste's claims are invalid. Benveniste's claims are invalid, so work that supports it must be wrong, etc. etc.--Brian Josephson (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Begging the question seems to be the reasoning error involved.--5.15.60.143 (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am agnostic with respect to water memory and Benenviste, but I do not think the MSU lecture meets the requirements for support of Wikipedia content. As I understand it (admittedly from the abstract and lecture only - there is no published paper available) these four MSU biologists (or perhaps biochemists) are studying what happens when they download certain data from a web site, copy it to a CD, place the CD in the sun, put a container of carbonated water on the CD, and then measure the "energetic activity" of the water. I have no idea if this supports Benenviste's results and your stating that it does doesn't make it so any more than claims that it does not, especially since I see no basis for such claims either way in the evidence available. I do not think we should be basing Wikipedia content on research that lacks an explanatory theory. Joja  lozzo  01:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Just so I'm clear what you consider to be good practice, you appear to be stating that w'pedia content should never be based on research claims for which there is no explanatory theory. Have I got you right there? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Back to conference proceedings. Perhaps it's different in (non-fringe) Mathematics than in your field, but in my experience:
 * Invited speakers to conferences are invited for what they have done, not specifically for what their paper or presentation is about. The abstract is checked for relevance; accuracy could not be checked, but usually the question of whether the abstract is in a sub-field in which the authors have competence is not even checked.
 * Conference proceedings are edited only for grammar, not for technical content, although sometimes a cursory check is made to see if the results are bogus.
 * In other words, unless the speakers are recognized experts, a paper from the proceedings of a conference should not be considered reliable, under Wikipedia standards. It may be different in (non-fringe) physics conferences, but it would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.  (This applies to one of my papers published in the proceedings of a conference, as well as to anyone else's.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I knew when I wrote that about untheoried research that it was dubious. To clarify, I think such research must rise to a higher level of notability (especially good secondary sources) to give it sufficient weight for inclusion. Joja  lozzo  16:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I repeat, I was not suggesting the conferences be used as a source, as a source. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it would be helpful then if you would suggest some reliable sources, preferably secondary ones, we could use for these researches. Joja  lozzo  16:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As a (off-topic) remark: Is there such thing as fringe mathematics?--5.15.60.143 (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's rare, because mathematics is supposed to be provable or disprovable (or provably independent.)  I don't know of fringe mathematics conferences, but there is a still a fringe group which thinks they have a proof that arithmetic is inconsistent.  (The one I recall has developed their own proof system using two-color formulas, and I suspect they have a color transcription error in the proof.)   Most of what I call "fringe" mathematics is related to mathematics which I (and the mainstream) find uninteresting and doesn't seem to lead to any elaborate theories or results. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Given that there is no fringe mathemathics article, the above statements can be included in fringe science at a section. Regarding labeling fringe mathematics that considered uninteresting on rather subjective grounds, one should not underestimate the unexpected connections that could appear. What other examples are there, beside inconsistent arithmetic?--5.15.29.114 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I had forgotten about one of my tasks as a graduate student at Caltech, namely reading unsolicited manuscripts. I don't know where you would put the circle squares, cube doublers, or angle trisectors; or, generally, attempting to do something which has been proved impossible.  A little more subtly, some of the "proofs" of the 4-color theorem used reduction techniques which had previously been proved not to work.  I'd call that "fringe", even a little more so than flat Earthers.  It's not impossible that some of those people have journals.   — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Handling negative exponents
Re recent revert, I agree that some readers may be unfamiliar with the regular notation for negative exponents, though I should imagine this would apply to few readers of this article (other than wikipedia 'article watchers', who are a special case and cannot be considered typical), and those who are unfamiliar will not really know exactly what a billionth or a microsecond means anyway. But I should imagine on the other hand that scientists would much prefer the brevity of either the standard notation, or the compact 'femtosecond' (or fs). But isn't the answer to give the regular notation followed with the wordy 'billionth of a microsecond' for those who need such clarification? [I'm sure those who automatically oppose anything I suggest will find some reason for not doing what I suggest, just let's see!] --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

While we're working on that bit, I trust no one will object to replacing 50 one-millionths by the shorter 50 millionths? I would make that elementary improvement myself, but doing that would no doubt bring down the cabal's wrath for defying their edict. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The citation says 50 fs; it does not use scientific notation. "Million" is a common English term, and we can expect our readers to understand it. Nanosecond is also reasonably common, and it's wikilinked, so we can expect our readers to be able to figure out what it is if they aren't familiar with it. However, scientific notation (with negative exponents) is not a familiar concept to a very large portion of the population. It's unfortunate this is the case, but that doesn't make it untrue. It's common practice both in communicating science generally, and on wikipedia specifically, to describe very large and small numbers in this way for accessibility. We could add a parenthetical with scientific notation if you think that would help.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we're basically in agreement on this now (I trust you accept 50 millionths in place of the inelegant 50 one-millionths?), i.e. keep what is there currently and with that change, but add the scientific notation in brackets. People familiar with negative exponents will take it in instantly that way rather than have to do some processing to figure out what a millionth of a nanosecond it, and that way we benefit both categories of people. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As no-one has objected, I've made the change. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed mechanisms
What hypotheses are there (available) to explain the effect?--5.15.53.77 (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the existence of the effect is pure speculation, one would have to look to the wishful and creative thinking of homeopaths and their followers. The ability to believe in homeopathy, once one has learned how it supposedly works, involves magical thinking, so we're not dealing with fully rational thought processes. In the end, any hypotheses are what the Danes call luftkasteller (air castles). The scientists who engage in such speculative exercises about homeopathy are called pseudoscientists. I'm sure that various hypotheses have been proposed, and they could be listed in the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Gee! That's a pretty explicit PoV if ever there was one. Do the guidelines allow anyone who is so exclusively committed to a particular PoV to edit at all, or do they assert that such a person should be disqualified from editing? --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors are allowed to have opinions on the topic... otherwise everyone would be excluded from editing everything. This probably isn't the most helpful comment to have made, Brian. Try to keep discussion on the article; user talk pages are for discussing editors.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Jess, I'm afraid I cannot accept that. Your defence of someone who is clearly so fixed on a PoV as to be unsuitable as an editor for this article is the kind of thing that gets Wikipedia a bad name, and it will become even more so if you take further action of this kind. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Brian, what you say would apply with even more force to those who believe in homeopathy and water memory (which would create a type of COI in this case), but we don't exclude anyone from editing an article based solely on their personal POV. What counts is whether they can create article content in harmony with the guidelines and policies we have here. Their ability to collaborate with editors who hold an opposing POV is also essential. I can do that, and have done it for years.
 * There is no reason why an editor cannot contribute in an NPOV manner, just because they have a POV in real life, and everyone has a POV. But, just as "[i]t is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." (Aristotle), it is also the mark of a good Wikipedia editor to be able to understand and present various POV, including those he finds distasteful.
 * Regarding my POV as a scientific skeptic, it changes according to the evidence. If homeopathy and water memory are ever proven, I'll change my mind, or, as Tim Minchin so humorously puts it:
 * "If you show me that, say, homeopathy works, then I will change my mind. I'll spin on a fucking dime. I'll be embarrassed as hell, but I will run through the streets yelling 'It's a miracle! Take physics and bin it! Water has memory!' And while its memory of a long lost drop of onion juice is Infinite, it somehow forgets all the poo it's had in it! You show me that it works and how it works, and when I've recovered from the shock, I will take a compass and carve 'Fancy That' on the side of my cock." (Source)
 * I don't believe in whitewashing, so I am perfectly able to help develop this article, even to the point of allowing true believers to add lots of total BS nonsense, as long as it's framed properly and from RS. Lots of believers in alternative medicine have found that I am a good working partner. Take a look at the chiropractic article and you'll see what collaboration with me, an arch chiroskeptic, can produce. Before I edited it, it was a total hit job on the profession and it was a battlefield. I collaborated with a great chiropractor, allowing him to add huge amounts of good material to make the article cover the subject much better. I defended his efforts.
 * That's what we want here. I'm not your enemy, regardless of our differing POV. We can work together. You have personal knowledge of this subject which I do not possess, and although that knowledge can't be included (because that would be OR), you likely know the advocates' literature and research better than I (IOW the RS we might be able to use), and since I know the ins and outs of Wikipedia better than you, we can work together to improve the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is laughable. If we had to ban everyone who knows homeopathy is bullshit we'd have to ban virtually every biologist, chemist, and doctor on the planet.  And think of how absurd it would be to apply such a rule elsewhere: geologists would be banned from  Earth because their POV is strongly that earth is not flat; MDs would be banned from Tobacco because their POV is strongly that it causes cancer, etc.  This is an encyclopedia—a source of summary about the current state of human knowledge—not a playground on which to spread misinformed pseudoscience.  N o f o rmation  Talk  03:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * '... everyone who knows homeopathy is bullshit' ? Dear, dear! Any scientist will point out to you that all scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to correction. Hence all statements such that we know such and such about memory of water, etc. have no scientific validity. It is time a number of editors understood that and modified their positions accordingly. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Brangifer appears to be suggesting that I 'believe in homeopathy and water memory'. If he looks, e.g. at the lecture I have cited, he will see that I have not stated that I believe in either of these, only that the arguments against them are incorrect, which is something radically different.  Once again, misrepresentation is being used to try to create a case against me. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, another misreading. We (I'm including those who commented before me) were talking generally. We're trying to explain general principles that apply to everyone. Only wear the shoe if it fits. You were trying to say I shouldn't edit here because of my POV, but it doesn't work that way. We don't keep editors from editing articles because of their POV. That is the point. I'm not trying to build a case against you. Try to AGF. I have explained how I'm more than willing to work with you, so don't try to turn this into a battlefield. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "it will become even more so if you take further action of this kind." Brian, I don't know what that's intended to mean, but your attitude on this issue is unlikely to improve the article or advance the level of discourse here in any way. I'd suggest you calm down and take some time to learn our policies before hurling accusations and threats. You are speaking with multiple tenured editors right now. Their advice and summary of policy is sound. You should consider listening.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 04:07, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Brian_Josephson#The_World_is_Watching.21 for clarification, especially comment by BarryG. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * A month has passed since that exchange and I have been watching. All I can say is that what I have seen in that time has been most unedifying. That is to say, I have not been in any way enlightened or uplifted by it all.--Brian Josephson (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tendentious editing
In his revert of 16:05, 16 December 2013‎, Mann Jess states It's not what our sources say, referring to the preceding edit which he reverted, the exact text of which was: The concept is not consistent with the law of mass action. This is an astonishing statement for a supposedly experienced editor to make, given that the article by Ball cited in the article concerned states (and I quote) they [the claims] defied conventional scientific understanding, specifically the law of mass action. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I think it would be for the common good if you were to stop wasting everyone's time by trying to block what on many counts is the optimal wording to express the conflict between Benveniste's claims and the accepted laws of physics. Please?? --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As a remark, he (MJess) seems not to be a reasonable person when he insists with his ignorance and misconceived appeals to RSN.--5.15.39.211 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

A modest proposal
This would actually be genuinely modest, and not you know, making the soccer goal nets bigger. The article has a reasonably informative lead, but then opens up with a section entitled "the Nature controversy." We are not Hemmingway, and we do not get to use definite articles in this way to refer to events not yet introduced to the reader. Subsequent research is also an odd top level heading. Both of these are reciting a history water memory as it traveled (briefly) through scientific scholarship, so the article fails to give all 5Ws in an coherent manner. It might help to have "asserted mechanism" as the first, then "publication in Nature" then "subsequent research." Alternatively, if water memory is usefully thought of as a work Benveniste, then the article can be structured "Benveniste's study" followed by "Scholarly reaction" (alternatively, "scientific reaction" or "scientific community reaction" or even outright "rejection by scientific community," and "subsequent studies." Somewhere in the body it would be useful to explain what is only given glancing treatment, the changes it would require to physics and chemistry.--Tznkai (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point. See if you prefer the small tweak I made. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That all sounds like an improvement. I don't have a lot to offer on section headings, but Guy's change looks like a good step forward.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sandcatch
Working on a rewrite, copy pasting references and passages in case they are lost.--Tznkai (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Shaking the water at each stage of a serial dilution is claimed to be necessary for an effect to occur. The concept was proposed by Jacques Benveniste to explain the purported therapeutic powers of homeopathic remedies, which are prepared by diluting solutions to such a high degree that not even a single molecule of the original substance remains in most final preparations. Benveniste sought to prove this basic tenet of homeopathy by conducting an experiment to be published "independently of homeopathic interests" in a major journal.

While some studies, including Benveniste's, have reported such an effect, double-blind replications of the experiments involved have failed to reproduce the result. The concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws and is not accepted by the scientific community. Liquid water does not maintain ordered networks of molecules for longer than 50 millionths of one nanosecond.

Too much negation muddles prose
I've been rereading a sentence in the current lead, and I am concerned we've created a problem. "It is most prominent as a purported mechanism for homeopathy, where claimed therapeutic remedies are diluted to the point that no single molecules of the original substance remains." We have both "purported" and "claimed" casting doubt on two different parts of the sentence, which makes the sentence and the meaning less clear, shortly before a sentence that demonstrates that water memory is not held to be true. I would prefer something along the lines of: "It is claimed to be the mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work, even though they are diluted to the point that no single molecule of the original substance remains."

I am however, open to other suggestions. This article already (properly) casts doubt on water memory existing, but it shouldn't get bogged down in truth claims on every topic it is related, even if by a single degree. To be clear, I have no issue to the underlying fact claims that homeopathy is not only not accepted science, but is widely understood by scientists, doctors and regulators not to work. Likewise, I don't want us to claim that for those who do believe homeopathic remedies work, they all believe that it is caused by water memory. My concern is entirely on the muddled prose in the sentence, some or all of which I am responsible for. This is a lot of words about a single sentence I know, but I hope to establish some stylistic consensus for the lead and then carry it through as necessary for the rest of the article.--Tznkai (talk) 19:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I applaud the simplification. There's always a danger that an article like this can get bogged down with too many diminutives and that this can work against the meaning. --John (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)