Talk:Water memory/Archive 3

Time
User:Shii has been removing the Time reference on the claim that it is not a scientific source. I commented at ANI already, and I've said it on this talk page already, but I'd be happy to discuss it further if needed. WP:PARITY is the relevant policy. Water memory is a fringe topic, not a rigorous scientific field for which we would expect numerous peer reviewed publications. We are required, by our policies governing fringe topics, to cover the topic's reception in the relevant communities using a rough parity of sources. That means that we don't require scientific sources for every claim in this article (otherwise we would be unable to write this article, or it would be weighted inappropriately). I'd appreciate further discussion here before another similar change, particularly since this has been hashed out so much already, we've passed the "bold" phase quite a bit ago. Thanks. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "If a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. " Is this theory primarily described by self-published texts? I think the contents of the article bear this out for me. Shii (tock) 17:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * (e/c)It might help if discussion was weighted more heavily to the subject of the content dispute than jostling over how who should edit what when and where and with what permission. For the aforementioned Time reference, the sentence at question is "concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws and is not accepted by the scientific community". The test of the reference is whether or not it is reliable with respect to the proposition supported. News magazines, even office waiting room magazines, are well positioned to report on facts such as the aggregate opinion "the scientific community" and in turn basic facts of whether it violates "accepted scientific law" with that same news reporting.--Tznkai (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Shii Yes, it is primarily described by amateurs and self-published experts. It is rarely discussed in peer reviewed literature. The paper published in Nature is a notable exception, which we cover in detail within the article. The paper was printed with considerable reservation, its results were later shown to be incorrect, and the paper was retracted. We have one publication critical of water memory ("Ultrafast memory loss"), and a few others published in the wake of the Nature controversy. (The fact that our crown publication in Nature was a "controversy" should speak to the level of support in scientific publications, btw). There are few, easily enumerable peer reviewed publications since then. Some appearances in faux-peer-reviewed journals, such as Homeopathy, WP:PARITY speaks to in its first paragraph. Compare this to Evolution or Quantum theory, which appear so prominently in scientific literature that even listing a portion of them in a systematic review is a job unto itself. This is common for scientific topics which are not fringe, and water memory does not meet that same threshold.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Shii's edit is fine. The Nature source is the best there is, material from additional sources risks making the text less not more accurate. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Guy Which edit? This one, or this one? Both dilute the statement about the scientific acceptance in ways which no source indicates. The first says it's just "a highly unlikely hypothesis", and the second removes mention of its scientific acceptance altogether. Also, saying "the scientific community considers..." creates controversy where there is none, and reducing it to just "the law of mass action" is inconsistent with our sources. Here are the relevant quotes from the sources we're using now:
 * Time:
 * "a phenomenon that defied the laws of physics and molecular biology"
 * Nature:
 * "But (Benveniste's results) defied conventional scientific understanding, specifically the law of mass action"
 * "Rapid response to BMJ" 1999; 319: 1115-1118:
 * "The laws of chemistry and physics... say that homoeopathy cannot possibly work any better than a placebo if a treatment has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules remain"
 * A Biography of Water:
 * "The idea (of cold fusion) threatened no fundamental principles. Yet Benveniste's results could be seen at a glance to do so"
 * Grimes
 * "Proposed mechanisms for homeopathy are physically impossible"
 * "Evidence from physical chemistry also rules out the plausibility of mechanisms such as water memory."
 * "The proposed mechanisms of homeopathy are shown to be implausible when analysed from a physical and chemical perspective".
 * NCCAM:
 * "Several key concepts of homeopathy are inconsistent with fundamental concepts of chemistry and physics."
 * Science and technology committee:
 * "no plausible scientific reason has yet been proposed as to why it should work"
 * "any specific mechanism of action based on extreme dilution is implausible and regarded as unsupportable"
 * "The notion that water could hold imprints of solutions previously dissolved in it is so far removed from current scientific understanding that, as Professor David Colquhoun, Professor of Pharmacology at UCL, put it: "If homeopathy worked the whole of chemistry and physics would have to be overturned"
 * "We consider the notion that ultra-dilutions can maintain an imprint of substances previously dissolved in them to be scientifically implausible."
 * Jayne Lawrence, Chief Scientific Adviser to the RPSGB: (appears in Science and technology committee discussing water memory) "(homeopathy) does go against a lot of fundamental understanding of science as it stands at the moment"
 * Science Based Medicine
 * "However, such claims (as water memory) are fanciful to the point of invoking magic and are devoid of any evidence."
 * "Therefore, according to everything we currently understand about biology, chemistry, and physics homeopathy is highly implausible and should not work."
 * "There is a difference, however, between not fully understanding a mechanism and, as with homeopathy, violating basic laws of physics"
 * NIH "Can water possibly have a memory?":
 * "The paper stresses the fact that this idea (water memory) is not compatible with our knowledge of pure water."
 * These are only citations we're currently using in this article and Homeopathy, btw. It doesn't take into account the plethora of other strong sources available online (including Nature, the RSC, Randi, the NIH, etc). Our article currently states "The concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws", which is amply sourced and correct. We do not have a basis to reduce the statement to something significantly weaker and more narrow. We can certainly add examples to the article of principles water memory violates. We can't do that in the lead to the exclusion of the general principles all our sources describe, and we can't remove mention of its scientific acceptance outright.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * All these 10 citations are vague and thus not very informative. Further specification is needed to mention which are those accepted scientific laws besides mass action.--5.15.18.103 (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me, are citations in the lead still depreciated?--Tznkai (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Last time I checked. a13ean (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tznkai, citations in the lead are generally discouraged. It depends on the article. When there is lots of controversy about a statement, citations can help reduce conflict, but stylistically, they're not preferred. We could move them to the body here. Or not.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 21:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I barely even have a problem with the lede, I just want to make it clear that the "scientific community" is a follow-up article in Nature that details the pseudoscientific nature of the enterprise, and not a Time magazine article talking about popular opinions. Shii (tock) 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not just that one article in Nature. We're summarizing all the sources we can. We're just using Nature and Time to satisfy WP:V. How about this... let's move all the refs to the body, and we can expand on some examples of "accepted laws of science", including the law of mass action, in the body. I've listed a bunch of sources above that we could use. Does that work for everyone?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm stepping out for a while. Let me know what you guys think, and I might be able to draft some language for the body if that would be helpful. I'd like to see the article expanded generally beyond just covering the nature controversy, so I appreciate the extra involvement.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In line with my suggestions for organization above, I think adding considerably more text to the body would be useful, and then slimming down as need be. "Supposed/asserted mechanism and implications" I think would be a good place to start, or "Benveniste's experiment" as a top level heading and then "Mechanism and implications" within it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Shii (tock) 16:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool. That sounds good to me. Feel free to hop on it, or I'll see if I can rummage together some time later. Thanks guys! :)  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Made a pass at restructuring and moving citations to the body, but I lack the content knowledge and sources to go further, so my sentences are conclusory more than they are informative. Please clean it up when you can.--Tznkai (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whew. A lot of changes! Thanks! I tried cleaning up the lead a bit. We had some nearly run-on sentences, and I felt like some connecting details were missing. I tried combining some information from the previous version with this one. Let me know what you think. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

{undent}Run-ons are a weakness of mine, so I appreciate the clean up. I have a problem with the flow of the first three sentences. Is is more important than but, so I'd rather end with the science law inconsistency rather than have it chasing our introductory 5W sentences attempts. The use of "propose" and "purport" already accurately reflect the dubiousness of the source. Can you tell me why you prefer "not accepted" over "rejected?" I'm a bit worried about passive voice problems.--Tznkai (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Not accepted" and "rejected" are both fine for me. I tend to prefer "not accepted" when dealing the scientific community's view of fringe topics, because the scientific community tends to "reject" a concept by simply not accepting it. Here, we have ample sourcing either way, so I'm ambivalent; whatever you think is fine. I changed an instance of "water memory" to "it" to avoid redundancy. Personally, I don't see a problem with calling water memory a "concept". I kind of prefer it, but again, no big deal. When I first reworked the lead, I had the "not accepted by..." sentence at the very end, but it seemed to flow too much from Benveniste's blurb. Keep in mind that water memory is a distinct concept from Benveniste, and we need to be careful not to conflate the two. He's one of its most prominent actors, but not the only one, as our article would make him out to be. Ultimately, I moved the sentence up to get some distance between the two.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wrote a little blurb about why "concept" was inferior, and then I found myself constantly using "concept" to describe it, so I suppose it could do. I do prefer an unambigious "it" or repeating the subject name when possible however, clarity to the reader is more important than avoiding the boredom by the writer, and that's usually where shifting subject names come from. I take your point on Benveniste, I think we can model our general approach on author/subject on how special relativity treats Einstein. All in all, in my opinion, the best way to write about "fringe science" is to write it more-or-less the same way you write about science except for the obvious point of how the truth claims are rejected by scientists as a whole.--Tznkai (talk) 16:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for the statement above water memory is a distinct concept from Benveniste? If there is no source for this statement then it seems to be just the wishful thinking of some editors.--82.137.11.208 (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The reasons for non-acceptance should be clearly expressed, as well as the established scientific law(s) involved, and if there is more than a law involved, they should be enumerated.--82.137.11.208 (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * @82.137, we have sources explicitly discussing water memory separate from Benveniste. For instance, Cowan has no connection to Benveniste. Regarding your second comment, what sources are you proposing that we summarize? By the way, please don't break up previous discussion by inserting new comments in the middle. New posts generally go at the very end of a thread. Thanks  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I see a very interesting perspective on no connection papers to include in the article. If Cowan (memory of persistent correlations) is not connected to Benveniste, it means that we can mention in this wikiarticle any article that has memory in abstract and/or title such as this one or this containing correlation(?)--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct (referring to everything after "If Cowan...", and only if it's "water memory", not just "memory" or just "water"). This touches on the scope of this article. The idea of water memory precedes Benveniste, but is related to homeopathy. So as long as it's related to homeopathy or has implications for homeopathy, it's fair game. It is conceivable that the exact words "water memory" have been used for some totally different purpose in a single reference somewhere. We're not interested in that type of content. The concept has been written about by more than one person (Benveniste) and from more than one angle, so we need the RS which discuss them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Not quite. Everything Brangifer said is correct, but the sources proposed by 188.27 have nothing to do with water memory. His claim appears to be that we can add content about "memory" (notice the lack of "water"), and that is obviously outside of this article's scope.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don`t see the expression water memory explicitly in Cowan ref. Cowan mentioning memory of persistent correlations in hydrogen bond dynamics by IR spectroscopy and the title of the second mentioned source being about time correlation functions of the Smoluchowski level of description of solutions and suspensions and involving aqueous solutions are aspects that would allow the mentioning in article of both sources.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I had AGF and assumed they actually meant "water memory", but I see this is an apparent WP:POINT violation. I have tweaked what I wrote. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:POINT violation, given that Cowan does not contain the term water memory explicitly, but memory of persistent correlation in hydrogen bond dynamics and the other source (Sung) points to time correlation functions in solutions.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Intermolecular forces and water memory
Is somehow water memory connected to the action of intermolecular forces?--5.15.49.211 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What properties of water aren't? But if you're trying to prove from this that water can't have a memory, be aware that there are such things as emergent properties that would invalidate that. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some emergent properties clarification would be useful.--5.15.46.114 (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to invalidate the water memory by appealing to molecular forces, just wanted to understand the connection. It seems that the appeal to Cowan reference by someeditors discussed above tries to do the invalidation.--5.15.49.211 (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * So it seems to me, yes indeed. Notice the sophistry being used to try to stop clarification appearing in the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have noticed it. I can consider that consensus is formed to remove that reference since no objections (by ManJess and others) have appeared since my last comments on that issue.--5.15.49.211 (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you cannot make that inference. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Brangifer, have you change your mind from your comment on 9 November in a section above when you agreed with Jojalozzo about SYNTH? Please explain the reasons/factors of this mind change!--5.15.0.241 (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have stricken my comment and name above because my initial statement was based on an incomplete understanding of the issue. My next comment reveals I was having second thoughts and asking for clarification. Only on a superficial basis does there appear to be a synth violation, when in reality there is no improper synthesis. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That is indeed the case (clarification: referring to Brangifer's comment above) . You have to remember (we have been reminded of this principle by Jess in the Cowan reference section above) that Wikipedia guidelines take priority over basically unimportant matters, e.g. attempting to avoid readers drawing inaccurate conclusions from the text of an article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It would interesting to see if the memory effect is discussed in the case of substances other than water.--5.15.49.211 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I have brought up memory in liquid crystals in some of my publications, including if I recall correctly that Heretical Science lecture I have alluded to in connection with this article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * An editor's comments don't vanish just because you created a new section and they don't repeat themselves. I explained above that we can't engage in OR to remove references, and that's what you've done (again). The title of the paper and its abstract both objectively concern the topic of "water memory", and the paper is summarized in other secondary and tertiary sources regarding homeopathy. The paper is absolutely relevant to the topic. As I said before, a valid criticism of its inclusion could be WP:WEIGHT, but you'll need strong contrary sources to make that argument.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You haven′t replied after my last comments on 19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC) where I dismantled your objections. Do you consider my rebuttal of your objection can be countered by repetition? If so, you are deluding yourself.--5.15.0.241 (talk) 10:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A failure to reply by Jess can have many reasons. Unless you have notified the editor directly and received a response, you really can't know and shouldn't assume anything. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Jess will be eager to allay any suspicions people might have by explaining his reasons, just as soon he has a chance to do so. Clearly the reason is not that he hasn't been watching this page. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not "dismantle my objections". You claimed two editors supported something they both already indicated they did not, and you repeated your claim that "water memory" in the source was unrelated to our article. I addressed that already, and I try to make a habit of not repeating myself every time I'm prompted to. I think the issue is already sufficiently clear, so I don't plan to continue that thread any further. You can have the last word if you'd like, but consensus currently opposes your suggestion to remove the source. See WP:DR for options to get additional input.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have the impression that you have addressed the issues and they are clear. It appears that you are keen to have the last word despite your denial by misconceived appeal/threat to a pseudo-consensus. The necessity of having a source that explicitly states the identity of the two memories is needed. I do not insist that the Cowan ref must be necessarily removed, it can be keep with an explanatory statement that specify the obvious lack of identity of the two concepts that have in common the word memory. (And btw you could not help yourself not to appeal to the intervention of an administrator friend of yours when your arguments were flimsy). Please do not resort to intimidation.--5.15.46.30 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Nature of intermolecular forces influence
Has the nature of intermolecular forces any influence on water memory? The disputed Cowan reference discuss the bond network of hydrogen bonds. What kind of influence has the nature of intermolecular forces on water memory?--5.15.60.143 (talk) 09:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Solvation
Given the concept memory of dissolved substances involvement of solvation could be hypothesized.--5.15.46.114 (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The Cowan reference mentions some details pertaining to solvation.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Infinite dilution
The arbitrary dilution present in the definition could be infinite dilution which is common in thermodynamic formalism like that in the Gibbs-Duhem equation where infinitesimal amounts of substances are involved.--5.15.6.120 (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The law of mass action
I've noticed in one of the above discussions that the law of mass action is mentioned in connection to inconsistency with accepted scientific laws of the subject of the article. It would be useful that this aspects be detailed: How is the law of mass action involved in water memory? (I have opened this subsection given the broader context of thermodynamic formalism where the law of mass action belongs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.14.111 (talk) 08:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The connection is distinctly dubious, but deniers such as Edzard Ernst have used it ('no molecules, no effect'). You say that the reaction rate is proportional to the density of molecules, so that if there are no molecules the reaction rate will be zero, i.e. 'no effect'. The fallacy lies in ignoring the possibility that the molecules might have an influence on the structure of water that survives the dilution process. --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I′ve linked above the name of a denier. I was about to ask about his credentials and I discovered his wikipage.--5.15.194.206 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The simple statement involving only concentrations is not rigorous, thermodynamic activity comes into play. There are even activity coefficients for infinite dilution.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I′ll insert the following wording: It is claimed by some sources (citation inserted time and Ball) evasively that the concept of water memory is inconsistent with the law of mass action among other (unspecified) established scientific laws.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Best to omit 'evasively' I suggest, but even then I think the probability of it not being reverted by a cabal member is homeopathic (using that word in its pejorative sense, of course!) --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you did omit it. So let's see what happens. --Brian Josephson (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 *  'The concept is claimed by some sources [5][6] not to be consistent with the law of mass action among other accepted scientific laws'  is the current wording. What are the other scientific laws?   Unless we can find a RS that indicates some other accepted scientific law or laws (not merely the law of mass action in disguised form) it is not consistent with then the phrase 'among other accepted scientific laws' should be removed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I had been thinking I'd strike out my comment about the cabal, but there's no need. Jess hasn't disappointed us: with one bound he has reverted your edit!
 * In support of this edit he says 'not "some sources"', but if it isn't 'some sources', the only alternative is 'no sources', and the rules are very clear that we can't put in anything that is unsourced. Should not someone who claims to be an experienced editor know that?  Can Jess be 'asleep at the wheel', working on automatic? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've explained this already. We have two very strong sources which say that the concept of water memory is inconsistent with accepted scientific laws generally. There are a plethora of others cited in this article and Homeopathy, but those two are sufficient. We have no sources saying otherwise. You both seem to think Nature and Time aren't reliable enough to be making this statement, which is a case you'd have to argue at RSN. Consensus distinctly opposed these sorts of changes before these constant IDHT repetitions drove off every other editor but me. We cannot dilute the statement to say "some sources" (per WP:YESPOV); we can't invalidate the statement by saying "evasive sources" (per WP:NPOV); we can't dilute the statement to say "...and some other laws" (per WP:WEIGHT) since our sources say water memory is precluded by accepted scientific laws generally (i.e. our understanding of science as a whole, not a law or two here or there), and we have none saying otherwise. Bring new sources, or go to RSN, or drop the stick.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 19:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, only someone who really understands physics (rather than just having it as an 'interest') would understand exactly what is wrong with that deceptively logical (some might go further and characterise it as nonsensical) analysis, and I will not waste my time trying to explain here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's a nice quote that seems very relevant here: "As a critical reader, you need to be able to recognise and analyse instances of illogical reasoning and weak argumentation. A critical reader needs to be able to detect writers trying to disguise weak content by the clever use of argumentative form, purely to persuade the reader of the validity of their argument." --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Jess' position is correct both with respect to Wikipedia policy and with respect to accepted science. Brian Josephson's remarks in this thread are headed way across the line of personal attacks. I have no intent of responding to any additional baiting from Brian, and I recommend that Jess likewise ignore this pettiness&mdash;my future silence should not be read as agreement. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither am I willing to accept that the mere statement of a belief by ToAT implies that the belief concerned is valid (a case of 'proof by diktat'). I believe the quote above is fair comment, and comment that needs to be made. It is no more a personal attack than telling someone who insists that 57+75 is equal to 122 that they are wrong. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Which are the other laws beside mass action with which water memory is supposed to be inconsistent? It seems that there no sources to specify other laws than mass action. If sources don't mention examples of other laws involved, neither this wikiarticle should say laws instead of law (of mass action) despite vague sources which say laws without specifying them. Vague wording in sources is of little use.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This reminds me of "show me the law". In any case, "no molecules, no effect" is not only a special case of the "law of mass action", but a general violation of causality.  Regardless of this, the sources say "violates accepted physical law"(s).  If the law of mass action is the only one specifically listed in reliable sources, the WP:BURDEN to include "the law of mass action" in this article would be to find a reliable sources which states that it violates only the law of mass action.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice that the phrasing inconsistent with accepted physical law(s) (such as the laws of mass action) having a parenthetical plural proposed by A Rubin suits the best this article given the lack of details in sources about inconsistency with other laws and even about proper inconsistency with mass action. Also, tags like and  about inconsistencies are needed. --86.125.182.212 (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems also that a better explanation involves no mass action inconsistency, rather "no molecules, no effect" which is not a consequence of mass action because of the concept of infinite dilution (activity coefficients) which is present implicitly in the law of mass action.--86.125.182.212 (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it's always helpful to look back at the sources.
 * "But they defied conventional scientific understanding, specifically the law of mass action that demands that the rates of chemical reactions be proportional to the concentrations of reagents."Philip Ball in his column
 * "Hahnemann’s “law of infinitessimals,” the notion that a substance becomes more potent when diluted, violates the law of mass action and everything we know about chemistry. Also, many homeopathic remedies are diluted past the point where even a single molecule of the original substance is likely to be left behind. "Skeptical Inquirer
 * "Benveniste's observations, on the other hand, are startling not merely because they point to a novel phenomenon, but because they strike at the roots of two centuries of observation and rationalization of physical phenomena. Where, for example, would elementary principles such as the Law of Mass Action be if Benveniste is proved correct? The principle of restraint which applies is simply that, when an unexpected observation requires that a substantial part of our intellectual heritage should be thrown away, it is prudent to ask more carefully than usual whether the observation may be incorrect" Réseaux. The French journal of communication
 * "Such claims only make the conflict [of homeopathy] with science even more apparent, for there is no know physical or chemical mechanism that could plausibly serve as a basis for the hypothetical memory. Indeed, everything we know about the atomic and molecular structure of matter rules out such aquatic reminiscences. [describes the later theories of Benveniste] The discrepancy between the ideas of homeopathy and the establisehd laws of physics is pushed to new heights here. Once again, we are faced with a stark choice: either homeopathy is simply a placebo, or the whole of physics and chemistry as we know them are false." Placebo: Mind Over Matter in Modern Medicine, Dylan Evans, Oxford University Press
 * And then you have Healing Or Stealing?: Medical Charlatans in the New Age, which records how Benveniste's reputation has become worse and worse as he kept advancing more theories (such as "white holes" in people's bloodstream). :::--Enric Naval (talk) 21:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be helpful to look back at the(se) sources, but the sources (in this case) are not (very) helpful in detailing the supposed inconsistency, not to mention (or underlining) that statement by Ball is inaccurate, being just a historical step in the statement of the law of mass action which involves nowadays thermodynamic activity coefficients.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't understand what the inconsistency is? You have here a detailed explanation with mathematical formulas. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The explanation mentioned in the source pointed out by you with the associated formulas ignores the thermodynamic activity. Thus it posits tacitly an equivalence of mass action to 'no molecules, no effect' statement used by Edzard Ernst. Not considering the infinite dilution activity coefficients involved in the mass action means ignoring the possibility that the molecules might have an influence on the structure of water that survives the dilution process, as pointed by Brian Josephson on 18:10, 16 December 2013.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, I propose rephrasing the statement by mentioning the principle no molecule, no effect used by Edzard Ernst and the alleged equivalence of this principle with an inconsistency to mass action.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no objections to my proposal, so I'll remove the vague wording about an alleged inconsistency with several laws of chemical physics and replace it with Edzard Ernst's statement.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't see an objection because this has been discussed to death, and you're ignoring the objections already lodged. The statement is not "vague"; it is a direct paraphrase of our sources. You need to drop it, or seek formal dispute resolution.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 14:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Those objections are baseless and thus ignorable, the direct paraphrase of our sources does not replace the lack of details concerning the supposed inconsistency. No molecule, no effect is more clear. You (Mann Jess) need to drop the annoying misconceived appeals to dispute resolution due to lack of other arguments. You should not obstruct the request for further clarifications when needed.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you continue editing tendentiously, which includes edit warring and dragging on a point after consensus is reached, the page will be semi-protected, followed by escalation to a noticeboard and sanctions.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you were not aware until now, consensus is not static, it can change. Additionally, your editing behaviour by appealing to words like escalation and giving terse explanations like against (my) consensus strongly points out to multiple ownership by you and others who back you with weak arguments to impose pseudo-consensus as an excuse for obstruction of the improvement of the article by giving the necessary clarifying details. Please don't make unjustified/abusive threats to semi-protection. Semi-protection apply only in cases of vandalism, not to create advantages to registered users.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

APS test
I am glad to see that there has been some improvement in the article since I looked last. I'd like here, for the record, to comment on the fact (mocked by Randi) that the test by the APS never took place. First of all, it was my suggestion (in response to an article by Park in his APS spot), not Benveniste's, that the APS conduct a test to see if Park's criticisms were valid, and Park thought it a good idea. Benveniste agreed in principle, but in time it became apparent that the kind of test Benveniste as a biologist favoured was not the kind of experiment that the physicists were comfortable with, and there were various practical difficulties also. B. hoped that his automated test procedure developed later would resolve difficulties due to experimenters not following the correct procedure, but then discovered that the water seemed to be influenced by the operator. He interpreted this as showing that it needed to have a process analogous to formatting a hard disc before information could be impressed on it, and something of this kind may prove to be the case (though as a physicist I'd prefer the need to use pure materials or single crystals to get physical effects in some cases as being more relevant). Benveniste's death following heart surgery made it impossible to follow up such ideas further. I still have much of the correspondence relating to the proposed test and it is likely that much of it will be made public in due course.

As I understand it, B. never considered entering for the Randi prize, and just considered it fine if R. wanted to bestow the award on him if the APS test was successful! That was a rather an academic issue, as Randi would always have been able to reject some aspect of the test even if those conducting it were to have considered it successful. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can this information be sourced to an article?--Tznkai (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure a search on Randi prize will turn up many articles criticising the way the prize is run. I think one can gauge B's views of R's test, from this email from him, after a TV programme: "Since I first reported the discovery 14 years ago, seven international laboratories (one doing it twice) have tried to replicate my results and all bar one have been succesful, representing a total of about 4,000 experiments, most blind. By the accepted canons of science (and particularly of the biological sciences), this constitutes 'conclusive' proof. But apparently not proof enough for the producers of BBC Horizon, who, despite the fact that they regularly feature discoveries with far less scientific backing than mine, chose to try and re-replicate the already replicated. Fair enough. But how many experiments did they decide to do ? Just two. And did they seek my advice on how to do them ? No. Instead, they turned to the world of show business, asking Mr Randi, an accomplished American magician and a known opponent of my work, to approve the experiments and place a million dollar bet that the outcomes would be negative. This is a travesty of scientific enquiry that shames both the BBC and no less a body than the Royal Society - British science's premier institution - which scandalously gave this farce its blessing. Are we therefore to conclude that all experimental science should henceforth have huge bets placed on it by sceptical 'prestidigitateurs' before it can be accepted? The whole notion would, of course, be an insult to science - but for science like mine, which doesn't fit the norm, insults are apparently OK."
 * You will note he says 'blind' not 'double blind'. I had written to him pointing out that people were using 'double-blind' inappropriately since there was no subject, and he responded caustically (my italics): "Yes Brian, but 'double-blind' is sexier than just 'blind' and more impressive to the layperson. In experiments with cells or organs or animals, 'double-blind' means that neither the operator nor the cell or the mouse knew what was what. Note that this was the expression used by the brilliant 1988 Nature fraud squad. In fact a double-step blind method was done in Israel and is the safest although it needs four 'blinders'. Two make a code and pass it to two others who scramble it once more. Fine, but risks of errors are increased and, don't forget it, if the end result is wrong the blame will always be put on us. There is also a triple blind: 'I didn't know, the mouse didn't know, and at the end nobody knew...'." --Brian Josephson (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Everything you're saying is interesting, but it has to be sourced to a reliable third party in order to be included in this article. This is a practice that occasionally drives me nuts - we've been lucky enough on occasion to have experts wish to weigh in on matters large and small, or even correct minor biographical details, but that's the way it works, and we are not going to change it just because of momentary convenience.
 * If you can find an appropriate third party to publish this correspondence, or write an article on it, then it the encyclopedic information might make it into the article. If not however, there is nothing we can do.--Tznkai (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My off-topic reply is in Mr. Josephson's talk page. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, do look at it! The link is here. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources for this?
 * "As revealed by Time Magazine this week, I (Robert Park) have been in discussions with Brian Josephson (1973 Nobel Prize in Physics) over a protocol for a proposed double-blind trial of the claims of French homeopathist Jacques Benveniste."
 * It would be nice to find the Time magazine article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be nice to find the Time magazine article. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

As I note on my talk page, physicists such as Park often get the terminology wrong. Re the correspondence I referred to, I mentioned it purely by way of clarification regarding a point in the article. After the archive is published on the University's site (if it is in due course) it will be up to the cabal editors to decide if it is a reliable source or not. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Brian, you have violated WP:BLP above in regard Randi. The test protocol has never been changed (by Randi & company) after the test was agreed to; it has sometimes been changed by the prize claimant.  I suspect you can find claimants who claim that the Randi prize should have been given, but I'm almost sure you can not find a reliable source.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting the following be in the article, but the way the prize is organised involves a preliminary phase, and I know (from someone I consider an RS) that there have been occasions when there has been a refusal to conduct a test of an expt. that apparently had a good chance of succeeding. Re the Benveniste-APS correspondence, the most likely outcome will be an article about it, as it would be difficult to get the necessary permissions to publish all of it. --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection?
User ManJess has alluded to the possibility of semi-protecting this if his pseudo-consensus is modified. This allusion is abusive and its purpose is only to create unfair advantage in talk to registered users.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am commenting here as an uninvolved administrator. If it becomes apparent that IP editors are persistently disrupting productive conversation on this Talk page, semi-protecting the Talk page would be a sensible step to reduce the disruption.  Also as it states at the top, this article and its Talk page are covered by WP:AE discretionary sanctions, allowing uninvolved administrators to take other steps to ensure the discussion is productive and disruption such as tendentious editing is minimized.   05:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The keyword in this situation of considering a possible request for semi-protection is if. Also there is a dependence on who makes the assessment of disruption of productive conversation on this talk page and on what (subjective or objective?) grounds. It is clear that no disruption of productive conversation takes place on this talk page. Those who allude such possibility want to silence opposite considerations pointing out a strong tendency to multiple ownership of the article by users who oppose improvement by misuse of sources.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also if an uninvolved admin might consider that a disruption takes place when in fact there is no such thing (like here) automatically becomes an involved admin and has no right to intervene due to conflict of interest in editing.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Edzard Ernst and the latest reversion
I see that some user has just reverted my phasing mentioning Edzard Ernst by claiming no cosensus. I do not see and there is not any lack of consensus. I'll revert to my phrasing. The reverter hasn't bother to bring some support on this talk to his claim of lacking the consensus.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Here those who oppose my phrasing should say what are their reasons (if any) against mentioning Edzard Ernst no molecule, no effect principle. If they don't unfold their arguments, further non-constructive reversions can be considered obstruction of improving the article.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I would oppose this change. It makes it sound like it's a principle invented by Ernst, when it's actually a widely held principle with very solid basis. It also introduces uncertainty about how water memory contradicts widely supported laws. In short, your phrasing misleads readers. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter who formulated and held it. If it is a widely held principle (as it is claimed and should be) then it is no problem to find other supporters of this principle. It just happens that Edzard Ernst is a notable proponent/supporter of this principle and nothing more. It is a false impression that he would have formulated it. There is no uncertainty in my phrasing about how water memory contradicts widely supported laws because these details are missing from the wording that you are defending. Thus your opposition is untenable.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see section Talk:Water_memory, where 2,5 months ago this argument was discussed. Multiple sources were provided against the proposed change. And you failed to present any usable source to support the change. Now are proposing a similar change, and you are still not presenting any usable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The multiple sources you mention are low quality and details about inconsistency are missing (the low quality is due exactly to the lack of details concerning inconsistency). A source for my proposed statement is not really necessary, but if you insist it can be found.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "low quality" doesn't seem to agree with WP:MEDRS. For example, you have not considered the reputation of the authors and the publishers. You seem to prefer primary sources, with lots of detailed explanation and mathematical formulas, over secondary sources, with summaries of what the primary sources say and with less details. And you don't consider the relative weight of the sources, since you are not showing sources of comparable quality that express a different opinion.


 * Maybe you should edit less controversial articles in areas where you don't have a preconceived idea of how the topic is supposed to work? That could help you understand better how sourcing works. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I consider that in this case, where an inconsistency to scientific laws is alleged, sources (primary or not) with lots of detailed explanation and mathematical formulas are preferable to opinionated (secondary) sources, with less details and lacking the essential details of the supposed inconsistency.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also in this case where chemo-physical concepts/laws are involved there is little to no real need to follow strictly WP:MEDRS.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I reverted the change as in text attribution to Ernst like this makes it seem like he originated the concerns or that he was the only one who believes it, which is clearly not true. Yobol (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. The concerns about "no molecules" are shared by many many scientists. For example, the entire field of biomedicine: "Furthermore, some of the 'low' dose treatments used by practitioners are so dilute that it is likely that not one molecule of the original alleged active agent remains in the administered treatment, yet claims are made that it still has clinical effects. The modern mechanistically oriented biomedical field finds it hard to accept claims that are principally anecdotal, with little clinical epidemiological evidence, and no mechanistic understanding." p. 40 --Enric Naval (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Considering that "no molecules" pov is shared by many many scientists, it should explicitly stated in article instead of a poor detailed alleged inconsistency. A rephrasing with explicit statement is thus needed--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The misleading nature of Ernst's slogan 'no molecules, no effect', has already been discussed under Law of Mass Action.--Brian Josephson (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it has been discussed and it could underlined after the necessary proposed rephrasing above is inserted in article.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Tags
I have noticed discussions on this page regarding some statements that deserve further explanation. This can be underlined by using wikitags like, , in appropriate places where they are needed.--82.137.8.27 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I notice that the clarification tags have disappeared in the process of rewording the intro. I'll reinsert them.--82.137.11.208 (talk) 21:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No, they don't belong there. We are summarizing the sources clearly and directly. Discuss it on talk and get consensus there is a problem before adding such tags.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 22:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not, if there is a need for clarification for which summarizing the sources is just not enough? The clarification tags belong anywhere further details are needed to provide context, especially in intro.--82.137.15.217 (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * So make a proposal you believe clarifies it. Without a proposal on the table, and without consensus there is even a problem, the tags would only serve as a scarlet letter to the article. That's not what tags are for.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 00:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I do think that the "implications" section needs fleshing out, but as it stands, the original sentence is well sourced, just vaguer than preferred. Tag or no tag matters little to me, as long as it gets improved at some point--Tznkai (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The expected further details of the inconsistency cannot be mentioned since because there is no such inconsistency.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Tags are fully deserved since the details of the inconsistency are missing.--82.137.10.108 (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Maddox's team or Nature team?
Both, I think are supported by sources. I'd like to pre-emptively veto "Team Maddox"--Tznkai (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maddox was editor of Nature and he insisted on this as a condition of puhlication (and I'm sure you can find a RS for that). The investigation was his thing but he did it on behalf of the journal. I really don't see why people are wasting their time arguing over which to call the investigation (if they are); both are equally valid.  I agree that 'Team Maddox' is inappropriate and that kind of language best left to low quality newspapers (or politicians!). --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The Maddox reference
The abstract of this reference says it describes observations for which there is no present physical basis.--82.137.15.250 (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see this discussion and what is said in article about the full of the Maddox source, that of describing or enumerating the laws involved. Someone should add those details from the sources.--85.121.32.1 (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of the enumeration of laws, a rewording using knowledge instead of laws would be appropriate.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a good suggestion and it has been reworded accordingly.--82.137.11.136 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ball reference phrasing
The Ball reference has the following phrasing concerning Benveniste's results: They defied conventional scientific understanding, specifically the law of mass action. This phrasing is slightly different than positing an inconsistency.--82.137.9.108 (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a rephrasing according to the source is needed to replace the current phrasing containing inconsistency.--85.121.32.1 (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that the rephrasing has been done.--85.121.32.27 (talk) 09:47, 15 May 2014 (UTC)