Blind Water Crystal Experimentation

Dr. Emoto conducted a series of experiments some years back to determine whether or not a person's thoughts could guide the formation of water crystals.  I took a look at the evidence he provided, researched opinions on the matter, and came up with my own conclusion:  Emoto is just another quack.

To begin, we need to visit a site which talks about Emoto's findings: http://www.whatthebleep.com/crystals/.

Upon first read, I thought Emoto was on to something extraordinary.  The idea of someone's thoughts controlling a natural occurrence was (and still is) a bit thrilling.  But then I collected my thoughts and proceeded with some research on my own.

One interesting analysis of Emoto's work can be found here: http://is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/.

I leave it to the reader to peruse Setchfield's own findings, but I give you a summary of the salient points below.

There are numerous questions which need to be answered before Emoto's work can be considered truly genuine and worthy of future study.  There are some discrepancies in his work, along with a few contradictory situations.  One situation I recall is Emoto's declaration that crystal X was created in an environment at a very low temperature--one that most definitely causes water to form in columns, and not in flat patterns as Emoto shows.  He also does not reveal the entire body of his work, merely cherry-picking a few pictures that support his claims.

Yet, there are a few who tried to give Emoto's work serious consideration.  Take this whitepaper for example: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_22_4_radin.pdf.

It certainly seems like a rational examination of effects upon the formation of water crystals.  The requisite disclaimer in the summary clearly reveals the problems with studies such as this:

"[I]n any experiment involving intention, the intentions of the investigators cannot be cleanly isolated from those of the nominal participants and this in turn constrains how one should properly interpret the results. (Radin & Lund, Effects of Distant Intention on Water Crystal Formation: A Triple-Blind Replication Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 22, No. 4, p 491)"

The main problem with all emotion- or thought-based experiements is that all aspects of thought cannot be measured in any sense.  What exactly is a "bad" intention?  How do intentions differ between individuals?  Are there differences in "strengths" of thought?  How can these be monitored and measured?

Emoto's and Lund's research efforts contain the same problem with a lot of debunked "research".  There are proper ways to collect data to ensure methods which replicate findings without fail.  In the scientific method, replication of findings is the first step toward a true discovery.  Replication fosters peer review and refinement.  None of this can happen with a study on effects of intention.

Finally can the beauty of objects, which was the measurement used in Lund's classification of the experiment's crystals, be etched on a scale of standards?  Beauty is purely in the eye of the beholder, therefore not objective.  Ergo, Emoto's research is only relevant in the eye of the blinded beholder.