6 ms·

While certain aspects of water may still be unexplained -- like its phase transitions, for example -- that doesn't leave the door open for contradictions of the

While certain aspects of water may still be unexplained -- like its phase transitions, for example -- that doesn't leave the door open for contradictions of the aspects that are understood. "Memory" requires some form of information storage, in this case in one of the simplest molecules known to man. Not only would any physicist be stumped to even propose some form of information storage (i.e., "we don't know how it might have memory"), but any such proposal would contradict the current body of knowledge of chemistry (i.e., "we know that it can't have memory -- there's nowhere for it to hide"). ...and that's just one little part. Even if there was some kind of "memory" possible in water, you would have to explain how that memory would act on cells.

DaveChild 16y ago
And then you would have to explain how that magic water memory makes it into sugar's magic memory when the water is evaporated away.
Tichy 16y ago
I am not arguing that it is possible (it also seems very unlikely to me), just arguing that one should stay scientific. Has it been proven that water can't have memory, or not? Physicists being stumped is no proof. "It is against the laws of physics" sounds a bit like "most authorities agree that...", which doesn't cut it. Nature seems to do a lot of weird information storage, btw (quantum entanglements? I am not a physicists myself...). I don't think we should be on the lookout for little flash drives embedded in the water molecules.
- thaumaturgy 16y ago
  I am staying scientific. Science doesn't mean, "everything is possible until you rule it out"; science means, "observe something, come up with a hypothesis, test your hypothesis, consider it true if it passes rigorous enough experiment, until disproven later by other experiment." Demanding proof that water doesn't have "memory" is not at all unlike demanding proof that gravity doesn't work because of trillions of very tiny fairies that fly around pushing on things. This is one of the central differences between faith and science; faith demands proof of impossibility (e.g., "prove to me that homeopathy doesn't work"), and science demands proof of possibility (e.g., "prove to me that homeopathy works"). Ignorance is not a shield that protects you. Being open-minded to the point of incuriousity doesn't make you wise, it just means that you've stopped seeking the answers to questions. Now, all that said: "spooky effects" like quantum entanglements are indeed very cool, and I'm looking forward to seeing some testable hypotheses on the mechanisms for that. However, experiments so far have only been able to make quantum effects at a distance work under very controlled conditions, and I'm pretty sure none of those conditions involved "shaking it back and forth 10 times". So, no, I'm not willing to buy that as a possible explanation for a mechanism for homeopathy -- even if homeopathy worked, which it doesn't.
  - Tichy 16y ago
    I can't follow your logic. You say science is making testable hypothesises, and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? Either you can test that hypothesis ("water can't have memory"), or you are being unscientific? Also, is there debate about gravity working? I think it has been tested, so it is not at all the same thing. It would be more like saying "anti-gravity is impossible" (maybe it is, no idea). I am not interested in Homoeopathy, just in proper arguing.
    - thaumaturgy 16y ago
      > ...and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? OK, you're right. I need to be more careful in what I'm saying, then. My claim, specifically, is that science does not have a large enough lack of knowledge about water -- or any other simple chemical -- in the specific areas of chemistry or particle physics, to suggest that there is even an unknown mechanism by which extra-molecular information might be stored in such a chemical, "extra-molecular" here meaning any information which wouldn't otherwise be included naturally as a part of that chemical. Furthermore, I'm saying that, in the absence of such unknowns, and given current knowledge of basic chemistry and physics, such hypothetical information storage would violate the already-accepted principles of those fields. In other words, I'm placing the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the people making the fantastical claim, and I'm justifying that by claiming that we have a large enough body of evidence to support labeling their claim as "fantastical". Now, if this was the 17th century, and I appeared out of nowhere and proclaimed, "water cannot have memory!" -- then maybe you'd have a point. Instead, there's this wonderfully large body of understanding of chemistry and physics which, while incomplete, is not so incomplete as to leave any room for a method of information storage in basic chemicals without contradicting current knowledge. Thus, "water can not have memory." If you want to press further on this and challenge my assertion anyway, then I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move. :-) If you can successfully disprove enough current chemistry or physics to leave the door open for any kind of "memory" in water, then there is probably a large amount of fame and acclaim waiting for you. (And yes, there is some debate about how gravity works. While general relativity does a neat job of modeling gravity, it is somewhat unsatisfying as an explanation for its mechanism. And also, yes, I would be inclined to say that "anti-gravity is impossible", although with somewhat more reservation, because so far the best explanation for gravity is that it is in fact some kind of side-effect of mass on a space-time environment, so "anti-gravity" would require negative mass, which last time I checked doesn't even make sense -- although I haven't been watching the journals as closely as I used to.)

DaveChild 16y ago

And then you would have to explain how that magic water memory makes it into sugar's magic memory when the water is evaporated away.

Tichy 16y ago

I am not arguing that it is possible (it also seems very unlikely to me), just arguing that one should stay scientific. Has it been proven that water can't have memory, or not? Physicists being stumped is no proof. "It is against the laws of physics" sounds a bit like "most authorities agree that...", which doesn't cut it. Nature seems to do a lot of weird information storage, btw (quantum entanglements? I am not a physicists myself...). I don't think we should be on the lookout for little flash drives embedded in the water molecules.

thaumaturgy 16y ago
I am staying scientific. Science doesn't mean, "everything is possible until you rule it out"; science means, "observe something, come up with a hypothesis, test your hypothesis, consider it true if it passes rigorous enough experiment, until disproven later by other experiment." Demanding proof that water doesn't have "memory" is not at all unlike demanding proof that gravity doesn't work because of trillions of very tiny fairies that fly around pushing on things. This is one of the central differences between faith and science; faith demands proof of impossibility (e.g., "prove to me that homeopathy doesn't work"), and science demands proof of possibility (e.g., "prove to me that homeopathy works"). Ignorance is not a shield that protects you. Being open-minded to the point of incuriousity doesn't make you wise, it just means that you've stopped seeking the answers to questions. Now, all that said: "spooky effects" like quantum entanglements are indeed very cool, and I'm looking forward to seeing some testable hypotheses on the mechanisms for that. However, experiments so far have only been able to make quantum effects at a distance work under very controlled conditions, and I'm pretty sure none of those conditions involved "shaking it back and forth 10 times". So, no, I'm not willing to buy that as a possible explanation for a mechanism for homeopathy -- even if homeopathy worked, which it doesn't.
- Tichy 16y ago
  I can't follow your logic. You say science is making testable hypothesises, and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? Either you can test that hypothesis ("water can't have memory"), or you are being unscientific? Also, is there debate about gravity working? I think it has been tested, so it is not at all the same thing. It would be more like saying "anti-gravity is impossible" (maybe it is, no idea). I am not interested in Homoeopathy, just in proper arguing.
  - thaumaturgy 16y ago
    > ...and you claim water can not have memory. So where is the testable hypothesis in that? OK, you're right. I need to be more careful in what I'm saying, then. My claim, specifically, is that science does not have a large enough lack of knowledge about water -- or any other simple chemical -- in the specific areas of chemistry or particle physics, to suggest that there is even an unknown mechanism by which extra-molecular information might be stored in such a chemical, "extra-molecular" here meaning any information which wouldn't otherwise be included naturally as a part of that chemical. Furthermore, I'm saying that, in the absence of such unknowns, and given current knowledge of basic chemistry and physics, such hypothetical information storage would violate the already-accepted principles of those fields. In other words, I'm placing the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the people making the fantastical claim, and I'm justifying that by claiming that we have a large enough body of evidence to support labeling their claim as "fantastical". Now, if this was the 17th century, and I appeared out of nowhere and proclaimed, "water cannot have memory!" -- then maybe you'd have a point. Instead, there's this wonderfully large body of understanding of chemistry and physics which, while incomplete, is not so incomplete as to leave any room for a method of information storage in basic chemicals without contradicting current knowledge. Thus, "water can not have memory." If you want to press further on this and challenge my assertion anyway, then I present as evidence the entire body of science. Your move. :-) If you can successfully disprove enough current chemistry or physics to leave the door open for any kind of "memory" in water, then there is probably a large amount of fame and acclaim waiting for you. (And yes, there is some debate about how gravity works. While general relativity does a neat job of modeling gravity, it is somewhat unsatisfying as an explanation for its mechanism. And also, yes, I would be inclined to say that "anti-gravity is impossible", although with somewhat more reservation, because so far the best explanation for gravity is that it is in fact some kind of side-effect of mass on a space-time environment, so "anti-gravity" would require negative mass, which last time I checked doesn't even make sense -- although I haven't been watching the journals as closely as I used to.)