Talk:Masaru Emoto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Further reading content moved here[edit]

The following content was under Further reading. It does not add value to the article. If there is any good content in can be paraphrased, summarized and added as content using the articles as references.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)


by what criteria did you determine these did not add value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.151.146 (talk) 01:51, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of info[edit]

Adijou seems determined to remove less than flattering info. I believe "biased" is being used to describe that which accurately portrays Emoto's work as pseudoscience. [1] --NeilN talk to me 22:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Editor indeffed so I guess we're done. --NeilN talk to me 23:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Blind studies[edit]

Until 2 July 2013 the article included a subsection called blind studies. After that, it was deleted. The information included in-line citations, including references to two published studies:

Note, however, that these studies were co-authored by the same Masaru Emoto. In addition, other sources, critical ones, were provided:

This latter reference echoes the results from the triple-blind study, stating: "the crystals, both 'treated' and not, on average were not particularly beautiful (scoring 1.7 on a scale of 0 to 6, where 6 was very beautiful). And while the treated crystals were rated slightly more beautiful than one set of controls, they were rated ever-so-slightly less beautiful than the other set of controls. An objective comparison of contrast did not reveal any significant differences among the samples."

I think this section should be recovered, and if there were any concerns regarding the quality of the text, then let's improve it, but in any case this relevant published information should be included in the wikipedia article.(talk) user:Al83tito 17:58, 08 October 2014 (UTC)

I see now that this topic had already come up in an archived entry. One wiki user pointedly said in that discussion: "Both papers were published in unreliable fringe journals, neither of which comes close to being peer-reviewed. Even so, we would need an relaible independent SECONDARY source to describe them in relation to the mainstream view.". I believe that the 3rd and 4th sources I listed above, are those secondary sources that analyze the results in relation to the mainstream view. There may be others that we can look for as well... I suggest that a mention to these studies is included again, describing the results as portrayed by them, and the counter-interpretation offered by the other sources listed.(talk) user:Al83tito 20:13, 08 October 2014 (UTC)
While those two secondary sources can be used in accordance to WP:PARITY, they don't really add much than what is already in the article: that Emoto has not published any work in reliable sources about his "theory". The two blind studies don't appear to be notable enough to mention specifically. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Concur with DV. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. They are good comments. agreed. (talk) user:Al83tito 22:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I suspect some additional publication on Emoto may occur soon given his death. If these two studies are discussed/evaluated there may be a reason to create new content based on what the reliable sources say. Of course at this point this is crystal ball speculation but I will keep an eye out for new sources. Thanks for collaborative work on this article. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Problems with this aritcle include the fact that two blind studies are not mentioned in the text and far too much of the source material comes from skeptics magazines. Results from the two studies that are cited above should be included in the text and more objective source material should be included. Theanswerman109 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

WP articles are based on secondary sources, not primary involved sources published in fringe journals see WP:UNDUE. If these studies are significant they will be discussed in scholarly sources if not WP:PSCI and WP:FRINGE lead to the application of WP:PARITY. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Why would this material be added several months later with no discussion or consensus here, by an editor aware of this discussion? This is not in keeping with policy such behavior is likely to inspire a request for discretionary sanctions or a report to ANI. Secondary sources providing analysis, evaluation and commentary regarding Emoto's work are needed for adding content. Primary original research not published in a reliable source is not the basis for content on WP, this has been made clear in this discussion and is clear in policy. Waiting three months and surreptitiously adding content is not the behavior of an editor who is here to improve the encyclopedia. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The Rice experiment[edit]

Do you try it ?

Experience make the difference. -- CyrilDelacour (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

If you do not want to talk about it is a big problem of neutrality, experience is simple and full of lessons : consequences are important, no censorship ! -- CyrilDelacour (talk) 09:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

publication[edit]

IDEAS/ In 2008, Emoto published his findings in the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a peer reviewed scientific journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration.

vs 

Scientific criticism/ Reville noted the lack of scientific publication and pointed out that anyone who could demonstrate such a phenomenon would become immediately famous and probably wealthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.151.146 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)