Thread replies: 2
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
a data point that intention shapes reality 2017-09-07 12:08:24 Post No. 19553706
[Report] Image search: [Google]
a data point that intention shapes reality 2017-09-07 12:08:24 Post No. 19553706
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Screen Shot 2017-09-02 at 10.29.21 PM.png (893KB, 606x946px) Image search:
[Google]
893KB, 606x946px
AFAICT magic and the power of intention seem to go hand in hand. i haven't ever seen intentionality mentioned in the context of the Benveniste Affair but i think it could provide part of the missing link for why replication attempts have failed. in short, Benveniste accidentally discovered magic.
>Jacques Benveniste was a professor and professor of Public Health and Epidemiology at one of the top universities in France
> he also headed the department of Public Health and Epidemiology at a hospital
> he had a promising career as a researcher until he published in the prestigious scientific journal Nature a paper of his on Water Memory. i.e., homeopathy.
see the following for some context on what actually happened
(((Wikipedia's))) take https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
Benveniste's response http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/magician.html
Quoting Benveniste above:
> Back in 1982, when a researcher in our lab first presented results suggesting that substances, diluted until no molecule could possibly be present, retained their activity, I had been as skeptical as any magician and sent him back to check his work.
> But it was confirmed. In fact, in the years that followed, ten researchers examined a variety of biological systems, frequently using blind experiments, and confirmed the reality of the high dilution effect.
> From exhilarating scientific exploration, our work was transformed into desperate repetition, starting with the Comptes Rendus study mentioned above, in an attempt to convince the scientific community.
> Michel Schiff, a physicist-turned-sociologist who investigated our group, remarked that, while the 200 experiments preceding the fraud squad's "visit" included 24 of an exploratory nature, the corresponding post-visit figure was just six.
> Ninety-five percent of our experiments had become simple repetitions of earlier experiments.
>>
so,
> Benveniste sat on his results for five years, until his team felt that there was enough information to go public.
> when Nature did publish his findings, the paper was accompanied by an editorial from the journal's editor, who urged that readers "suspend judgment" until results could be independently verified.
> Nature conducts, following the publishing of the paper, a verification effort
> they bring over a three-man team of people including, of all people, the magician James Randi
> They conduct five experiments in total. The first four replicate the study's initial findings.
> The skeptics from Nature discard those experiments post-hoc on grounds of methodology.
> The fifth shows negative findings. Ta-da, five years of research instantly considered incorrect.
> Since then, many other teams of researchers have also tried to replicate the experiments, all unsuccessfully.
Back to the concept of intentionality. The skeptics from Nature went in with the intent of proving Benveniste incorrect. So if intentionality were the factor causing Water Memory, it is no surprise that the experiments would have failed. Same with all subsequent replication efforts. (There also is another biasing effect at play working against Benveniste, namely of professional reputation, but we can ignore that for this discussion.)
Benveniste never stopped his research. He ended up forming a company called DigiBio. Their website is now defunct but it's available on the Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/*/digibio.com
Thread posts: 2
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1