Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

DetlefK

(16,535 posts)

5. I once read a scientific paper that "proved" water memory. It was awful.

Reply to Danascot (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 5, 2018, 07:36 AM

Feb 2018

- The method and experiment was somehow okay (IIRC infrared-spectra of water), but the data-analysis was so sloppy, it was entirely useless.

- Their diagrams were so small (bad pixel-resolution) that you couldn't read what was written on the axis. Those curves could have been anything.
What's the x-axis?
What's the y-axis?
What numbers are these???

- And the diagrams weren't even separate images. Whoever wrote this had taken a screenshot of his complete desktop, Windows XP Windows-bar and all.

"Here's my results where you can't see anything. And here's what you are supposed to be seeing."

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

How's this for absolute woo? [View all] Archae Jan 2018 OP

21st century snake oil. tymorial Jan 2018 #1

... and there's yet more water woo: memory of water Danascot Jan 2018 #2

I once read a scientific paper that "proved" water memory. It was awful. DetlefK Feb 2018 #5

The G.I. Tract may not absorb gases Orange Free State Jan 2018 #3

Only $240? I'll take two! Nitram Jan 2018 #4

Combined with my new alkaline water diet, I should be super duper, Gwenyth Paltrow healthy. progressoid Feb 2018 #6

but do you have... uriel1972 Feb 2018 #7

I don't think so. progressoid Feb 2018 #8