Words and Water

Dr Emoto’s experiments claim to show how water crystals (ice) take on different forms according to words or music that the water was subject to. This is used to support the notion that intent can influence physiological processes. His web site is here. For a critical take on it look at here. Here is my take:

It’s always a tricky thing when someone presents and idea (hypothesis) with accompanying proof. Proofs are almost always incomplete in some way and subject to deconstruction. A skeptic will invariably find a counter proof that undermines the integrity of the original hypothesis. A believer on the other hand probably does not need a very solid proof as much as a validating experience and is likely to dismiss compelling counter proofs until their own personal framework collapses in some way or another. This is often in the form of an invalidating experience rather than a logical argument.

The scientific world like to use the “scientific method” to validate their ideas – as if somehow this were absolute and untouchable. At the very best all the scientific method can ever be is “the best we can manage at this point”. This requires a perpetual openness to hitherto unseen, overlooked or previously misinterpreted data or constructs.

So looking at Dr Emoto’s water photographs: If the foundation of the claims are based on logical/rational “proof” we are pulled into this “proof” space to make up our own minds about this. This immediately raises a whole lot of worrying assumptions like:

• geometric and symmetrical, light coloured shapes represent good.

• Amorphous assymetrical, brownish patterns are bad.

• All heavy metal music is bad.

• etc….

If ice crystals can be consistently shown to take on certain shapes (and we don’t know for sure if this experiment is repeatable) in response to certain non-physiological stimuli (meanings or intentions) then the the essential outcome would suggest that water responds to intent. However to load this outcome with a host of assumed values moves the whole thing into the realm of mythology. At best it would seem that if you want the water in your body to look geometric, symmetrical and whitish when you get frozen then the chances of this are increased if you subject yourself to music with certain chord structures and rhythms and certain words. Of course I’m doing a monstrous injustice to all Dr Emoto’s hard work and good intentions. He travels around the world giving workshops to thousands of people who somehow feel their lives are the better for it. What’s wrong with that?

I did a little experiment with myself a few years ago: Every morning as I got out of bed I lit a candle and waved the socks I would wear that day over it as a statement of intent to “walk in the light”. What happened? Well of course I noticed my days improved, the days I did not do this were worse. This little ritual worked! Perhaps I should have extended this idea, written a book about it and started a following: “Socks Of Light Emissaries” SOLE. That’s quite catchy! Now I’m not undermining my practice or invalidating it. My point is that intent changes things even if it’s our perceptions. This, I believe is also what Dr Emoto is getting at although he seems to be doing a much better and convincing job than my socks experiment.

My very scant knowledge of quantum physics tells me that it has been shown (by scientific method) that a systems’ behavior is influenced by the process of observing it (and the intent of the observation). Well if we accept that then a lot changes about how we understand the world around us and our role in it. One of the things it changes is how one verifies hypotheses through observation and experiment. How does one sever the influence of observation and intent from a process or phenomenon such that we can understand and model it independently of our expectations? The underlying basis of Dr Emoto’s experiment was to establish that intention and meaning had an influence on the way water behaved when frozen. If we assume a whole lot of missing information about his methodology and accept the outcome it seems to confirm this idea. It also confirms that the experiment itself would be influenced by his expectations and assumptions. It seems that Dr Emoto’s experimental methodology employed a logical framework of reasoning that the outcome of the experiment tends to invalidate (huh?).

So… while I am skeptical about Dr Emotos’ experiment, his underlying assumptions and his methodology I’m quite happy to accept that life can be better if I and others intend it to be so. If I say kind things to people the water in their bodies will be better water. And if that is what his work achieves, can it be a bad thing?

Well yes, I think it can because if one does not explore the deeper ideas in this framework and challenge what presents at face value one can easily use it to reinforce a host of flimsy prejudices about who and what qualify for the “good” badge. If anything the underlying value in this experiment may reinforce an understanding of our integral, participative role in the unfolding of reality. I think that’s more than subtly different to passing judgement on heavy metal music and amorphous ice crystals.

Advertisement