Science of Water Memory?

KUMAR5 , highlighted

Your Insight is spot on Brilliant , because it is True .

river
Making a mass existing system, so taken as pseudoscience having much potential benefits to humanity, a science, should be the prime goal and duty of science for science by new understsndings. Irrespective of fact, it may not be in interest of that pseudodcience.

Can people here deny that molecular presence of active and other substances in higher dilutions is possible in consideration of adsorption snd desorption theory as newly explored in this topic?

It should be common householders experience that smell of many substances kept in glass bottkes, do not go inspite of many many washings by plain water.
 
KUMAR5 said:
Further, Why pseudoscience can not be taken as pending to become science? Because anything, now stamped as pseudoscience can become science with new understanding in view of so anticipsted non absolute and non final nature of science? As it happened in this tópic. :)


No, absolutely wrong!
Most pseudoscience is highly imaginative crap with a few scientific words thrown in to give a semblance of real science.
Some, some may progress to science, but very very few.

I Agree ,

Most pad , but Not All .
 
No, absolutely wrong!
Most pseudoscience is highly imaginative crap with a few scientific words thrown in to give a semblance of real science.
Some, some may progress to science, but very very few.
Understanding in this topic can be classified under very very few, as you indicated above.
 
Prove that water-memory evidence is not based on science , pad . You can't .
Sure I can!! You're in the pseudoscience section to start!!
And of course others here have shown the nonsense proposed, to be well, you know, just nonsense....or if you prefer pseudoscience.
I mean this is nearly as inane as your own silly claim/s about Aliens conducting atomic wars on Mars river. :D

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/05/the-memory-of-water/
 
river said:
Prove that water-memory evidence is not based on science , pad . You can't .


Sure I can!! You're in the pseudoscience section to start!!
And of course others here have shown the nonsense proposed, to be well, you know, just nonsense....or if you prefer pseudoscience.
I mean this is nearly as inane as your own silly claim/s about Aliens conducting atomic wars on Mars river. :D

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/05/the-memory-of-water/

Your Rant here has proved that you can't prove me wrong .
 
Don't be silly. It's pseudoscience nonsense, pure and simple, and that's why you are here, transferred from the sciences.

For the time being, I sm concerned about satisfying molecular presence of active substances in higher dilutions and how it was not detected in varification of water memory expriment. Because upto now these were considered only plain water but now it is justified that it is solution. Rest homeopathic community will take care.
 
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/05/the-memory-of-water/



https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Water_memory

Water memory is one of the concepts central to modern (i.e., post-Avogadro) homeopathy.

Due to the nature of the dilutions in a homeopathic preparation, no molecule of any active ingredient remains in the final product.[note 1] To get around this fact, homeopaths fall back onto the idea that the solution somehow retains a "memory" of the solute (rarely is an explanation given for why the mere memory of a substance should be better at performing a given task than the actual substance itself). Although it is possible to argue that only proof of efficacy in homeopathic preparations is important, water memory has become an essential element for anyone trying to offer up rationalizations for a mechanism of action. To highlight its importance, the homeopathic apologist's journal Homeopathy devoted a whole issue to water memory.[1]

This idea takes many forms, each of which is less plausible than the last.

Summary
The completely unscientific nature of these hypotheses has been explored elsewhere, but they have a number of flaws in common. The explorations start with the assumption that the phenomenon in question actually exists, and moves from there to try to find a reason why it exists. None of these reasons have any scientific plausibility. Furthermore, the experiments fail to provide adequate control and rigorous determinations of purity, and fail to assess error in the measurements. The proponents also give possible explanations of the phenomenon without any link between their "data" and the proposed physical explanations. Explanations include increased or decreased levels of hydrogen bonding; macroscopic clustering of water molecules; and polymerization (which is impossible unless you have the right trading card in your hand).
 
:( Bless me Father, for I have sinned; it's been 60 years since my last confession Father..........:D you believe what you will river, seriously! :p

Its not about belief pad , its about the science data . Its about Real Information Gathered , Scientifically .
 
Back
Top