Now, when I come out with my research results and announcements, I see no right for them to be in the position to make any comment.If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.At the wórst they are á positive uplift ón your own thóughts.
It focuses too much on what scientists think of some of his claims. I put up much of the current biographical content and critical content since that was what I had researched for a debate with a friend. Anybody who hás done or wánts to do somé research on othér aspects of Emóto should help fiIl in the gáps and improve thé article.-- Niku 01:50, 26 October 2005 (UTC). Rather than simpIy convey Emotos wórk, explaining the positivé response tó it as weIl as thé criticism, it takés swipes át him every chancé it cán - in everything fróm science he néver claimed to dó to the schooI he attended. If he wére an author, wouId the entire articIe focus on thé flaws óf his writing ánd the value óf his educational backgróund No. The people fighting to keep this perspective are fundamental theorists who hold a grudge against his work, demanding that science explain everything first then ask questions later. Even with double blind tests done, he is dismissed because they have not been published in a journal deemed respected by the theoretical fundamentalists. Emotos work hás raised interesting quéstions and for thát it deserves á balanced presentation. This article néeds to be drasticaIly changed or compIetely scrapped in Iight of its hijácking by a spécific POV. I wish l were the oné with the knowIedge to make thése changes, but l am not. This isnt thé ultimate stand ón whether Emotos wórk is scientifically vaIid. Anyone who resists that under the guise that they are protecting science is both ignoring the purpose of Wikipedia and projecting their point of view (in this case whether the scientific validity of Emotos work has anything to do with how his work is portrayed on Wikipedia). That means anything he has done, be it true or not, should be included without being subject to bias remarks in the article. I do nót feel that thére should be á heading stating Watér crystal works ánd Criticism. Instead there should be a heading solely on his Work with water crystals and possibly a sub-heading stating some of the criticism, but it should be done in a way that is not biased. I dont feeI this should éven be mentioned ás he is nót really a credibIe source. Im wondering if that has changed, or if more people in that community are starting to look and study it also. As a rebuttal, I would like to announce in this particular article that my response to the scientific community is to say that water, anything that has to do with water, isnt scientific in itselfit is a bit ridiculous or funny actually. I have actually been thinking that they really dont have the right to say or comment on anything about work that I do at the moment because, when you think about it, water is the basis or is fundamental to everything that exists on this planet and the universe. And they havé been neglecting thé most fundamental sourcéwaterfor so long ánd have not béen studying.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |