I have read Emoto's book. For me, it is a validation of the theory of human intention having effects on the physical world, in ways unexplainable by conventional scientific measurements.
Princeton University first set up a research laboratory called P.E.A.R. (Princeton Engineering Anomlaies Research) in the 1970s which closed in 2007 to study the effect of human intent/consciousness on random number generating machines. Various machines were made and shielded from all known electromagnetic radiation or interference, then tested to ensure they would only generate random numbers. Next, volunteers would come in and be asked to change the outcome of a machine. If it were generating a "heads" or "tails" coinflip, the volunteers would be asked to influence the event one way or the other. The results were tabulated and fascinating. There after many thousands of recorded experiments, it was shown that the number of times these machines varied from random chance was signficant though small. In other words, the human volunteer intention somehow affected an otherwise completely shielded random number generating machne. Some volunteers had more success than others. Indeed, some volunteers, had the machine do the opposite of what they set intent for! Interestingly groups of people especially husbands and wives, when they set their mind on altering an outcome had the strongest outcomes---much more strong than individuals.
These studies were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. They preceded Emoto's work. But they showed conclusively that there is a small but measurable effect of consciousness on the physical world, independent of known physics.
The PEAR group also pursued remote viewing and came out with enough "hits" or guesses about what an object was, to have the odds be one out of several billion that the viewer could do this by random guessing.
PEAR closed its doors at the end of February 2007 with its founder, Robert G. Jahn, concluding that after tens of millions of trials they had demonstrated that human intention has a slight effect on random-event machines. "For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data," Jahn said. Jahn felt that the work showed, on average, people can shift 2–3 events out of 10,000 from chance expectations.
These tiny deviations from chance have failed to convince mainstream scientists who feel that the effect is inconsistent and that relatively few negative studies would cancel it out. Physicist Robert L. Park said of PEAR, "It’s been an embarrassment to science, and I think an embarrassment for Princeton". Park maintains that if a coin is flipped enough times, even a slight imperfection can produce more than 50% heads, and that the "tiny statistical edges" PEAR reported are the result of statistical flaws. I (Matthew) disagree with Park after going over the PEAR data, because the researchers too meticulous care and detail in trying to assure that their experiments were not biased by any outside forces or interference. The subanalyses of certain volunteers was also fascinating, as some people's intentions had more of an effect on outcomes than others.
For me, Emoto's work continues this line of inquiry, namely, that conscious intention changes the quality of water, independent of other variables. When Emoto studied water labeled with negative phrases, the crystalline stuctures photographed were dark and sludgy. When he put labels on water that had positive emotions attached such as "love" "grace" "kindness," the crystals formed on freezing took on the most brilliant structures.
Emoto freely admitted he was not a trained scientist, and that his photographer's were encouraged to use their discretion as to which photographs to select from the experiments (i.e. the most beautiful ones associated with the blessings, and the ugliest pictures associated with the negative phrases or curses).
From Wikipedia:
"Commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls, and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.
In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto. Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientist, and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs.
In 2003, James Randi publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study.
In 2006, Emoto published a paper together with Dean Radin and others in the peer-reviewed Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing (of which Radin was co-editor-in-chief). They describe that in a double blind test approximately 2000 people in Tokyo could increase the aesthetic appeal of water stored in a room in California, compared to water in another room, solely through their positive intentions."
Matthew
Home
Pages: 1 
