Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#71

Post by lovich »

kyralis wrote: post #61
lovich wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chiropractory is another pseudoscience that started early and has been surprisingly resilient in spite of the lack of evidence. I was flabbergasted when I learned in my 30s that this was a made up medicine by an OG antivaxxer and magnetic medicine proponent due to the fact that insurance would still pay for it when I was a kid at least, and real doctors still recommended it on occasion.[1][2] [1] https://en.wikipedia…

The problem with making claims about the chiropractic practices is that it spans such a huge range of "absolute bullshit" to "physically grounded adjustments". Joints and vertebrae (especially) really can be out of alignment, and you can absolutely see that on imaging. Muscles in constant tension can be self-reinforcing in ways that don't easily correct themselves without an external force. My wife has significant ba…

> The problem with making claims about the chiropractic practices is that it spans such a huge range of "absolute bullshit" to "physically grounded adjustments".

No it’s not a problem. When the founder claims he got the information from a ghost of a doctor 50 years ago, the whole thing is bullshit from the ground up. It’s pseudoscience.

Chiropractic “medicine” isn’t just claiming that they can make your joints feel better, the claim that it can cure cancer is at the core of it. It’s no better than a massage, but wants to claim the title of “medicine” or “doctor” for its practitioners when that’s as far from the truth as homeopathic “medicine”.

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#73

Post by BLKNSLVR »

qsera wrote: post #67
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's enough money in 'crank health' that, if it were possible to publish something that might have a chance of lending some credibility (and thus expanding the breadth of the vulnerable customer base), then I would think it would have been done already. This implies to me that the counter-evidence is strong and complete enough to discourage 'investment' into such a pursuit.

>There's enough money in 'crank health' that, But there is many order of magnitude more money invested in preventing the publication of something like that.. All the "reputed" journals who gets funded by pharma would not touch such a study, despite any merits it have. This is so apparent to anyone who is not completely oblivious of how the world work that no one in their right mind will even attempt to fund such a st…

They need to wait for someone not in their right mind then. Has RFK been petitioned?

(this is not a serious reply, my apologies. I get that entrenched views are very difficult to change, hence the phrase "Science advances one funeral at a time", and funding sources are bias-generating - refer oil companies and climate change. Having said that, isn't any human that drinks any water taking part in homeopathy? I mean, dehydrated folks are likely to be less healthy than hydrated folks, but I think that's a case of correlation doesn't imply causation)

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#74

Post by adrianN »

qsera wrote: post #45
adrianN wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the number of citations you could get for a solid double blind study that showed homeopathy to beat placebo. The only better impact I could imagine would be showing that climate change doesn’t actually exist.

Mmmm..the question is..who would fund it. And if someone funded it, who would publish it...

You get funding for such a study the same way you get funding for anything else: first you run cheap small studies, perhaps in mice, perhaps observational, that show an interesting effect and motivate why you need money to run a proper clinical study.

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#75

Post by hks0 »

fooker wrote: post #60

I wonder if we are finding structure here because we are looking for structure. Similar how you can find human faces in random pixels or rocks.

But what if we find the exact same face in different rocks or pixels? I also think the researchers were aware of this issue as the article mentions they were careful not bias their model.

Very interesting point though!

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#76

Post by qsera »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #73
qsera wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's enough money in 'crank health' that, But there is many order of magnitude more money invested in preventing the publication of something like that.. All the "reputed" journals who gets funded by pharma would not touch such a study, despite any merits it have. This is so apparent to anyone who is not completely oblivious of how the world work that no one in their right mind will even attempt to fund such a st…

They need to wait for someone not in their right mind then. Has RFK been petitioned? (this is not a serious reply, my apologies. I get that entrenched views are very difficult to change, hence the phrase "Science advances one funeral at a time", and funding sources are bias-generating - refer oil companies and climate change. Having said that, isn't any human that drinks any water taking part in homeopathy? I mean, d…

>Has RFK been petitioned?

It is really funny when people claim that Trump just want his friends to make money.

Will someone explain to me how all Trumps friends are making money from pseudo science and not from the biggest and ever growing pharma business, that he appoints someone like RFK in that position.

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#77

Post by aweiher »

aeonik wrote: post #21
hyperhello wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Homeopathic medicine is already recommended by 1 out of 1000000000000000000 doctors.

Homeopathy actually works great depending on what you use it for: I've been trying homeopathic vodka and it's done wonders for my health.

You are microdosing alcohol

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#78

Post by qsera »

kyralis wrote: post #65
OutOfHere wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps some very traditional ones would. Most people are just concerned with addressing their symptoms. Rightly or wrongly, homeopathic products are considered medicines, not supplements, and people in general are very mindful of spending money on medicines that don't work.

> Rightly or wrongly, homeopathic products are considered medicines, not supplements, and people in general are very mindful of spending money on medicines that don't work. [Citation needed]. People spend enormous amounts of money on junk "cures" and have done for centuries. Homeopathy is just one of the many current such scams.

You are forgetting the fact that many allopathic medicines are also junk cures which are seldom not better than a placebo (pushed through by flawed methodologies and corruption). And when they are found, they gets banned in US, but continued to be used in third world, where the now "junk" cures are sold as legit science!

This could be why Homeopathy can compete with allopathy because both the versions are "junk", so "junk" sold by someone who has more time to talk with the patients win..

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#79

Post by qsera »

adrianN wrote: post #74
qsera wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mmmm..the question is..who would fund it. And if someone funded it, who would publish it...

You get funding for such a study the same way you get funding for anything else: first you run cheap small studies, perhaps in mice, perhaps observational, that show an interesting effect and motivate why you need money to run a proper clinical study.

Approximately how old are you? 20s? 30s? 40s? 50s?...

Re: Scientists find molecular-level evidence for two structures in liquid water

#80

Post by jzer0cool »

Could someone explain why raising standing water temperature to boiling, I see a constant stream of bubbles forming at the bottom of pan and floating up? Was there air between the water molecules to begin with? Any articles to help explain? I understand the obvious phase transition to gas which would escape at the top, but cannot quite grasp how we get the trapped air at the bottom.
Post reply on HN