What the Bleep do we know

From what I understand, the film has been highly critisized and discredited because of the unsubstantial evidence being portrayed as facts, much like the praised work by Dr. Emoto which is generally viewed as pseudoscience from the lack of using the double blind methodology.

There were some aspects in the film that can be backed up by modern philosophy like reality perception, but in general, I thought the ideas were uneffectively executed. I do find it ironic, however, that the film had quantum mechanics for the base of the film yet there was only one scientist who had an expertise in quantum mechanics which he later claimed that his interview was badly edited and misrepresented his views. He allowed for his 4 hour interview to be used in the film, all of which did not relate to consciousness or spirituality.

What also concerns me about this film is that some of the "experts" studied at the school of Ramtha which creates an overwhelming bias.

"The movie states humans are "90% water" when in fact newborns have around 78%, 1-year-olds around 65%, adult men about 60%, and adult women around 55%"

If you want more information on the film, I do suggest a wikipedia search
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_B ... Know%21%3F

Double-blind replications of Dr.Emoto's theories are currently being pursued.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/

Plumes wrote:

Quote:

---

yet there was only one scientist who had an expertise in quantum mechanics which he later claimed that his interview was badly edited and misrepresented his views. He allowed for his 4 hour interview to be used in the film, all of which did not relate to consciousness or spirituality.

---

Actually this in not true. Fred Alan Wolfe is a Quantum Physicist, and he extrapolates what he knows into the metaphysics field.
I have seen a lot of people opine that the scientists that had a metaphysics bent were somehow not considered scientists. This is the sort of thing that make criticisms like that not valuable to me.
The fact that only the physicists that 'count' are the ones complaining because their findings were used to support metaphysical concepts make this a very suspect criticism.
Did the Ramtha people mess up by presenting their beliefs as scientific fact? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the scientists that came to the same beliefs or conclusions as the Ramtha people were wrong about their conclusions.

I've seen the movie & was quite impressed. The Quantum information wasn't new to me but I was stimulated by the way they brought it together with a world (universe?) view that makes sense.

Ineterestingly I haven't seen any criticism of the movie that suggested there was anything actually wrong with the info presented; just some people didn't seem to have realised they were going to be associated with something so metaphysical. The couple of people I have actually heard clips of complaining sounded more like they were concerned their pieces might cause them problems in the orthodox physics/cosmology community.

Bit like what happened to those who originally ran into Einstein when they were proposing Quantum Mechanics in the first instance.

Personally I think it's about time people put physics & cosmology into a more meaningful context. Showing how it could relate to things affecting the average person is a good thing, no matter which group decided to sponsor it.

And I am very religion-sensitive & my sensibilities weren't affected at all by what was being presented. No proselytizing, no dogma, no selling of their beliefs that I could see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lordofthebunnies

Double-blind replications of Dr.Emoto's theories are currently being pursued.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/

---

Hi Lordofthebunnies, very interesting, this is what the link you provided says:

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/

Effects of distant intention on water crystals

Some people, when faced with claims like Dr. Emoto's "intention affects the formation of water cystals," immediately dismiss it as nonsense. Others uncritically accept the claim because it sounds nice. My first reaction is to try to replicate the claim to see it for myself. I conducted such a test with Dr. Emoto, where he and his staff were kept blind as to which bottles of water had been treated. The paper reporting the experiment has just come out. Here's the abstract:

DOUBLE-BLIND TEST OF THE EFFECTS OF DISTANT INTENTION ON WATER CRYSTAL FORMATION

The hypothesis that water “treated” with intention can affect ice crystals formed from that water was pilot tested under double-blind conditions. A group of approximately 2,000 people in Tokyo focused positive intentions towards water samples located inside an electromagnetically shielded room in California. That group was unaware of similar water samples set aside in a different location as controls. Ice crystals formed from both sets of water samples were blindly identified and photographed by an analyst, and the resulting images were blindly assessed for aesthetic appeal by 100 independent judges. Results indicated that crystals from the treated water were given higher scores for aesthetic appeal than those from the control water (p = 0.001, one-tailed), lending support to the hypothesis.

Citation: Radin, D. I., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. (2006). Explore, September/October 2006, Vol. 2, No. 5.

A triple-blind replication of this effect is presently underway.

---------------------------

About Dean Radin, the author of the study:

Radin's Blog: http://beta.blogger.com/profile/16131263574182645280

Dean Radin

* Gender: Male
* Industry: Science
* Occupation: Research psychologist
* Location: California : United States

Dean Radin's curriculum vitae (some data about it):
http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/dean.htm

Dean Radin is Senior Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) in Petaluma, California. He also serves as adjunct faculty at Sonoma State University and as a member of the Distinguished Consulting Faculty at Saybrook Graduate School.

Dr. Radin earned advanced degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and electrical engineering and psychology from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. Before joining the IONS research staff, he worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories, GTE Laboratories, Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, and three Silicon Valley research labs. Author of nearly 200 popular and technical articles, Radin is also author of The Conscious Universe (1997, HarperCollins) and Entangled Minds (2006, Simon & Schuster).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue Mage

What do people have against the movie?

I always read people complaining that the movie abuses quantum physics. Does it really?

Are the studies the movie sites valid? (Ice formation experiment, lowering crime in D.C. experiment)

---

Hi Blue Mage, some of the things described in the movie “What the bleep do we know?" have a lot to do with a document published by the USA Military titled “Teleportation Physics Study". I've included parts of that document in a post in this same thread:

- USA Military paper on "Psi", etc. Paradigm Shift?
[broken link, but it's in this same thread]

Take care. qbeac.

I've never seen this movie. Might have a ganders. The only things quantum I've read is this: [broken link]

and brian greene's 'fabric of the cosmos'

all really tough on the head, but the former is exceptionally detailed and....simple....for simple poeple

like me :P

Quote:

---

Dr. Radin earned advanced degrees in electrical engineering from the University of Massachusetts, and electrical engineering and psychology from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. Before joining the IONS research staff, he worked at AT&T Bell Laboratories, GTE Laboratories, Princeton University, University of Edinburgh, University of Nevada, and three Silicon Valley research labs.

---

Poor guy, sounds like he can't keep a job. :lol: Just kidding! :D His book "The Conscious Universe" is really good.

"What the Bleep" is like the movie "The Secret". You can spend all day tearing apart and analyzing the science. You can spend all your time criticizing each little detail and make yourself feel real satisfied and self-important. My how intellectual we all are. :roll: But, if you choose to spend your time that way, you will miss the big picture and the important points. We aren't victims in our life. We can make changes and better our lives. Even if you can't change your actual circumstances, you certainly can change your attitude about them and create a life where you can be happy, evolve, and move forward in a positive way. Even if the science isn't perfect, some people were unhappy with the way they were portrayed, etc, etc, what does that mean to YOUR life? Does that give you a good, self-satisfied excuse to remain critical and miserable? The movies are both about changing your life for the better. They are flawed, just as EVERYTHING about being human is flawed. Who do you know that is perfect? The overall message is what's imortant to me. And, I found them both to be inspiring. If I had to guess, I'd say both movies made more positive impacts in the lives of people than negative.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Painterhypnogirl

"What the Bleep" is like the movie "The Secret". You can spend all day tearing apart and analyzing the science. You can spend all your time criticizing each little detail and make yourself feel real satisfied and self-important. My how intellectual we all are. :roll: But, if you choose to spend your time that way, you will miss the big picture and the important points. We aren't victims in our life. We can make changes and better our lives. Even if you can't change your actual circumstances, you certainly can change your attitude about them and create a life where you can be happy, evolve, and move forward in a positive way. Even if the science isn't perfect, some people were unhappy with the way they were portrayed, etc, etc, what does that mean to YOUR life? Does that give you a good, self-satisfied excuse to remain critical and miserable? The movies are both about changing your life for the better. They are flawed, just as EVERYTHING about being human is flawed. Who do you know that is perfect? The overall message is what's imortant to me. And, I found them both to be inspiring. If I had to guess, I'd say both movies made more positive impacts in the lives of people than negative.

---

If it wasn't so long I'd make this my sig.

:lol: :D :lol: :D

Hehe! Just put a link to it as your sig. Hehe! Thanks for the compliment. I'm sure some grumbly-but is going to poke all kinds of holes in it and prove just how wrong I am. Fame is fleeting! :lol: