Water into Wine: Your Questions Answered

Mar
5
2010
by
Lynne McTaggart
/
29
Comments

So many of you commented on our Water into Wine results – both positively and negatively — that I asked psychologist Gary Schwartz, director of the Laboratory of Advancement in Consciousness and Health of the University of Arizona, who designed our experiment, and his lab technician Mark Boccuzzi, to respond to your questions.Your comments are in italics, and his (and mine) in normal type.
I wish the experiment would be done in a different way to avoid as much as possible some outside influences as the temperature around beakers, humidity in the room, etc. If the changes in pH were statistically significant  (5-10 per cent of the inital value) than this would be of lesser importance. Otherwise, beakers should be placed in temperature/humidity-controlled environments and kept exactly under the same conditions for the target and control.
Dr. Schwartz’s response:
“Our experimental design — with pre- and post-intention controls, separate control beakers, and dummy control days — takes into account changes in temperature, humidity, evaporation, etc. Of course, control of the environment is ideal.  However, we are also interested in real-life applications, where such controls do not exist.
What you got is a statistically insignificant result.
Actually, statistical significance is based on number of samples taken and stability of effects.  Our experimental design provides statistical power, even though it is only a single exploratory demonstration of a possible phenomenon.
I would suggest that you repeat this experiment in a better controlled environment and possibly to see of the volume of abeaker would make a difference on results.
Absolutely, says Dr. Schwartz.  That’s one of one of many experiments that should be conducted in the future.
This is just one trial. It is not enough to make any projections
Or to go on to a live experiment on a lake. This looks to me not very scientific.

Dr Schwartz: Our experimental design was very scientific with many built-in control conditions.  The lake experiment, on the other hand, is far less so, although we will be attempting a controlled situation by taking several samples of the lake, creating controls, etc.
What is most needed are replications of our original Water into Wine experimental design – as we did with the Germination Experiment, the Leaf Experiment and the Clean Water Experiment.
Lynne adds:
As you may recall, we ran the Germination Experiment six times, the Leaf Experiment three times and the Clean Water Experiment twice. When you do something once, it’s a simple interesting demonstration.  Only when you get the same result multiple times under identical conditions can you begin to claim that you have credible scientific evidence of merit.
It seems to me that the water you used is an unknown variable i.e., you don’t know what is in it.
Dr. Schwartz:
Yes, and done purposely.  We wanted to use water provided to — and drunk by — a large community. After all, we’re seeking to discover whether our Intention Experiments can affect real life targets.
Our experimental design makes sure that two beakers of the same water are always compared (whatever happens to be in the water).  Future experiments can compare different kinds of water.
I think using liquid with a predetermined stable pH would be
better, to eliminate unknown substances that may effect temperature, reaction time etc.

Dr. Schwartz:
That would make a good future experiment.
To control the experiment even more tightly, each beaker and its meticulously calibrated and matched measuring device should have been ‘isolated’ in an airtight and temperature controlled isolation chamber to prevent temperature variables from making a difference in each beaker as to how much CO2 and other gases might be absorbed by the different beakers. In addition, water samples have to be selected from the same source and equilibrated meticulously in the same type of very clean glass beakers without cleaning agent residues. In my opinion, these are just some additional variables that need to be controlled tightly if they had not already been considered.

Dr. Schwartz:
All of these variables have been tightly controlled, thanks.
You never publish your results.
Lynne:
That’s not true.  Dr. Schwartz presented a paper and compiled the results of our six Germination Experiments at the Society for Scientific Exploration’s 2th Annual Meeting in June 25-28 2008.  The paper was published in meeting’s 2008 proceedings. The link for that abstract is:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/meetings/program_27th_annual.pdf
Our paper was presented on Thursday, June 26, and you’ll find the abstract on p 19 of this PDF. Our results were found to be highly statistically significant, when examined in a variety of ways.
You also can watch a video of Dr. Schwartz’s presentation of our results at that meeting by going to:
http://www.scientificexploration.org/talks/27th_annual/27th_annual_schwartz_intention_seedling.html
This paper demonstrates why it is important to replicate your results. As we explained earlier, a single experiment is nothing more than an interesting demonstration – a violation of our expectations that could be caused by anything.  The results of our Water into Wine Experiment and indeed our Peace Experiment are only interesting oddities at this stage.
When you can achieve the same result using the same experimental design under controlled scientific conditions repeatedly you have something worthy of being called a scientifically validated positive result. With the Germination study, we were able to pool the results, compare seeds sent intention, and days sent intention, with our dummy experiments.  That yielded some firm results.
We have only presented and published the Germination Experiment results because it is the only experiment we’ve conducted six times.  Our other experiments need to be replicated numerous times more.  When we do, we will publish them.
If you have more questions, please write them here and we’ll do our best to answer them.

Lynne McTaggart

Lynne McTaggart is an award-winning journalist and the author of seven books, including the worldwide international bestsellers The Power of Eight, The Field, The Intention Experiment and The Bond, all considered seminal books of the New Science and now translated into some 30 languages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



29 comments on “Water into Wine: Your Questions Answered”

  1. Would have liked to read Dr Schwartz response to queries over whether the data actually show an effect, and how it was presented. About 20% of the comments raised these concerns.
    Michael Duggan.

  2. Please provide the numbers so that we can see them for ourselves. Or LARGE graphs so that we can see them.

  3. Also I believe many questions were raised about the results in Ph levels being opposite what was intended. Would appreciate response to this as well

  4. So now you know it works . . So when are you going to cause the floride in water to vanish ? Or make a cities water a lot cleaner . . It is possible to do the force is there to be used . . Or even better to make the dead spots in the ocean alive again ( have Oxygen in it ) . .

  5. I'm glad to see you responding to the concerns raised. Your work is very important and perhaps that's why criticism is a positive thing; I think we all want to see scientifically measurable experiments that can be repeated with significant statistical responses consistently. I look forward to hearing when this experiment will be repeated. While I can understand wanting to replicate real life targets, I personally would like to see as many variables eliminated as possible, i.e. distance from heat sources to ensure the scientific community will also consider the results valid. Thank you for all your efforts!

  6. Perhaps i am reading too much into some of the responses, but i was taken aback at some of the criticisms regarding the experiment. I picked up tones of arrogance and they way comments were phrased a type of challenge. There is a way to suggest, request and recommend.
    For most of us, this is a new world, and I think Ms. McTaggert and all her associates involved are doing a wonderful job. Their purpose is to seek and one has to pick a starting point and move from there. Each step brings new awareness and lessons. We are very blessed that they are bringing us along for the ride.
    linda

  7. I for one am pleased with the series of experiments. Sure, there are always ways to improve, and yes, we need to replicate experiments as often as reasonable. This is slow work. But accurate, careful work often feels slow. This is the nature of the beast.
    The main thing I take from these experiments is we are moving in a direction which supports the view that the universe is much more interesting and interconnected than first meets the eye!

  8. I too would like to see the original data published, and visual data such as tables and graphs that are visible. It is hard to convince the casual reader that small effects can indeed be highly significant. It's in the math.

  9. I was disappointed with the title of the experiment, "Water into wine." It was deceptive and off-putting. It turned me and others off. A better, more accurate, title, with less typical Wall Street advertising hype, would be "Changing the PH of water via intention."
    You have such an incredible opportunity here and it's sad to see it being wasted. I say wasted because soon people will come to associate "The Intention Experiment" with off the wall thinking, such as your web site requests for intentions, (prayers) to heal sick people. Eventually Lynne you will have to acknowledge what communicologists have discovered, that a person's integrity is a fundamental factor when attempting to manifest intentions. A sick person must first acknowledged that they have intended themselves to be sick. Prayers by well meaning intenders are at cross purposes with the sick person's intentions, and, neither are conscious enough to know this.
    For example: Experiment participants who yell at their children (or hide things from their spouse) and then try to change wine into water have no idea that the abuse they inflict occupies space, it's an incomplete, and therefore it saps ones manifesting powers.
    I'd like to see you elicit as much feedback and participation about presenting a project (it's wording, designs, etc.) as you do on reporting what to many are disappointing and at best, iffy results. It's possible to prove but not the way you have been going about it.
    One last comment. Of the three Amsterdam workshop participants, those were the most significant healings? Only one was significant. I'm thinking your presentation needs work. With that many people you should have had at least a dozen reporting healings. If your integrity is out it affects the outcomes of all with whom you relate.
    Kerry

  10. I agree with Kerry. I was looking for a simple Yes or No...Did the water turn into wine... similary to the way Jesus performed it for the wedding ceremony? I have been so pleasantly taken by Lynne's books...they are intriguing ... but I felt let down by what I thought were very mediocre results in healing...and then with the Ph levels in the water.

  11. Firstly, thank you Lynne for all the time and effort you have placed into your research and your continuing commitment to the understanding of human ability. It is through pioneers like yourself and Dr. Schwartz that we are gaining glimpes of our capability and our enlightened creative heritage.
    However, as has been proved throughout history, those who look to expand our perceptions and alter our perspectives are often subjected to ridicule. Yet, their work has been a necessary moment in time that has propelled our evolution to new and unheralded levels. Of course the ability to criticise is ones own right but we have a choice how that criticism may be presented or communicated. To do so in a supportive, creative and constructive manner would, to me, seem to be a wiser approach than a destructive, dismissive manner. Surely, all who seek true enlightment and appreciate the benefits of positive energy flow and its creative capability can understand the 'intention' behind this.
    Although we cannot see the end result of many of our thoughts and actions, there must be those of us who have the courage to step out from the safety of our inner boundaries and put one foot squarley in the unknown, for how else can we evolve, how else can we progress, how else can we discover the greatness that lies within us? And, although we cannot see along the entire path of discovery, we have forgottern that we don't NEED to. We have fogettern that the fun comes in the journey and in the questions that we ask along the way.
    Regardless of our current level of consciousness, we ALL possess the ability to 'tap' into a higher state of awareness at ANY time. This is REGARDLESS to the level of our current understanding. All there has to be is a hope and a desire and we will find the way will be presented to us. After all, are not hope and desire the very basic building blocks of the human experience?
    Judgement then would seem to be a waste of energy and time. Prehaps we should practice sending you (Lynne) positive intention and encouragement for being brave enough to dedicate your life for our advancement, regardless of our mindFULL opinions. Thank you again.

  12. Lynne,
    Focused sceptical mental energy is as powerful as focused intentional mental energy. I’m amazed at the number of sceptical comments here, hence there must be an even greater number of sceptical readers. This volume of scepticism must have an effect on your experiments.
    Everyone wants YOU to PROVE this stuff works to THEM.
    How about everyone who is sceptical of the power of mental intention go design, fund and perform an experiment which attempts to prove that intention does NOT have an effect on matter.
    Materialist science loves to debunk the experiments carried out by Lynne and others by saying the evidence is not repeatable, but strangely enough there is little money spent on proving mental energy doesn’t work.
    There are millions spent on proving it does. Do a search on: ‘funding on brainwave research’.
    Expectation and intention are not mutually exclusive. You can have all the positive intentions you want, but if deep down you don’t believe your intention will have an effect, then your expectations will overrule.
    Be a sceptic and get sceptical results. Use intention with expectation and prove it works for yourself.
    Write On!

  13. I agree with much of what Kerry said. I do think she should have edited her comments more closely before posting them. She said something about turning wine into water. I'm sure she meant it the other way around. I have turned wine into water, as I'm sure many of you have. Just drink the wine, and later pee it as water.
    I do not agree that people who are sick have intended that. At least not in every case. I have participated in the weekly intention healing sessions a few times. I would like to have some report back as to whether any favorable outcomes occur.
    Conny

  14. I am not English so my writing will be basic .
    I received a mail about your experiences on wine and about Masaru Emoto. I am convinced he is right. I red all this writings .
    I am interested in following your experimentation about wine ;because in the Middle Age ,a nun called Hildegarde of Bingen described the anatomicbody , gave cuonsels about dietand she explain we should put water drops in wine for good health !
    That nun described physiology ,mental deases that we proved now by modern means .
    I cannot be in Japan and i wish to participate by mind .
    cordially
    michele

  15. I have every belief in the power of intention and admire Lynne's work. However, I'd prefer to see a more open test. Perhaps two identical glass beakers of water on magnetic stirrers, with identical perfectly calibrated ph meters. The electrodes to be visible in the beakers and the whole set-up, including digital readout and live graphical output to be visible on webcam. Perhaps executed under transparent cover in a public open space! It would be amazing to watch the effect 'live'.

  16. First I want to express my gratitude for all the efforts done to help expend our potential.
    I am convinced that the scientifical part in the experiment is looked after with care. If there is a weak point or link in the experiment it is ourselves. In my view there has to be a certain integrety in the participians. Even in the meditative state of mind there might (unconciously) underlie a resistance which might influence the outcome. Not necessarely enough to undo the effect of the many others. But how would you know how many people actually are doing what they are supposed to do?
    - I agree with being modest in the naming of the experiment. There is no reallity in making wine. But cleaning our water is necessary, second best to not spoiling it.

  17. Thank you very much for taking time to answer some of our comments.
    Please not that I'm not a "skeptic" but just critical to scientific results, whatever the kind of experiment.
    You say this first "water into wine" experiment is just an insight and need to be replicated to demonstrate any robust effect. Right. However, you conclude the report of the experiment by saying:
    "So this, our 19th experiment, is also our 16th successful Intention Experiment – DEMONSTRATING, once again, that our collective thoughts have the power to change – perhaps even heal – our world."
    As you said, you didn't demonstrate anything in this experiment.As we know, this is frontier science, so you must be careful and stick to scientific robust standards to get these results acknowledged by scientific community. These results seems adequate only for people already convinced of power of intention. I assume this is not your goal.
    i whish you all the best for your next experiments.
    Best regards,
    julien

  18. Dear All,
    I have used intention in my life & have seen the positive results thereof. I thank and fully appreciate what Lynne is doing. I felt the last intention experiment could have been performed a little better, and I didn't see how the results were great enough to merit any accolades...the work itself IS important and I hope it continues.
    Conny - as an intuitive healer and massage therapist I have come to understand and accept that we DO create our own illness and life situations. This is done on a subconscious level and is very subtle; to learn more about this there is a good book available that will explain it to you. The title is "Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom" by Christiane Northrup, M.D.
    Causing our own illness is often as subtle as our self-talk, how we "feel" about ourselves, the unresolved issues from our childhood (such as lessons in church that we are born with original sin and therefore "unworthy", etc.) these things get stuck inside us and we have to consciously work to leave them behind us and go into healing.
    But, again, Thank You, Lynne, for the work you're doing. I think in the long run it will prove to be what saves humanity and our planet.

  19. Dear Lynne
    I was very happy to read the response to our comments.
    Before commenting further, I would state that I don't believe in intention, I KNOW that it works. What is at stake here is to demonstrate its effectiveness to the sceptics in a scientific way.
    I'm sure that all criticisms emanated from people in the same mood.
    I was happy to read that for your scientific team,the last experiment was just a milestone, not a scientific demonstration which will require a number of replications.
    So it seems that there is only here a communication problem.
    You, Lynne are tending to market the results in a dramatic way while they are neither validated nor, in the last experiment, readable.
    I thind that we, the intenders, are sort of mental stakeholders in your effort, therefore a democratic and very effective process would be to take advantage of the scientific skills many of us have in the following way:
    - publish before the experiment is run a detailed paper providing the scientific plans (objective, methods, evaluation, etc) for us to comment.
    - publish after the experiment a report providing detailed results, readable graphs, numerical analysis (statistical if applicable), discussion and conclusion. A common practice.
    Lynne, please consider all the points I made as a supportive action to your effort. I wish you, and us, all the best for the next experiments.

  20. I would like to participate in the water into wine experiment, but I don´t understand how

  21. Your comments raise a bunch of new questions and some other thoughts. If you don't mind, here is my 'round robin' response:
    First, why did I call it the 'Water into Wine' experiment when we in fact did not attempt to change 'Water into Wine' but were trying to lower pH? Why do I call it a 'demonstration' of anything when we didn't prove anything yet? Why don't I publish the figures yet? Why don't I do bigger and more elaborate studies?
    In any Intention Experiment, my own job is twofold: first to make this sometimes complex information comprehensible to the layperson and second to encourage all of you to participate. I attempt to accomplish both jobs through journalistic skill.
    Getting people to give up part of their Saturday requires engaging their hearts and minds. It requires, as they say in Britain, 'bread and circuses'. In a word, it requires entertainment.
    'Water into Wine' was a metaphor, of course, for lowering the pH of water so that it was closer to the pH of wine.
    I called it that to conjure up mental acidic associations in you as well. I wanted all of you to imagine wine (a more acidic medium than water) when you were sending intention to the water.
    My books are filled with metaphors, to enable laypeople to understand many complex notions that are usually described in science through mathematics.
    Any announcements from me about the actual experiment of course clarified that what we were actually doing was lowering pH.
    However, I doubt whether I would have got as much participation if I'd called our experiment the 'Lowering of the pH of Water by One-tenth of a pH Experiment'.
    We are not claiming to have proven anything. A single study is still simply a demonstration. As I've said repeatedly, it demonstrates the possibility that there could be an effect through the power of intention.
    It PROVES nothing at this point, because we only have a single demonstration. As scientists put it, our 'N' - or number of tested things - equals 1.
    With our Germination Experiments, we had 30 time 4 seeds - or an N of 120 - with each of the six experiments. We also ran six dummy experiments.
    In the end, our N turned out to be 1440 (120 times 12 experiments in total). That is what gave our study statistical power and enabled us to claim 'significant' effects.
    We will need to run the Water into Wine Experiment many more times before we have such statistical power.
    The scientists are reluctant to publish the actual figures at this point because we don't have anything scientifically conclusive yet. We have only a demonstration of a possible effect that will be verified (or shot down) by replication.
    In our earlier studies, we didn't even go into detail or show graphs until we had carried out many studies. Nevertheless, our participants were so clamorous for results that we decided to release our general evidence.
    We will keep you posted as our numbers build. We'll be replicating the Water into Wine study on March 20, in Japan, in front of Reconnective healers.
    The final question, why don't we build vastly sophisticated experiments, has largely to do with expense. This work is carried out without pay for all involved, despite the vast labor-intensiveness of each study.
    We have donated more than £100,000 to create websites and carry our early experiments.
    At the moment, the scientists often donate their free time and grant money to our research.
    Our web team has donated its time because they believe in our work.
    Occasionally a company with deeper pockets donates money for a larger server, as they did in the Peace Intention Experiments. A large magazine in Holland has offered to underwrite our Gaia Experiment, and so will cover the cost of building the terrarium needed.
    I am delighted to run any experiment with possible validity and that fits in with the ethos of The Intention Experiment so long as costs are covered. I invite any of you who would like to see more elaborate experiments to press the 'Donate' button on the front of our website and provide us with the funds to do so.

  22. Dear all,
    Some questions persist about our last Water into Wine Experiment, so I’m going to make a final stab at answering them.
    First, why did I call it the ‘Water into Wine’ experiment when we in fact did not attempt to change ‘Water into Wine’ but were trying to lower pH? Why do I call it a ‘demonstration’ of anything when we didn’t prove anything yet? Why don’t I publish the figures yet? Why don’t I do bigger and more elaborate studies?
    In any Intention Experiment, my own job is twofold: first to make this sometimes complex information comprehensible to the layperson and second to encourage all of you to participate. I attempt to accomplish both jobs through journalistic skill.
    Getting people to give up part of their Saturday requires engaging their hearts and minds. It requires, as they say in Britain, ‘bread and circuses’. In a word, it requires entertainment.
    ‘Water into Wine’ was a metaphor, of course, for lowering the pH of water so that it was closer to the pH of wine.
    I called it that to conjure up mental acidic associations in you as well. I wanted all of you to imagine wine (a more acidic medium than water) when you were sending intention to the water.
    My books are filled with metaphors, to enable laypeople to understand many complex notions that are usually described in science through mathematics.
    Any announcements from me about the actual experiment of course clarified that what we were actually doing was lowering pH.
    However, I doubt whether I would have got as much participation if I’d called our experiment the ‘Lowering of the pH of Water by One-tenth of a pH Experiment’.
    We are not claiming to have proven anything. A single study is still simply a demonstration. As I’ve said repeatedly, it demonstrates the possibility that there could be an effect through the power of intention.
    It PROVES nothing at this point, because we only have a single demonstration. As scientists put it, our ‘N’ – or number of tested things – equals 1.
    With our Germination Experiments, we had 30 time 4 seeds – or an N of 120 — with each of the six experiments. We also ran six dummy experiments.
    In the end, our N turned out to be 1440 (120 times 12 experiments in total). That is what gave our study statistical power and enabled us to claim ‘significant’ effects.
    We will need to run the Water into Wine Experiment many more times before we have such statistical power.
    The scientists are reluctant to publish the actual figures at this point because we don’t have anything scientifically conclusive yet. We have only a demonstration of a possible effect that will be verified (or shot down) by replication.
    In our earlier studies, we didn’t even go into detail or show graphs until we had carried out many studies. Nevertheless, our participants were so clamorous for results that we decided to release our general evidence.
    We will keep you posted as our numbers build. We’ll be replicating the Water into Wine study on March 20, in Japan, in front of Reconnective healers.
    The final question, why don’t we build vastly sophisticated experiments, has largely to do with expense. This work is carried out without pay for all involved, despite the vast labor-intensiveness of each study.
    We have donated more than £100,000 to create websites and carry our early experiments.
    At the moment, the scientists often donate their free time and grant money to our research.
    Our web team has donated its time because they believe in our work.
    Occasionally a company with deeper pockets donates money for a larger server, as they did in the Peace Intention Experiments. A large magazine in Holland has offered to underwrite our Gaia Experiment, and so will cover the cost of building the terrarium needed.
    I am delighted to run any experiment with possible validity and that fits in with the ethos of The Intention Experiment so long as costs are covered.
    We have a 'Donate' button on the front page of our website. For those of you who would like to see more elaborate experiments, please feel free to press the button and provide us with the funds to do so.

  23. for me water into wine is not interesting; what is important is the experiments that we help lakes - as is your intention with the next experiment - , bundle our intentions and send it to those areas on Earth that need our healing

  24. We are all different and see these experiments in different ways. For a scientist, they are going to want to see tight controls and very strict procedure. Understandable. I think it's great that all sorts of people are getting interested in this, and if some are negative about it, then it's a fantastic opportunity for all those who feel connected to the experiments to develop their compassion and understanding of others. We're always going to face challenges, and they're there so we can get through them and become better. This way nothing is negative.
    Personally I love the experiments, and having a large group of people sending out loving energy to heal the earth is so awesome. No matter what the outcome is, the fact that that so many people are coming together for something positive makes it a success.

Why wait any longer when you’ve already been waiting your entire life?

Top usercarttagbubblemagnifiercrosschevron-down