Pathological Water Science -- Four Examples and What They Have in Common

TL;DR

This paper reviews four cases of pathological water science, highlighting common pitfalls like contamination and bias, to help researchers avoid pursuing false phenomena and improve scientific rigor in water studies.

Contribution

It identifies common issues in water-related pathological science and offers insights to prevent researchers from wasting resources on unsubstantiated phenomena.

Findings

Contamination and nanobubbles often confound water experiments.

Imprecise definitions hinder reproducibility and validation.

Confirmation bias and poor standards are prevalent in pathological water science.

Abstract

Pathological science occurs when well-intentioned scientists spend extended time and resources studying a phenomena that isn't real. Researchers who get caught up in pathological science are usually following the scientific method and performing careful experiments, but they get tricked by nature. The study of water has had several protracted episodes of pathological science, a few of which are still ongoing. We discuss four areas of pathological water science -polywater, the Mpemba effect, Pollack's "fourth phase" of water, and the effects of static magnetic fields on water. Some common water-specific issues emerge such as the contamination and confounding of experiments with dissolved solutes and nanobubbles. General issues also emerge such as imprecision in defining what is being studied, bias towards confirmation rather than falsification, and poor standards for reproducibility. We hope this work helps researchers avoid wasting valuable time and resources pursuing pathological science.