Fact check: Are there any scientific papers showing evidence of water crystals forming due to intention?

1. Summary of the results

Yes, there are scientific papers showing evidence of water crystals forming due to intention. The analyses reveal multiple peer-reviewed studies that have investigated this phenomenon with statistically significant results.

The primary research consists of double-blind and triple-blind controlled experiments examining the effects of distant intention on water crystal formation ^{[1] [2]}. These studies consistently found that water samples "treated" with intention produced ice crystals that were rated as significantly more aesthetically beautiful compared to control samples.

Key statistical findings include:

• P = 0.001 (one-tailed) for aesthetic appeal differences between treated and control water crystals ^[1]
• P = 0.03 (one-tailed) for crystal beauty ratings in intentionally treated conditions versus proximal controls ^[2]
• Modestly significant differences in blind ratings of subjective aesthetic beauty in a triple-blind replication study ^[3]

The research appears to have been replicated multiple times, with one source specifically mentioning a "triple-blind replication" that confirmed earlier pilot test results ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements that would provide a more complete picture:

Study limitations and effect sizes: While the studies show statistical significance, one analysis notes that "the effect size was small and the study had limitations" ^[3]. This suggests the practical significance may be limited despite statistical significance.

Methodological considerations: The research relies heavily on subjective aesthetic ratings rather than objective physical measurements of crystal structure ^{[1] [2]}. This introduces potential bias in evaluation, even in blinded conditions.

Scientific controversy: The question doesn't acknowledge that this research likely exists within a controversial field that challenges conventional scientific understanding of consciousness-matter interactions ^[3].

Replication challenges: While replication studies exist, the broader scientific community's acceptance and independent replication of these findings is not addressed in the original question.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears relatively neutral and doesn't contain obvious misinformation. However, there are subtle implications that could be misleading:

Implied legitimacy: By asking specifically about "scientific papers," the question may suggest these findings have broader scientific acceptance than they actually possess within mainstream scientific communities.

Lack of skeptical framing: The question doesn't acknowledge the extraordinary nature of the claims being investigated - that human intention can affect the physical properties of water at a distance.

Missing methodological context: The question doesn't specify what type of evidence would be considered valid, potentially allowing for confirmation bias where any positive results are accepted regardless of methodological rigor.

Potential commercial interests: Those promoting alternative healing modalities, consciousness research, or water treatment products would benefit significantly from society accepting these findings as legitimate scientific evidence, though this connection isn't explicitly stated in the research sources provided.