Using Demarcation Criteria as a Tool for Evaluating Controversial Case of andldquo;Water Memoryandrdquo;

Definition of biological activity, which results in a biological property, is still inspired by conventional Fischer’s ‘lock- and-key’ model. This model explains how the correctly sized key (ligand) should fits into the keyhole (receptor) in an analogical manner. During Electromagnetic Information Transfer (EMIT), property of original molecule delivers either to water or target biological entity. In cases that water receives a property via EMIT, it imitates the original agonist, while no longer has the molecule inside it. The recent concept is known as “Water Memory (WM)”. EMIT and WM, challenge the currently admired scientific paradigm (lock-and-key model), which addresses the necessity of structural conformity of interacting molecules. Considering the fact that replicability of EMIT and WM related empirical studies are not always confirmed, these propositions are mostly labelled as “pseudoscience”. To evaluate the authenticity of labelling EMIT and WM as pseudoscience, we debated the scientific accuracy of EMIT phenomenon with demarcation criteria. Either of the agreement or disagreements of the proposed propositions, which explain EMIT and WM, evaluated and scored by Delphi analysis. Results of our Delphi analysis confirm that some of the propositions that explain EMIT or WM, splendidly pass the prerequisites of demarcation criteria. Therefore, labelling the aforementioned propositions as pseudoscience is content to perfunctory generalization, which needs to be revised. Further investigation of the propositions that merited demarcation criteria, helps to establish a scientific framework that explains ground-breaking aspects of EMIT and WM phenomena.