So here's a crash course on rational thought (and this thing called
'Bayes Theorem' that I keep mentioning. :) )

I've wanted to write this for ages.

Firstly, remember that science can never prove something 100% true -
though it *can* prove something wrong.  This all goes back to people
like Wittgenstein and Popper, but it's a pretty obvious fact because
it's impossible to gather all the measurements about the world that
could ever be taken.  So (as long as we're proving a theory by testing
it with experiments) we can never know if our theory is 100% correct -
just that it explains the world as we know it so far.

For example, it may be true that gravity doesn't always pull objects
to the ground but, due to some bizarre law of physics, it actually
pushes them away on every fourth Thursday of the month from 1st
January 2050 onwards.  Of course, we can't take that measurement, so
we're left to putting forward our best (and simplest) proposition so
far and going out to gather as much evidence as possible to see if
it's right. The simplest theory is that gravity works exactly the same
at every point in space and time as it does right here, right now. We
(so far) have no evidence whatsoever to the contrary (well... maybe a
few very tiny shreds, but nothing that couldn't be explained a number
of different ways).

Incidentally, we prefer the simplest theory possible because of
something called "Occam's razor". Look it up on Wikipedia - the
article is quite good. This is why our law of gravity doesn't include
the posibility that gravity will start working differently in 44 years
time - even though the effects of that version would be absolutely
identical to the basic version if we were to measure it now.

So where was I? Oh yes - Bayes. Well all these arguments we've been
having (Emoto, Steorn, Qlink etc.) have come down to a very simple
situation where there's one established theorem which is supported by
a lot of existing evidence, (but may also have some holes in it) and a
new, radical idea, which seems to undermine that theorem (and may have
some evidence to support it).

So, as I said, science looks at evidence and works out what is the
most likely theory based on what the evidence supports.

In this simple case, we have two theories, call them Theory 1 (the
original, established one) and Theory 2 (the new one).

There is a lot of evidence already in the world. Some of it supports
each theorem, some supports both, some neither.

The evidence that supports both equally well is of no use in
determining which is right - though it does give us more confident
that BOTH theorems are more likely than any other third possibility
that does not explain this evidence.

The evidence that is not explained by either theory is a bit of a
thorn - if this is extensive then we may need to abandon both
theories. But usually there's very little (or none) of this. Either
way, it doesn't help us to distinguish between Theory 1 and Theory 2.

So then we come to the rest of the evidence.  Firstly, we have a whole
load of evidence that supports the old theory, but which would not
support the new one.  Call this "Exhibit A".  We also have some
evidence (perhaps existing evidence that was never properly explained,
or perhaps new evidence generated specifically to support Theory 2)
which supports Theory 2 but not the old Theory 1. Call this "Exhibit
B".

So, to sum up: 

We have Theory 1, the established theory, which is supported by
Exhibit A, and countered by Exhibit B.

We have Theory 2, the new theory, which is supported by Exhibit B, and
countered by Exhibit A.

We also have a whole load of evidence which supports both or neither
of the theories.

Bayes' Theorem tells us this:

We can examine both bodies of evidence, Exhibits A & B, and take into
account the fact that some of it may be biased, incorrectly measured,
etc. Some of it may very strongly support one theory and some might
not. Some might very strongly deny one theory and some might not.
Once we add all this together, then we end up with a winner. Either
Theory 1 stands firm, or it is usurped by the newcomer, Theory 2.

In most cases, one of the two bodies of evidence, Exhibit A or B, is
WAY larger than the other. If not then we might have to do more
experiments to see which is more likely. Or, if we still can't decide,
then we may have to throw away the way we think science works and
rewrite it completely. This is what Schrodinger did with wave/particle
duality in quantum physics, if you know about that.

Times when we've discarded Theory 1: 
- Copernicus' theory of geocentricism (vs. Heliocentrism)
- The round Earth theory (vs. flat Earth)
- Darwinism (vs. Creationism)

Times when we've discarded Theory 2 and kept the established one:
- 1,000,001 random conspiracy theories (vs. many established theories)
- Steady state theory of the Universe (vs. expanding Universe of LeMaitre)

Times when we've kept both and rewritten physics
- Wave / Particle duality of quantum physics

Times when we've realised that both were wrong
- Can't think of any. I guess this is pretty rare.

That is scientific method.  It relies on putting forward theories that
are provable AND falsifiable (i.e. it is possible to disprove
them). It relies on peer review (where different scientists can
compete to provide evidence for or against each theory - and
objectively examine the methods taken by their peers) and it relies on
a rigorous standard of scientific testing ('double blind, placebo
controlled tests' etc. : removing all possibility of bias, systematic
error and cheating from the results.)

So, let's take a theory like the conservation of energy, which is
violated by this Steorn device.  Conservation of energy, the most
fundamental law of thermodynamics, has been known since the 19th
century (formally) and, of course, has been empirically tested
trillions of times by every human being alive back to the beginning of
time. (e.g. every time you drop a bouncy ball, it bounces less high
than the place you dropped it from; objects do not float in mid-air
unaided; logs do not burn indefinitely).  So all of that evidence
would be in favour of Theory 1.  Now, much of it is also in favour of
Theory 2 (of course, they aren't saying anything about the
conservation of energy overall - just in this one special case) but
remember we also have Occam's razor, which says that "In order for us
to believe a spurious number of extra clauses in a theory then we'd
better have a very good reason for it." i.e. we don't speculate that
gravity might work differently from 2050 onwards - not because we can
prove it won't, but simply because we have no reason to believe that
it might, and it would require an extraordinary level of extra
complexity to modify our laws of the Universe to incorporate that. If
someone wants to propose that theory then they'd better have a
bucketload of evidence to support it.

So we have a lot of evidence in favour of theory 1 which, if we're
being sensible, is not at all in favour of theory 2.  No evidence has
ever (EVER!) been found to show that Theory 1 may be flawed.

So, in order to disprove theory 1 (conservation of energy), we would
need to find at least one example - and preferably several CAST IRON
ROCK SOLID examples - of scientific experiments proving beyond any
suspicion of doubt that Theory 1 is wrong.  And for those experiments
to be admissable, (just like in court), we can't just take the hearsay
of someone who claims them, and who stands to benefit from them, but
instead we must take the time to do a proper, rigorous investigation
of that theory to avoid bias and error.

Now this takes time and money, of course.  So scientists fall back to
Bayes' theorem again.  The best theory is the one supported by most
data.  So, with something like conservation of energy, which has
*never* been shown to be false, (despite millennia of trying) and
which is an absolute cornerstone of all modern science, one might be
forgiven for not going anywhere near Steorn with a bargepole until
they provide some *VERY* convincing evidence (Exhibit B) to support
themselves.

Then (and only then) will anyone in the scientific community, with the
exception of a few of the wackier ones, listen.

Does that make any sense? I've never explained that to anyone before -
it's just sort of part of my way of thinking after so many years of
study. But I think it was reasonably clear. :)