500 words 20 hrs

Psyc-110: Assignment 1 Model - Strong

Pavel Blagov PSYC-110-A

September 15, 2015

Earthing is Pseudoscience

In a recent post, the blogger known as Wellness Mama (2015), promoted “earthing” as a

way of improving physical and mental health. She (assuming the author identifies as female)

invites consumers to purchase “earthing” equipment, which runs a wire from a pad in the

person’s bed to a grounding outlet. The claim is that removing static electricity by means of

grounding would improve physiological functioning. Below, I apply Lilienfeld’s (2011) signs of

pseudoscience to demonstrate that “earthing” is poor science, at best, and perhaps merely a scam.

Wellness Mama (2015) makes liberal exaggerated claims (one sign of pseudoscience)

about earthing. She refers to it as “the most important health discovery ever” (Hello?

Vaccination? Antisepsis? Anaesthesia? Antibiotics?) and lists no fewer than 16 desirable effects

from it, most phrased vaguely, and ranging from “can eliminate jet lag,” to “speeds healing,” to

“reduces chronic pain.” Given that reputable sources deny the existence of a cure for jet lag, and

given the enormous monetary cost and human suffering incurred on society by chronic pain, the

claims by Wellness Mama are grandiose. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,

but the article contains very weak evidence in support of the claims, at best.

As evidence, the author presents mostly anecdotes, that is, her own experience with

“earthing.” Even if we assume she is sincere (and not merely pushing a product), we can explain

the subjective improvements in her sleep and well-being in ways simpler than “earthing.”

Perhaps she experienced the placebo effect, whereby people who expect a treatment to yield an

improvement end up feeling better even though the treatment was inert. Or perhaps she simply

happened to have a good day after she used “earthing.” Confirmation bias is suspect when

individuals start out by seeking evidence to support their a priori ideas as opposed to seeking

evidence to disconfirm them. My search for “grounding” and “earthing” in scientific databases

Comment [PSB1]: Except for these two lines, the paper is in Times New Roman, 12, with 1-inch

margins, double-spaced, and within the page limits.

Comment [PSB2]: Sources are cited in the body of the text and referenced at the end of the paper.

Comment [PSB3]: This introduces and defines the topic.

Comment [PSB4]: This is a thesis of the essay (main idea), and it also serves as a roadmap (prepares the reader to expect what comes next).

Comment [PSB5]: This is a good topic sentence of a paragraph. Note also that the specific term is

being used (correctly; exaggerated claims) and that it is made clear that this is one of Lilienfeld’s (2011)

signs of pseudoscience. By using this phrasing, you

are not only using the correct term, but you are showing your professor that you know that this term

signifies one of the features of pseudoscience. Even

a reader unfamiliar with the book chapter would understand what this is about.

Comment [PSB6]: This is a good concluding sentence of the paragraph, which started with the topic sentence and then provided support for the idea

in the topic sentence. This concluding sentence

further develops the idea in the topic sentence. Notice that it also serves as a transition to the next

paragraph, which is about evidence.

Comment [PSB7]: Here, the author of the paper (that is, I) should have made it clear that

“overreliance on anecdotes” is one of Lilienfeld’s

(2011) signs of pseudoscience. Because the rest of the paper is quite clear, this omission probably

would not result in any “penalty.”

Comment [PSB8]: Other concepts from the course (not asked for in the assignment) are being incorporated to show that the author has mastered

the course material.

Comment [PSB9]: Ditto

Blagov

Page 2 of 3

yielded a couple of articles published by the same pair of scientists, and no independent

replication. Those articles concerned blood flow and not the 16 claims made by Wellness Mama.

Thus, to the extent that any verifiable (not anecdotal) tests have occurred, they do not support the

claims, and the tests lack review by independent laboratories (another sign of pseudoscience).

A third pseudoscience feature is that “earthing” theory lacks connectivity with other

sciences. Critics of “earthing” have noted that the field of static electricity on the surface of the

skin cannot physically penetrate below the outermost cell layer. Safety regulations for working

with powerful electrical equipment permit exposure to strong fields because they are considered

safe (except when they induce heating of body tissues). If “earthing” theory were correct, that

magnetic resonance imaging would cause severe health problems, whereas it is quite safe.

Wellness Mama’s article contains “psychobabble” (more precisely, “sciencebabble”); for

example, she refers to positive electrons (a physical impossibility) and to the “grounding of free

radicals” (free radicals cannot travel over copper wire). She appears to be using random sciency-

sounding terms to lend credibility to the extraordinary claims.

Two of Lilienfeld’s (2011) signs of pseudoscience were not evident in the article (talk of

“proof” instead of “evidence” and “lack of self-correction when contrary evidence is

published”). Nevertheless, I believe the case is compelling that “earthing” should not be taken

seriously, unless much stronger, non-anecdotal, peer-reviewed evidence emerges. In the

meantime, “earthing pads” likely remain a very expensive placebo.

References

Lilienfeld, S., Lynn, S.J., Namy, L., & Woolf, N. (2011). Psychology: From inquiry to understanding, 2 nd

ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Wellness Mama. (September, 2015). How to get healthy while you sleep. Blog entry retrieved from

http://wellnessmama.com/5600/earthing-sleep/

Comment [PSB10]: You are not necessarily expected to do this. I did it here because it is

relatively easy for me to look up the scientific literature on nearly any topic. After you take PSYC-

220: Research Methods in Psychology, you will know how to do this as well. For the purposes of this

assignment, you are not expected to go into the

research literature databases and search for information. But feel free to use reputable online

sources, e.g., websites by such professional

organizations as the Association for Psychological Science, or the American Medical Association, or

major professional organizations (not

pseudoscientific ones, though).

Comment [PSB11]: Notice how the paper keeps going back to the signs of pseudoscience, because

this is what the assignment calls for.

Comment [PSB12]: This is actually the “fourth” feature. Anecdotes didn’t get counted earlier. That’s fine. You wouldn’t get penalized for minor errors

like this, as long as the writing is strong and the

content is meaningful.

Comment [PSB13]: Be careful if you write like this. This smells like plagiarism. I referred to

“critics” but did not cite and reference any sources.

Bad Pavel! Don’t do this. Cite and reference your sources. I will only suffer from remorse, but, in your

case, your grade may suffer if you do not cite and

reference your sources.

Comment [PSB14]: This last paragraph did not explain that “psychobabble” is one of the signs of pseudoscience. I think it’s clear from the flow of the

argumentation so far, but you may want to be clearer

in your own papers.

Comment [PSB15]: This would be a more or less classic concluding sentence/concluding paragraph of an essay. It mostly restates the main

idea, but it phrases it in a new way and provides some advice (e.g., what research needs to be done in

the future, and on what not to waste your money.)

Comment [PSB16]: Always cite your sources in the body of the text AND reference them at the end of the paper.

Blagov

Page 3 of 3