Find sample online and use 9 signs to explain what’s pseudoscience 

and also alternative explanation 

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

Name:

***************&******** *********************** *********************** ***********************
F

o
rm

a
t No deviations from the formatting guidelines

in the syllabus.
One deviation from the formatting
guidelines in the syllabus.

Marked deviations from the formatting
guidelines in the syllabus.

The formatting guidelines from the
syllabus appear to have been ignored.

A B C D

C
o

n
te

n
t

Concerns an appropriate topic. Correctly
identifies and illustrates 3-4 signs of
pseudoscience. Addresses all signs listed in
class or in the textbook. It is clear that
concepts are used correctly.

Concerns an appropriate topic. Correctly
identifies and illustrates 2-3 signs of
pseudoscience. Addresses most signs
listed in class or in the textbook. May
contain one slight conceptual error, but
responses are not overly vague.

Topic appropriateness is questionable.
Identifies some signs of pseudoscience but
does not illustrate them (or vice versa).
Whether the student understood the
concepts is hard to evaluate, or there are
multiple small errors.

Questionable topic appropriateness.
Some relevant concepts seem to have
been used, but it is hard to evaluate
whether they were used correctly, or
writing is common-sense without using the
concepts. Gross misconceptions.

A B C D

S
tr

u
c

tu
re

The essay has meaningful opening and
closing paragraphs. Paragraphs have
elegant or conventional structure, including
topic sentences, transitions, and good
cohesion.

Meaningful opening and closing
statements. Most paragraphs have clear
structure, i.e., most have a topic sentence
and/or a transition, and most paragraphs
are cohesive.

The writing itself is cohesive but overall
structure is minimal. Minimal or no use of
topic sentences and/or transitions. The lack
of structure interferes with effective
communication.

Arbitrary structure, lack of cohesion, topic
or summary sentences, or transitions. The
lack of structure seriously interferes with
effective communication.

A B C D

W
o

rd
in

g
Emulates a professional writing style akin to

the textbook and the model. Any wording
problems are acceptable for an Intro
course.

Uses a formal style and sufficient
precision of expression. Some wording
errors surrounding the vernacular or
terminology.

Lapses into informal language. Shows little
effort to emulate the style of the readings or
the model. Major wording errors in the
vernacular or terminology.

Does not use a formal writing style. Gross
inaccuracies in the use of terminology,
and frequent awkward or erroneous
wording of the vernacular.

A B C D

S
p

e
ll

in
g

Nearly perfect spelling. One technical term
may have been misspelled, or there is one
typo present.

More than 1-2 errors in difficult or
unfamiliar words. Minor carelessness in
common word spelling.

Multiple spelling errors or typos. The errors
are distracting.

Spelling errors and typos are quite
distracting and significantly interfere with
communication.

A B C D

G
ra

m
m

a
r

Nearly perfect grammar and syntax. Minor
inelegancies. Proper punctuation of
compound and composite sentences.
Correct punctuation of “however,”
“therefore,” etc. Correct punctuation of
plurals and possessives.

Satisfactory grammar and syntax, but
inelegancies interfere with smooth
reading. Incorrect punctuation or illogical
use of “however,” “therefore,” etc. Minor
errors in the punctuation of plurals or
possessives.

Problems with grammar and syntax
interfere with reading often. More than a
couple of careless mistakes in sentence
construction. The writing has a rushed
quality, as if no proofreading took place.
Confuses plurals and possessives (e.g.,
confuses it’s with its, etc.).

Poorly formed sentences and serious
grammar mistakes and/or multiple
carelessness in sentence construction
interfere with reading. The writing has
unprofessional or unfinished quality.

A B C D
Comments: