The practice of Grounding or earthing which suggests Earth contact leads to health advantages has become popular during the last few years. Scientists have expressed multiple concerns regarding this practice. The scientific evidence supporting grounding practices remains insufficient according to proponents who make these claims. McIntyre (2019) explains the distinction between scientific evidence and pseudoscientific claims by demonstrating that scientific acceptance requires evidence that meets strict empirical standards. The scientific community rejects grounding because it lacks sufficient evidence to support its claims despite widespread public interest.
The Kaufmans (2019) explain that pseudoscientific practices depend on unverified personal accounts and limited research findings instead of following established scientific research protocols. Scientific research requires control groups and sufficient sample sizes and reproducible results but most grounding studies fail to meet these essential standards. The absence of these fundamental characteristics prevents scientists from verifying the health advantages of grounding. The existing research about grounding faces multiple methodological issues which prevent scientists from drawing reliable conclusions about its effectiveness.
The psychological effects of grounding belief require evaluation as a separate factor from scientific assessments. People who practice grounding report improved health benefits although scientific evidence supports their claims. Smith (2017) proposes that people experience better health results because of the placebo effect which occurs when they believe in grounding benefits. People who believe grounding improves their health status will experience better health results even though grounding has no actual physical effects. People who hold certain beliefs about their health can experience beneficial results even though there is no scientific evidence to support these beliefs.
The way people think about these beliefs creates important social effects. Many people today doubt traditional medical practices so they find alternative health methods including grounding. Travers et al. (2016) explain that public skepticism about medical institutions leads people to adopt unscientific health solutions. People who want to take charge of their health choose pseudoscientific solutions because they believe these methods provide easy answers to complicated medical problems. The current health trend creates doubts about medical evidence and acceptance of untested medical treatments.
The practice of grounding faces scientific opposition because it lacks evidence to support its claims about connecting with nature and personal health benefits. People need to analyze these claims thoroughly while being mindful of how psychological factors affect their health perceptions. Society needs to understand pseudoscience implications to make better health decisions that follow scientific evidence.
Citations:
McIntyre, L., 2019. The scientific attitude: Defending science from denial, fraud, and pseudoscience. Mit Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=WsKSDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=benefits+and+science+behind+grounding+earthing+pseudoscience+debate+and+research&ots=dUkVtz_cYE&sig=yim3ug7IOqZr8axWwQeGrlFUVXM
Oschman, J.L., 2023. Illnesses in technologically advanced societies due to lack of grounding (earthing). biomedical journal, 46(1), pp.17-29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2319417022001524
Sinatra, S.T., Sinatra, D.S., Sinatra, S.W. and Chevalier, G., 2023. Grounding–The universal anti-inflammatory remedy. Biomedical journal, 46(1), pp.11-16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2319417022001706
Sinatra, S.T., Oschman, J.L., Chevalier, G. and Sinatra, D., 2017. Electric nutrition: The surprising health and healing benefits of biological grounding (Earthing). Altern Ther Health Med, 23(5), pp.8-16. https://joaomfjorge.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/electricnutritionbysinatraoschmanchevalier.pdf
Kaufman, A.B. and Kaufman, J.C. eds., 2019. Pseudoscience: The conspiracy against science. Mit Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZLT4DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=benefits+and+science+behind+grounding+earthing+pseudoscience+debate+and+research&ots=cQwOfgCjcc&sig=0X9wcc4egv3CyUV61UhYeo4kVIg
Smith, J.E., 2022. “I believe because it is absurd”; or, pseudoscience. In Bias, Belief, and Conviction in an Age of Fake Facts (pp. 59-85). Routledge. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/58513/9781000801200.pdf?sequence=1#page=74
Smith, J.C., 2017. Critical thinking: pseudoscience and the paranormal. John Wiley & Sons. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=YGLpCgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=benefits+and+science+behind+grounding+earthing+pseudoscience+debate+and+research&ots=D1bK3W33ZH&sig=q9A_AIXuppcrzBGXRp8oVDE6CAc
McIntyre, L., 2021. How to talk to a science denier: Conversations with flat earthers, climate deniers, and others who defy reason. MIT Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FSk5EAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=benefits+and+science+behind+grounding+earthing+pseudoscience+debate+and+research&ots=xmGhAUy_N-&sig=9KXyGPpX0dG1v3ReN0utse55R4Q
Travers, J.C., Ayers, K., Simpson, R.L. and Crutchfield, S., 2016. Fad, pseudoscientific, and controversial interventions. In Early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder (pp. 257-293). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-30925-5_9
Lack, C.W. and Rousseau, J., 2016. Critical thinking, science, and pseudoscience: Why we can’t trust our brains. Springer Publishing Company. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Miy2CwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=benefits+and+science+behind+grounding+earthing+pseudoscience+debate+and+research&ots=fA4kV3CVt4&sig=Qhpsf5Nv0EHxm7Ab4ICBuK_fHBs
University lecturer, runner, cynic, researcher, skeptic, forum admin, woo basher, clinician, rabble-rouser, blogger, dad.