Any Grounding Experience?

[quote="scedastic]
What's the point in testing something that doesn't pass plausibility criteria?
[/quote]
Well, I would say the point is to be open to the possibility that my perception of plausibility criteria might be wrong:
For centuries the most advanced academics of their time had convincing plausibility criteria (=their perception) that it was the sun turning around the earth and not the other way round...
Until the invention of microscopes the idea of the existence of germs being responsible for illnesses was being laughed at by the highest medical authorities of the time, because this strange idea did not fit into their plausibility criteria...
The scientific truths of yesterday are not the truths of today. The scientific truths of today are quite possibly not the truths of tomorrow...

Ahcuah said:

So anyways, what do folks think?

Click to expand...

The problem is on the first day that the random-generator picks to ground you, you will ground with it, since we're all connected by electrons. Indeed, since we never know where the damn things are exactly, there may just be one, very busy electron in the whole universe, according to one recent theory (v. supra). Once you're grounded, you may sync up with the machine, so that subconsciously at least (and it's at the subconscious level that electrons do most of their dirty work, are at their most mischievous), you'll know if your grounded. This in turn, will influence your dreams, which everyone knows in this post-Freudian world are imagistic representations of our subconscious impulses. Therefore, upon waking, you will inevitably have a canny feeling for whether or not you've been grounded throughout the night, based on the vividness of your dreams. And thus the double-blind will dissolve into your morning coffee along with those dreams. At least, I know I always have vivid dreams when I sleep outside on the ground, or in rabbit holes.

The really wonderful thing is that we've evolved to experience and appreciate both science and pseudo-science, with no real way of telling them apart until bridges collapse, or sea levels rise, or we lose herd immunity, or we have epidemics in defective or diseased feet. Until then, it's all just theory.

Hobbit said:

Well, I would say the point is to be open to the possibility that my perception of plausibility criteria might be wrong:
For centuries the most advanced academics of their time had convincing plausibility criteria (=their perception) that it was the sun turning around the earth and not the other way round...
Until the invention of microscopes the idea of the existence of germs being responsible for illnesses was being laughed at by the highest medical authorities of the time, because this strange idea did not fit into their plausibility criteria...
The scientific truths of yesterday are not the truths of today. The scientific truths of today are quite possibly not the truths of tomorrow...

Click to expand...

The plausibility test in this case says that in order for the possibility of grounding to "work" in the way you think, we would have to overthrow A LOT of basic, long proven in many ways, scientific concepts.
The placebo effect, on the other hand, is far more plausible.

I haven't read the whole thread - and have no comment one way or the other as to the effects of grounding on the human body. I know I feel better since I have been BF running and I no longer suffer from the knee/hip pains I had when running in the boat anchors.

My only concern is to advise not to ground your sheet via an electrical outlet socket ground connection in your house when there is any electrical activity in the atmosphere. If lightning strikes your house - the leading edge of the current wave flowing through the grounding system is very steep - and will raise the voltage level of that plug for a while - and that can be potentially very dangerous.

So play safe.

Ronnie B said:

My only concern is to advise not to ground your sheet via an electrical outlet socket ground connection in your house when there is any electrical activity in the atmosphere. If lightning strikes your house - the leading edge of the current wave flowing through the grounding system is very steep - and will raise the voltage level of that plug for a while - and that can be potentially very dangerous.

So play safe.

Click to expand...

Thats not really a worry, the grounding straps for these kind of grounding are not really "hard grounded" anyways there is usually a 10kohm or 20kohm resistor in the circuit for safety between the person and the true ground. The point of the whole thing is to siphon off the static voltage not to actually make the person hard grounded. To stay hard grounded is not as easy to achieve as it appears...a semi ground is good enough for these kind of purposes.

I'm guessing most people here do not have a background in cell biology. Cells operate in highly regulated electrochemical environments. This has been very well studied. There is zero possibility that grounding acts through its purported mechanisms, Z-E-R-O. From a scientific standpoint, we can be as certain of this as we are that the Earth is not flat and the Universe does not revolve around the Earth, period. I repeat, Period.

This brief article provides some basic electrical information on cells. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Electrical_properties_of_cell_membranes
More information on the methods used by scientists. http://www.acnp.org/G4/GN401000005/Default.htm

This is not to say that people don't feel better and have noticeable improvements when utilizing grounding, just as people can feel better using homeopathy or reiki. That is an entirely different field of study and vastly more complex than cell biology.

Now, back to barefoot running, a subject which is firmly rooted in anatomy and biomechanics.

(If you don't understand science, that's okay. You're not alone. We can all still get along!)
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/02/what-americans-dont-know-about-science/283864/

Bare Lee said:

The really wonderful thing is that we've evolved to experience and appreciate both science and pseudo-science, with no real way of telling them apart...

Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Some minds are calibrated towards to science, like Newton and Einstein, and others more towards "pseudo-science". It's all depends on how their brains are uniquely constructed.

Sid, I appreciate that it must be a bore for a highly calibrated scientific mind to pay attention to what us little people have actually said, but I think if you go back and read the thread, you might notice that nobody is arguing for a particular explanation of 'how' grounding might work. In fact I think I specifically said that I thought the explanation suggested in the book sounded like gobbledygook and went on to use my unscientific little brain to draw an analogy with aspirin, which was used as a medicine for many centuries based on observation of its effects, despite completely spurious understandings of the mechanism by which it worked.

It may indeed be a placebo effect, or it may be some other mechanism. I don't know why people are so dismissive of the placebo response, since if we could find better ways of evoking it and persuading our bodies to heal themselves under more circumstances, that would surely be a far better route than simply discovering more and more individual drug solutions. I suffered from very serious sleep problems that were affecting my health and work and had tried a variety of approaches which might have been expected to evoke a placebo response if nothing else, but this is the only thing which made a difference, and that difference has been life-changing and persisted now for many months. Interestingly, the second, more expensive, sheet that I purchased is less effective than the first cheaper one, and more effective than either of them is a small mat sold for in-car use or a waist-band, so the results do not seem to be directly investment related.

Now, one anecdotal result does not make a research project. Feel free, o ye of scientific brain-type, to ignore me. I only joined in this thread because the OP asked if anyone had 'experience' of grounding, which I did. But it seems to me in my innocence that the scientific method is supposed to proceed by investigating effects, with an open mind as to results and causes. An interesting little glitch in our experience of the world is noted and investigated, by someone of methodical and yet curious mind. The first thing is to establish whether or not an effect actually exists. Working out the mechanism is secondary.

This thread would have stopped months ago if it were not for those who believe, in the absence of experience or testing, that grounding cannot be effective and feel obliged to keep pointing this out, so it is a little pointless for you to suggest that we 'get back to barefoot running' as if we were keeping you from it. I personally have had to give up running altogether, at least for the moment, but I do not extrapolate the experience of one 58 year old non-athlete to dismiss the whole concept.

Sid said:

Not entirely true. Some minds are calibrated towards to science, like Newton and Einstein, and others more towards "pseudo-science". It's all depends on how their brains are uniquely constructed.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to take my quips seriously, what I was trying to say is that there's theory adequacy, where things like Occam's razor and consistency with other theories come into play, and then there's empirical adequacy, where a match with observable facts and practical utility come into play. Newton's mechanical view of the world still works just fine for building bridges, but fails to match certain observable facts and fails on theoretical adequacy. Einstein's view is an improvement, but there are problems with his model too. If you're a radical empiricist, like me and my buddy William James, then empirical adequacy is key. Theoretical adequacy is useful and important, obviously, but can lead to arguments about quarks, strings, and how many dimensions/universes there are. And let's keep in mind that gravity has yet to be explained adequately, and there are many competing theories, yet we know it exists based on observable facts, and can model it in exquisite detail.

Of course, pseudo-science tends to fail on both empirical as well as theoretical grounds. I don't know if it depends so much on cognitive skill as emotional investment. Even Einstein had trouble accepting his own findings, and sought a model more consistent with his cosmology, right? So, given our emotions, empirical adequacy is the best test. No matter how attached you are to an idea, like a flawed bridge design, for example, if it collapses, reality should disabuse one of one's bias. Of course, we both know that many podiatrists are particularly resilient to evidence, and have convinced themselves that feet are by nature defective, despite the obvious fact that habitually unshod populations don't have nearly as many foot maladies as the habitually shod.

Please, please don’t misunderstand.

Barefoot running is a budding field, undergoing exciting new research. The theories are sound and based in principles of anatomy and biomechanics. However, more evidence is needed to change current medical practice. Scientifically, it’s still in its infancy. As such, it cannot be associated with the false principles of grounding.

Research indicates that electrons from the Earth have antioxidant effects that can protect your body from inflammation and its many well-documented health consequences.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, many good companies are have already aligned themselves with the grounding movement.
http://www.softstarshoes.com/earthing-shoes
https://www.earthrunners.com/
http://www.wassookeagmoccasins.com/earthing-footwear/
http://www.itascamoccasin.com/#category?navcat=.leathergoods.earthing

This only serves to discredit them and the barefoot/minimalist movement.

Additionally, the general public already thinks that barefooters are rubes. “Doesn’t it hurt?” “What about glass?” Aligning barefooting with grounding only serves to perpetuate this.

Principles of Barefooting = firmly rooted in science
Principles of Grounding = completely false

Those who use lies to sell “grounding” products, perform a grave injustice to those who do benefit from grounding. This is not to say that grounding does not offer benefits. It does offer benefits to some people, as does a sense of connection to family, friends, community, the environment, a Higher Power, the Universe, love, comfort, physical contact, hugs, a sense of belonging, food tasting better when mother makes it. This are vastly complex phenomena which go beyond the placebo effect, and they also merit further study. Rather than giving more attention to the lies which underpin the principles of grounding, efforts should be focused on research to further elucidate these complex phenomena which contribute to a sense of health and well-being for many people.

Again, Sid, I can only point out that no-one on this thread has proposed any particular theory of how grounding might work, if it does. You do not attribute your quote so I can't check it out, (Edited as reading it on my phone I did not see that the sentence above contains a clickable link). but it seems to me offensive to accuse people of lying when in fact they may only sincerely believe something different to what you believe. The research referred to may presumably be the research referred to in the book (Edit, since the link leads to one of the writers, I presume this is the case) , in which case I agree, as do the writers, that it is somewhat 'home-made' but as has been shown in this thread, it is by no means easy or cheap to stage a full professional trial, and anything less is unlikely to convince anyone who doesn't already agree. If research has been done which clearly disproves the effect, presumably you would refer to it.

I am a bit baffled by your requirement to have talk about barefooting restricted to those who do it for the strictly mechanical reasons which you approve of. If this were a podiatry forum, I could understand it, but it isn't, and people have been going barefoot for spiritual, ideological, economic and cultural reasons for long before the present generations of runners picked up on it. Like it or not, you are following in the bare footsteps of monks, pilgrims, hippies and flower-children<g>.

Spinningwoman said:

If research has been done which clearly disproves the effect, presumably you would refer to it.

Click to expand...

Legal and scientific burden of proof lies with those who make the claims.

Spinningwoman said:

I am a bit baffled by your requirement to have talk about barefooting restricted to those who do it for the strictly mechanical reasons which you approve of.

Click to expand...

I do not. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Spinningwoman said:

Like it or not, you are following in the bare footsteps of monks, pilgrims, hippies and flower-children<g>.

Click to expand...

Actually, I follow in the footsteps of my father, a good man who grew up in the aftermath of WWII, who still has painful memories of the poverty that his family suffered, such that they could not afford shoes. He worked hard to educate himself and provide for his family. He wears shoes because of societal and cultural expectations and cannot be convinced otherwise. It is my hope that the good work that barefoot researchers do and by sharing our positive experiences here, that we can combat such societal and cultural prejudices, leaving people to go barefoot for whatever reasons they may have.

Sid, i am not meaning to put words into your mouth. I don't know how to interpret statements like '(bare footing) cannot be associated with the false principles of grounding' and the suggestion that we should leave the subject and 'get back to barefooting' other than as suggesting that it is not appropriate to discuss this here. (One thread in a whole forum?). It's a bit rich to object to me over-interpreting you on that when you are slinging words like liar around and suggesting that I may have the wrong sort of brain to understand science! But never mind. I'm sorry if you feel that it is a bad thing that people may try bare footing or produce minimal shoes or even try grounding for what you think are misguided reasons. My view is the more the merrier, and the benefits if any will emerge in the wash of experience. We will have to differ.

Spinningwoman said:

the suggestion that we should leave the subject and 'get back to barefooting' other than as suggesting that it is not appropriate to discuss this here. (One thread in a whole forum?)

Click to expand...

It seems that a perfectly lively discussion is ongoing.

Spinningwoman said:

It's a bit rich to object to me over-interpreting you on that when you are slinging words like liar around and suggesting that I may have the wrong sort of brain to understand science!

Click to expand...

I never said that you were a liar, nor did I make any comments on "your brain".
In fact, I took specific pains to acknowledge the positive benefit that people have had from grounding sheets, relating it to other poorly understood but important concepts, and also encouraged further study of the phenomenon. I also admonished others not to deride or degrade such positive and genuine experiences by labeling it as a "placebo effect".

Spinningwoman said:

I'm sorry if you feel that it is a bad thing that people may try bare footing or produce minimal shoes or even try grounding for what you think are misguided reasons.

Click to expand...

I do not. Please don't put words into my mouth.

Spinningwoman said:

We will have to differ.

Click to expand...

I prefer to stay focused on our similarities. Too much pain and strife has resulted from an overfocus on slight differences between peoples and cultures.

I wonder, just wondering politely, if we are talking past one another? I see this as a spirited discussion about science.
Are you taking this as a personal attack? That is absolutely not my intention. Life is hard enough, without having to suffer pompous fools on the internet!

I hate to correct you again, Sid, but I did not suggest that you called me a liar. You did call the people who sell their grounding equipment liars, and it was that which I objected to. Personally, I think that goes beyond 'lively discussion'. As far as I can tell from dealing with them, they believe in their products, which are well made, and they have done some simple research which they believe supports their claims. There are very few negative reviews, so presumably most customers are happy with the results. If we exclude the possibility of being struck by lightening, and a caveat about combining it with blood thinning medications, the only possible negative side effect would appear to be getting caught up in circular discussions like this<g>.
Possibly we are both suffering from SIWOTI syndrome... http://xkcd.com/386/

Spinningwoman said:

I hate to correct you again...

Click to expand...

Please do correct me, when I misunderstand, as clarification is essential to ongoing dialogue.

Spinningwoman said:

You did call the people who sell their grounding equipment liars...

Click to expand...

Please, please, please, stop putting words in my mouth. I never called anyone a "liar".

To clarify, it seems that most producers of earthing products are genuinely misinformed, unintentionally spreading "lies". Most of them produce good quality products from a manufacturing standpoint. It is most certainly one thing to inadvertantly spread misinformation, it is entirely yet another to possess a doctorate and spread scientific falsehoods.

Spinningwoman said:

Possibly we are both suffering from SIWOTI syndrome...

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, quite likely. I'm sure that we could have come to some mutual understanding ages ago, were we able to dialogue in person.

Sid said:

Not entirely true. Some minds are calibrated towards to science, like Newton and Einstein, and others more towards "pseudo-science". It's all depends on how their brains are uniquely constructed.

Click to expand...

Not not not true.
Newton had some WACKY ideas. Alchemy, I think. And some other stuff. Even for his time. It's been a while since I"ve read a biography, though.
And you might say he was a product of the times, but there are plenty of more modern, brilliant scientists who have embraced the most implausible and evidence free pseudo sciences, and in some cases invented them.
Einstein stayed mostly not so wacky, from my recollection. He was uneasy with quantum mechanics, but his arguments were more subtle and at least somewhat more reasonable than the out of context "God doesn't play dice" quote.
That said, brilliant physicists like Linus Pauling and Edward Teller went close to wack-a-loon in some of their beliefs later in life. In fact, IMHO, they may have suffered from thinking they were immune to unscientific thinking to recognize their own wanderings.

ALL of our brains are predisposed to anecdotal thinking, not statistical thinking. ALL of our brains a subject to the same failings of bias, logical fallacies, and wishful thinking. Yet they will manifest in different ways depending on our environment, culture, upbringing, and to some extent, disposition. But neither intelligence nor some natural ability seem to guard completely against it.
See books like "Thinking Fast and Slow" (forgot the author's name Kaneman? maybe).

Even highly educated scientists get very little practical education on how the mind works, how a person can come to an erroneous conclusion, why anecdotes are so compelling and data is not, how humans tend to rationalize after they have already come to a conclusion, how to be skeptical of their own belief systems, oh, and even what it means to think skeptically and critically. We are also not taught very well how science actually works, and it feels confusing to us, and so when we hear and see things that seem "sciency" we have to fight the urge not to think of it as authoritative in one way. One assertion "feels" as plausible or scientific as the next, and the one has a promise of something that is appealing, whereas the other choices feel more boring.....



The only tools we have against our faulty thinking is understanding that we all have such failings. Learning about how these failings in thinking come about in general has helped me recognize a lot more of my own bias and erroneous conclusions that I can reach.

scedastic said:

Not not not true.
Newton had some WACKY ideas. Alchemy, I think. And some other stuff. Even for his time. It's been a while since I"ve read a biography, though.
And you might say he was a product of the times, but there are plenty of more modern, brilliant scientists who have embraced the most implausible and evidence free pseudo sciences, and in some cases invented them.
Einstein stayed mostly not so wacky, from my recollection. He was uneasy with quantum mechanics, but his arguments were more subtle and at least somewhat more reasonable than the out of context "God doesn't play dice" quote.
That said, brilliant physicists like Linus Pauling and Edward Teller went close to wack-a-loon in some of their beliefs later in life. In fact, IMHO, they may have suffered from thinking they were immune to unscientific thinking to recognize their own wanderings.

ALL of our brains are predisposed to anecdotal thinking, not statistical thinking. ALL of our brains a subject to the same failings of bias, logical fallacies, and wishful thinking. Yet they will manifest in different ways depending on our environment, culture, upbringing, and to some extent, disposition. But neither intelligence nor some natural ability seem to guard completely against it.
See books like "Thinking Fast and Slow" (forgot the author's name Kaneman? maybe).

Even highly educated scientists get very little practical education on how the mind works, how a person can come to an erroneous conclusion, why anecdotes are so compelling and data is not, how humans tend to rationalize after they have already come to a conclusion, how to be skeptical of their own belief systems, oh, and even what it means to think skeptically and critically. We are also not taught very well how science actually works, and it feels confusing to us, and so when we hear and see things that seem "sciency" we have to fight the urge not to think of it as authoritative in one way. One assertion "feels" as plausible or scientific as the next, and the one has a promise of something that is appealing, whereas the other choices feel more boring.....



The only tools we have against our faulty thinking is understanding that we all have such failings. Learning about how these failings in thinking come about in general has helped me recognize a lot more of my own bias and erroneous conclusions that I can reach.

Click to expand...

I feel privileged to have received a million dollar answer to a $0.50 off-the-cuff remark. You're preaching to the choir, my amphibious sister.

Newton was an oddball, and Einstein was a womanizer. Oftentimes, brilliance in one area is offset by profound deficits in others.

The mind is quite complex, and behavior is the result of various internal and external factors. The brain uses many shortcuts, as you've pointed out, to save time and resources. However, as is common with taking shortcuts, sometimes it goes off track, or gets turned around in the wrong direction. The brain is clearly not purpose built to divine the secrets of the universe.

I'm a fan of Dan Ariely from Duke University. He offers "A Beginner's Guide to Irrational Behavior" for free on Coursera. However, it seems that you're already familiar with these concepts. https://www.coursera.org/course/behavioralecon

Now, to be fair, most scientists are pretty darn boring. They do good work and keep things pretty clean. However, they have their own biases, and are kept in line by the statisticians.

Bare Lee said:

Well, if you're going to take my quips seriously

Click to expand...

I see. You were just trying to hijack the thread, yet again.

Bare Lee said:

what I was trying to say is that there's theory adequacy, where things like Occam's razor and consistency with other theories come into play, and then there's empirical adequacy, where a match with observable facts and practical utility come into play. Newton's mechanical view of the world still works just fine for building bridges, but fails to match certain observable facts and fails on theoretical adequacy. Einstein's view is an improvement, but there are problems with his model too. If you're a radical empiricist, like me and my buddy William James, then empirical adequacy is key. Theoretical adequacy is useful and important, obviously, but can lead to arguments about quarks, strings, and how many dimensions/universes there are. And let's keep in mind that gravity has yet to be explained adequately, and there are many competing theories, yet we know it exists based on observable facts, and can model it in exquisite detail.

Of course, pseudo-science tends to fail on both empirical as well as theoretical grounds. I don't know if it depends so much on cognitive skill as emotional investment. Even Einstein had trouble accepting his own findings, and sought a model more consistent with his cosmology, right? So, given our emotions, empirical adequacy is the best test. No matter how attached you are to an idea, like a flawed bridge design, for example, if it collapses, reality should disabuse one of one's bias. Of course, we both know that many podiatrists are particularly resilient to evidence, and have convinced themselves that feet are by nature defective, despite the obvious fact that habitually unshod populations don't have nearly as many foot maladies as the habitually shod.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, but dreamers must dream, so that builders can build. Ideas first, reality later. http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm

Empiricism necessarily follows theory and emotion. Nothing to observe or experience, if no one has the passion to build it in the first place. They are all necessary components. http://info.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek09/1016/1016d_fallingwater.cfm

It is a solemn and profound example of how perfection, in its purest form, can be made up of the perfect and the imperfect.

Click to expand...

<<Those who use lies to sell “grounding” products, perform a grave injustice to those who do benefit from grounding. >>
Clearly, Sid, there are more transatlantic differences in language than I realised. To me, someone who uses lies to sell is a liar and a fraudster. To you, at least in retrospect, it appears that they may be honest businessmen with a genuine belief in their wares who may themselves be misled by an inaccurate pseudoscientific explanation of how those wares operate. Who knew? But at least now scedastic has advanced the discussion onto actual science, rather than just insulting the opposition.