Feb 21 2009
My Doubt-Meter Comes Alive
Many skeptics will — inadvertently perhaps — portray the world as if there are but two classes claims: scientific on one hand and on the other pseudoscience and superstition and total bunk of many varieties. Yet there exists more of a range. On one extreme: rock-solid science; on the other extreme: the rantings of certifiable lunatics. Most of what we encounter, however, lies in the vast middle. To my understanding, the things that influence where in the range a claim belongs include the quantity and quality of data the claim is based upon and the legitimacy of reasoning employed and the judiciousness of the conclusion.
As a skeptic I do not have two lights in my head: a green one for science and the stuff I like, a red for everything else. Instead, I have an active doubt meter. Most stuff I read — even science — will cause the meter to twitch. Other material makes the needle sway wildly. As did the science described with this title and attached article:
Science Suggests Access To Nature Is Essential To Human Health
My immediate reaction was, Sure, air and water and plant-based foodstuffs are all essential to our health. But then I began to wonder about the variables expressed in the title. Nature – that’s one huge variable. Human health – broad also. And the alleged relation between them – essential. What constitutes “essential”?
Would the article body clarify and convince me? Sadly not. It caused my doubt-meter to come alive.
What I found was a hodge-podge of claims backed by mere surveys and statistical seek-and-finds. Do any of the following claims cause your doubt-meter to twitch?
Elderly adults tend to live longer if their homes are near a park or other green space, regardless of their social or economic status.
No data provided.
Children with ADHD have fewer symptoms after outdoor activities in lush environments. Residents of public housing complexes report better family interactions when they live near trees.
Ditto.
While I am a true tree-hugger in my values, and I greatly enjoy walking among trees and watching for birds and other wildlife, I don’t believe trees have magical powers. Yes, they help purify the air and filter rainwater, etc. They do real things in the real world. A more scientific attitude would, in the least, point to how the trees are essential to health.
Humans living in landscapes that lack trees or other natural features undergo patterns of social, psychological and physical breakdown that are strikingly similar to those observed in other animals that have been deprived of their natural habitat.
My meter nearly red-lined with that extreme and extremely broad claim. Do people who live their entire lives in New York City far from Central Park go mentally berserk and die before they hit 50 in any greater numbers than those in Backwoods USA?
In animals what you see is increases in aggression, you see disrupted parenting patterns, their social hierarchies are disrupted.
Considerable research has found that violence and aggression are highest in urban settings devoid of trees and grass, for example.
I hope those studies controlled for such things as population density and a host of other potentially important variables. And one very important question is, once again, how trees and grass limit aggression. Do you climb the trees and smoke some grass? Please, at least propose some sort of plausible mechanism underlying the influence.
Roughly 7 percent of the variation in crime that can’t be accounted for by other factors can be accounted for by the amount of trees.
Huh? That conclusion looks like it could be the result of an exercise I like to call “fun with numbers.” Give those trees badges.
Kuo has seen such psychological effects in children with ADHD. In a 2001 study, she and her colleagues asked parents of children with ADHD which after-school activities worsened – and which soothed – their children’s symptoms. The parents consistently reported that outdoor activities in natural settings lessened their children’s ADHD symptoms more than activities conducted indoors, or in built environments outdoors.
My meter red-lined so bad reading that paragraph I heard it collide with the limiting pin. Bad quality data. Very bad. Ask parents if they observe sugar consumption making their kids hyper and they will report that indeed it does. But it doesn’t. Better quality data has revealed that. [For more on this, check out my recent post: How Bogus Beliefs Persist (II): Kids Go Coo-coo After Ingesting Sucrose.]
Gads. So, you tell me: Is the above science or is it complete bunk? My answer: neither. While it is scientific in a small way, it sure ain’t solid. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go hug a tree. I wonder if that’s good for my love life, too.
