Talk:Lunar effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lunar effect article.
Article policies
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The only thing that benefits from doubt is truth.

Contents

[edit] Cleanup

Major cleanup and restructuring, the overall tone seemed to imply that the lunar effect is more than a myth. There are still statements like "some say" etc, but at least it's in the superstition section now. 85.228.65.14 16:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be some discussion of how the cited studies have criticized earlier studies that claimed there is a correlation between full moons and crime, as well as some discussion of those studies themselves. The summary of Kelly's paper doesn't even make sense. Obviously if 100 studies claimed that the lunar cycle influenced human behavior, they were saying their was a correlation. So if Kelly et al. found "no correlation," they must have discredited, on some grounds, the correlations found by 100 other studies. This is weak. Somebody needs to reconcile these studies, or at least explain what these studies found and on what grounds Kelly et al. discredited a hundred of them.
"Superstition" is misleading. If someone believes crime rates increase on the full moon because the coven of Diana is flying about, I would call him superstitious. But if he believes crime rates go up because he has read a study clearly showing an increase on full moons, and he hypothesizes that the additional light contributes to insomnia, that's entirely different. Ocanter
I expanded on it a little. I don't know where the figure of 100 came from, that isn't what the article says. As far as "superstition", that is a bit strong. How about urban legend or myth? Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, it turns out that I had put the 100 in there, based on this, which mentions a 1996 update of Kelly. I haven't fully read the update to see if it has 100. Bubba73 (talk), 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds much better. It still seems the other side is missing, however. Have you seen this study?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6440656&dopt=Abstract
It was published in 1984, a year before Kelly's article, which suggests to me that Kelly should have it in his bibliography. They found a remarkably strong correlation. Kelly's article was not in a scholarly journal; it was in a textbook on the "paranormal." There must be a better comprehensive study of this, if we're going to say for certain that there is no effect. I think we've established that the lunar effect is a myth, that is, that this belief has been passed down to us from very early times. We haven't established that it doesn't exist. The Abell study was in Skeptical Inquirer, also not a science journal. The Sacramento County study is not in the sources, is it? So far, I don't see any real source for the claim we're making without reservation, that there is no lunar effect. Thanks for your work on it, though. I hope you'll update the sources if you find some more studies. Maybe you would like to criticize the Thakur/Sharma BMJ article. Or maybe it will change your mind. Ocanter 15:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see anything about Thakur/Sharma, but there are a lot of others mentioned in the article by Kelly, et.al. that are not listed in this article. The SI article by Kelly refers to several papers by him and his associates that were in academic journals, but I don't have easy access to them. AS far as "100" quoted at that website, the revised and updated Kelly paper mentions the 37 in the meta-analysis and a bunch more, but I didn't add them up or connt them. Maybe they did look at over 100, but I don't think all 100 are mentioned in the article. So I left out the 100. Bubba73 (talk), 16:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added some more material, but I haven't found the Sacramento study specifically. Bubba73 (talk), 17:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thakur/Sharma is the article at the link I posted above. It's the only academic article on the topic I've seen so far, and they found a strong correlation. I think it needs to be addressed. Here's the abstract:
The incidence of crimes reported to three police stations in different towns (one rural, one urban, one industrial) was studied to see if it varied with the day of the lunar cycle. The period of the study covered 1978-82. The incidence of crimes committed on full moon days was much higher than on all other days, new moon days, and seventh days after the full moon and new moon. A small peak in the incidence of crimes was observed on new moon days, but this was not significant when compared with crimes committed on other days. The incidence of crimes on equinox and solstice days did not differ significantly from those on other days, suggesting that the sun probably does not influence the incidence of crime. The increased incidence of crimes on full moon days may be due to "human tidal waves" caused by the gravitational pull of the moon.
Peace, Ocanter 16:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of academic articles in the list of references in the cited works by Abell, Kelly, et. al. I have these summary-level articles but I don't have easy access to the original journal articles. I have not cited any of them because I haven't read them. When I was in school, a prof said to ref only things I've read and not references within the things I read. Bubba73 (talk), 16:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


That sounds like a good idea. But it also seems you're making some pretty bold claims. Also, you do have access to at least one academic article, the one at the link I posted.
Another problem is that your discussion of the Kelly article is still unclear:
Psychologist Ivan Kelly of the University of Saskatchewan (with James Rotton and Roger Culver) did a meta-analysis of thirty-seven studies that examined relationships between the Moon's four phases and human behavior. The meta-analysis revealed no correlation. They also checked twenty-three studies, and nearly half of them contained at least one statistical error (Kelly, Rotton, and Culver, 1986).
So did they look at thirty-seven studies or at twenty-three? If "nearly half" of twenty three studies showed "one statistical error," that means at most eleven, less than a third of the thirty-seven studies, had even one error. That actually sounds pretty good. And in that case, what about the twenty-six studies showing a correlation between lunar cycles and human behavior, in which Kelly et al. could find no statistical error at all? Ocanter 17:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not making any bold claims. These statements are directly from the papers by Abell, Kelly, et. al. The paper states that 37 studies went into the meta-analysis. the paper says that they checked 23 studies for errors, and found errors in nearly half of them. It doesn't say if these 23 are among the 37 or are seperate, but it sounds like they are different. These are only a small portion of the results they examined. There are many more cases of other studies in their paper. It is wrong to assume that the 23 are in the 37. Bubba73 (talk), 18:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't you call it a bold claim to say, "The claims of a correlation of lunar phases to human behavior do not hold up under scientific scrutiny"? If Kelly's article doesn't even make it clear what 23 studies he's talking about, I would say that is a serious statistical error. Ocanter 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) Again, I'm not making that claim. I'm saying what the literature says. Also, the Kelly paper I have access to does not specifically list those 23 papers. It is a summary article, which lists many papers, quite a few of them are by Kelly and others. The details are probably in those original papers. The updated version of Kelly's paper lists 101 items in its references, but I don't have easy access to them.

For instance,

  • Kelly and Rotton, 1983, "Comment on lunar phase and accident injuries: the dark side of the moon and lunar research", Perception and Motor Skills, 57, 919-21.
  • Rotton, Kelly, and Frey, 1983, "Detecting lunar periodicities: something old, new, borrowed, and true", Psychological Reports, 52, 111-16.

are the ones that should contain a list of the 23 papers. (actually they probably only list ones with errors.) But I don't have access to either of those. You can look them up. Bubba73 (talk), 14:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

PS - the only one of the 23 that is mentioned specifically in Kelly's summary article is the one by Lieber, and that is already discussed in the article. Bubba73 (talk), 14:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The following is incorrect: For example, Sinhalese Buddhism forbids sports from being played under the light of the full moon.[7] I am Sinhalese, and while I am not a Buddhist several members of my extended family follow that religion. I have never heard of this belief and indeed have spent many happy poya days, as we call them, playing games with my cousins under the full moon as a child. It is merely that full moon days are considered holy days in Sinhalese Buddhism, and are in fact public holidays in Sri Lanka, during which liquor cannot be sold and various other forms of behaviour conducive to 'immorality' are prohibited. This was the reason for deferring the major sporting event -- a cricket match between Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka -- that, as reported in the article linked to Note 7, was to be held on a poya day. The decision has nothing to do with the lunar effect -- it is a moral proscription, widely deprecated by Sri Lankans like myself who are not Buddhists, yet must suffer the consequences of State-sponsored morality. I propose to delete this sentence. palmyrah (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'The lunar effect is the supposed influence of the moon and its phases on human behaviour.'

So if the captain won't leave harbour until the tide comes in, this is the lunar effect at work? I think what is meant is something a bit more emotional than cognitive, like the big moon making you feel romantic or sexy.

Is this effect meant to be to do with moonlight, or to do with gravity, or both, or something else?

--Publunch 03:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Believers in the lunar effect say that it is tidal, i.e. gravitational. However, all else being equal, the tides are the same on a full moon as on a new moon, yet the effect is supposed to be only on the full moon (and not the new moon). Bubba73 (talk), 03:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
PS - ships enter and leave harbors at high tide for a reason - the channels are deeper then. And they are less likely to run aground if they get a little off course. Bubba73 (talk), 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Hence, the lunar effect is a totally reasonable belief, it may be a belief of which we are unconscious, but it at least it is a valid subjection.--72.38.219.185 (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, if the moon can move fluids in a large basin of water? Why shouldn't it be able to slightly move our fluids in our bodies? It doesn't have to knock us over with it's gravity, just enough to put our nerves "on end". This is a very good point I think, and is something that scientists don't research. Most of this science here is just statistics. I'd like to see real science, something that studies the real physics and sociology of the moon here, not just comparing ancient superstitions and articles from science magazines.--72.38.219.185 (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Tis page is for discussing the article, not for general discussion of the topic, and I'm voilating that here' But: there is a very tiny tidal effect on the human body. One of the factors in the size of the tide is the size of the body. The human body is very small compared to the size of the Earth, so the tide in the human body is too small to have an effect. Also, there are high and low tides every day - not just on the full moon. Other things being equal, the tide is essentially the same on the new moon as it is on the full moon, and no one is claiming the same effect on the new moon. Bubba73 (talk), 17:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lunar Effect

"The lunar effect is the supposed influence of the moon and its phases on human behaviour."

One of the reasons that humans believe the moon may have an effect on human behaviour is that it is seen to have an effect on some plant's and animal's behaviour. This article ignores the very real effects of the moon on some life or aspects of it. This approach is very ‘humancentric’ - probably the same cause for the belief that the universe revolved around the Earth. But it is my impression that the research is asking the wrong questions and so is arriving at the wrong answers.

One example is the research of the lunar effects on human births. The common myth is that a full moon is romantic so the test is not the coincidence of the full moons on births but on conception. Then again it is my experience that that full moons affect human emotional response. Response to jealousy has nine possible responses. If jealousy, or rather the cause for it, should coincide with a full moon it is likely to produce the least rational and the most highly charged emotional response.

If you want to have the most emotionally charged and irrational argument, I say, pick a full moon to have it. Otherwise avoid the issue altogether till the “stars are more favourable”.

Then again I see from time to time people "fall in love", if this should be coincidental with a full moon it seems to be more irrational and more emotionally charged than at other times. "I love him in spite of (or because he has) a drug dependency. He needs me!"

This has not been the subject of the research as far as I can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.11.233.243 (talk • contribs) 21:45, November 7, 2006

in societys that don't have abundant electricity full moon is used for party's and visits. We may assume this effect is as old as humankind. As a result of it some people (me eg.) like to be awake at full moon. Staying awake overnight deviates your person from the most usual behaviour, hence even the 'lunacy' effect is naturally provided for. All in all there is probably a genetical component in man's tendency to use the light of the full moon. That besides it is common to play a role in bio-rhytms, menstruation being the only one in humans so obvious it is undeniable.77.251.187.88 (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removed paragraph

I removed this new paragraph:

==Tidal effects== The tides on Earth are mostly generated by the Moon's gravitation. These gravitational effects are specifically manifested as tidal forces, as the moons' gravitational pull is only strong enough to effect the large bodys of water on the earth.

It is basically correct but (1) I don't see how it relates to the topic of the article, and (2) poorly-written with grammatical, spelling, and capitalization errors. Bubba73 (talk), 02:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broad peak in cycle regularity

The article states that "only about 30% of women have a cycle length within two days of the average." I am fact-tagging this (Menstrual cycle says nothing of the sort), but I suspect that this sentence also needs to be reworked to reflect intercycle variability with a single person. A difference in length between a woman's longest and shortest cycles of up to eight days is apparently perfectly normal. Eldereft 07:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked and I couldn't find that. However, I did find this paper, which says that 28% have periods between 28.5 and 30.5 days. Bubba73 (talk), 03:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Considerable Clean Up Performed

I took the time to do some clean up as per the tag on this article. I snyced the footnote format, added some references, added some information, wikified structure a bit and tried to make the article flow more. I kept the "References" sections in as I didn't want to remove any information even though these references are not mentioned in the article. I wonder if the clean up tag is still needed. Any suggestions? aNubiSIII (T / C) 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Abell is mentioned by name in the article. I thought that all of them were referenced in the article at one time. I need to go back to older versions and see if they were taken out. Bubba73 (talk), 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)