PhotoperiodEffect.com

15. A whole lot of studies showing this and that don't make your thesis true. As Mark Twain supposedly said: "There are lies, damned lies and statistics." Quoting the Scottish writer and philosopher Thomas Carlyle: "Statistics are the greatest liars of them all." Or you want a more modern formulation of this truth: “Statistics are like lamposts to a drunk. Useful for support, but not for illumination.”

It is up to each reader to judge whether the studies I've pointed out are enough to consider the possibility that light might be affecting their health. But I'm not claiming absolute proof. I do claim that it's long past time we seriously considered the possibility, given the sheer number of studies pointing in that direction. What's important in judging statistics however, is not so much the quantity of numbers and stats that can be cited, but especially the diversity of evidence across many illnesses and the diversity in the kinds of corroborating evidence and statistics that can be found. I might also mention that, as I believe time will show, I have tried to be scrupulous in noting and clearly reporting any studies or statistics I've come across that seem to contradict my conclusions as well as those that favor them.

Also, much of what we now know about the effect of light and dark on the human hormone system is not just consistent with these effects, but offers a large number of rather obvious ways in which our health might be harmed by too-long days, given what we have recently learned about how our bodies work. I'm tempted to quote a very old book review: “All in the book is shallow; and all is at second-hand. The surface may be beautiful; but it is the glitter of gold-leaf without the solidity of the precious metal. . . . sober truth and solemn nonsense, strangely blended, and offered to us in a new material jargon...” [quoted by Gertrude Himmelfarb, “Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution”, p 219] This was written by the famous geologist Adam Sedgewick, reviewing “Vestiges of Creation” by Robert Chambers (as “Anonymous”), in the Edinburgh Review, pp 2-3, LXXXII 1845. “Vestiges” was an early, pre-Darwinian work presenting the widespread evidence for the evolution (or transmutation) of species evident in the geological record. Darwin gave two reviews of the book. The first, early in his thinking about evolution, saying that the author's “geology is bad and his zoology worse.” [1844 comment to Hooker: p220, Himmelfarb] Darwin's second review appeared in later editions of the Origin of Species and was much more friendly: “In my opinion it has done excellent service in this country in calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views.” [p221, Himmelfarb]

How does what I've written compare to this? Of course, I hope that what I have written is not just a rough sketch of future science, but a little more like Darwin's work fifteen years later, which offered not just a compendium of evidence (mostly indirect and not all entirely accurate), but also a mechanism by which the progression of species could not only be explained, but even expected. In fact, I believe it's now possible to piece together in sufficient detail just why banishing so much darkness from our lives can be expected to have many diverse negative effects on our health, over decades; and not just enumerate the evidence that this might be happening.

Even so, I'd accept something like Darwin's second review, especially given that readers can apply this knowledge immediately to help themselves heal. It's also worth remembering that the author of “Vestiges” was correct, even if he was not always very accurate in detail. He performed a service that more prestigious, and better informed scientists, including Darwin, did not yet dare to. There was ample evidence of the evolution of species within the available geological record, just as Chambers claimed (without using the later term evolution.)

Darwin offered another comment, with regard to another pre-Darwinian voice in favor of evolution, that of Herbert Spencer, who noted the principle of natural selection, calling it “survival of the fittest” before Darwin – but did not realize its general importance. Darwin said of Spencer's writings that he was frequently moved to think while reading, “Here would be a fine subject for half a dozen years work.” [p227, Himmelfarb] I don't doubt that many in medicine will have that reaction to what I've written as well – there is in fact much more research to be done, many important experiments suggest themselves, and I very much hope this work will be done.

It often happens, both within and without science, that even quite obvious truths cannot be accepted (or older beliefs abandoned) until not just plentiful evidence exists; but a plausible (causal) reason or mechanism can be offered as well. The history of science offers many similar examples, and yet this is in no way a formal rule in science, nor has ever been proposed as one, and no rational justification has been offered for it, to the best of my knowledge. It seems instead to be a peculiarity of human knowledge-gathering going back to mythology that we will desire reasons before we will face evidence squarely. To the extent that this has deferred discovery in the case of light and the modern epidemic of chronic illnesses, we need delay no longer. Two centuries, and uncounted millions of deaths, is enough, and our knowledge of chronobiology and the human hormone system has advanced to the point where it is taking us more effort to look away from the facts than it would to accept them.