No but it holds more generally. Taking the log of data tends to make it look "more correct" even when it's not theoretically justified, and this can lead to very wrong conclusions.
Matt Parker says it's because that's how humans are naturally inclined to think, and used the midway point between 1 and 9 to illustrate. We'd say five but "children and others not exposed to math would say 3" and then gave some explanation with beads or coins. It didn't make sense to me but I do know that if a graph is log scale I need to actually look at it harder to make sure they're not trying to pull a fast one on us here folks.
