“Hypnosis – state of extreme relaxation and inner focus in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist. The modern practice has its roots in the idea of animal magnetism, or mesmerism, originated by Franz Mesmer.[443] Mesmer’s explanations were thoroughly discredited, and to this day there is no agreement amongst researchers whether hypnosis is a real phenomenon, or merely a form of participatory role-enactment.[272][444][445] Some aspects of suggestion have been clinically useful.[446][447] Other claimed uses of hypnosis more clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience. Such areas include the use of hypnotic regression, including past life regression.[448]”
Some aspects of mythology or alchemy are also useful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an overall respected science or isn’t caused by a secondary phenomenon. As that wiki states, it’s the suggestion aspect that is useful, not the hypnosis itself (the methodology) and there isn’t really a consensus on its efficacy.
The statement “If it’s useful for anything, then it’s not pseudoscience” is an example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy or a false dilemma. This fallacy occurs when someone presents a situation as if there are only two mutually exclusive options or possibilities when, in fact, there are more potential alternatives or nuances to consider.
In this case, the statement implies that something can either be “useful” or “pseudoscience,” with no middle ground or other possibilities. In reality, an idea or concept can have some utility or practical applications while still being considered pseudoscientific or lacking scientific validity. The two categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and this oversimplified dichotomy ignores the complexity of the subject matter.
This is basically part of the joke that this headline implies.
Psuedoscience is psuedoscience because it produces no objectively useful results, if Hypnosis demonstrates measurable and repeatably provable results, then it’s not psuedoscience
No, pseudoscience simply consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. It’s more about methodology and subsequent reproducibility, not simply results. There’s an important difference here.
Even pseudoscientific fields can produce results that appear to be beneficial or effective; however, these results may not be replicable, may be the result of placebo effects, or other biases.
As the earlier wiki link states: “Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question.”
That “some aspects” in the earlier, previously quoted context is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Notice the word ‘suggestion’ in place of hypnosis. The following entry is related directly to hypnotherapy in that link. If you look under Efficacy in this next wiki link, nearly all meta studies say there is inconclusive evidence to support this practice as any sort of standalone treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotherapy?wprov=sfla1 Partial evidence may hint that it is touching on something(s) we can isolate and apply in a better way.
Bro if Dowsing Roads could actually find water, it wouldn’t matter if people thought it was magic, there’d be something there to study and figure out why.
This is also a logical fallacy, actually several. False analogy (qualitative vs quantitative) and appeal to authority, namely. There is a practitioner here telling you it’s a placebo (literally a sham medical treatment, that can be useful for secondary effects), wiki classifies it as pseudoscience… Again, even pseudoscientific fields can produce results that appear to be beneficial or effective; however, these results may not be replicable, may be the result of placebo effects, or other biases. No major journal is currently touching this topic as a potential standalone treatment.
I’m not sure what else you want, but I sure hope that you don’t work in the sciences. 😅
Are you sure?
“Hypnosis – state of extreme relaxation and inner focus in which a person is unusually responsive to suggestions made by the hypnotist. The modern practice has its roots in the idea of animal magnetism, or mesmerism, originated by Franz Mesmer.[443] Mesmer’s explanations were thoroughly discredited, and to this day there is no agreement amongst researchers whether hypnosis is a real phenomenon, or merely a form of participatory role-enactment.[272][444][445] Some aspects of suggestion have been clinically useful.[446][447] Other claimed uses of hypnosis more clearly fall within the area of pseudoscience. Such areas include the use of hypnotic regression, including past life regression.[448]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
It seems it’s possibly useful for IBS and that’s about it lmao.
If it’s useful for anything then it’s not pseudoscience
Some aspects of mythology or alchemy are also useful, but that doesn’t mean it’s an overall respected science or isn’t caused by a secondary phenomenon. As that wiki states, it’s the suggestion aspect that is useful, not the hypnosis itself (the methodology) and there isn’t really a consensus on its efficacy.
The statement “If it’s useful for anything, then it’s not pseudoscience” is an example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy or a false dilemma. This fallacy occurs when someone presents a situation as if there are only two mutually exclusive options or possibilities when, in fact, there are more potential alternatives or nuances to consider.
In this case, the statement implies that something can either be “useful” or “pseudoscience,” with no middle ground or other possibilities. In reality, an idea or concept can have some utility or practical applications while still being considered pseudoscientific or lacking scientific validity. The two categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and this oversimplified dichotomy ignores the complexity of the subject matter.
This is basically part of the joke that this headline implies.
Psuedoscience is psuedoscience because it produces no objectively useful results, if Hypnosis demonstrates measurable and repeatably provable results, then it’s not psuedoscience
No, pseudoscience simply consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. It’s more about methodology and subsequent reproducibility, not simply results. There’s an important difference here.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pseudoscience
Even pseudoscientific fields can produce results that appear to be beneficial or effective; however, these results may not be replicable, may be the result of placebo effects, or other biases.
As the earlier wiki link states: “Criticism of pseudoscience, generally by the scientific community or skeptical organizations, involves critiques of the logical, methodological, or rhetorical bases of the topic in question.”
That “some aspects” in the earlier, previously quoted context is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Notice the word ‘suggestion’ in place of hypnosis. The following entry is related directly to hypnotherapy in that link. If you look under Efficacy in this next wiki link, nearly all meta studies say there is inconclusive evidence to support this practice as any sort of standalone treatment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnotherapy?wprov=sfla1 Partial evidence may hint that it is touching on something(s) we can isolate and apply in a better way.
Bro if Dowsing Roads could actually find water, it wouldn’t matter if people thought it was magic, there’d be something there to study and figure out why.
This is also a logical fallacy, actually several. False analogy (qualitative vs quantitative) and appeal to authority, namely. There is a practitioner here telling you it’s a placebo (literally a sham medical treatment, that can be useful for secondary effects), wiki classifies it as pseudoscience… Again, even pseudoscientific fields can produce results that appear to be beneficial or effective; however, these results may not be replicable, may be the result of placebo effects, or other biases. No major journal is currently touching this topic as a potential standalone treatment.
I’m not sure what else you want, but I sure hope that you don’t work in the sciences. 😅
Here: https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect “Placebos may make you feel better, but they will not cure you.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6357291/ - It’s not a placebo
Edit: Not sure why I’m being downvoted https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251710/