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. 😅
This isn’t a good journal and the author isn’t an MD. The journal barely has an impact factor. 10 or more is considered very good (extremely reliable). This journal has less than 2; that’s super abysmal. Again, there is a reason major journals (IF of much more than 10) don’t deal with this.
The Impact Factor for a journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a year by the total number of articles published in the two previous years. This journal is barely a footnote. For comparison, Nature, one of the best of the best, has an IF of 64.8.
Science is a conversation. This low number means that only one or two articles cited each paper from this entire journal in the last two years, even just in passing. It’s not part of the conversation, and hardly has a seat at the discussion table.
Hypnotism is a fun card to play, because it’s the new meditation in some ways. In that you can basically tell Skeptics from pseudoskeptics depending on how quickly people try to debunk it.
This one has been sighted five times in the past 2 years, with four of them being from this year alone.
There are people who love science, and there are people who know science. You have outed yourself as the former.
Bro my therapist uses hypnosis to calm down erratic patients, it isn’t her main card, but it is a weapon in her Arsenal that has shown to work. She is the director of Behavioral Health at her practice.
She is also an atheist and a self-proclaimed rationalist.
Meditation used to be considered “woo woo” nonsense too but that’s not really how the peer review worked out.
Hypnotism is real, it doesn’t actually let you control and it certainly isn’t Magic or some kind of psychic power like it is in Pokemon, but it has been documented as a effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome and smoking addiction.
I’m asking you to back yourself with a credible journal. You did not and jumped to anecdote. I’m open to having my mind changed but I want to see actual evidence. This next journal has an impact factor of 2. This is not a great score, especially for medicine. Hell, even Frontiers scores higher. Placebos do work and have utility, by the way, just as the Harvard article I linked said and I’ve repeated over and over. That’s not the issue.
Except it’s not a placebo and it has actually been shown to have an effect on the human mind, there is a difference between thinking you’re getting better and actually getting better. Placebo can only make you think that you’re getting better, there is no actual measurable effect. Which is not the case with hypnosis.
Here’s another Journal, it was in my previous post, but admittedly I got the link wrong at first and had to edited in, so I don’t know that you actually saw it, unless you mean another site entirely in which case why not just say so?
And I have no idea what you mean by an impact factor, I have never heard this term before when discussing these kinds of things.
If you want documentation on hypnosis being used to treat smoking and irritable bowel syndrome, I can provide that too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor?wprov=sfla1 This is part of how the scientific conversation works, it’s not perfect but good for generalising and mostly reliable. Things that become mainstream parts of the conversation will get more citations, especially as funding will flow those ways, so a lot of the criticisms smooth over. I’m trying to explain how this all works because it’s complicated and valuable to know and very political. Just because someone published something doesn’t make it infallible. There’s really a range of grey because it is a conversation. Having a good journal backing you carries a lot of weight as they rest their reputation on you, multiplying your voice in a way. I like to picture it like a video game multiplier.
PubMed is a search engine for many journals. It’s not one journal.
When you write a paper, you’re not trying to prove something. You’re trying to attack your hypothesis from all angles and disprove it. You want to be wrong because what’s the fun in knowing everything.
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/
This isn’t a good journal and the author isn’t an MD. The journal barely has an impact factor. 10 or more is considered very good (extremely reliable). This journal has less than 2; that’s super abysmal. Again, there is a reason major journals (IF of much more than 10) don’t deal with this.
The Impact Factor for a journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a year by the total number of articles published in the two previous years. This journal is barely a footnote. For comparison, Nature, one of the best of the best, has an IF of 64.8.
Science is a conversation. This low number means that only one or two articles cited each paper from this entire journal in the last two years, even just in passing. It’s not part of the conversation, and hardly has a seat at the discussion table.
Edit: dyscalculia moment.
Hypnotism is a fun card to play, because it’s the new meditation in some ways. In that you can basically tell Skeptics from pseudoskeptics depending on how quickly people try to debunk it.
Here have another reviewed paper in favor of it https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251710/
This one has been sighted five times in the past 2 years, with four of them being from this year alone.
There are people who love science, and there are people who know science. You have outed yourself as the former.
Bro my therapist uses hypnosis to calm down erratic patients, it isn’t her main card, but it is a weapon in her Arsenal that has shown to work. She is the director of Behavioral Health at her practice.
She is also an atheist and a self-proclaimed rationalist.
Meditation used to be considered “woo woo” nonsense too but that’s not really how the peer review worked out.
Hypnotism is real, it doesn’t actually let you control and it certainly isn’t Magic or some kind of psychic power like it is in Pokemon, but it has been documented as a effective treatment for irritable bowel syndrome and smoking addiction.
I’m asking you to back yourself with a credible journal. You did not and jumped to anecdote. I’m open to having my mind changed but I want to see actual evidence. This next journal has an impact factor of 2. This is not a great score, especially for medicine. Hell, even Frontiers scores higher. Placebos do work and have utility, by the way, just as the Harvard article I linked said and I’ve repeated over and over. That’s not the issue.
Except it’s not a placebo and it has actually been shown to have an effect on the human mind, there is a difference between thinking you’re getting better and actually getting better. Placebo can only make you think that you’re getting better, there is no actual measurable effect. Which is not the case with hypnosis.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31251710/
Here’s another Journal, it was in my previous post, but admittedly I got the link wrong at first and had to edited in, so I don’t know that you actually saw it, unless you mean another site entirely in which case why not just say so?
And I have no idea what you mean by an impact factor, I have never heard this term before when discussing these kinds of things.
If you want documentation on hypnosis being used to treat smoking and irritable bowel syndrome, I can provide that too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor?wprov=sfla1 This is part of how the scientific conversation works, it’s not perfect but good for generalising and mostly reliable. Things that become mainstream parts of the conversation will get more citations, especially as funding will flow those ways, so a lot of the criticisms smooth over. I’m trying to explain how this all works because it’s complicated and valuable to know and very political. Just because someone published something doesn’t make it infallible. There’s really a range of grey because it is a conversation. Having a good journal backing you carries a lot of weight as they rest their reputation on you, multiplying your voice in a way. I like to picture it like a video game multiplier.
PubMed is a search engine for many journals. It’s not one journal.
When you write a paper, you’re not trying to prove something. You’re trying to attack your hypothesis from all angles and disprove it. You want to be wrong because what’s the fun in knowing everything.