Hypnotism and Science

[granadina]

Hypnosis is not regarded as a science .

Yet its use in surgery as anaesthesia has been recorded and verified .

 

If the power of suggestion can visibly alter the human physiology and render a body part immune to

pain , doesn't the idea of proven science leave much to be desired ?

 

[Ringer]

It's not a science because it's a technique, not an area of study. You can do things that are scientific regarding hypnosis, just like you can do things that are scientific regarding surgery, but the act in itself is not science.

 

[edit] Odd wording fixed for clarity [/edit]

Edited November 8, 2011 by Ringer

[PhDwannabe]

Hypnosis is not regarded as a science .

Science is a systematic method for investigating natural phenomena. Hypnosis is a goofy technique for altering consciousness. You're right. It is not regarded as "a science." It joins the long list of other things not regarded as "a science," such as particle accelerators, refrigeration, dining room tables, blowing one's nose, squid, and purchasing a taco.

[granadina]

The focus is not on hypnosis .

Rather on the awareness of the limitations of Scientific knowledge .

 

[mooeypoo]

You're shifting your arguments around. This is what you posted initially, so I'll answer that.

Hypnosis is not regarded as a science .

That's because it's a technique. Tht's what PhDwannabe was trying to say. Hypnosis is used for specific things, and there's debate on how much it is benefitial for other things. It's not "a science". It's a technique.

 

Some people claim it can do more than it is proved to be able to do, which is when actual scientists cry foul.

 

Case in point:

Yet its use in surgery as anaesthesia has been recorded and verified .

No, it wasn't verified to work in surgery. If you claim it has, you need to bring us references and evidence, otherwise you're just talking empty claims.

If the power of suggestion can visibly alter the human physiology and render a body part immune to

pain , doesn't the idea of proven science leave much to be desired ?

If, then.

But if not, then not.

 

 

If you provide evidence and show that hypnotism can do what you claim it can, then we can discuss about what that means. Since there's no evidence to even remotely suggest that one can replace general anastesia with hypnotism, then your claim is moot.

 

~moo

 

[granadina]

Cesarian under hypnosis -

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iftWAM1QljU

[Appolinaria]

Definitely not clicking that link.

[mooeypoo]

Cesarian under hypnosis -

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=iftWAM1QljU

 

Videos are a far cry from scientific evidence, which is what this forum requires. It's VERY easy to create a fraudulent video, whether it's on purpose with "magic" tricks or with CGI, or with hidden camera moves, or with things we just don't notice.

 

That's why they're not evidence of anything. Ever.

 

 

Case in point, here is a video proving James Randi is a psychic surgeon. If your video is evidence, this one is too.

 

 

Remember: You made the claim, you need to supply evidence for it. Scientific evidence.

Good luck.

[Iggy]

If you provide evidence and show that hypnotism can do what you claim it can, then we can discuss about what that means. Since there's no evidence to even remotely suggest that one can replace general anastesia with hypnotism, then your claim is moot.

 

~moo

In medicine it is also worth mentioning that trials need randomized and controlled comparisons before they can be clinical practice.

 

So, even if a trial chose 10 or 50 women to deliver by caesarian section with hypnosis and no other local or general anesthetic in a well-documented clinical setting and it was a complete success (it was as successful as the current standard of care) that would not be enough for the society to advance the procedure.

 

Unless it's randomized and blind, for example, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility that the 10 or 50 women were chosen because they are extremely susceptible to hypnosis.

 

So, even if it weren't a youtube video -- if it were a real scientific paper reporting that the procedure worked -- that still would have to be rejected as anecdotal in the literature until someone did a proper study.

 

 

Also... we have drugs now that put people into a hypnotic state. They are called hypnotics. That's what they use for general anesthesia and conscious sedation, and the drugs are extremely safe. I can't wrap my mind around someone going to 4 months of hypnosis sessions in the hope that it might do what we all know an IV will safely do in 10 seconds.

[granadina]

In medicine it is also worth mentioning that trials need randomized and controlled comparisons before they can be clinical practice.

 

So, even if a trial chose 10 or 50 women to deliver by caesarian section with hypnosis and no other local or general anesthetic in a well-documented clinical setting and it was a complete success (it was as successful as the current standard of care) that would not be enough for the society to advance the procedure.

 

Unless it's randomized and blind, for example, you wouldn't be able to rule out the possibility that the 10 or 50 women were chosen because they are extremely susceptible to hypnosis.

 

So, even if it weren't a youtube video -- if it were a real scientific paper reporting that the procedure worked -- that still would have to be rejected as anecdotal in the literature until someone did a proper study.

 

 

Also... we have drugs now that put people into a hypnotic state. They are called hypnotics. That's what they use for general anesthesia and conscious sedation, and the drugs are extremely safe. I can't wrap my mind around someone going to 4 months of hypnosis sessions in the hope that it might do what we all know an IV will safely do in 10 seconds.

 

 

That was helpful .

 

The fact that it was a complete success , with someone extremely susceptible to hypnosis ;

Does this not point at a ' mystery zone ' which is still beyond the grasp of science ?

 

Whatever caused this , had to do with the power of suggestion !

So perhaps a lot more is possible with the Psyche than we are aware of ..

[Iggy]

The fact that it was a complete success , with someone extremely susceptible to hypnosis ;

No, my point was that we don't have that fact. I just as easily could have suggested that the lady in the video had some kind of sensory neuropathy or congenital insensitivity to pain so that it would have made no difference if she were hypnotized or not. My point was that we don't have these facts -- even if you assume everything reported in that video is completely on the level (which is another fact that I don't have)

 

Whatever caused this , had to do with the power of suggestion !

So perhaps a lot more is possible with the Psyche than we are aware of ..

I don't know enough about hypnosis to say what it has to do with the power of suggestion. I do know that a lot is possible with the psyche.

 

Surgery predates anesthesia. For at least a couple thousand years, until the 1800's, people had major surgery without anesthetic. They got through it with mental discipline, fortitude, a stick to bite down on, and some burly chaps to hold them to the table. Luckily, we don't have to do that anymore.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Iggy

[mooeypoo]

The power of suggestion and the implication that someone was "susceptible" to hypnosis both hint that hypnosis only works on people who are susceptible to be convinced it works -- which makes it a not quite effective medical technique.

 

Of course there's "something" in hypnosis, there's just no proof that this "something" is as powerful as you make it seem. Hypnosis is calming and relaxing and can be beneficial in psychotherapy -- mainly because of the above two effects. Relaxation and concentration, focus, etc, is always beneficial when you want to work on a specific problem or remember something specific.

 

That does NOT make it effective in surgeries, though, and there's absolutely no proof that it can be used for that.

 

 

Also, granadina, it's nice that you continue the debate, but there were questions raised for you to answer and supply evidence for. You shouldn't ignore them.

 

~mooey

[PhDwannabe]

Does this not point at a ' mystery zone ' which is still beyond the grasp of science ?

No.

[granadina]

I don't know enough about hypnosis to say what it has to do with the power of suggestion. I do know that a lot is possible with the psyche.

 

 

This is all that I wanted stressed .

Thanks .

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That does NOT make it effective in surgeries, though, and there's absolutely no proof that it can be used for that.

Skepticism does not mean making bald assertions without checking your facts first. Preferably you'd cite a meta-analysis showing no effect, although in fact I can find the opposite:

 

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2000-15382-002

 

http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/94/6/1639.abstract

 

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/17/1304.abstract

 

http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/90/1/64.abstract

 

That's about ten minutes of Google Scholar-ing.

[mooeypoo]

Skepticism does not mean making bald assertions without checking your facts first. Preferably you'd cite a meta-analysis showing no effect, although in fact I can find the opposite:

 

http://psycnet.apa.o.../2000-15382-002

 

http://www.anesthesi...6/1639.abstract

 

http://jnci.oxfordjo...7/1304.abstract

 

http://www.anesthesi...0/1/64.abstract

 

That's about ten minutes of Google Scholar-ing.

 

Hang on, I didn't say it's NOT effective. I said the evidence he supplied doesn't make it effective. Also, please notice that the OP doesn't just claim hypnosis is effective on pain, he claims hypnosis is effective as used INSTEAD of general or local anastesia. That is yet unproven.

 

I find this whole thing ironic. I, myself, meditate a form that's called "self hypnosis" almost nightly, since I was five. I use it to manage stress as well as pain, and I find it incredibly beneficial. I just don't see how you can make the *huge* leap from personal experience and some mild-effects and meta-studies to "it can replace anastasia" and "maybe science can't research it".

 

 

 

 

There's quite a significant difference in what I said. Namely, now I have actual evidence to sift through and continue a proper debate, which we did not have before.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, it wasn't verified to work in surgery.

The power of suggestion and the implication that someone was "susceptible" to hypnosis both hint that hypnosis only works on people who are susceptible to be convinced it works -- which makes it a not quite effective medical technique.

That does NOT make it effective in surgeries, though, and there's absolutely no proof that it can be used for that.

 

Hang on, I didn't say it's NOT effective. I said the evidence he supplied doesn't make it effective.

Ah, I see. You merely said it's not verified to work in surgery, it's not a very effective medical technique, and there's no evidence it can be used in surgery. If that's not what you intended to say, you should have chosen your arguments more carefully.

 

Also, please notice that the OP doesn't just claim hypnosis is effective on pain, he claims hypnosis is effective as used INSTEAD of general or local anastesia. That is yet unproven.

I certainly didn't find papers on hypnosis as a general anesthetic. That's ancillary to the OP's point, though, and something we could search through the literature for.

 

I find this whole thing ironic. I, myself, meditate a form that's called "self hypnosis" almost nightly, since I was five. I use it to manage stress as well as pain, and I find it incredibly beneficial. I just don't see how you can make the *huge* leap from personal experience and some mild-effects and meta-studies to "it can replace anastasia" and "maybe science can't research it".

I read the post as "does this not point at something science doesn't understand -- i.e. a 'mystery'?", rather than "is it impossible for science to understand this?" Judging by the literature, the answer would be "yes," because the mechanisms of hypnosis in pain control are poorly understood. granadina would have to verify my interpretation.

 

I am annoyed by this tendency to react to controversial or slightly-pseudoscientific topics with the insistence that there is no evidence whatsoever and the OP must provide reams of scientific papers before we even consider their argument. First, a skeptical view would be "I don't know, I haven't seen the research", not flat insistence that there is no evidence whatsoever. Skepticism does not mean denialism. Secondly, this tactic often derails threads by focusing on issues secondary to the main point, demanding that facts be cited even if they aren't necessary for the argument. Finally, it's a safe bet that most members are not trained in the scientific method or the effective use of hypnosis in surgery, and so beating them over the head for sources is interpreted as hostility, not helpful discussion. (Particularly when one uses the "there's no evidence whatsoever!" tactic with a goofy video and a touch of condescension.)

[mooeypoo]

Ah, I see. You merely said it's not verified to work in surgery, it's not a very effective medical technique, and there's no evidence it can be used in surgery. If that's not what you intended to say, you should have chosen your arguments more carefully.

Not verified does not equal "not working".

Although with due respect, in the scientific context, it kinda does. And yet that's not what I said, I said it's not verified, and the fact that other effects exist don't mean the more extreme one is true.

 

I would imagine that would be something we agree on?

 

 

I certainly didn't find papers on hypnosis as a general anesthetic. That's ancillary to the OP's point, though, and something we could search through the literature for.

Yep, we could, and I would if I had time. As it goes, I didn't, and since I am not the one making the claim that it *can* replace hypnosis, the burden of proof is on him. If you want to help out and look for evidence, feel free.

 

 

I read the post as "does this not point at something science doesn't understand -- i.e. a 'mystery'?", rather than "is it impossible for science to understand this?" Judging by the literature, the answer would be "yes," because the mechanisms of hypnosis in pain control are poorly understood. granadina would have to verify my interpretation.

Wait, the fact that the mechanism is poorly understood doesn't mean it's *impossible* for science to understand it.

 

It might be -- and that's something I'm actually in complete agreement with -- that we didn't research it enough. Or, alternatively, that we don't have the proper tools just yet to completely understand all the effects.

 

That said, I want to emphasize, again, that there seem to be two main issues here. Whether or not hypnosis works, and to what extent. The scientific literature seems to support the idea that hypnosis works, even though it's not quite clear *how* (which is something science SHOULD be able to fix given time, resources and more data).

 

However, it seems to me that the OP jumps to the conclusion that therefore hypnosis works to a relatively *extreme* extent. That's fine, but he supplied no proof for that, which is why I raised a flag.

 

I am annoyed by this tendency to react to controversial or slightly-pseudoscientific topics with the insistence that there is no evidence whatsoever and the OP must provide reams of scientific papers before we even consider their argument. First, a skeptical view would be "I don't know, I haven't seen the research", not flat insistence that there is no evidence whatsoever. Skepticism does not mean denialism. Secondly, this tactic often derails threads by focusing on issues secondary to the main point, demanding that facts be cited even if they aren't necessary for the argument. Finally, it's a safe bet that most members are not trained in the scientific method or the effective use of hypnosis in surgery, and so beating them over the head for sources is interpreted as hostility, not helpful discussion. (Particularly when one uses the "there's no evidence whatsoever!" tactic with a goofy video and a touch of condescension.)

 

I'm annoyed by shifting of argument and moving the goal posts. We all have our pet peeves. The original post was not about whether or not hypnosis has any effect, it was posted as a conclusion with faulty premises:

Hypnosis is not regarded as a science .

Yet its use in surgery as anaesthesia has been recorded and verified .

 

If the power of suggestion can visibly alter the human physiology and render a body part immune to

pain , doesn't the idea of proven science leave much to be desired ?

 

 

Hypnosis isn't regarded as science because hypnosis is a tool, that was pointed out. The poster makes the BOLD claim that the use in surgery is recorded and verified. That required evidence, which is what we requested.

 

The evidence produced were not good enough, at least in my opinion, which is why I supplied a counter-video and requested *proper* evidence. Even the evidence you supplied are not quite to the level of what the OP suggests.

 

Then, the original post continues the conclusion to jump ahead of itself and asks a question that I'm not even sure makes any sense (he starts with "x is proven" and then claims 'proven' isn't good.. ?)

 

In any case, I have no argument against hte beneficial effects of hypnosis, or self hypnosis, as I said, I've been doing it for years. However, I won't go around claiming that it's proven and recorded to work in surgery without proper proof. My own anecdotal experience that it helped me consistently for 25 years is irrelevant.

 

So is the original poster's.

 

 

I'm not sure what the problem is, Capn.

[questionposter]

If you naturally wouldn't do anything that someone else tells you to do no matter what, what could someone suggest to you to make you do something?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not verified does not equal "not working".

Although with due respect, in the scientific context, it kinda does.

No it does not. It means "we don't know if it works," and no stronger conclusions can be reached, like "there's absolutely no proof." Lack of personal knowledge of the evidence is not sufficient grounds to make a strong positive statement.

 

You also made the claim that hypnosis can't be a particularly effective medical technique, which is false even if it can't be used for general anesthesia.

 

Wait, the fact that the mechanism is poorly understood doesn't mean it's *impossible* for science to understand it.

I believe you've misread me. I did not say it implies science cannot understand it. I said that was your misunderstanding of the post.

 

I'm annoyed by shifting of argument and moving the goal posts. We all have our pet peeves. The original post was not about whether or not hypnosis has any effect, it was posted as a conclusion with faulty premises:

There's a difference between "faulty" and "unsupported"; namely, unsupported premises can become suddenly supported:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10499384

 

I'm not sure what the problem is, Capn.

There were three issues I brought up in my concluding paragraph; you've addressed one. Was there something confusing about the other two?

 

Perhaps I can restate. The problem with these strong, condescending we-demand-absolute-proof responses to controversial or slightly-pseudoscientific topics is that we merely convince people that we're denialists, rather than educating them. We drive them off with our hostility to their ideas, when we can't reasonably expect that everyone who visits SFN will only present scientifically-supported clearly-presented ideas to discuss.

 

We can certainly make an attempt to educate members by asking for evidence, explaining science, and digging up research. But if we come across as condescending closed-minded denialists when we do it, we're not going to succeed.

[mooeypoo]

Okay, I agree, and I see what you mean. I didn't mean to come off too condescending; it struck me as odd that the OP makes what I found as definitive claims and then shift the argument.

 

You are right, though, and I might have gotten carried away. I still slightly disagree with minor points you're making as to the way I understood the posts, but the bigger point about attitude makes them rather moot.

 

 

In any case, I think post #4, which is a rather blatant shift of the argument, drove me a bit farther into frustration and hence condescension. I apologize.

[Iggy]

I read the post as "does this not point at something science doesn't understand -- i.e. a 'mystery'?", rather than "is it impossible for science to understand this?" Judging by the literature, the answer would be "yes," because the mechanisms of hypnosis in pain control are poorly understood. granadina would have to verify my interpretation.

Wait, the fact that the mechanism is poorly understood doesn't mean it's *impossible* for science to understand it.

 

It might be -- and that's something I'm actually in complete agreement with -- that we didn't research it enough. Or, alternatively, that we don't have the proper tools just yet to completely understand all the effects.

 

That said, I want to emphasize, again, that there seem to be two main issues here. Whether or not hypnosis works, and to what extent. The scientific literature seems to support the idea that hypnosis works, even though it's not quite clear *how* (which is something science SHOULD be able to fix given time, resources and more data).

 

However, it seems to me that the OP jumps to the conclusion that therefore hypnosis works to a relatively *extreme* extent. That's fine, but he supplied no proof for that, which is why I raised a flag.

Hate to muddy waters, but there is a perfect symmetry here that is too hard not to point out.

 

No one knows why the most popular general anesthetic works either (diprivan). Its mechanism of action is at least as unknown as the mechanism of action of hypnosis, so these two questions stand on a perfectly level playing field:

 

• 
   
  
• General anesthesia results from hypnotic agents, but science can’t explain why. There are limits to scientific knowledge, right?
  
• General anesthesia results from hypnosis, but science can’t explain why. There are limits to scientific knowledge, right?
  

 

The perfect control question. The first would be easy to answer, "yes".

 

The second feels more like the kind of mistake in reasoning that Steve Jobs recently paid a heavy price for making. No easy answer for sure.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Iggy

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay, I agree, and I see what you mean. I didn't mean to come off too condescending; it struck me as odd that the OP makes what I found as definitive claims and then shift the argument.

I'm not surprised -- if I posted something and got immediately beaten over the head for it, I'd probably change my argument, too. "Your argument is wrong, but you're not allowed to change it, because I'd rather berate you for being wrong" is rather silly.

 

Generally when I see a thread like this, I post something like "Hm. I haven't heard of hypnosis being used as a general anesthetic before. Do you have examples?" I still get the information I want, and I can then assess the validity of the argument.

[PhDwannabe]

Okay, I agree, and I see what you mean. I didn't mean to come off too condescending; it struck me as odd that the OP makes what I found as definitive claims and then shift the argument.

 

You are right, though, and I might have gotten carried away. I still slightly disagree with minor points you're making as to the way I understood the posts, but the bigger point about attitude makes them rather moot.

 

 

In any case, I think post #4, which is a rather blatant shift of the argument, drove me a bit farther into frustration and hence condescension. I apologize.

 

Awwww, a charitable admission of one's overreach, apology, and polite explanation. It warms my heart. How often do we see any of this here? Cheers to the lady.

 

 

 

hugs mooeypoo

[charles brough]

That was helpful .

 

The fact that it was a complete success , with someone extremely susceptible to hypnosis ;

Does this not point at a ' mystery zone ' which is still beyond the grasp of science ?

 

Whatever caused this , had to do with the power of suggestion !

So perhaps a lot more is possible with the Psyche than we are aware of ..

As a tecnique, hypnosis should not be judged just on whether or not it is safe in surgery as seens to be the case in this thread. I have experience with hypnosis and consider it possible in the right type of patient but extremely impractical as it has to be preceeded by staged sessions in preparation and only with susceptable patients.

 

But is it impossible? No, there are people who can eliminate all pain themselves. This takes years of study and self-suggestion.

 

I feel it is important to know the subject because it leads to the individual having a better awareness of propaganda techniques, advertising tricks, etc.