• Queen HawlSera
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If it’s useful for anything then it’s not pseudoscience

    • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Queen HawlSera
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Psuedoscience is psuedoscience because it produces no objectively useful results, if Hypnosis demonstrates measurable and repeatably provable results, then it’s not psuedoscience

        • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Queen HawlSera
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.”

                • fossilesque@mander.xyzOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • Queen HawlSera
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    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.