Home > Science and Skepticism > Hypnosis

Hypnosis In the web site The Skeptic’s Dictionary the author - Robert Todd Carroll – attempts to debunk a wide range of philosophies that he disapproves of. Some are outlandish and probably deserving of his treatment. Others he debunks with apparently little knowledge of his subject, but simply relies on the fact that the philosophy does not meet with some pre-defined criteria that he has set for himself. The criteria often seem to be that they are not recognised, at least at the moment, by the body of conventional scientists. The article that particularly caught my attention, mainly because it is referenced so often as being, as it were, the definitive view, is this one on hypnosis. In this article the author disputes that hypnosis is an altered state of consciousness. He also (either due to confusion or as a deliberate ploy) mixes up the concept an altered state of consciousness with states of consciousness that are ‘occult’. The two things are, of course, completely different and the ‘occult’ aspects of hypnosis are very much on the fringe and are not relevant to most hypnotherapy. One might ask why the aspect of whether hypnosis is an altered state is of any interest. It is of interest to skeptics because to accept that hypnosis is an altered state opens up the possibility that there is more than one valid way of perceiving the world, and therefore, in the view of skeptics, threatens the concept of a fixed reality that the mind perceives. Like all religions (and skepticism and its brother atheism are, to all intents and purposes, religions) they have to defend their ideological base even if this should seem pedantic to the naive outsider. I should point out that he derisorily asks if one should consider daydreaming an altered state of consciousness. Most people who know about hypnosis would say it is. I won’t go into detail over most of the nonsense on this site. Most of it is simply rhetoric, eg ‘We know…’ (Who is the ‘we’ here? Some of the things he claims ‘we’ know are complete nonsense), and he claims “We know that those who think hypnosis is rubbish can’t be hypnotized.” I don’t know what thinking hypnosis is rubbish means. Does the author think it is ‘rubbish’? Certainly hypnotists know that even people who claim they can’t be hypnotised often can be. The view that the author of this wants us to adopt is that under hypnosis the subject simply wants to please the hypnotist. This fails to explain how hypnosis can be (and often is) used instead of anaesthetics in major surgery. He claims that it does not aid memory but even the TV program ‘Mythbusters’ proved that it does: here and here. The real issue here is that in attempting to debunk hypnosis he points out a lot of so-called dangers due to the fact that the hypnotist can easily manipulate subjects into having false memories. This certainly can be problem, but a good hypnotist will avoid this. In any case, dealing in repressed memories is only one facet of hypnotherapy. The problem for the author is that this is the only negative he can find so he has to blow it up out of all proportion. He does state, “Using hypnosis to help people quit smoking or stick to a diet may be useful, and even if it fails it is probably not harmful.” Well, it certainly is useful, and for a much wider range of things than that. On the other hand consider the remedies that conventional medicine will give you. For smoking there are nicotine patches and Zyban. For shyness (a good candidate for hypnotherapy) there is Paxil. The links report major side effects. It is also worth considering the side effects of anesthesia. Death rates due to anesthesia for major surgery would seem to be more than 1 per 100,1000. More for smokers. However, the main complication for anesthesia is in elderly patients who suffer from memory loss as a result. The side effects of hypnosis as an aesthetic are negligible. The imaginary side effects of hypnotherapy are nothing compared to these drugs, but apparently Robert Todd Carroll would rather people suffered from these side effects than use hypnotherapy. It supports his ideology, and that, it would seem, is more important than the truth or even lives.