Blogging The Line Between Science and Quackery

A recent article (Seed: Science Finally Tackles Hypnosis) reminded me of why I’m often hesitant to talk (or writing) about hypnosis, trance states, meditation, brain-wave entrainment and other mind tools, even though that’s what this blog is supposed to be about.

I have direct experience with these subjects. I know they’re “real” in the sense that I’ve experienced their effects, witnessed others experience them, and seen short and long term changes resulting from them.

I’m not a scientist, and I can’t sit down and argue about proofs, the parts of the brain that are involved, the interpretation of data, or the validity of specific studies. I can’t prove that there is a difference in brain states between a shamanic trance or a buddhist meditation , and I probably can’t debate how they differ from ordinary suggestibility, or social role playing, or anything else.

I do have my experience, though — and while that isn’t science, it does have value. Empirical evidence has worth, and often provides the basis for scientific studies.

What troubles me is the fringe exploitation of the subjects I’m interested in — Entertainers, New Age Psuedo-Sientists, Self-Help Gurus, Practitioners-Of-Questionable-Background, even journalists eager to grab readers by promising the next quick cure. Quackery abounds, and in this age of information overload, its easy to toss out the brainwaves with the bathwater. .

So my concern is that without proof, my experiences are dismissed as just more of the fringe element. … and I don’t much care for being dismissed, dangnabit.

I’m actually very sympathetic to demands for PROOF (in all caps, yet!) and open to conversation and even debate, so long as it isn’t intended to invalidate my own experiences. I can’t provide proof, but then I’m not making outrageous claims, just reporting on my experience, and that of others. I understand that makes my comments “questionable”.. but questionable doesn’t mean worthless. I’m pretty comfortable with the Socratic Method, as long as it’s intended to extend knowledge, and not limit it.

So here I am, staring down the boundaries between Science and Quackery…. It’s a tough line to walk - but I’m going to walk it…. Or at least blog it!