"Etherman" <etherman at mdc.net> wrote:
>>twitchb at worldnet.att.net wrote in message
><6hqtfo$j3c at bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>>"Etherman" <etherman at mdc.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>twitchb at worldnet.att.net wrote in message
>>><6hl4lr$epq at bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>>>>Most of the people had been subjected to hypnosis. A study
>>>>commission by the Royal College of Psychiatrists published
>>>>in the April edition of the British Journal of Psychiatry
>>>>states that "any memory recovered through hynopsis, dream
>>>>interpretation, or regression therapy is almost certainly
>>>>wrong."
>>>>>>>>>This is nothing more than an appeal to authority.
>>>>Would you please post some evidence that the study is
>>incorrect?
>>Could you please provide some evidence that the study is
>correct?
How about the fact that it agrees with virtually all of the
other studies in this field?
How about the fact that it was published in a referred
journal? Not a guarantee of correctness but a guarantee
that they followed good procedure in the study.
>>>>Even a
>>>casual perusal of psychological journals demonstrates
>>>that hypnosis can, in some circumstances, improve
>>>memory.
>>>>This is nothing more than a claim with no evidence provided.
>>>I've posted references in the past. Why should I believe you'll
>look them up this time?
I have never seen you post any references. I check most of
your articles, too.
>>>>Even when it is detrimental it's a stretch
>>>to say that the memories are almost certainly wrong
>>>(unless by wrong they mean <100% accurate).
>>>>>A UFO believer made an experiment with a physician with
>>clinical experience in hypnosis. They hypnotized subjects
>>who had never claimed to be abducted and asked them to
>>imagine that they had been abducted.
>>>What exactly do you mean by UFO believer? Lawson does
>not believe that people are being abducted by space aliens.
>AFAIK he never believe that UFO were spaceships.
AFAIK?
Then you make the statement?
>>>He found out that these imaginary abductees stories "showed
>>no substantive differences" between them and the stories of
>>supposed abductess.
>>>>"one should be cautious about the results from hypnotic
>>regression in UFO investigations. A witness can lie..
>>witnesses can subtly confuse their own fantasies with
>>reality - without either the witness or the hypnotist being
>>aware."
>>>>(What can we learn from Hypnosis of Imaginary Abductees by
>>Alvin H. Lawson)
>>>I agree that his results should be looked at. But he believes
>the ultimate origin of abductions is from birth trauma, not
>confusing fantasy with reality.
True.
>>>Doctor Martin Orne, past president of the International
>>Society of Experimental Hypnosis, published a paper in the
>>International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis.
>>>>The paper is entitled THE USE AND MISUSE OF HYPNOSIS IN
>>COURT.
>>>>"it is possible for an individual to feign hypnosis and
>>deceive even highly experienced hypnotists... Further, it is
>>possible for even deeply hypnotized subjects to willfully
>>lie."
>>>>"We should keep in mind that psychologists and psychiatrists
>>are not particularly adept at recognizing deception... the
>>average hotel credit manager is considerably more adept at
>>recognizing deception than we are."
>>>Who's talking about using it in court?
>If it isn't even good enough for use in a court, where they
have in the past allowed all sorts of pseudo-science, why
should we pay any attention to it?
>>>(John Mack certainly proved him right here!)
>>>Why because one person in his study may have been lying?
>She said she fabricated her story, but how do we know
>she was being honest about lying?
Since she told people ahead of time...
>>>"If the hypnotist has beliefs about what actually occurred,
>>it is exceedingly difficult for him to prevent himself from
>>inadvertently guiding the subject's recall so that he (the
>>subject) will eventually "remember" what he, the hypnotist,
>>believes actually happened."
>>>This is simplistic at best. There are many factors that
>determine the accuracy of hypnotic recall.
>It doesn't state that all memories are from this. Merely
that because of inadvertent guiding takes place and corrupts
the final result.
Do Hopkins and Mack have beliefs in this area?
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes,
our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
alter the state of facts and evidence.
