pseudo

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!

It started with couple of drunken college jocks being pulled over for speeding, and escalated when a hot gay research ram was discovered in the back of their truck.

No, not “hot” as in sexy — the ram was hot as in stolen.

Turns out that the ram was liberated from an Oregon research center, where his gayness was the subject of a joint university study. Apparently, as many as 10% of rams prefer to mount other males - ignoring the females. Seems this presents a problem for ranchers with sheep breeding programs, so a study was set up to find out why these rams are differently-oriented, and if the orientation could be predicted or changed through hormonal treatments.

The story hit the papers because it was just damn funny. I mean.. university football players with a stolen gay sheep. The jokes write themselves, and reporters and bloggers couldn’t resist. As time went on, the hilarity mounted and the puns bred (presumedly they were the female-oriented rams). Do a search on Googlenews for “gay sheep research” - I promise ewe, my puns are not the worst on the topic)

Anyway, all jokes aside, once PETA caught wind of the experiments, the wool really started flying. Among other things, they claimed that aspects of the experiments amounted to sheep-rape. (I’m not kidding. Sheep-rape) So PETA did what any group of activists normally does, when faced with such overwhelming horror - they started a letter writing campaign.

Among the letter writers they encouraged was Tennis-star-turned-gay-rights-activist Martina Navratilova, who called the experiments “homophobic and cruel”. This, in turn, led to more absurdity about how the researchers were denying the sheep their god-given rights to be gay.

Seriously.
But Wait. It gets better.
The Baptists get involved.

[click to continue...]