Is Hypnosis Really Scientific?
Clinical hypnosis is not the enemy of science. But stage hypnosis is. I admit that hypnosis has some weird connotations. The word hypnosis doesn’t exactly smack of science the same way that electromagnetism, gravity, neuroanatomy, or medicine do. In some sense that is a shame. Let me show you why.
The three classic connotations that come to mind are a swinging watch, losing control, and clucking like a chicken.
As discussed in the question and answer section, these are generally false. Mostly they arise from the important difference between stage hypnosis (which is about entertainment) and clinical hypnosis (which is about supporting sound mental health). In the four minute video clip below, David Spiegel, Professor and Associate Chair of Psychiatry & Behavioural Sciences at Stanford School of Medicine, explains this well.
So the practice of clinical rather than stage hypnosis is important for therapeutic outcomes. Moreover, clinical hypnosis lives on when held up to the light of experimental scrutiny. Yes, people have tried to kill it's credibility, but in the face of objective and statistical tests, it stands up to them, and thus lives on. This fact, along with my own positive experience with clinical hypnotherapy, is what convinced me to train in this therapy style.
Why Experiments Matter
Next, the reader will find a Feynman quote about experiment, science, and discovery. I include this because it sums up an important principle.
It reads:
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong”.
While that statement on experiment was made in the context of physics - a subject very different to clinical hypnosis - it is indeed relevant beyond its original domain. It is relevant, for example, in drug development. Imagine that a company creates a new drug to reduce anxiety, but upon testing the drug they discover that it actually increases anxiety, an important and concerning finding. But it is also relevant in politics. Why? Because a political party might introduce a scheme to increase employment. Very well. But now consider that when this scheme is implemented it actually has negative and unintended consequences they did not originally foresee. Physics, drugs, politics; Feynman’’s insight is relevant to them all.
And it is relevant to clinical hypnotherapy.
It is relevant because experiment can help to more conclusively answer important question like:
Does the therapy actually work?
How often?
And for who?
What matters across all these areas of study is how the theoretical claims (“I think this”) match up to reality when tested independently in a meaningful way (“This is what was actually observed in experiment”). That is the scientific method, a framework that can be applied across the board, from physics to politics, drug testing to psychotherapy.
It is certainly true that physics has by far the most precision in how to carry out such tests. In that sense physics is the most meticulous form of how the scientific method is applied. Of that there is no question. But the scientific method can and should be applied beyond just physics. And it already has been.
The findings are these:
Here is what clinical hypnosis is most helpful for, according to the relevant research.
To my knowledge, the up-to-date scientific evidence in support of clinical hypnotherapy is strongest in the following areas:
anxiety/stress
chronic pain
irritable bowel syndrome
stopping smoking
sports performance
sleep
The papers in support of these claims are cited here.
Clinical hypnotherapy may be useful for other symptoms, like low mood, building confidence, anger, sexual dysfunction, neurodivergence, and more - but from the perspective of hard evidence I cannot make this claim.
So, yes - clinical hypnosis really is scientific. Or, more accurately, clinical hypnosis is supported by some specific areas of mental health research. And that’s a great thing.