7 June 2022
There are two theories about the nature of hypnosis – one that it is an altered state of consciousness (ASC) and the other that it isn't. Prof. Charles Spanos of Carlton University (Canada) conducted a large number of hypnotic regressions – the induction of an experience of an apparent previous lifetime – on students at Carlton. He would subtly prime a subject on what to expect in such an experience. For example, he might suggest to subjects that children were generally mistreated in the old days, and that was what a significant number of his subjects found, For another group of subjects he would suggest that children were well-treated and this is what was reported. He'd ask his hypnotised subject simple questions about where and when they found themselves, what the currency looked like, who the country's leader was and whether the country was at war. These answers – as any sceptic might expect – were usually wrong. He also primed one group to expect past-life experiences under hypnosis and another that such experiences were rare. And the two groups largely delivered what they had been primed to expect. On the basis of his work Spanos concluded (agreeing with previous academics) that his subjects were involved in a kind of play-acting and that hypnosis was, indeed, not an altered state of consciousness. From Wikipedia:
1 August 2004
We have recently received a message from OZ. Not transtasman Big Brother, but the cousins in France. OZ stands for Observatoire Zététique, a group of skeptical investigators (Zetetic is much the same as skeptic, as every Victorian schoolboy knew. The Greeks had not just one word for it, but two).
1 February 2000
I didn't wish to begin a debate about the issues surrounding religion in the 16th and 17th-century, nor would I ever wish to stop anyone from taking in interest in history. All I wanted to do was to point out that history is an academic discipline the same as any other, and it is dangerous to make pronouncements of such a dogmatic nature in the subject in which one has not been trained.
1 November 1997
WE WERE_ skeptical. We demanded you respond to our clarion call for pithy pieces -- but only a few of you pithed on us. For this we are grateful and we have sent suitable telepathic gifts to all of you, for which you should be grateful. _But seriously, a couple of readers have queried our policy on the format of submissions which they've interpreted as meaning we don't accept handwritten copy. Wrong. Our eyesight is sometimes challenged by the individualistic handwriting styles we sometimes see, so we prefer typed or disc-supplied copy because we can then guarantee accuracy. But above all, we encourage you enthusiastically to send interesting forum pieces in whatever format you have available. The only criteria we use in selecting pieces for the forum is their value and interest to readers. The writer of the best piece published in the next issue will receive the definitive volume on proven homeopathic remedies.
1 August 1993
The British Independent recently ran an editorial not worth reproducing in the Skeptic. The editorial did, however, generate a vigorous response from Richard Dawkins which is worth thinking about.
1 February 1993
This is a summary of a talk given at the 1992 Skeptics conference by_ Dr Eric Geiringer.
1 February 1989
Extract From Act of God by F. Tennyson Jesse, a novel published in the 1930's.