The importance of being earnest when crafting definitions: science and scientism are not the same thing.
The APA Division 30 definition of hypnosis is laudable in some respects. For instance, the committee rightly defines the "induction" as nothing more or less than the first suggestion after the introduction. However, the definition stumbles over its nonposition on whether the word hypnosis must be uttered during the procedure. This equivocation invites research designs that preemptively define a hypnotic group and a control group in terms of whether or not the word hypnosis is used in the protocol. These designs represent a backslide into naive operationism; they reveal little new about human nature or hypnosis. The field deserves an optimally heuristic definition that preserves pluralism and is relatively resistant to the teflon shield of preemptive definition. Researchers and practioners require a definition that recognizes the incompleteness of our concepts, generates a level epistemological playing field, and enables hypnosis theories to "reach."
Nash
Michael R
MR
Psychology Department, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37996-0900, USA. mnash@utk.edu
D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D004059:Diffusion of Innovation; D006801:Humans; D006990:Hypnosis / Q000379:methods*; D007092:Imagination; D007400:Interprofessional Relations; D011582:Psychological Theory; D012586:Science; D012958:Societies, Scientific; D013404:Suggestion; D009626:Terminology as Topic