Hi Andy

You are using ad hominem again. You might want to focus a little more on the facts if you want to sound less pseudoscientific.

Many people here have already talked about pseudoscience. Its reasonable to assume that they have used the term elsewhere, and that you have done likewise.

I did assume too far (I was slightly inaccurate in your case) and considered your usage of the term to include NLP people in NLP situations.

However, you seemed to have forgotten (or never read in the first place), the criteria of the people we are talking about (scientists)

Here are some characteristics of pseudoscience again:

How to Sell a Pseudoscience

And here are Lilienfeld et al's criteria for identifying pseudoscience again:

http://teachpsych.org/resources/e-bo...4/eit04-06.pdf

Notice its only partially to do with NLP failing controlled empirical studies. The criteria are mostly based upon the social psychology of pseudoscientists and their arguments, the preemptive excuses for failure, and the conceptually erroneous aspects of NLP.

Rich

RmtView wrote:

Logic is better if you want to communicate with neurologists, science thinkers, and with members of the public who know the difference between science and pseudoscience.

Why do you hardly ever answer questions posed to yourself? Scared that it might expose some logical fallacies or irrational beliefs of your own?

If I wanted to communicate in bed with an attractive neurologist I can think of some logical fallacies that might be very much in order and appreciated!! But then that may be considered using our neurology for what it is designed for rather than talking logic about it what it is for.

If you are not going to answer questions I pose also then I don't really consider it communication - communication by my definition requires two active parties willing to engage. It is really rather boring otherwise. If you want any further participation from me then answer some of my questions. Be willing to put yourself in the firing line too. A good scientist would do such a thing. Be brave enough to state what you believe to be true about the world and let everyone have a pot shot at the model. Lets see the scientific method in action!

Hi John

I know "excellent" people have to act irrationally in busy complex situations. They use everything from social domination to satisficing to get through the day sometimes. And when things are cool they will be rational.

But thats really beside the point of this thread. Scientific testing, assessment and thinking are generally done in a cool detached way with time set aside for really thinking about things.

And it really doesn't help to tell them that being irrational is a good idea. At least not when they have time to really make a measured consideration of your claims.

Rich