RmtView wrote:

Hi James R

Yes African Magick would be considered to be pseudoscientific when it espouses theories of energies or balancing the body to connect with others and so on. Also, if the basic tennets have been tested and failed, yet it is still used to cure folk of illnesses, then its even more pseudoscientific. Of course if its just religion that involve no such claims, then its a different matter.

OK Rich, we are obviously operating from different frames here (surprise, surprise).

I need to know: do you actually have any criteria for what constitutes pseudoscience, or is it just a handy perjorative term that you can attach to any practice you don't like?

If it is the latter then there isn't much more to say, is there?

I gotta get off this thread now because I have a living to earn (seriously, if I post again, somebody slap me!)

All the best to ya Rich

James

PS - Rich, you are inconsistent in so may ways. One minute you are talking about NLP 'moving away from pretending to be scientific', the next you are saying that it doesn't matter whether it claims to be scientific or not.

I'm not sure there is any real coherency behind your thinking, so how are we to reasonably discuss anything with you?

nlpfreak wrote:

It is evident that most of you really do not know what you are talking about (including the pro-science brigade) - not that this seems to matter too much to you, mind. Science IS the application of the scientific method. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge through systematised study.The purpose of science is to understand the positive, REAL universe through rigorous, unbiased empirical observation where at all possible.The philosophical basis for science is that the universe is real and can be understood by unearthing the natural laws which are deemed to underscore it through the application of the neutral scientific method.According to the scientific paradigm, the universe should NOT be processed as a subjective construction of our minuscule minds. It is believed, on the basis of the best available evidence, that it exists independently of our beliefs in it. For example, a rock will fall to the earth when it is dropped off a cliff, why? Answer: gravity!Subjective beliefs surrounding the tale of the tragically unlucky falling rock are immaterial to the inevitable outcome. The objective natural laws of the universe do not require us to be knowledgeable or aware of them to take effect. The reason why NLP is treated as a joke by serious academics is because it says it is interested in what works for the individual, but it rejects the methodology best equipped to ascertain this: the scientific method.NLP has to ask it itself, does it want to know if PRS, E-A-C, anchoring, etc are real or not? If it does, science is the way forward. If not, why bother at all? NLP might as well be substituted by the great fairy god dlba in the sky who hands out favours on the basis of jelly baby sacrifice. She is after all real to me, and more importantly, she works for me, and that is all that ultimately matters. Right?

Not quite. While you do have a solid understanding of an outdated concept of science (pre-relativity, at least, and certainly pre-quantum physics), you are perpetuating some of Rich's balderdash as presuppositions that just don't carry. NLP is not "treated as a joke by serious academicians." Some, perhaps, many others certainly not. There is no consensus among "serious academicians." They wouldn't have anything to do if they all agreed with each other. Also "serious academicians" and "scientists" are not the same thing. Rich's list of supporting studies has not withstood analysis here - and the rather lengthier list of studies that support NLP conclusions has been offered here again and again.


Science, at its root, is an attitude of inquiry and experimentation. It is not belief in a body of peer-reviewed studies. That is a relatively recent "academic" addition to science (the last 50 years or so) and numerous advances in science, technology and medicine have occurred before and outside that particular academic set. All of these elements of NLP discussed are incredibly easy to test, IF YOU HAVE A SCIENTIFIC APPROACH. It's simple. PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT. What experiment? If you want to learn about accessing cues, go observe accessing cues. If you want to test out anchoring, then test out anchoring. Unless you perform the experiment yourself, you are scientific dilettante and nothing more.

NLP is built on a non-scientific paradigm. It is the study of subjective experience. That doesn't mean that we, as individuals, don't have scientific attitudes or approaches to what we do. Some don't, but most do. Most here have been bold enough to actually test for themselves. What have you done?

Hi James R

Here is part of the model that scientists tend to work with:

http://www.drdkramer.com/courses/psy...20clinical.pdf



Rich

Of course the practices you employ called NLP can be tested. What is so special about NLP that it is beyond the scope of systematised study? If its many claimed effects are real, they can be measured, and if measurable, they can be tested against a working hypothesis and proven and / or unproven. For example, does the fast phobia cure work or not? This can be put to a fair and thorough test easily enough. If NLP uses the scientific method - tests its many raw hypotheses against the best available empirical evidence - it is science. Science is unbiased systematised study; that`s all it is. Psychology is a science, for example, because it embraces the scientific method and is evidence based. It doesn\'t have to prove its many, many hypotheses, but it has to be ready, willing and able to try. NLP on the other hand talks and SELLS a good game, but it cannot evidence its claims in any meaningful sense, and nor does it even try. In which case, why should it be listened to over and above Witchcraft, say?

nlpfreak wrote:

Of course the practices you employ called NLP can be tested. What is so special about NLP that it is beyond the scope of systematised study? If its many claimed effects are real, they can be measured, and if measurable, they can be tested against a working hypothesis and proven and / or unproven.

Absolutely. So make a hypothesis, get off your sock-puppet ass and perform the test.

Ooops! Did I say you were a sock-puppet? Perhaps statements like this...

NLP has to ask itself, does it want to know if PRS, E-A-C, anchoring, etc are real or not? If it does, science is the way forward.

... sound a just a bit too much like Rich's balderdash. But I'll play along for a moment here. Assuming you can think for yourself... Way forward to what?

RmtView wrote:

Hi James R

Here is part of the model that scientists tend to work with:

http://www.drdkramer.com/courses/psy...20clinical.pdf



Rich

Cool, Rich. Another CSICOP member who uses the term 'pseudoscience.' Do you have any evidence that real scientists - not so-called skeptics - talk about pseudoscience?

By the way... how did your research into Mirror Neurons go? Find a way to switch your own on yet?

RmtView wrote:

NLP (and other pseudosciences) can be pseudoscience even though their proponents state categorically that they are not doing science.

Rich, you've painted yourself into a corner. Are you seriously unable to recognise this?

One of the fundamental criteria that defines a pseudoscience is that it gets deliberately passed off as science - or at minimum that it resembles science at a glance. That's why jazz, kissing and ten pin bowling are not considered to be pseudosciences.

Since nobody claims that NLP is science, your ONLY faint thread of any relevance at all is the existence of terms like 'neurolinguistic programming' and 'neurological strategies'. If it weren't for words like that, you wouldn't have so much as the tiniest sliver of a credible excuse to even introduce the idea of pseudoscience into any discussion about NLP - any more than would be the case with volleyball, surfing or poetry.

The ONLY card you can possibly play right now is the argument that words like neurolinguistic can make NLP appear scientific at a glance, to some people. 'Neurological' is suggestive of the domain of neurology, and neurolinguistics is the name of a subdomain of linguistics that has nothing to do with NLP. For god's sake, just play that card will you? At least then you'll finally have one argument that will actually hold up to critical examination for more than a minute or so.

Without that, and without any assertion from NLPers that NLP is science, and without any theory to test, and without any claims about objective reality, all you have left is that NLP is unrelated to science - just like jelly wrestling and synchronised swimming.

Cheers,

James T

Just to bash on the last little bit here... The term "neurolinguistic" was coined by Alfred Korzybski in the book "Science and Sanity." That book was the basis for the field of General Semantics, which is - beyond argument - one of the antecedents of NLP. The academic field of "neurolinguistics" came into existence some years after several books had already been published under the NLP name. Indeed, until just a few years ago, that field was called "psycholinguistics." I know. I studied it in college. Many of the same concepts are included in neuro/psycholinguistics, including Chomskyan grammar, perceptual encoding (rep systems), conditioned behavior (anchoring), and so on. The main difference is that "neurolinguistics" remains a theoretical field and NLP a practical one.

nlpfreak wrote:

Of course the practices you employ called NLP can be tested. What is so special about NLP that it is beyond the scope of systematised study?

Once upon a time I played snooker competitively. There are certain ways that top snooker players tend to stand, hold a cue and stroke a shot. All of these things can be rigorously tested for their efficacy.

But that doesn't make snooker a science - and nor does the fact that it's not a science make it a pseudoscience. It's just a sport.

What's more - let's say my stance is tested for efficacy and found to produce undesirable or inconsistent results. That doesn't invalidate snooker as a sport, it just means my stance is dodgey. So if I want to improve my game, I'll take that into consideration and change my stance.

I have exactly zero interest in making snooker look respectable to a bunch of scientists (I mean seriously, who cares?). But if I want to play really well, I might make use of a scientific approach as a means of improving my game.

Cheers,

James T

james_t wrote:

But if I want to play really well, I might make use of a scientific approach as a means of improving my game.

Exactly... and someone interested in playing snooker probably wouldn't want to see a battery of peer-reviewed studies to determine whether or not they would enjoy playing - they would perform the experiment, play a game (or twelve) and make the determination based on their own experience.

Interesting. I also studied linguistics at uni, and was under the impression that psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics are separate domains - the former concerned with psychological processes involved with language acquisition and behaviour, and the latter with the actual neurological elements of same (measurable brain activity, etc). Makes sense that one would evolve out of the other I guess, especially with advances in technology, etc.

james_t wrote:

Interesting. I also studied linguistics at uni, and was under the impression that psycholinguistics and neurolinguistics are separate domains - the former concerned with psychological processes involved with language acquisition and behaviour, and the latter with the actual neurological elements of same (measurable brain activity, etc). Makes sense that one would evolve out of the other I guess, especially with advances in technology, etc.

As mentioned much earlier in this thread, brain mapping and imaging studies are very recent. fMRI and other technologies have only been widely available to researchers in the last 10 years. Psycholinguistics circa 1980 or so did include what bits and pieces were known concerning brain function at the time. So, yes, the neuro part is a recent evolution of the field, developing on the psycholinguistic base. If 'neurolinguistics' as a field has a start date, it would be 1985, when The Journal of Neurolinguistics was first published. (For timeline purposes, I graduated college in 1983 and took my first NLP practitioner course in 1984.)

nlpfreak wrote:

Of course the practices you employ called NLP can be tested. What is so special about NLP that it is beyond the scope of systematised study? If its many claimed effects are real, they can be measured, and if measurable, they can be tested against a working hypothesis and proven and / or unproven. For example, does the fast phobia cure work or not? This can be put to a fair and thorough test easily enough. If NLP uses the scientific method - tests its many raw hypotheses against the best available empirical evidence - it is science. Science is unbiased systematised study; that`s all it is. Psychology is a science, for example, because it embraces the scientific method and is evidence based. It doesn\'t have to prove its many, many hypotheses, but it has to be ready, willing and able to try. NLP on the other hand talks and SELLS a good game, but it cannot evidence its claims in any meaningful sense, and nor does it even try. In which case, why should it be listened to over and above Witchcraft, say?

Hey Sock

I already pointed out why I believe the trials cannot be performed double-blind (because the work needs to be done by skilled practitioners). Did you miss this?

"Of course..." You cry, but you don't say how. 'Cause you don't know is suspect.

"Psychology is a science..." you say. Is it really? Or does it just want to be.

Some psychologists try to be scientific, but there are always problems with measuring human responses.

By now Sock.

James

PS - if you are not a sock, then sorry. But you are aren't you

RmtView wrote:

Hi James R

Here is part of the model that scientists tend to work with:

http://www.drdkramer.com/courses/psy...20clinical.pdf



Rich

Hmmm...

To Lazy to answer my question? or unable to answer it?

James

Psycholinguistics is psycholinguistics. Linguistics is linguistics. Neuroscience is neuroscience. NLP is not psycholinguistics. NLP is not linguistics. NLP is not neuroscience. NLP is an ill-defined approach that takes tit bits and bobs from these intellectually rigorous disciplines and uses them for the most part out of the context in which they were originally forged to promote something or other, usually an expensive training course in NLP and / or indoctrination into the NLP world view. Instead of getting angry and aggressive at a seeming unbeliever (from your perspective), seek to enlighten those that would listen. I am listening. What are you afraid of? Could it be that you are frightened to examine your own beliefs around NLP for fear of losing faith in it? I base my opinions on the best available evidence and intellectual rigour, what do you base yours on, aside of course subjective introspection and what appeals to your personal sensibilities? Is NLP just an imprecise feeling of positivity? This is what NLP seems to amount to from the outside looking in. Have I got this wrong? If so, tell me, what is NLP supposed to do? What do you actually pay all that money to attend an NLP course for? What do you think you are buying?

lol!

I base my opinions on the best available evidence and intellectual rigour

and....

what is NLP supposed to do?

nice one, with that extract I rest the case for the defence.

Thanks,

Matt

jamesrolph wrote:

(seriously, if I post again, somebody slap me!)

Hi James,

Looking forward to meeting you in the flesh someday. I, too, do Russian Martial Arts, so you can slap me back and we'll have a whole lot of fun!

BTW, Systema might be a pseudoscience too. Better ask Rich, as I'm not sure.

Charles

Phil,

Thanks for that bit of time positioning wrt neurolinguistics - a simple thing, but very handy to know.

Cheers,

James T

Hi Mac

Your first question doesn't lead very far, though it is valid within the scope of criticism.

Its ok to have the view that NLP is useless, and as I have said, dropping NLP is an easy way out, but none too interesting.

This thread is an exploration of the science or neuroscience view, and an exploration of the alternative ways forward within NLP.

I have gained a broader view of the possible ways forward, though I feel it would be nice it others kept on with idea generation rather than the less productive criticism tennis match. We need some criticism (black hat) but not all the time.

And again, this thread is about Novella et al's view, not mine. There's is an important view as it is neuroscience and scientific skepticism.

Reiterating part of the value behind the goal again, moving away from pseudoscience has value whether you believe NLP to be pseudoscience or not.

Its a question of understanding the mental model of Novella and the like, and suggesting and exploring ideas that may possibly work in parallel with them. We don't necessarily need to satisfy them perfectly, but exploring their point of view thoroughly is an important aspect of that.

Your last questions seem to be quite central though. What does NLP really do, what is it really? If we take positive and minus out of the thinking for a while there are some categories/views to explore if we take science out of the picture:

A practice
A religion
A therapeutic "dance"
A model

A combination

Rich

Hi James T

You said

The ONLY card you can possibly play right now is the argument that words like neurolinguistic can make NLP appear scientific at a glance, to some people. 'Neurological' is suggestive of the domain of neurology, and neurolinguistics is the name of a subdomain of linguistics that has nothing to do with NLP. For god's sake, just play that card will you? At least then you'll finally have one argument that will actually hold up to critical examination for more than a minute or so.

--

Firstly, they are characteristics of pseudoscience, not definitions of. The goal is to explore ways of moving away from pseudoscience no matter how much uncertainty there is over the term.

And again, its Novella and all the other scientist's view that matters here. This thread isn't a critique. Its an exploration (with some criticism involved (black hat).

Actually this difficulty in itself does offer one possible solution. Of course its obvious that it helps to understand the nature of pseudoscience, but how do we design a way to help NLP people avoid being or sounding pseudoscientific?

Obviously you can set up a kind of peer review. You can set up a group of critical friends who deliberately and thoroughly point out when something is even close to pseudoscience. Perhaps a group of PMI friends.

One other way is through habit: to use pseudoscience as an idea generation technique. This can be similar to the wishful thinking creativity method. Basically assume amazing things are possible (e.g. the ability to levitate, use qi, read minds, be immortal, and so on). Then have your question - e.g. how do we communicate more effectively to scientists?

Brainstorm: Read their minds: which may provoke the idea of using various modeling techniques, phoning them up, emailing them, studying their background knowledge, and so on.

Even if the ideas are not that creative, it gets the NLP person to consider pseudoscience, which in turn sensitises them to the idea that though its fun to think about, its also a good idea to match with science thinkers at some point.

Well that's the NLP creativity via pseudoscience technique.

Any similar ideas?

Rich