NLP is phenomenological (embedded in subjectivity) as opposed to objective. It is also pragmatic, or use valuing, as opposed to truth valuing. That is, it is looking from the subjective perspective out and deciding what to include and do based on its use or the results the activity garners in respect to the activity's intent.

It is not trying and failing to be neuroscience. It is a completely different kind of practice, a practice of a different logical type. It is technology proceding from philosophy, an applied philosophy, rather than technology proceeding from science, or an applied science. An old word for applied philosophy as opposed to applied science is an Arte.

Anyone attacking NLP for not being scientific or for being a pseudoscience are misunderstanding what NLP is at a fundamental level. They are judging it by the wrong standards.

You may have a very valid point there.

Thanks for your post Edward.

Now when I get people whining on my blog that NLP isn't a real science, I can refer them here instead of just saying "who cares?"

nlpcourses wrote:

Thanks for your post Edward.

Now when I get people whining on my blog that NLP isn't a real science,

But then again neither is table tennis.

John

z8000783 wrote:

But then again neither is table tennis.

John

Are you sure about that John? Maybe Ping Pong isn't... but surely table tennis is.

nlpcourses wrote:

Are you sure about that John? Maybe Ping Pong isn't... but surely table tennis is.

Sorry you're right, I meant to say Flower Arranging.

John

Hey Edward, The Art of Memetics is great work, IMO, that dovetails very nicely with NLP. For those here who aren't familiar with Edward's work: The Art of Memetics « Edward E. Wilson

edwardewilson wrote:

NLP is phenomenological as opposed to objective and pragmatic, or use valuing, as opposed to truth valuing. That is, it is looking from the subjective perspective out and deciding what to include and do based on its use or the results the activity garners in respect to the activity's intent.

It is not trying and failing to be neuroscience. It is a completely different kind of practice, a practice of a different logical type. It is technology proceding from philosophy, an applied philosophy, rather than technology proceeding from science, or an applied science. An old word for applied philosophy as opposed to applied science is an Arte.

Anyone attacking NLP for not being scientific or for being a pseudoscience are misunderstanding what NLP is at a fundamental level. They are judging it by the wrong standards.

How is phenomenological opposed to pragmatic? And NLP claims to be pragmatic, since it's about doing what works. And I agree that THAT is different than trying to find objective truths as in science.

I agree with your second paragraph. And I would like to see more integration of NLP and science as well. Different forms of art have benefitted greatly by working along with science.

I agree with your third paragraph.

Poor use of commas on my part.
NLP is Phenomenological (subjective) and Pragmatic (use-valuing)
while Science is Objective and truth-valuing

Does this make my point clearer?

Oh I see now. My mistake for understanding it differently than what you meant. So yes, I agree with the whole thing, lol.