Changes

:''My personal experiences with NLP are opinion and my comment was stated as such -- It was not presented as fact so I don't appreicate you accusing me of ''logical fallacy'' -- I know the difference.''  

:''My personal experiences with NLP are opinion and my comment was stated as such -- It was not presented as fact so I don't appreicate you accusing me of ''logical fallacy'' -- I know the difference.''  

Your thinking on this matter is entirely unclear, you are guilty of numerous failings of reasoning:  

Your thinking on this matter is entirely unclear, you are guilty of numerous failings of reasoning:  

##You repeatedly attempt to minimise the relevance of criticisim by arbitrarily narrowing the scope of NLP on an ''ad hoc'' basis. When something looks really bad for NLP you claim that the criticised aspect isn't ''really'' NLP.  

 

##You blindly repeat the bloviations of Grinder regarding the alleged intellectual antecedents of NLP without being able to demonstrate a substantive connection between NLP and automata theory, genetic algorithms, Russell's Theory of Types etc. When pressed on this matter you conveniently ignore the promptings.  

#You repeatedly attempt to minimise the relevance of criticisim by arbitrarily narrowing the scope of NLP on an ''ad hoc'' basis. When something looks really bad for NLP you claim that the criticised aspect isn't ''really'' NLP.  

##You ignore that numerous aspects of NLP have been throughly discredited: Bateson's "double-bind" theory of schizophrenia, TG, eye accessing cues, PRS, human mind as ''tabula rasa'', (all) mental illness as learnt etc.   

#You blindly repeat the bloviations of Grinder regarding the alleged intellectual antecedents of NLP without being able to demonstrate a substantive connection between NLP and automata theory, genetic algorithms, Russell's Theory of Types etc. When pressed on this matter you conveniently ignore the promptings.  

##You mouth Grinders (naive) pontifications about epistemology without understanding what you are parroting or the implications of what you are parroting. Even if NLP were based on "cybernetic epistemology" and fictionalism was sound the burden of rigorous empirical testing remains. "NLP can cure depression" is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis. Whether NLP can or can't cure depression is a statement about the universe. The best method devised for testing hypothesis about the universe is the scientific method. Irrespective of how the NLP treatment for depression was arrived we still have the problem of "Does NLP work better than placebo in treating depression?". There is no escaping this problem.  

#You ignore that numerous aspects of NLP have been throughly discredited: Bateson's "double-bind" theory of schizophrenia, TG, eye accessing cues, PRS, human mind as ''tabula rasa'', (all) mental illness as learnt etc.   

#You mouth Grinders (naive) pontifications about epistemology without understanding what you are parroting or the implications of what you are parroting. Even if NLP were based on "cybernetic epistemology" and fictionalism was sound the burden of rigorous empirical testing remains. "NLP can cure depression" is a falsifiable and testable hypothesis. Whether NLP can or can't cure depression is a statement about the universe. The best method devised for testing hypothesis about the universe is the scientific method. Irrespective of how the NLP treatment for depression was arrived we still have the problem of "Does NLP work better than placebo in treating depression?". There is no escaping this problem.  

:''I personally have no interest in therapy, spirituality, mysticism, religion or cults. I have a great deal of interest in logic and mathematics.''  

:''I personally have no interest in therapy, spirituality, mysticism, religion or cults. I have a great deal of interest in logic and mathematics.''  

You may have a great deal of ''interest'' in logic and mathematics but you apparently have little ''understanding''. Russell's theory of types is dead, you don't appear to understand inferential statistics or inductive logic.   

You may have a great deal of ''interest'' in logic and mathematics but you apparently have little ''understanding''. Russell's theory of types is dead, you don't appear to understand inferential statistics or inductive logic.