Changes

== Ockham's Razor ==

== Ockham's Razor ==

I concur with flavius. If you don't have multiple citations for each assertion the case against NLP will look weak and will create an impression of inconclusiveness. QED. It's a bit shakey how many of the citations will actually make the notability grade all by themselves. If we were to apply Occums Razor to conclusions based on simple citation standards we'd end up having to rewrite the entire article proclaiming the inconclusiveness of skeptic concerns. Perhaps we'd even have to concede skepticism to a smaller section of the article? Again... QED. Peace. [[User:Metta Bubble|Metta Bubble]] 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)  

I concur with flavius. If you don't have multiple citations for each assertion the case against NLP will look weak and will create an impression of inconclusiveness. QED. It's a bit shakey how many of the citations will actually make the notability grade all by themselves. If we were to apply Occums Razor to conclusions based on simple citation standards we'd end up having to rewrite the entire article proclaiming the inconclusiveness of skeptic concerns. Perhaps we'd even have to concede skepticism to a smaller section of the article? Again... QED. Peace. [[User:Metta Bubble|Metta Bubble]] 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)  

    

    

  ::If there are citations to substantiate a statement it is not an ''assertion'' it is a ''conclusion''. I don't think you know what ''Occam's Razor'' is. Occam's Razor is the principle of parsimony, it is concerned with choosing explanations. The idea of applying Occam's Razor "to conclusions based on simple citation standards" is literally meaningless. ''Q.E.D.'' is an acronym for "quod erat demonstrandum". You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance. Tacking QED onto your assertions (yes assertions not conclusions) doesn't substantiate them, only argument and evidence can do that. By what idiot logic did you arrive at the statement that "we'd end up having to rewrite the entire article proclaiming the inconclusiveness of skeptic concerns"? Did "Occums Razor" (sic) take you there? Occums Razor must be different then from Occam's Razor. Is Occums Razor the principle of promoting pseudoscience by deleting critical references? QED. Peace. Occums Razor. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 11:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)  

::If there are citations to substantiate a statement it is not an ''assertion'' it is a ''conclusion''. I don't think you know what ''Occam's Razor'' is. Occam's Razor is the principle of parsimony, it is concerned with choosing explanations. The idea of applying Occam's Razor "to conclusions based on simple citation standards" is literally meaningless. ''Q.E.D.'' is an acronym for "quod erat demonstrandum". You haven't demonstrated anything other than your ignorance. Tacking QED onto your assertions (yes assertions not conclusions) doesn't substantiate them, only argument and evidence can do that. By what idiot logic did you arrive at the statement that "we'd end up having to rewrite the entire article proclaiming the inconclusiveness of skeptic concerns"? Did "Occums Razor" (sic) take you there? Occums Razor must be different then from Occam's Razor. Is Occums Razor the principle of promoting pseudoscience by deleting critical references? QED. Peace. Occums Razor. [[User:Flavius vanillus|flavius]] 11:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35008506]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35325297

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neuro-linguistic_programming&diff=prev&oldid=35325297