Changes

: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated.  <ref>From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903 this] version of the article.  FT2 first makes the claim that NLP does not lend itself to the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=57297568&oldid=57297295 here], then wrongly attributes this to Heap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=58474416&oldid=58456398 here]</ref>.

: This finding was supported when, in 1988, both Heap and Druckman independently concluded that most studies to that date were "heavily flawed"[1] and that the "effectiveness of NLP therapy undertaken in authentic clinical contexts of trained practitioners has not yet been properly investigated.  <ref>From [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&oldid=58477903 this] version of the article.  FT2 first makes the claim that NLP does not lend itself to the scientific method [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=57297568&oldid=57297295 here], then wrongly attributes this to Heap [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NLP_and_science&diff=58474416&oldid=58456398 here]</ref>.

This is grossly misleading, in suggesting that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]].  The reverse is true.  Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature.  He says that, in fact, many of [NLP's] assumptions and predications are easily testable by objective procedures and several such studies have now appeared in the literature.  After reviewing these, he concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."

It is grossly misleading to suggest that 'this finding' (namely that NLP does not always lend itself well to the scientific method, and that experimental design has been poor, that scientific appreciation of the subject is poor &c) was supported by the work of [[Michael Heap]].  The reverse is true.  Heap's 1988 literature review (see below) was expressly conceived in order to take three specific hypothesis made by proponents of NLP, and review these assertions against the experimental literature.  He says that, in fact, many of [NLP's] assumptions and predications are easily testable by objective procedures and several such studies have now appeared in the literature.  After reviewing these, he concludes "that the assertions of NLP writers concerning representational systems have been objectively and fairly investigated and found to be lacking."