Home Page Search Eng. Jeff Oliver Merl's World NLP and Addictions
[ < Prev ] Thread Index [ Next > ]

Science etc.

 Oh, dear,
I hope I'm not the only fan of the scientific method on the list.
Maybe it starts to look devoted, but my atheistic upbringing would at
least label it obsessive and not religous.    :)

 Pat, there was no offence intended, and I like to try to avoid
inadvertently offending someone when it can be avoided. It can
sometimes be a bit difficult to understand each other over e-mail.
Jokes might for instance come across as funny to someone but as
offensive to somebody else.

 I have no problem with disagreeing, we all have different maps of
the world. I just want to make a little more clear what I mean so we
at least know a little bit more about what we agree and disagree on.

 I think your method of reasoning about believes makes sense, and I
use it myself. I would just like to add that I think it's a good idea
to use different beliefs in different situaions. If one intends to
find out what to believe about a certain matter I would say that it
might be better to keep an open mind to what might the facts. If
somebody claims we can fly if we just flap our arms and encourages us
to jump from a cliff, some critical thought and demands for
scientific studies is well advised. The idea goes contrary to
fundamental beliefs and trying out the "flapping" might prove fatal.
I'm not saying that trying out the Photoreading method is dangerous,
but it would be interesting to see some evidence of the
"trance-info-plugging". This would save some people a lot of time,
and if the method turns out to be supported by evidence, it would
change some important beliefs.

John B. (& Dennis) wrote:
  >Isn't this the reason why this list even exists in the first
> >place? Isn't it because Richard Bandler and John Grinder had
> >the "guts" to propose something that "just worked"? How many
> >people "scientifically proved" them wrong?
<snip>

 Maybe you know something I don't, but what scientific studies have
proved NLP wrong? I haven't understood NLP to be in some way in
contrary with the scientific method. As I can remember, Bandler &
Grinder hasn't stated anything that seriously goes against any fundamental
belief of mine. They seem to have been pretty clever in not making
any wild statements about how it all works. The idea of thoughts
affecting our state of mind, etc. isn't exactly something that most people
would dispute.

 The NLP idea of "swim or sink" of evaluating if a certain NLP process
works for something, could be described as a "shortcut-scientific"
method. About the same thing could probably be done with rigorous
tests with control groups etc., but somebody has to take the time and
effort for doing this. I think it would be very good if somebody did.
(Not me, no time). My guess would be that the NLP processes would
prove to have important effects.

More John B. (& Dennis):
> >From what I hear, Science can't even explain how bumblebees
> >can fly! Weight/wingspan ratio is against it. I guess that
> >means that they really don't fly at all. Case closed.

 As I understand the case of the bumblebee, it was a case of science
of that time not being able to explain how the lift was created.
After research, I think it was concluded that the lift was created by
turbulence above the wing which, in turn, was created by rough edges
along the wing surface. I think this has also been used on aircrafts.
The bumblebee hardly believes anything at all about the matter.

 The argument that the scientific method is useless because it can't
explain everything, or "science has been wrong before, so you might
as well believe this", isn't uncommon, but I think it's a bit tough
to demand that everything has to be explained in one go for something
to be useful. The fact that the world is immensly complex doesn't
exactly "disprove" the scientific method. After all, making hypotheses
and disproving them are vital parts of the scientific method. How do
you disprove that?!

 I think one thing lacking in Psychology is a theory complex enough to
fit large enough parts of the reality of  behaviour to be useful and
not directly disproven by counter-examples. It's certainly also good
if it can be tested, but it can be of a lot of interest anyway, though.
Theories like the Chaos Theory are steps in the right direction.

 Pheew, I try to keep the length down, but there's always something I
want to add.

 Cheers,

 Karl