4 ms·
You call it rigorous, with a solid underlying conceptual structure, and repeatable results. Is there a gap between that and "being scientific" ? I have no parti
by cmehdy 7y ago
You call it rigorous, with a solid underlying conceptual structure, and repeatable results. Is there a gap between that and "being scientific" ?
I have no particular feeling about hypnosis and no experience with it, but am a bit curious about why you would say that calling the practice not scientific is not undeserved.
What are the missing bits to allow it to be either considered scientifically sound (or on the other end of the spectrum, to debunk it) ?
- carapace 7y agoThat's a fascinating and (IMO) extremely important question. Hypnosis in general and Neurolinguistic Programming specifically are regularly panned by skeptics, and have not been scientifically well-documented, yet there is definitely "something there". I'd love to "do science" to NLP, but I'm not qualified and have other things to do. (I got rid of my depression and the urge to study psychology waned.) > am a bit curious about why you would say that calling the practice not scientific is not undeserved. It's just that a lot of practitioners and promoters haven't been completely scrupulous IMO about making NLP out to be more scientifically-grounded than it is.