From: sean+@andrew.cmu.edu (Sean McLinden)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: NLP a psychoactive drug here?
Date: 13 Sep 92 05:36:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.IegoDum00WBOE1NrYW
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>I've just returned from reading Sci.psychology
           ^^^^^^^^
Drat!

>I note that there is an extended discussion of aspects of NLP there,
>and I've seen no name-calling, ad hominem attacks, or any of the
nastiness >that's present here. In fact, I've seen some writers who here
occasionally
>slip into nastiness

I assume that you are counting yourself among those.

>Presumably, some who follow Sci.psychology are more well-qualified
>to recognize charlatanism in that field than some over here, yet
>there hasn't been any formation of a lynch mob there--not even
>one ad hominem expert has popped up in the threads I've read there.

Charlatans are rarely in the business of debunking other charlatans. They
drink from the same pool, so to speak, so it is not in their best interests
to dirty the waters
 
>I'd be interested in notions about why this is. I have an initial
>working hypothesis, which like most such may be inaccurate--it
>is that some who give rein to behavior here which reflects their
>own situation rather than the substance of the discussion know
>(consciously or unconsciously) that over there such behavior
>would be spotted instantly as evidence of the problems of the
>writer rather than the substance of the discussion. Just a
thought.

Science is, by its very nature, argumentative. We are only able to refine
our ideas about the world through discussion, criticism, and the ability to
distinguish between what we wish were true and what we demonstrate to be
true. The person who is not able to accept criticism should not be a scientist
for a scientist's truth is the veracity of the theory, not the recognition of
the individual. If I were about to misapply or mistreat another human being
who had come to me for medical assistance I would cringe at the thought of
being criticized, corrected, or chastised. Better that I am able to defend
my treatment of the patient than that I do the wrong thing.

By the same token, also, the reputation of the individual matters little to
the question of the truth of the idea. Many well respected, well published
scientists and theorists have been wrong. Some devastatingly so. Frequently
we see postings here which tell attempt to validate a treatment on he basis
of the reputation of the advocates. This is not science! This is not medicine!

You mistake criticism of the individual with criticism of the idea. To the
extent that you personalize an idea, you are bound to be personally offended
by criticism of the idea but this criticism is not directed at you as a person
and is not ad hominem (unlike the remarks which you, yourself, posted and then
retracted).

As has been discussed, before, science has a set of rules for validating
what is truth. Many people have argued that the behavioral sciences should
be exempt from these rules or should have a set of rules of their own for
determining what are behavioral science truths, but that cannot be a
requirement
of medical science. If you don't like tackling, then don't tackle but don't
call it "football".

If what you want is sci.psychology type discussion of NLP techniques, there
exists a newsgroup for that. Don't try to change this one. Your point about
respect for the individual is well taken but this does not, in any way, require
any of us to respect the ideas posted to this group. If you don't keep the
two separated you'll feel yourself constantly frustrated and more often than
not, offended.

Sean McLinden
Newsgroups: sci.med