The best NLP trainers will teach you that the techniques are not NLP, that NLP is made up of a way of thinking about people, and this is where we get our flexibility from.
Unfortunately, most people seem to just disregard this and assume that the techniques are in fact NLP.
After all, how can you do a study on how you think about people? It would be very difficult. This is only one of the errors with the scientific method model with regard to validity of claims.
Having talked to numerous doctors and other science professionals, it’s very clear that not everything can be explained by science. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a very good model for determining which medicines work. But applied to disciplines having to do with the mind, it is MUCH less reliable to do a scientific study on it and say “this works” or doesn’t work.
If you have studied logic and argument, it follows very naturally and obviously that something falling outside of the realm of science is not necessarily “not true.” Rather, it is simply unproven, a different thing altogether. Learn more about hypnosis training at http://sundowndivers.org/can-prove-nlp-exists/
The same people I’ve met who cling to science as an absolute truth, are occasionally also very religious. I ask them, how can you believe without science in one thing, and demand it in another thing?
And it has to do with the nature of the distinctions that are being made. There are different levels of proof.
Lots of people like to say that Newton’s Laws of Motion are “ONLY” a theory. And they have never been proven absolutely true. However, they also have never been proven wrong, except in the very small amount of instances allowed for by Einstein’s work on relativity. That is a very high standard of proof.
In scientific circles of medicine, a double-blind study is known to be a high standard of proof, but even that is less concrete than Newton’s laws of motion. A double blind study is not absolutely proven, but is likely to be true.
Then there are things that are unproven and likely to be false, such as the recently publicized article of a man who was bitten by a recluse spider and is able to walk again after being a cripple for many years. Even though the evidence suggests the spider bite played no role, some people will generalize and believe fervently in the healing power of spider bites, because of the way in which they become convinced.
Understanding that there are different levels of proof is critical to this debate. Although NLP has not been “conclusively proven” in expensive studies, it has a higher probability of being true as compared to the garden variety of claims being made.
I have heard time and time again, the claim that NLP is “the same as” those wacky claims, simply because it has not been confirmed by the scientific method. They use words like “psuedoscience” to describe it – a catch-all feel good term which could be said equally of the field of psychology or other mind disciplines.
Scientific studies cost lots of money to fund, and, as I’m sure one of our resident science experts will confirm (I’ve been poking Muinro to make his post on this for months now), studies can be manipulated in many ways, and can have distinct biases inherent in them.
Therefore, we must always consider the level of proof that we are presented with. It is insufficient to categorize disciplines in a black or white manner, as being either scientific or not. Since the scientific method is not the end-all be-all of proof in the universe, the claim that something unscientific is also “made up” is a claim made out of ignorance and laziness in thinking.