Arguing that NLP is not "scientific" nor is accepted by the "establishment" are not necessarily arguments that objectively invalidate the study and practice of NLP.Thanks SandyGeorgia for the timely 'hint'! So far our biggest job has been checking that the sources were remotely accurate or even existed at all. Would you characterise your POV as positivist? Are you referring to a specific applications of NLP, for example, to the mental health profession? - Comaze 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC) On the contrary most authors argue strongly for further research. Of the peer-reviewed articles indexed in psychinfo, only a very small percentage hold the view that NLP is a pseudoscience. The article size is about right, anybigger and you would think about splitting into more topics. (my POV would be this NLP is a pseudoscience) and could be strengthened somewhat. There are still quite a few improvement tags requesting clean up, expansion, checking imbalance.I've also added AAT for dissertation and DOI for those indexed by psychinfo, etc. I've started a list of articles related to NLP that have been indexed in pubmed: Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming/Peer reviewed sources. Sandy Georgia ( Talk) 20:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC) If this article came to FAC, I'd be checking every source for credibility, self-publication, etcetera, and objecting on grounds of lack of peer-reviewed, journal-published sources.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |