I have no problem with the idea that Thomas Erikson is not himself a scientist, I stated that fairly clearly in my original comment ("Thomas Erikson does not seem to qualify"). I have no problem with the author thinking Thomas Erikson should not be calling himself a behavioral scientist. It is also clear to me as it is to you that the scientific method was not employed in the writing of this book. My issue is with statements like:

> Despite a lack of any qualification, Erikson describes himself as a behavioural scientist.

and

> despite the fact that from a legal point of view in Sweden, it is possible to call yourself a ‘behavioural scientist’ without any formal qualifications

Again, it seems clear to me that the author believes that formal qualifications make you more of a scientist. This is simply untrue. Doing good science requires no qualifications, only good method. In fact, there are so many conflicts of interest in modern academia with regards to performing honest science (and resulting scandals) that something coming out of a university should probably be looked at with a more skeptical eye than science which does not.

I realize now that my last sentence in my original comment may have been confusing, but I was not trying to assert that this book in particular is scientific - merely that it is possible to write a scientific book without a formal higher education background.