I think the fact that he's claiming to have credentials that he does not is pretty damning. You have this utterly backwards. If I claim to have founded something groundbreaking, and it turns out I lied about my credentials, that casts doubt on everything I've done.
Do you want to discuss some scientific studies or not?
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Edit out swipes.
- - - -
I've had a chance to look over the papers discussed in the meta-study you cited.
I think you should look them over too, you might want to "adjust your priors" as they say in Bayesian modelling. The evidence really doesn't support your position.
Like I said above, Skeptics perform an important and valuable function in the intellectual life of man. James Randi has done a lot of good and important work, for example. However, in this case, it's clear to me that the Skeptics have erroneously identified NLP et. al. as "woo-woo". It's truly unfortunate.
In any event, thank you for prompting me to actually go look at the papers. It was kind of a waste of time (for me at least) but at least now I know (to my own satisfaction) what went wrong in the scientific study of NLP. One day we'll do proper science to it. I look forward to that day.
- - - -
"See ya space cowboy."
I just woke up, I've got my coffee, and I'm ready to go...
- - - -
Gatekeeping the term "Doctor" is uninteresting, and it doesn't make your side of the argument look good. You have nothing stronger to dun him on?
If you really want to focus on character assassination rather than truth and science, well here you go: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-29-mn-26470-... Have fun.
I'll be busy reading papers. You know where to find me if you change your mind.