If you use the word scientific that way I think you lose a quite valuable word. I consider NLP to be extrapolated from evidence. I even have seen it tested directly a variety of times.
At the same time I don’t consider it to be scientific in the popular usage of ‘scientific’.
For discussion on LW I think Keith Stanovich criteria’s for science are good:
Three of the most important [criteria of science] are that (1) science employs methods of systematic empiricism; (2) it aims for knowledge that is publicly verifiable; and (3) it seeks problems that are empirically solvable and that yield testable theories.
I do believe that it works, but “scientific backing”? Did I miss some new study on the Shangri-La diet, or what are you talking about?
People often use “scientific backing” to mean “this extrapolates reasonably from evidence” rather than “this has been tested directly.”
If you use the word scientific that way I think you lose a quite valuable word. I consider NLP to be extrapolated from evidence. I even have seen it tested directly a variety of times. At the same time I don’t consider it to be scientific in the popular usage of ‘scientific’.
For discussion on LW I think Keith Stanovich criteria’s for science are good:
Agreed, good definition of science-backed.