Not if you're going to sarcastically dismiss valid points that discredit what you're talking about like this.

So if I'm not completely respectful and I don't admit defeat before even we begin you're unwilling to examine the scientific evidence?

Given the continued sarcasm, I'll take that as a no. I'll also point you over to these: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> 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'm sorry. I had no idea Doge Meme would offend you so much. Please accept my apology.

- - - -

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."