[carapace]

I suffered from bad depression in my youth. Couldn't get a haircut or buy new shoes, things like that. I think the worst moment came when I was so depressed I just stood there in my room. I couldn't even lie down. No way to explain that to a normal person.

One day my mom said, "I know you're not faking this because no one would deliberately be this miserable."

It was more comforting than you might imagine.

- - - -

(I debated adding this because I don't want to get drawn into an argument about my own personal history, but FWIW I was cured completely in a single session of hypnotherapy that lasted less than ten minutes. The therapist was Dr. Richard Bandler, co-inventor of Neurolinguistic Programming. (Yes, the NLP that is decried as "pseudoscience".))

[wizzwizz4]

Unless you're dealing with con artists, the “pseudo” in “psuedoscience” is usually the explanation. I don't doubt Freud was able to help a lot of people, but I do doubt his explanations of what it was exactly that helped, and why.

[carapace]

> the “pseudo” in “psuedoscience” is usually the explanation

Explanation of what?

I would say that NLP is non-scientific or pre-scientific, yet you can find practitioners and promoters who claim it is scientific, so to that extent NLP is pseudoscience. The trouble is that detractors use the label "pseudoscience" to cast shade on the whole thing, throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The techniques developed under the rubric of NLP are rigorous and repeatable. E.g. the phobia cure or the "Visual Kinesthetic Squash" are like algorithms, in the sense that they are concrete patterns that work to create specific changes. They have been tested and refined and the essential elements boiled down to render specific steps without extraneous elements. A person can learn a pattern like the phobia cure and apply it to cure phobias. So there is a kind of rigor and repeatability that distinguishes NLP from the vast majority of schools of psychology.

> I do doubt his explanations of what it was exactly that helped, and why.

One of the most interesting (IMO) aspects of NLP is that Bandler and Grinder were very careful not to speculate as to how or why these patterns work, they refused to develop theories. The patterns were developed operationally without trying to find explanations or stories for what was going on in the brain that made them work. So no one knows why the "VK Squash" works. No one knows why the phobia cure works. But they do work. And sometimes they don't, so you try something else. It's not scientific, it's operational: do what works.

[shkkmo]

The issues is that we are missing the "why" of how most antidepressants work... so do they also qualify as pseudoscience?

In my mind, psuedoscience isn't just missing the "why/how it works" but also the "who/when it helps" and as a result don't have clear statistical backing.

[wizzwizz4]

We know the why is “because the antidepressants were taken”. But antidepressants only work sometimes – different antidepressants work for different people! We don't know the true, fundamental reason, but at least we've pinned it down a bit.

I call something pseudoscience when the “why” is “pinned down” as something wholly unrelated, and the people involved haven't noticed; if they were doing science instead of just theorising, they would've noticed.

(We agree, but we're using different words.)

[shkkmo]

> We know the why is “because the antidepressants were taken”.

We don't know that. The best we know is that people who take antidepressants on average experience more improvement than a placebo. We actually don't know who got better from taking antidepressants due to the placebo effect.

> I call something pseudoscience when the “why” is “pinned down” as something wholly unrelated, and the people involved haven't noticed;

This is a good point and I would agree that pseudosciences are generally bad at uncovering bad explanations. I will point out that the "chemical imbalance" theory is still widely believed even though it has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

I think the dichotomy science/pseudoscience if often applied to whole fields when there is often a mix of both within any given field. The prevelence can certainly be highly variable from field to field but it isn't as black and white as we like to suggest.