This was being discussed elsewhere but I thought deserved its own post.

Magic has a long history of skeptics; from Houdini's attack on the clairvoyant to James Randi's exposes on faith healers. I think this is entirely honorable, and without this work magic would have many more of the Uri Gellers proclaiming they actually possess true magic powers. I am also aware that many people probably have been helped by psychics, NLP, and hypnotism and that most practitioners are using their art with the best intentions.

However I believe that caution is needed when practicing these modalities outside the magicians arena. If a well-done objective study comes out showing that people who have experience NLP do better than people who haven't then I will be happy to recommend it. If not, I'm going to be skeptical, especially if it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I am the first to admit I am not being open-minded but I look at this as an asset that has protected me from the phrenologists, iridologists, faith healers, and laetrile prescribers of the world.

People often don't realize how much faith is given to those who say they have special powers, especially when they are in an emotionally fragile state--a classic case being Nancy Reagan's seeking psychic advice (and carrying a gun) after her husband was shot. If you're going to be given so much power to influence someone's life then you had better be sure that what you practice is beyond reproach.

I personally think skeptics perform a major service (rooting out folks like Peter Popoff and questionable folks like Sylvia Brown, John Edward, James Van Praagh, etc). They should, however, leave legitimate entertainers alone. Case in point: Randi exposing the NW on the view to "expose" a talented mentalist.

Dave

This topic has been discussed numerous times elsewhere in this forum. Both sides of the issue have been clearly given, again, numerous times. Read through this forum and you will get a fair view of the opposing opinions.