Using Popper’s definitions of pseudoscience as if Kuhn had never existed has always bugged me though, but I understand the need for brevity in explanations, and that much of the world has never read either philosopher, and Popper’s falsifiability criterion for science is still what many smart people believe to be the difference between science and pseudoscience.

That said, hose angry blog posts you link to are crap, but there is a nugget of truth. A LOT of stuff that is called EvPsych is pseudo scientific bullshit with absolutely no evidence backing itself up. It’s often used as a lazy man’s shortcut for directly explaining psychological phenomenon that are often better explained by other factors. (Though, of course, those other factors ARE affected by evolution, giving it a more indirect role.)

The problem is many of the assertions by people professing to take an evpsych perspective are untestable hypotheses, which by definition makes them unscientific.

But those chicks are attacking actual scientific attempts to demonstrate evpsych ideas at work, calling them pseudo science. That’s flat out wrong. You can call them *bad* science all you want, but it’s still science.

NLP teaches that every human behaviour is due to the ultimate belief that something positive will come of it. In some cases may one of these behaviours infact be appropriate? although im stating this, I must agree I would prefer if the behaviours were avoided.