George,
If you say you ignore me, ignore me. This is a childs game that is being played with a response addressed to another person. I find it interesting that you mention Kuhn's book as if you are intimate with it when in fact that very book is mentioned on my skeptic link of NLP (which you know nothing about of course and could not care less). Did your photoreading of this book consist of going to amazon.com and reading the reviews or are was it resticted to the information that the NLP link provided?
I never said science did not have it's revolutions, I said in essence that it is rare to have all or most findings in that field thrown out for a new theory or findings . It is generally modified over time to fit and explain observations in the world.
For example, geologists did not throw out their all their theories when they finally adopted the tecktonik plate theory. They did not throw out their classifications of rocks (findings). They modified other theories also.
When Copernicus' theory was accepted, astronomers did not throw out all their finding on other planets, stars, etc, (positions, etc) but they had to throw out some theories and modify others.
I said your statement "Little is carved in stone for long" is not true, not the way you make it sound. Not many sciences are thrown out just for a new theory. Diet fads come and go but medical science seems to be skeptikal and not cave in to everything that comes about. And so should other sciences.
You talk as if PRing is a scientific theory. Where are the studies, data, empirical evidence to back it up. All I see are testimonials and that is not enough. I never seen a science textbook filled with any testimonials as proof alone.
