If NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) is NOT a science, then what it is?

First, this question is deceptively simple. And it assumes a lot. It assumes we can properly define science and in doing so, rule out the parts which may be science. Currently, we can’t even agree on the method, let alone what makes something a science. Setting this aside though, the question being asked seems to be, if not science, then what is NLP?

Pragmatically, NLP appears to be a rather potent tool for effecting change, by improving one’s physical self awareness. And since nothing affects body without simultaneously affecting mind, these changes affect the mind as well.

The thing is, problems arise as soon as you try to explain HOW it works. Does a pattern judged to be a problem actually point to a problem? Or can it merely be one symptom in a constellation of symptoms, some of which are not currently being triggered? More important, if you use NLP to get rid of a symptom, then what has actually happened? Must this symptom be assumed to be the wound, and when gone that healing has occurred? Can this merely be making the wound asymptomatic, only to resurface later in a new form? For that matter, how do you properly define wounds and healing? Certainly the current state of medicine fails to do this. And if we can’t scientifically define wounds and healing, then how can we possibly hope to answer this question.

In the end, it may be best to simply allow for the obvious; that NLP has many positive qualities, some of which bring about remarkable results. As for what to call these remarkable results, I vote for calling them NLP and nothing more.