Well it may easily be dismissed because there is no easy way to prove that they are doing what they say they are doing. If I ran a hundred and attributed it to thinking about kittens while I was playing there would be no way to prove or disprove that I was doing that, nor that doing so would be helpful to somebody else, or even to me. Any and all "evidence" would be anectdotal in nature, unless there was some way to read my mind.
It is easy to see that someone who is sceptical can make the same objections to aiming systems.
The point you are making about how you get your result is not a good one. How you "get there" does matter. Homeopathy for instance, has no scientifically proven mechanism for what it claims to do, and most of the claims are in direct contradiction with all medical science. In fact in the most diluted solutions it can be proven that you do not even get a single molecule of the substance they claim that you are ingesting. It is a giant hoax, yet it is a billion dollar industry. Would you let these people get away with the claim that some people do get better, therefore their theories are valid as long as they pump out anectdotal evidence, without any scientific data to back it up nor any plausible mechanism? You do realize that to be approved and deemed the best, a new medication not only has to outperform a placebo by a statistically significant margin (that is the bare minimum), but also outperform other medications that are available?
I am not saying that aiming systems are hoaxes, just making a point about your reasoning.[/SIZE]
Systems of all kinds can be helpful to learn billiards, IMHO, because they tend to organize your experiences into a coherent whole instead of individual observations, which facilitates learning. I did try CTE and bought Mr. Shuffets first DVD. For me it was not the answer, that may not be due to the system. Maybe my execution was just not good enough or maybe I was using it wrong, who knows? It is good that people sometimes object to some of the claims being made, so that other people that are new to systems do not get unrealistic expectations that will inevitably bee disappointed.
I don't want to start a new debate on CTE here, which will only result in the thread being moved, just trying to show you that your reasoning can be challenged by someone with a sceptical mindset. Not because they are stupid or pigheaded, but because they are trained in science and logic or just naturally sceptical , and therefore are inclined to raise the objections which I showed you. Not everyone who disagree with you have an evil or petty agenda, but may simply disagree on this one point you are trying to make. Being "evangelical" about your results will likely alienate these people, rather than persuade them.
