Originally Posted by ethereal
As for proof, try tracking down one of Dr. Hawkins' lecture videos where he gets the audience to split up into pairs and calibrate things. There is no logical reason why everybody would get the same answer (especially with blind and double-blind tests), yet they still consistently do.
I started reading that book, put it down about half way through, i have never read such utter nonsense in my life. i couldn't believe the likes of lea iococca recommened it- perhaps that's a false claim like his 'knighhood' and doctrate
Mainstream scientists and scientific skeptics, notably professor of philosophy and author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, Robert Todd Carroll, state that AK's results are triggered by ideomotor effect and recognize Hawkins' use of applied kinesiology to be a pseudoscience when scrutinized with the scientific method. This is evidenced by double-blind studies, including some that found AK to be "no more useful than random guessing," as well as additional research and reviews contained in the National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health.     
Since the publication of Power vs. Force in 1995, wherein Hawkins deemed AK as a “well-established science“ (Introduction, p. 29) being capable of universal replication, he now refers to it as a right brain exploration, which is neither arithmetic, nor even mathematical, and is not open to reason, logic or proof. According to Hawkins, AK-tested results are derived from a field of multi-millions interacting factors; some known, some unknown. Although Hawkins reports to have carried out large-scale scientific testing of his version of AK methodology mostly with the audiences at his seminars that showed a high degree of accuracy, his perspectives are controversial.  Hawkins' AK research has not been published in peer-reviewed journals, nor did he provide double-blind studies of his own to eliminate observer-expectancy effect; whereas, one study, which was not double-blind, appears to support some aspects of his hypothesis.
Scientific skeptics point out that Hawkins' teachings beg the question, and that he turns to the means of ad hoc hypotheses in order to rescue his alternative approach from falsification. Hawkins' version of AK (rated by him at 605 or nonlinearity) does not provide provable empirically precise statements or outlooks, thereby eluding verification and scientific method and fails to meet the criteria for an empirical science (rated by him at 400 to max. 499 or linearity). David R. Hawkins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia