ESSAY: Confront23 and the burden of proof
Lronscam
<QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, On or about Thu, 24 Feb 2000
00:52:02 +0000,
Chris Owen says...
>What both these examples show is that when it comes to proving or
>disproving an idea, the onus is on whoever has the lightest burden of
>proof. If it's easier for me to prove my proposition than it is for you
>to disprove it, then it's up to me to prove it. That's also true if
>it's the other way round.
Actually, no. One cannot prove a negative. Simply, that is why the
burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case. The idea
that you would have to prove your innocence would be impossible. How
could I prove that I was at a place.
Since proving something doesn't work is impossible by any standards of
this modern world, the burden is on those who make the claim.
Now, explain that to the IRS whereby the burden of proof is on the tax
payer to prove his taxes are in order. :)
--
*___________________________*
Web page summary: http://www.entheta.net
The best overall site: http://www.xenu.net
Chris Owen's well researched site:
http://www.demon.co.uk/castle/audit/index.html.
The name says it all: http://www.ronthewarhero.org
Co$ book list:http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library
Real player files of Co$, pickets, LRH, etc:
http://www.xenutv.com
Chris Owen
such a noteworthy event that it's worth a thread of its own. He asks
(in "Hey critics - only critical of one side?"):
>Are you accepting on FAITH that the material universe is the only one thats
>real?
>Are you excepting on FAITH that you only live one life? What proof do you have?
>Are you excepting on FAITH that " remote viewing" doesnt work?
>Are you accepting on FAITH that telepathy doesnt exist?
>
>One could argue that the burden of proof is on me. If I was trying to prove
>something that would be true. But if the people ASSUMED that the material
>universe is all thats there, the proof would be hard, because they are asking
>for physical proof about non-physical things. Likewise if it was true to me
>that a non-physical universe is more real, it would be hard for YOU to prove to
>me that the physical universe was more real-because your using physical means
>of proof which isnt real to me anyway! So it depends on the premise or stable
>datem assummed.
Confront23 raises an important question here. How do we *know* that
there isn't a Marcab invasion fleet skulking around Alpha Centauri right
now? How do we *know* that there's no such thing as a body thetan? How
do we *know* that OT powers don't exist?
Well, we don't.
The reason for this is the burden of proof. Let's take Confront23's
example of telepathy. In order to prove that telepathy doesn't exist, I
have to test everyone who might possibly be a telepath. This means the
entire human race. In order to prove that it *does* exist, however, I
merely have to perform scientifically valid tests on the people who
claim to have telepathic abilities - a far smaller group. If it does
exist, then at least one of those people will prove to be the genuine
article. Clearly it's far easier to prove that some people are
telepathic rather than prove that everyone isn't.
Another example: the body thetan. I can't think of a single scientific
test that would demonstrate the existence of an incorporeal, physically
undetectable psychic parasite. Scientology on the other hand claims to
have detected irrefutable evidence of the existence of BTs. Very well!
Are its methods and conclusions valid? Since the whole basis of
Scientology is the physical detection and interpretation of
bioelectrical activity via the E-meter, this is something which can
readily be tested through experimentation.
What both these examples show is that when it comes to proving or
disproving an idea, the onus is on whoever has the lightest burden of
proof. If it's easier for me to prove my proposition than it is for you
to disprove it, then it's up to me to prove it. That's also true if
it's the other way round.
There's something else to consider. While it isn't possible to dismiss
claims of OT powers out of hand, it *is* possible to judge their
probability. One of the major powers of an OT is supposed to be
telekinesis. Hubbard speaks in "A History of Man" of OTs being able to
knock hats off from 50 yards away. By the time we get to the OT
lectures in the 1960s, Hubbard speaks confidently of OTs being able to
knock planets out of orbit. In the wacky "OT Wins" printed since the
1970s in "Advance!" magazine, Scientologists speak of being able to
manipulate physical events, such as deflecting crashing cars.
Fortunately it's easy to work out how much power would be required to
perform such feats. (For this I'm indebted to Lawrence M. Krauss'
excellent book "Beyond Star Trek"). Moving a 100g pen a few feet across
a table would require about 1 joule of energy. To do this in a second
would require one watt of energy. That's not much, but the catch is
that if the pen is pointed towards you it would present a cross-
sectional area of only about 1 square centimetre. If it is one metre
away, then the target represents only about 1/100000th of the surface
area of a 1m-radius sphere. If you were radiating a telekinetic signal
uniformly in all directions, you would have to expend a remarkable 100
kilowatts of power - enough to power a fair-sized radio transmitter!
Even if you could somehow narrow the focus of the beam, you would still
need to expend a considerable wattage just to move a pencil. Imagine
trying to move a heavy car or even a planet! It would be easy to tell
which people were the OTs: their heads would glow red-hot from the huge
amount of power being expended every time they used their telekinetic
powers. In the case of planet-moving OTs, their fiery craniums would
probably incinerate everything for miles around. The fact that
Scientologists haven't reported their heads lighting up like
searchlights suggests that they don't in fact have any telekinetic
powers, despite their claims.
This is just a simple application of known and hitherto invariable
physical laws to the claims made by Scientology. Another example is
that of the "space wagons" used by the Marcabs and Helatrobans to travel
at the remarkable speed of a trillion light years per day (sic). Since
a century's worth of intense testing and experimentation has failed to
uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the likelihood of
the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
So, in short, while it's not possible in most cases to say absolutely
positively that Scientology's claims for such things as OT powers, past
lives and nonmaterial phenomena are untrue, it *is* possible to say that
such things are most unlikely. Since Scientology itself is unwilling to
put its claims to the test, the doubters have always managed to win
their case by default.
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
frank howell
is pissing in the wind.
Xenu,
Frank
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
CONFRONT23
Join COS investigaions list:
http://www.onelist.com/community/COSinvestigations
The criminal time track III (now with references)
http://hometown.aol.com/confront23/myhomepage/faith.html
A house divided against itself cannot stand- Abe Lincoln
Xemu X. Xenu Jr. - Xemu's Briggades
Or was it from that thread about the vacuous void of education brought
about by the use of 'dictionary tech' that some glibly call education.
Does it matter anyway? Would it go any towards getting some here to see the
light of day or learn how to use a spell checker? Probably not.
Xemu X. Xenu Jr.
aka Vernon D. Cain Jr.
www.xenu.net for a clue how xenu messes up an education using 'tech'!
CONFRONT23 wrote in message
<20000224004215...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
barb
>
> Which thread was this from?
You mean you're not ABLE to figure it out? Better get out your wallet!
--
barb
"copy c:\clams.scn c:\scienos\scienos.pod"
-Sten (Koos Koos) Arne
publicr...@scientology.org
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Since a century's worth of intense testing and experimentation has
>failed to uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the
>likelihood of the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
In other words, since science can't do it now, it probably can't be
done.
Interesting notion. I believe that scientists at the beginning of the
20th Century harbored the same view that they had reached the pinacle
of scientific knowledge and achievement. Yet, they would view the
daily revelations in quantum physics as poppycock, and the computer you
used to post this message as such an impossible extension of the level
of technology existing at the time as to be totally outside the range
of possibilities.
So, while I agree with your position that one cannot dismiss the
beliefs of Scientologists out of hand (which I am not saying this is,
particularly), I think you are selling the human race a bit short with
this conclusion.
In any event, there's my two cents worth for you.
Robert
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dave Bird
>quote:
>>Since a century's worth of intense testing and experimentation has
>>failed to uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the
>>likelihood of the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
>
>done.
Er, no, fuckwit. The point is not just that a physical object
can't be travelling relative to you faster than the speed of light
in free space. The other end of the scale is that light always
travels at the same speed in free space whatever the movement
of the observer (and the whole of electromagnetism would fall
down if it didn't). Not only that but time and space on and
object moving relative to you will distort along a sliding scale
so that this is accomplished; and we see this happen with the
correct numbers on, say, fast moving cosmic rays.
|~/ |~/
~~|;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;'^';-._.-;||';-._.-;'^';||_.-;'^'0-|~~
P | Woof Woof, Glug Glug ||____________|| 0 | P
O | Who Drowned the Judge's Dog? | . . . . . . . '----. 0 | O
O | answers on *---|_______________ @__o0 | O
L |<a href="news:alt.religion.scientology"></a>_____________|/_______| L
and<a href="http://www.xemu.demon.co.uk/clam/lynx/q0.html"></a>XemuSP4(:)
Lronscam
<89403i$5v5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, On or about Thu, 24 Feb 2000 19:17:12
GMT,
publicr...@scientology.org says...
>In article <QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>Since a century's worth of intense testing and experimentation has
>>failed to uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the
>>likelihood of the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
>
>In other words, since science can't do it now, it probably can't be
>done.
>
>Interesting notion. I believe that scientists at the beginning of the
>20th Century harbored the same view that they had reached the pinacle
>of scientific knowledge and achievement.
Not even close. What they did know was that there were some scientists
who came up with the most absurd theories, and they well knowing that
the technology wouldn't be around 'till after they died to test their
theory adequately as false. Einstein fit into this barrel of
scientists and fortunately, he came out to be one of the guys who
really did know what he was talking about.
Now, doing a double take on your statement, I see how very little you
do know. A scientist by his very nature will never think that science
is done and over discovering the universe. Be that scientists born 10
years ago, 100, or a 1,000 years ago.
> Yet, they would view the
>daily revelations in quantum physics as poppycock, and the computer you
>used to post this message as such an impossible extension of the level
>of technology existing at the time as to be totally outside the range
>of possibilities.
I do believe that anything before it works is considered to be a pile
of rubbish, scientifically so. Unfortunately, there are those amongst
us, cough cough, who lie about claims they know isn't true. And
instead of believing everyone, scientists must only believe those who
can demonstrate their theory satisfactorily.
And as your specifics pointed out that scientists didn't believe in
such a thing as a computer could exist, is, I believe, false.
Scientists believe in anything that can be demonstrated as true and
valid.
In the real world, demonstration takes precedence over authority and
opinion. Unfortunately, you will never understand that as long as you
are a follower of Hubbard tech.
>So, while I agree with your position that one cannot dismiss the
>beliefs of Scientologists out of hand (which I am not saying this is,
>particularly), I think you are selling the human race a bit short with
>this conclusion.
Chris isn't doing that at all. He had a very reasonable approach
towards both the possibility of OT powers, and the possibility of
space travel at warp speed, so to say.
And since we are on the subject, can you demonstrate your OT powers?
It would be very easy to do so. And if you can't, then why not? Or, if
you are not an OT, then can someone who is an OT demonstrate them for
me?
>
>In any event, there's my two cents worth for you.
>
>Robert
Robert, BTW, who do you represent? Are you staff on scientology, and
why can't you give us all your last name? That would add to your
credibility.
Steve Plakos
Lronscam wrote:
> The addy of chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk, In article ID
> <QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>, On or about Thu, 24 Feb 2000
> 00:52:02 +0000,
>
> Chris Owen says...
>
> >What both these examples show is that when it comes to proving or
> >disproving an idea, the onus is on whoever has the lightest burden of
> >proof. If it's easier for me to prove my proposition than it is for you
> >to disprove it, then it's up to me to prove it. That's also true if
> >it's the other way round.
>
> Actually, no. One cannot prove a negative. Simply, that is why the
> burden of proof is on the prosecution in a criminal case. The idea
> that you would have to prove your innocence would be impossible. How
> could I prove that I was at a place.
FYI, under French law the accused is presumed guilty until he proves
hisinnocence. To do so, the defendant must both attack the prosecutions
evidence and provide evidence on his behalf of an exculpatory nature.
In Chris's example, proof may be offered in support of whoever
makes the easiest claim to prove or disprove.
As a model of reasonableness I might agree with Chris, however, I don't think
that is the way arguments should be "litigated." Under both the British and
U.S. systems of jurisprudence the burden of proof would lie with the
claimant. Clearly this should mean that Hubbard supporters have the
burden of proving their case because they are the ones making the claims.
> Since proving something doesn't work is impossible by any standards of
> this modern world, the burden is on those who make the claim.
>
I don't think this is true in the hard sciences. My knowledge of the
sciencesis limited :), but as I recall the scientific method involves the
setting up of
an hypothesis and then setting about to prove or disprove it.
> Now, explain that to the IRS whereby the burden of proof is on the tax
> payer to prove his taxes are in order. :)
>
That's why a taxpayer who doesn't go to tax court is missing theproverbial
boat; in tax court the burden of proof shifts back to the
IRS were it belongs :)
SP
Enzo Piccone
Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
<snip>
: Confront23 raises an important question here. How do we *know* that
: there isn't a Marcab invasion fleet skulking around Alpha Centauri right
: now? How do we *know* that there's no such thing as a body thetan? How
: do we *know* that OT powers don't exist?
:
: Well, we don't.
Exactly.
<snip reasons why you don't>
: So, in short, while it's not possible in most cases to say absolutely
: positively that Scientology's claims for such things as OT powers, past
: lives and nonmaterial phenomena are untrue, it *is* possible to say that
: such things are most unlikely. Since Scientology itself is unwilling to
: put its claims to the test, the doubters have always managed to win
: their case by default.
Nope, the doubters have always managed merely to hold onto their cases.
(Scn joke, Chris: ~case~ being defined as the sum total of a person's
aberrations. :)
E
--
Note: Correct e-mail address omits the "h" in en...@hermes.it.
Ian Rennie
> In article <QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Since a century's worth of intense testing and experimentation has
> >failed to uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the
> >likelihood of the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
>
> In other words, since science can't do it now, it probably can't be
> done.
>
> Interesting notion. I believe that scientists at the beginning of the
> 20th Century harbored the same view that they had reached the pinacle
> of scientific knowledge and achievement. Yet, they would view the
> daily revelations in quantum physics as poppycock, and the computer you
> used to post this message as such an impossible extension of the level
> of technology existing at the time as to be totally outside the range
> of possibilities.
>
> So, while I agree with your position that one cannot dismiss the
> beliefs of Scientologists out of hand (which I am not saying this is,
> particularly), I think you are selling the human race a bit short with
> this conclusion.
>
> In any event, there's my two cents worth for you.
By the way, who are you? What organisation do you represent? What
position do you hold?
Chris Owen
<en...@hermes.it> writes
>
>Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk...
>Since Scientology itself is unwilling to
>: put its claims to the test, the doubters have always managed to win
>: their case by default.
>
>Nope, the doubters have always managed merely to hold onto their cases.
>
>(Scn joke, Chris: ~case~ being defined as the sum total of a person's
>aberrations. :)
I'm sure it's funny to Scientologists... :-)
Seriously, though, if one side makes a big claim and then resolutely
refuses to put it to the test, while the other side is unable to refute
it completely but can still show that it's extremely unlikely, then it's
the latter side which will prevail. It's about quality of evidence.
Limited but high-quality evidence is very likely to prevail over an
unsubstantiated hypothesis, even if it doesn't disprove that hypothesis
in every regard.
Chris Owen
<confr...@aol.com> writes
>Which thread was this from?
*sigh* I made that clear in my opening paragraph - it's from your first
post in the thread with the Subject: of "Hey critics - only critical of
one side?".
Chris Owen
g writes
>In article <QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>failed to uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the
>>likelihood of the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
>
>done.
>
>Interesting notion. I believe that scientists at the beginning of the
>20th Century harbored the same view that they had reached the pinacle
>of scientific knowledge and achievement. Yet, they would view the
>daily revelations in quantum physics as poppycock, and the computer you
>used to post this message as such an impossible extension of the level
>of technology existing at the time as to be totally outside the range
>of possibilities.
Bad example, I'm afraid. I'm sure Dave Bird will explain further in his
usual colourful way. The light barrier happens to be just about the
closest thing to an indisputable physical fact. It's actually
relatively easy to work out how much energy one would need to travel
faster than light; unfortunately the energy required is infinite. If
one could somehow harness every source of power in the entire universe,
it still wouldn't be enough to propel you faster than light. That is an
insuperable fundamental problem and there simply is no way around it.
This consideration makes it rather pointless to raise other objections,
but I might as well point them out: travelling at a trillion light years
a day, you would be going far faster than any electromagnetic or
gravitational waves, and would be unable to avoid or even detect any
obstacles. Accelerating and decelerating could prove problematic, since
the g-forces would be so extreme that you and your vessel would probably
be crushed into a singularity, black hole style. The universe itself is
thought to be only about 13 billion years across, so at a trillion light
years a day you would cross it pretty quickly. We *know* that it can't
be a trillion years old; it's too tightly packed and the rate of
expansion can be backtracked to give the 13 billion year figure. If it
*was* a trillion years ago, one would see the physical evidence in the
form of high levels of heavy elements (the primordial hydrogen and
helium having been consumed long ago) and signs of exotic decay
processes such as proton decay, the spontaneous disintegration of matter
through sheer old age.
So it's not just a matter of limited technology but rather one of
fundamental, measurable limits. These days even sci-fi authors have
mostly stopped talking about faster-than-light travel, instead relying
on other ways to bend the rules without actually breaking the light
barrier. Wormholes, hyperspace and warp drives are all examples of
"short-cutting" which are *mathematically* possible but probably present
insuperable practical difficulties. (If they didn't, most likely we'd
be up to our eyebrows in alien visitors.)
>So, while I agree with your position that one cannot dismiss the
>beliefs of Scientologists out of hand (which I am not saying this is,
>particularly), I think you are selling the human race a bit short with
>this conclusion.
I'm not really saying that one cannot dismiss the beliefs of
Scientologists out of hand. First, Hubbard asserts that this is
scientifically verifiable *fact*, not just belief. Second, it's
possible to say that his claims are in some instances physically
impossible and in other cases monumentally improbable. That's not quite
absolute dismissal but it's pretty close to it.
>In any event, there's my two cents worth for you.
Glad you could put your two penn'orth in...
Phil Scott
wrote:
>In<89403i$5v5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, publicr...@scientology.org writes:
>>quote:
>>>Since a century's worth of intense testing and experimentation has
>>>failed to uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the
>>>likelihood of the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
>>
>>In other words, since science can't do it now, it probably can't be
>>done.
>
> Er, no, fuckwit. The point is not just that a physical object
> can't be travelling relative to you faster than the speed of light
> in free space. The other end of the scale is that light always
> travels at the same speed in free space whatever the movement
> of the observer (and the whole of electromagnetism would fall
> down if it didn't). Not only that but time and space on and
> object moving relative to you will distort along a sliding scale
> so that this is accomplished; and we see this happen with the
> correct numbers on, say, fast moving cosmic rays.
thats a pretty bright explanation Dave.
It has to be largely correct. Lets say however you have some glowing
items being sucked into a black hole, stars and such...... as they
reach the speed of light, a million diameters away from the black
hole, they go 'black' in otherwords they are going at the speed of
light at least and so no light escapes backwards to the viewer outside
the influence of the black hole.
Thats a know fact.
So now the question. If these particles are *accelerating as they
near the black hole, and reach light speed...and yet are STILL under
the tremendous gravitational attraction from the black hole... it does
seem indeed that they would accelerate as they got even closer to the
black hole....in that case they would exceed the speed of light.
Now if thats the case, they'd have to reach the speed of light squared
in order to convert to pure energy.....they apparently do not, as the
black holes become exceedingly massive...(mass can be derived from the
speed and acceleration of the material being sucked in..)
So then it does seem the mass does exceed the speed of light
considerably but not to C squared.
burp.
Best Regards, Phil Scott
We know by the laws of inertica and acceleration that if particle is
accelerating that it takes an oposite force to slow it down....well
there is no oposing force apparently .....so what would then stop the
acceleration of the particle as it approaches the black hole.
Reply by email too would be nice, I might miss the posted reply.
Phil Scott
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
says...
>
>In article <QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>,
> Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>failed to uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the
>>likelihood of the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
>
>done.
(sadly shakes his head)
This is a straw-man. By these words, I know you don't understand
"science".
Science is a systematic approach to making hypotheses, gathering data
that may refute (not confirm) those hypotheses, then modifying the
hypotheses to fit the data. Along the way, the absence of contradictory
data tends to confirm the hypothesis.
Science has nothing to do with claiming that everything that can be
known is now known. In fact, that hypothesis is scientifically refuted
by simply looking at any of a number of professional journals.
[remainder of post which is based on a M/U of "science" snipped.]
>Robert
Chris makes an assumption that psychic energy cannot be directed. I
think that is premature. For example, a bona-fide psychic may be
able to control the order of neuron-firings in their brain, setting
up a "psychic wave" of some sort. However, I am merely speculating
since instance #1 of psychic abilities has yet to be scientifically
demonstrated under strictly controlled conditions. In fact, I tend
to take Randi's million-dollar offer to be proof that nobody on
Earth can demonstrate psychic abilities.
Chris' main point (psychic abilities have never been demonstrated
under scientifically controlled conditions) still stands.
By the way publicr...@scientology.org, why do you have to
use deja-news? Why doesn't scientology.org have a news server?
Too much entheta behind the firewall? Using deja-news to represent
your organization seems a bit tacky.
Perry Scott, SP 4.3, ScienoSitter 3X + ISP + 2 words
Co$ Escapee
Chris Owen
<phils...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>So now the question. If these particles are *accelerating as they
>near the black hole, and reach light speed...and yet are STILL under
>the tremendous gravitational attraction from the black hole... it does
>seem indeed that they would accelerate as they got even closer to the
>black hole....in that case they would exceed the speed of light.
>
>Now if thats the case, they'd have to reach the speed of light squared
>in order to convert to pure energy.....they apparently do not, as the
>black holes become exceedingly massive...(mass can be derived from the
>speed and acceleration of the material being sucked in..)
>
>So then it does seem the mass does exceed the speed of light
>considerably but not to C squared.
Nope. It could never reach the speed of light in the first place; it
could never exceed the speed of light, *no matter how much acceleration
it was subjected to*.
Consider this proposition: two spacecraft, each traveling at 2/3 of c
(which is theoretically reachable), have a head on collision. What is
their colliding velocity? 1 1/3 c, right? Wrong! - since nothing can
exceed c their colliding velocity will always be less than c, no matter
what the sum of their velocities might be. I admit that this is all
very counterintuitive, but fundamental constants are tricky beasts.
Chris Owen
<stav...@concentric.net> writes
>
>FYI, under French law the accused is presumed guilty until he proves
>hisinnocence. To do so, the defendant must both attack the prosecutions
>evidence and provide evidence on his behalf of an exculpatory nature.
Certain British laws work that way too - the law of libel and the
Official Secrets Act (or OSA *grin*) come to mind.
>As a model of reasonableness I might agree with Chris, however, I don't think
>that is the way arguments should be "litigated." Under both the British and
>U.S. systems of jurisprudence the burden of proof would lie with the
>claimant. Clearly this should mean that Hubbard supporters have the
>burden of proving their case because they are the ones making the claims.
The way I've heard it put is along the lines of "extraordinary claims
require extraordinary proof". I can present a whole mass of ordinary
proof suggesting that Hubbard's claim of super-fast "space wagons" is a
nonsense. Scientology needs to produce something extraordinary to trump
that.
>> Since proving something doesn't work is impossible by any standards of
>> this modern world, the burden is on those who make the claim.
>>
>I don't think this is true in the hard sciences. My knowledge of the
>sciencesis limited :), but as I recall the scientific method involves the
>setting up of
>an hypothesis and then setting about to prove or disprove it.
Yup. Hubbard never seemed to grasp this concept, which is probably the
result of him flunking all his science courses when he was at
university.
Enzo Piccone
<snip>
: Seriously, though, if one side makes a big claim and then resolutely
: refuses to put it to the test, while the other side is unable to refute
: it completely but can still show that it's extremely unlikely, then it's
: the latter side which will prevail. It's about quality of evidence.
: Limited but high-quality evidence is very likely to prevail over an
: unsubstantiated hypothesis, even if it doesn't disprove that hypothesis
: in every regard.
The observation I merely wished to highlight in my preceding article was the
initial observation you made yourself, and which you've mentioned again above.
While one can make a convincing case for one aspect or another of Scientology to
be implausible or fantastic (existing in fancy only), a convincing case is all
it would remain. And a convincing case and certainty are not the same thing.
The further observation I attempted to make with my joke was that the only
certain result of dismissing Scientology (after having made a convincing case
for aspects of it being implausible or fantastic) is that one will merely have
precluded for oneself any of the benefits that might be available from its study
and practice, including those which might not be available elsewhere.
With any subject, of course, but with Scientology especially (given some of its
more dramatic differences from other studies), I would suggest keeping one's
mind open.
Closing it, after all, merely limits one's willingness to further evaluate and
one's capacity to do so serenely.
The matter of testing Scientology according to certain scientific standards
comes up routinely here. I consider it a legitimate point to raise.
The C of S has taken few initiatives in this direction. I expect that in years
to come such testing will be done both by the C of S and by others. When the
results are in, I'm sure those interested will be pleased to have them
available.
In the meantime it remains that almost all of the philosophy and technology
which is available in Scientology may be tested personally, directly, and quite
adequately by anyone who would care to do so.
That some might wish to have little or nothing to do with the subject until such
testing as would conform to their own criteria is done for, and provided to,
them -- this is fine by me.
It's also fine by me that there have been, are, and will continue to be people
who are prepared to test it for themselves.
The point I'm making here is that I consider it an error in evaluation to
attempt to draw more than tentative conclusions about aspects of a subject, and
especially a subject such as Scientology, in the absence of adequate and
verified data.
Ian Rennie
> In article <89403i$5v5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, publicr...@scientology.or
> g writes
> >In article <QceenGAy...@lutefisk.demon.co.uk>,
> > Chris Owen <chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>Since a century's worth of intense testing and experimentation has
> >>failed to uncover any possibility of faster-than-light travel, the
> >>likelihood of the "space wagon" claim being true has to be pretty low.
> >
> >In other words, since science can't do it now, it probably can't be
> >done.
> >
doubtful. THey've heard of Scientology
>
> >So, while I agree with your position that one cannot dismiss the
> >beliefs of Scientologists out of hand (which I am not saying this is,
> >particularly), I think you are selling the human race a bit short with
> >this conclusion.
>
> I'm not really saying that one cannot dismiss the beliefs of
> Scientologists out of hand. First, Hubbard asserts that this is
> scientifically verifiable *fact*, not just belief. Second, it's
> possible to say that his claims are in some instances physically
> impossible and in other cases monumentally improbable. That's not quite
> absolute dismissal but it's pretty close to it.
>
> >In any event, there's my two cents worth for you.
>
> Glad you could put your two penn'orth in...
>
Michael 'Mike' Gormez -- www.enturbulate.nu
<chr...@lutefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> wrote:
>space wagon
You've to rethink that, Chris. Hubbard was very firm about those! :8)
The Helatrobus Implants 21 May 1963 (what a strange lecture..)
"Now, science fiction writers following the cue of some chap, I've
forgotten his name now, Einstein, Beinstein, something like that, who said
that MC squared over C wouldn't go, man, and that the speed of light could
not be excessive. And actually I was looking up some speed tables the
other day, and a trillion light years per day is not full throttle on a
space wagon. So there's traffic between galaxies and there's traffic
between islands of galaxies and other islands of galaxies. Interesting."
See also SHSpec-281 The Free Being
Mikey
--
Scientology & Dianetics
Tax-exempt child abuse and neglect?
http://www.b-org.demon.nl/scn/deaths/childabuse.html
Dave Bird
>> travels at the same speed in free space whatever the movement
>> of the observer (and the whole of electromagnetism would fall
>> down if it didn't). Not only that but time and space on and
>> object moving relative to you will distort along a sliding scale
>> so that this is accomplished; and we see this happen with the
>> correct numbers on, say, fast moving cosmic rays.
>
>thats a pretty bright explanation Dave.
>
>It has to be largely correct. Lets say however you have some glowing
>items being sucked into a black hole, stars and such...... as they
>reach the speed of light, a million diameters away from the black
>hole, they go 'black'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wrong. The gravity of a massive object such as the earth bends
back the motion of an object trying to travel away from it, such
that if it does not exceed a minimum "escape velocity" then it
falls back and fails to get away. If you are close enough to
an object which packs a large enough mass in a small enough space,
then the velocity required in theory to escape can be greater than
the velocity of light in free space i.e. it can be unattainable great
for any material thing.
(0)
\
Nothing to do with \ .-''-. but the theoretical speed you
the speed between \__ .' '. need to shoot something up from
these objects \_| here for it to get away.
\
\
\
__...----'''''''----...__
[It has to be pretty exactly correct. Without it, connected events
can be both ways round in time order. Without it, you can forget
the laws of electromagnetism and E0 = mc^2].
Chris Owen
<perryATezlinkDOTcom@?.?.com> writes
>
>Chris makes an assumption that psychic energy cannot be directed. I
>think that is premature. For example, a bona-fide psychic may be
>able to control the order of neuron-firings in their brain, setting
>up a "psychic wave" of some sort. However, I am merely speculating
>since instance #1 of psychic abilities has yet to be scientifically
>demonstrated under strictly controlled conditions. In fact, I tend
>to take Randi's million-dollar offer to be proof that nobody on
>Earth can demonstrate psychic abilities.
>
>Chris' main point (psychic abilities have never been demonstrated
>under scientifically controlled conditions) still stands.
It seems a little premature to speculate on how psychic energy might be
directed, given that (as you say) psychic abilities have never been
demonstrated. However, I think it's worth making the point that - as
far as I know, anyway - directed sources of energy need to be focussed
via a dedicated point source. Natural examples that I'm thinking of are
dolphins (which produce highly focussed beams of sound via a specialised
organ in the head called a melon) and bats (which use their mouths for
the same purpose). Human physiology simply doesn't have any comparable
organs. As I argued in my previous post, the energy requirements for
non-directional telekinesis are so extreme that it's hard to see how the
prospective OT could survive his first attempt to use his "powers".
But all of this could be cleared up tomorrow if just one of those
hundreds or thousands of OTs actually gave a verifiable demonstration of
his or her powers. Come on, OTs, what's holding you back?
Perry Scott <perryATezlinkDOTcom>
>With any subject, of course, but with Scientology especially (given some of its
>more dramatic differences from other studies), I would suggest keeping one's
>mind open.
True science does not require an open mind. The true test of an hypothesis
is when even the harshest skeptics cannot disprove it.
Compare that to Hubbard's approach to "research": give SP Declares
to critics and send dissidents to the RPF!
>The matter of testing Scientology according to certain scientific standards
>comes up routinely here. I consider it a legitimate point to raise.
Thank you for acknowledging this. However, our concepts of "testing" may
differ. The term "validating" may be a better word for you to use.
>The C of S has taken few initiatives in this direction. I expect that in years
>to come such testing will be done both by the C of S and by others. When the
>results are in, I'm sure those interested will be pleased to have them
>available.
No. Absolutely not. If the technology is valid, it should be tested NOW.
Hubbard tended to procrastinate - it's easy to make hypotheses, but the
real work is in testing them. Hubbard makes wild claims, but then does
not prove those claims. I am no longer willing to cut Hubbard any slack
on this issue.
If Hubbard's claims are unproven, then they should be proven. NOW.
Until they are proven, Hubbard's claims (beginning with the engram
hypothesis) are built on sand.
Enzo, what would happen to Dianetics (and Scientology) if engrams were
proven to be a false datum?
>In the meantime it remains that almost all of the philosophy and technology
>which is available in Scientology may be tested personally, directly, and quite
>adequately by anyone who would care to do so.
Please explain the difference between "personal" testing and "scientific"
testing. Why would the results of "personal" testing be different than
"scientific" testing?
>The point I'm making here is that I consider it an error in evaluation to
>attempt to draw more than tentative conclusions about aspects of a subject, and
>especially a subject such as Scientology, in the absence of adequate and
>verified data.
This will prevent you from building a house on sand. Scientology is
built on sand because the engram hypothesis (as described in D:MSMH)
was disproven under scientifically-controlled conditions.
>E
Dave Bird
tefisk.OISPAMNOdemon.co.uk> writes:
>In article <896lb4$1r...@drn.newsguy.com>, Perry Scott
><perryATezlinkDOTcom@?.?.com> writes
>>
>>Chris makes an assumption that psychic energy cannot be directed. I
>>think that is premature. For example, a bona-fide psychic may be
>>able to control the order of neuron-firings in their brain, setting
>>up a "psychic wave" of some sort. However, I am merely speculating
>>since instance #1 of psychic abilities has yet to be scientifically
>>demonstrated under strictly controlled conditions. In fact, I tend
>>to take Randi's million-dollar offer to be proof that nobody on
>>Earth can demonstrate psychic abilities.
>>
>>Chris' main point (psychic abilities have never been demonstrated
>>under scientifically controlled conditions) still stands.
>
>It seems a little premature to speculate on how psychic energy might be
>directed, given that (as you say) psychic abilities have never been
>demonstrated. However, I think it's worth making the point that - as
>far as I know, anyway - directed sources of energy need to be focussed
>via a dedicated point source. Natural examples that I'm thinking of are
>dolphins (which produce highly focussed beams of sound via a specialised
>organ in the head called a melon) and bats (which use their mouths for
>the same purpose). Human physiology simply doesn't have any comparable
>organs.
Wherever observing the real world out there has led us to believe
we're sensing some energy from out there is the environment then
(1) it has always been a perfectly ordinary effect in the environment
which we can observe with other instruments, and (2) there has always
been a specific part of the body acting as input transducer which
responds to it in an obvious physical way; and would still give a clear
physical response if alive but separated from the rest of the body.
Likewise when observation shows we put some energy out into the
environment, then it has been a perfectly ordinary sort of effect
that could have been produced by other physical means; there is an
obvious part of the body acting to produce it in and obvious way,
and consuming energy sufficient to power the effect it produced
in the environment.
Now I have no objection to the idea that someone might push, as I
push now with the heel of my hand, against a bookshelf or ashtray
or whatever [and be correspondingly pushed back by it, and use up
the required amount of chemical energy to do so]. I only say that
if they demonstrated doing it "by will alone without material agency"
then it would be highly unobvious what form of energy had propagated
out to the object and what part of the body had generated it.
In fact it probably is never observed because it can't happen for
those obvious physical reasons. Just as flying pigs are unlikely to
be observed, because pigs just do not come with the aerodynamics or
power-to-weight ratio necessary for flight.