How Scientology Works 15- The Science Paradox
Richard Ford
Furthermore let us assume that it was truly scientific.
Would this mean that Dianetics was still worth studying?
Not necessarily. There were many scientific books published in 1955
that are now completely worthless. This is not because the books were
flawed- but because science moves on.
If we believe Dianetics is a science then we must accept it will one
day become worthless. This is the nature of science itself.
Now the interesting this is that no scientologist will ever accept
this. They talk as if the book were somehow above scientific
criticism.
They use the work 'Science' but do not know what the word means.
Bizarre.
Slarty
On Nov 8, 9:23 am, Richard Ford <doorman.f...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Let us assume that in 1955 Dianetics really was the best there was.
>
> Furthermore let us assume that it was truly scientific.
>
> Would this mean that Dianetics was still worth studying?
>
> Not necessarily. There were many scientific books published in 1955
> that are now completely worthless.
Have you read DMSMH? There were many scientific books, but not
sciences that were worthless. DMSMH was essentially ignored by the
scientific community, and considering the nature of its claim, it
would nearly be bigger than science, if true. Psychoanalysis is
almost more guilty of the type of thinking you describe, but they aint
been killed yet.
This is not because the books were
> flawed- but because science moves on.
>
> If we believe Dianetics is a science then we must accept it will one
> day become worthless. This is the nature of science itself.
If science has found a new way to erase engrams, I'm interested to
hear, myself. Thats why I joined the fz. I joined because I thought
the researech line should not be discontinued for any science.
>
> Now the interesting this is that no scientologist will ever accept
> this. They talk as if the book were somehow above scientific
> criticism.
>
> They use the work 'Science' but do not know what the word means.
Many do. The requirements of groups often, if not usually, become...
(I'll let you say it)
> Bizarre.
Richard Ford
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think you have an MU on science. There are no unchanging truths in
science- only experimentation and progress.
Stating that something is an unchanging truth (such as the idea
engrams exist) is anti-science. It is rather like writing a medical
textbook on blood letting and saying that it is OK to invent an
electronic leech but no other form of treatment may be considered.
Science slaughters all sacred cows. The reason the scientific
community ignored Dianetics is that it could be easely disproved. This
is exactly what scientists do- they disprove things.
It is somewhat ironiic that LRH should write a book called Dianetics
the modern SCIENCE of mental health when he had no idea what science
actually is.
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg
<99bc65ab-11c5-44f5...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
>Have you read DMSMH? There were many scientific books, but not
>sciences that were worthless.
Still looking for the science in DMSMH
> DMSMH was essentially ignored by the
>scientific community, and considering the nature of its claim, it
>would nearly be bigger than science, if true.
You seem like a leading theoretician of Hubbardism. Care to explain what
the dimensions of the terms in the Equation of Potential Value are?
Please follow up to ars.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Slarty
Am I unscientific if I say that red blood cells exist, and that they
existed 100,00 years ago, as well?
It is rather like writing a medical
> textbook on blood letting and saying that it is OK to invent an
> electronic leech but no other form of treatment may be considered.
There is no getting around the idea that scientologists believe their
data was purposefully ignored, and that it shouldn't have been, with a
capital s. There are many reasons why, the main 1 being that
dianetics lead to discoveries about the human spirit, and tho the
ideal epistemological practice for science should be scepticism in the
actual philosophical sence of that term, it is nonetheless true, and
obviouse to MANY MANY observers that the actual practice tends to end
up being dogmatic materialism. There is a difference between being
against science, and being against a state of science. The state of
science today, is that many of its practitioners are dogmatically
materialist, in outlook.
>
> Science slaughters all sacred cows.
Not materialism (again, philosophical sence of the term). They've yet
to slaughter that 1.
The reason the scientific
> community ignored Dianetics is that it could be easely disproved.
Oh, was it?
This
> is exactly what scientists do- they disprove things.
> It is somewhat ironiic that LRH should write a book called Dianetics
> the modern SCIENCE of mental health when he had no idea what science
> actually is.
What have you read by Hubbard? DMSMH struck me as having a pretty
firm command of science. Also; why are you here, instead of
alt.religion.scientology?
Slarty
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:47:59 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
> wrote in msg
> <99bc65ab-11c5-44f5-a2b7-ad1c6419c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>
>
> >Have you read DMSMH? There were many scientific books, but not
> >sciences that were worthless.
>
> Still looking for the science in DMSMH
>
> > DMSMH was essentially ignored by the
> >scientific community, and considering the nature of its claim, it
> >would nearly be bigger than science, if true.
>
> You seem like a leading theoretician of Hubbardism. Care to explain what
> the dimensions of the terms in the Equation of Potential Value are?
No; not really. There is a famous formula in science that attempts to
calculate the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life. IT really only
accomplishes 1 thing. It codifies the things to be considered in any
such calculation. Since the actual data involved involves a bunch of
unknowns, and a bunch of constantly changing fields of data, it is
worth little as an actual calculation, but worth much as a
codification of the factors involved. The mathematician who created
it, was undoubtably "saying" are there any factors I lert out, becouse
I think I've been pretty thorough, here. So far, I believe that the
scientific community has concurred.
My father was a computer scientist. I think he would have told me,
and would not have spent thousands of $, if there was flawed thinking
in dmsmh.
>
> Please follow up to ars.
>
> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
I definitely decline.
Richard Ford
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Slarty,
You continue to reverse the meaning of my entire post. I was tempted
to dismiss you for a moment as dishonest until I realised the number
of things I was somehow unaware of while I was still 'in'.
I will continue in the hope that you are sincere and that anger has
simply clouded you ability to discuss with me. I feel that you are a
person who values rationality and honesty but that you have simply
falled into a series of carefully prepaired mental traps
(scientology).
Of COURSE red blood cells existed 100,000 years ago. I believe in
objective reality and evidence. It is scientology who believes reality
is 'an agreement between Thetans' and that therefore there were no
blood cells (because no Thetans had agreed on them.)
The point is that Dianetics claims to be a science. Everything in
science is subject to change if new evidence comes to light that
indicates the old theory is false. There are no exceptions. If a
theory is 'above' evidence than it is not science.
IF Dianetics were a science it would alow a clear to be tested for the
miraculious powers they supposedly have. This was done only once. The
girl could not even recall the colour of LRH's tie!
So much for perfect recall!!!!!!
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg
<440299d2-f261-485b...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 9, 3:00�pm, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:47:59 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in msg
>> <99bc65ab-11c5-44f5-a2b7-ad1c6419c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Have you read DMSMH? �There were many scientific books, but not
>> >sciences that were worthless.
>>
>> Still looking for the science in DMSMH
>>
>> > DMSMH was essentially ignored by the
>> >scientific community, and considering the nature of its claim, it
>> >would nearly be bigger than science, if true.
>>
>> You seem like a leading theoretician of Hubbardism. Care to explain what
>> the dimensions of the terms in the Equation of Potential Value are?
>
>No; not really.
So as far as your concerned, if there is any science in DMSMH, you don't
understand it.
>There is a famous formula in science that attempts to
>calculate the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life.
It's an estimate, due originally to Frank Drake. All the terms that go
into it have well defined dimensions, even if the estimates of their values
are questiobale.
> IT really only
>accomplishes 1 thing. It codifies the things to be considered in any
>such calculation. Since the actual data involved involves a bunch of
>unknowns, and a bunch of constantly changing fields of data, it is
>worth little as an actual calculation, but worth much as a
>codification of the factors involved. The mathematician
Frank Drake is an astronomer.
> who created
>it, was undoubtably "saying" are there any factors I lert out, becouse
>I think I've been pretty thorough, here. So far, I believe that the
>scientific community has concurred.
No, the scientific community has criticised the Drake equation, both on the
accuracy of the estimates it's based on, and whether the list of factors is
complete.
Unlike Hubbard, Drake regards criciism as valuable, so he didn't run off in
an enormous snit claiming he was "ignored".
>
>My father was a computer scientist. I think he would have told me,
>and would not have spent thousands of $, if there was flawed thinking
>in dmsmh.
How touching.
Please follow up to ars.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
Agent Wiggs
news:NFY0CNMT4012...@reece.net.au...
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:22:12 -0800 (PST), Slarty
> <thaddeu...@gmail.com>
> wrote in msg
> <440299d2-f261-485b...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
>
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:47:59 -0800 (PST), Slarty
>>> <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote in msg
>>> <99bc65ab-11c5-44f5-a2b7-ad1c6419c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>>> <snip>
>>>
I'd really like to see the follow-up to this too!
--
Noli nothi permittere te terere.
Slarty
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:22:12 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
> wrote in msg
> <440299d2-f261-485b-87a4-f1aa55cdf...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 9, 3:00 pm, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:47:59 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote in msg
> >> <99bc65ab-11c5-44f5-a2b7-ad1c6419c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
> >> <snip>
>
> >> >sciences that were worthless.
>
> >> Still looking for the science in DMSMH
>
> >> > DMSMH was essentially ignored by the
> >> >scientific community, and considering the nature of its claim, it
> >> >would nearly be bigger than science, if true.
>
> >> You seem like a leading theoretician of Hubbardism. Care to explain what
> >> the dimensions of the terms in the Equation of Potential Value are?
>
> >No; not really.
>
> So as far as your concerned, if there is any science in DMSMH, you don't
> understand it.
If the above is anything but snideness I've failed to understand you.
>
> >There is a famous formula in science that attempts to
> >calculate the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life.
>
> It's an estimate, due originally to Frank Drake. All the terms that go
> into it have well defined dimensions, even if the estimates of their values
> are questiobale.
>
> > IT really only
> >accomplishes 1 thing. It codifies the things to be considered in any
> >such calculation. Since the actual data involved involves a bunch of
> >unknowns, and a bunch of constantly changing fields of data, it is
> >worth little as an actual calculation, but worth much as a
> >codification of the factors involved. The mathematician
>
> Frank Drake is an astronomer.
When he created that he was acting as a mathematician (I suppose I
could be wrong. If you write any math thats not arithmatic, it seems
to me that you can be described as a mathematician...wearing a
mathematician hat, so to speak).
>
> > who created
> >it, was undoubtably "saying" are there any factors I lert out, becouse
> >I think I've been pretty thorough, here. So far, I believe that the
> >scientific community has concurred.
>
> No, the scientific community has criticised the Drake equation, both on the
> accuracy of the estimates it's based on, and whether the list of factors is
> complete.
>
> Unlike Hubbard, Drake regards criciism as valuable, so he didn't run off in
> an enormous snit claiming he was "ignored".
Where do you think hubbard ran off in an enormous snit. Examples,
please.
>
>
>
> >My father was a computer scientist. I think he would have told me,
> >and would not have spent thousands of $, if there was flawed thinking
> >in dmsmh.
>
> How touching.
>
> Please follow up to ars.
>
> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
All that having been said. Theres no question, that scientologists
regard dianetics and scientology as special cases, and hubbard as a a
truly exceptional person. Tho not so much as 1 might think.
Scientists (The dogmatic [or just scared/greedy...it's all about
funding/grants, ya know]materialist majority, currently in science)
tend to be the same way about all "paranormal"/"parapsycological"
data. If they ever get close to admitting their heads up their arses,
they just say they like it that way. If you finally show a "sceptic"
their wrong they then say they simply have no interest in the
subject. The not so amasing Randy cheats.
Slarty
I cannot proceed further without asking: What is your opinion on
remote viewing?
... ... ... ...
If you know of a better way for me to get superhuman powers than
scientology, I might be more interested. Until then, I'm not much.
Whether you aprove of my desire to have superhuman powers, or not,
it's a goal of mine, and I've taken an interest in every entity that
claims to have a clue as to how so far. Even tho, I'm convinced
spirit is real, I am yet fascinated by the trans-humanists. I take
smart drugs for a little cosmetic neurology; etc. I yam what I yam,
and I potato what I potato. I think we are on earth to smile use our
heads and go home
(Space Migration Iq increase, and Life Extention) (Hedonic Engineering
And Development) (High Orbital Mini Earths). If you want to think
that reasonable; then that's great!
Rene Descartes
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
When Drake or his peers and current adherrants of that equation are
confronted with challenges regarding that equation the challengers are
welcomed as an invitiation to improve upon the idea that was
originally formulated by Drake.
When the current adherrants of Hubbard's equation are confronted with
challenges regarding that equation the challengers are brought through
a step by step procedure of having to look up their misunderstood
words, write up O/Ws, crammed, reviewed auditing, Qual procedures up
the ying yang and might eventually end up in Ethics and be declared as
being an individual who has ideas about "suprressing" the Church of
scientology.
Go figure.
Rd00
Rene Descartes
I'm a Mathematician and I have to say that Hubbard was trying to be a
Mathematician but fell a couple of exponents short of a quadratic
equation on his attempt.
He gave it the old college try but perhaps it would have been better
if he "did" instead of "tried".
Perhaps being able to assume the "beingness" might be importan in
Hubbard's way of thinking but this is proof that nothing beats a good
education.
In real life there are those who do the work and those that are
professionals. Perhaps Hubbard could have consulted a professional
before putting an equation like this in a "groundbreaking" book like
DMSMH considering when it comes to Math he has to come "upsacle" to be
able to do the work.
It's like that lecture he gave on Helatrobus where he talks about
Lines of Force in the galaxy. It sure sounds pretty but maybe he could
have gotten a Mathematician who understands Vector Analysis to comment
on something like that before he considered speaking it in front of a
room full of people.
that equation at first glance sure looks "mightee purtee" but when I
look at it I can envision that the way it works is that a human
vegatable with the IQ of a tomato plant could actually have infinite
potential worth.
Now wouldn't you say that equation needs a "little" work?
Sarcasm intended.
Rd00
> subject. The not so amasing Randy cheats.- Hide quoted text -
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg
<594e8e57-e60c-4ad9...@a13g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 10, 6:55�pm, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:22:12 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in msg
>> <440299d2-f261-485b-87a4-f1aa55cdf...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 9, 3:00�pm, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:47:59 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmailcom>
>> >> wrote in msg
>> >> <99bc65ab-11c5-44f5-a2b7-ad1c6419c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >Have you read DMSMH? �There were many scientific books, but not
>> >> >sciences that were worthless.
>>
>> >> Still looking for the science in DMSMH
>>
>> >> > DMSMH was essentially ignored by the
>> >> >scientific community, and considering the nature of its claim, it
>> >> >would nearly be bigger than science, if true.
>>
>> >> You seem like a leading theoretician of Hubbardism. Care to explain what
>> >> the dimensions of the terms in the Equation of Potential Value are?
>>
>> >No; not really. �
>>
>> So as far as your concerned, if there is any science in DMSMH, you don't
>> understand it.
>
>
>If the above is anything but snideness I've failed to understand you.
You're claiming something is "bigger than science", but you decline to
discuss one of the only two equations in the book, which makes claims to
describe an "exact science".
What's snide about it? I'm just pointing out you don't know what science
is. Part of science, I can tell you, is not publishing gibberish, or at
least pointing out gibberish when it's published.
So far, every explanation of Hubbard's Equation of Potential Value I've
found from a Holy Techie has been absent or gibberish.
Your response counts as absent. That's better than gibberish, just.
It's a really easy question. What are the units of the equation?
Let's take a well know equation, E mc**2
E is in joules
m is in kilograms
c is in meters per second
Hubbard's equation is PV ID**x
P is in ?
V is in ?
I is in ?
D is in ?
and what is x?
>>
>> >There is a famous formula in science that attempts to
>> >calculate the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life.
<snip>
>>
>> Unlike Hubbard, Drake regards criciism as valuable, so he didn't run off in
>> an enormous snit claiming he was "ignored".
>
>
>Where do you think hubbard ran off in an enormous snit. Examples,
>please.
<snip>
Dianetics was released straight into the teeth of these heavily subsidized
Barons of the Mind with their "it takes 12 ears to make a psychiatrist" and
"authority states" and "any effort to interrupt this monopoly must be
stamped out at once".
Psychology and psychiatry were state (government) subjects, pushed by the
"very best people".
[...]
Press, controlled by governments and intelligence services and the "very
best people", lied endlessly about Dianetics (and Scientology).
Dianetics, a new valid mental science, was pitted against Russian and
Eastern European teachings.
L Ron Hubbard, HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1969, DIANETICS ITS BACKGROUND
That is the sound of a man in a snit, imho. I really can't be bothered to
look up any more k00kazoid paranoia from your guru, but I'm pretty sure
there's plenty of it.
>
>All that having been said. Theres no question, that scientologists
>regard dianetics and scientology as special cases, and hubbard as a a
>truly exceptional person. Tho not so much as 1 might think.
>Scientists (The dogmatic [or just scared/greedy...it's all about
>funding/grants, ya know]materialist majority, currently in science)
>tend to be the same way about all "paranormal"/"parapsycological"
>data.
According to Hubbard it's an "exact science". Where the paranormal?
>If they ever get close to admitting their heads up their arses,
>they just say they like it that way. If you finally show a "sceptic"
>their wrong they then say they simply have no interest in the
>subject.
On the contrary, show me your spooky oat tea powerzzz. Knock peoples' hats
off at fifty paces. You won't want for people changing their minds, I
think.
>The not so amasing Randy cheats.
Ah, the voice of the true believer. It's not Randi that's cheating you,
it's Nature, imho.
*please* follow up to ars. You know how these conversations can upset
Homer.
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg
<594e8e57-e60c-4ad9...@a13g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 10, 6:55�pm, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:22:12 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
>> wrote in msg
>> <440299d2-f261-485b-87a4-f1aa55cdf...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 9, 3:00�pm, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:47:59 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmailcom>
>> >> wrote in msg
>> >> <99bc65ab-11c5-44f5-a2b7-ad1c6419c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
>> >> <snip>
>>
>> >> >Have you read DMSMH? �There were many scientific books, but not
>> >> >sciences that were worthless.
>>
>> >> Still looking for the science in DMSMH
>>
>> >> > DMSMH was essentially ignored by the
>> >> >scientific community, and considering the nature of its claim, it
>> >> >would nearly be bigger than science, if true.
>>
>> >> You seem like a leading theoretician of Hubbardism. Care to explain what
>> >> the dimensions of the terms in the Equation of Potential Value are?
>>
>> >No; not really. �
>>
>> So as far as your concerned, if there is any science in DMSMH, you don't
>> understand it.
>
>
>If the above is anything but snideness I've failed to understand you.
You're claiming something is "bigger than science", but you decline to
discuss one of the only two equations in the book, which makes claims to
describe an "exact science".
What's snide about it? I'm just pointing out you don't know what science
is. Part of science, I can tell you, is not publishing gibberish, or at
least pointing out gibberish when it's published.
So far, every explanation of Hubbard's Equation of Potential Value I've
found from a Holy Techie has been absent or gibberish.
Your response counts as absent. That's better than gibberish, just.
It's a really easy question. What are the units of the equation?
Let's take a well know equation, E mc**2
E is in joules
m is in kilograms
c is in meters per second
Hubbard's equation is PV ID**x
P is in ?
V is in ?
I is in ?
D is in ?
and what is x?
>>
>> >There is a famous formula in science that attempts to
>> >calculate the likelyhood of extraterrestrial life.
<snip>
>>
>> Unlike Hubbard, Drake regards criciism as valuable, so he didn't run off in
>> an enormous snit claiming he was "ignored".
>
>
>Where do you think hubbard ran off in an enormous snit. Examples,
>please.
<snip>
Dianetics was released straight into the teeth of these heavily subsidized
Barons of the Mind with their "it takes 12 ears to make a psychiatrist" and
"authority states" and "any effort to interrupt this monopoly must be
stamped out at once".
Psychology and psychiatry were state (government) subjects, pushed by the
"very best people".
[...]
Press, controlled by governments and intelligence services and the "very
best people", lied endlessly about Dianetics (and Scientology).
Dianetics, a new valid mental science, was pitted against Russian and
Eastern European teachings.
L Ron Hubbard, HCO BULLETIN OF 22 MAY 1969, DIANETICS ITS BACKGROUND
That is the sound of a man in a snit, imho. I really can't be bothered to
look up any more k00kazoid paranoia from your guru, but I'm pretty sure
there's plenty of it.
>
>All that having been said. Theres no question, that scientologists
>regard dianetics and scientology as special cases, and hubbard as a a
>truly exceptional person. Tho not so much as 1 might think.
>Scientists (The dogmatic [or just scared/greedy...it's all about
>funding/grants, ya know]materialist majority, currently in science)
>tend to be the same way about all "paranormal"/"parapsycological"
>data.
According to Hubbard it's an "exact science". Where the paranormal?
>If they ever get close to admitting their heads up their arses,
>they just say they like it that way. If you finally show a "sceptic"
>their wrong they then say they simply have no interest in the
>subject.
On the contrary, show me your spooky oat tea powerzzz. Knock peoples' hats
off at fifty paces. You won't want for people changing their minds, I
think.
>The not so amasing Randy cheats.
Ah, the voice of the true believer. It's not Randi that's cheating you,
it's Nature, imho.
*please* follow up to ars. You know how these conversations can upset
Homer.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Richard Ford
>
> - Show quoted text -
My view of remote viewing is that there is no evidence for it.
There is a million dollars on the table from the James Randi
foundation to the first person who does so. The first clear could also
pick up the money.
Many groups claim superhuman powers. Christians for one (healing,
talking to spirits ext) Scientology has no monopoly on false hope.
I am with you on the trans humanism. I think science will probably do
everything LRH falsely claimed. Put your faith in Stem Cells!!!!
Maureen
A very important topic, and I add a great resource to address the
paradox:
(This is from 1994)
http://www.factnet.org/Thought_Reform_Exists.htm
Thought Reform Exists: Organized, Programmatic Influence
("Thought Reform" throughout this article can be read as synonymous
with "Brainwashing" & "Coercive Persuasion".)
Margaret Thaler Singer, Ph.D.
Recently, cult apologists have attempted to create the impression that
the concept of thought reform has been rejected by the scientific
community. This is untrue.
As recently as May of this year, the new Diagnostics and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) published by the American
Psychiatric Association cites thought reform as a contributing factor
to "Dissociative Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" (a diagnosis
frequently given to former cult members). Thought reform (notes 1,2,3
below) and its synonyms brainwashing and coercive persuasion (4.5)
were also noted in DSM-III (1980) and is DSM-III revised (1987), as
well as in widely recognized medical texts (6.7).
[...]
-----
The scientific community rejects old unproven methods, crap re-wrapped
a hundred times over.
Slarty: 'If this is true,' Dianetics/Scientology thought reform
issues can be more effectively brought into scientific admissibility
in court, (like the use of subversive tactics e.g. confusion
technique) and those harmed and robbed of years worth of basic wages
and time with their families (if not killed from cancer or other
things due to lack of medical care).
There is enough loss sustained already, (body counts and walking
wounded) to determine how these losses can be organized, eg.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonology
"The development and use of Hedonics admissibility of scientific
evidence for use in the legal system is set by the standard of Hedonic
damages to evaluated non-economic damages using the American Juris
Jurisprudence method (1988), based on the Frye Standard and supported
by the Daubert Test. The determination of present and future pain and
suffering is taken into account. Generally, the fact that statistics
can be used, but must get the same result was proven in the use of
Hedonics."
Because fair game is predictable, and not scientific, there can be
ways to shorten future cases in lieu of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wollersheim
Maureen
Slarty
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:59:34 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
> wrote in msg
> <594e8e57-e60c-4ad9-8bb9-bbee5337a...@a13g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 10, 6:55 pm, jommycross@[127.1] (Jommy Cross) wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:22:12 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote in msg
> >> <440299d2-f261-485b-87a4-f1aa55cdf...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 07:47:59 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmailcom>
> >> >> wrote in msg
> >> >> <99bc65ab-11c5-44f5-a2b7-ad1c6419c...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com>:
> >> >> <snip>
>
> >> >> >sciences that were worthless.
>
> >> >> Still looking for the science in DMSMH
>
> >> >> > DMSMH was essentially ignored by the
> >> >> >scientific community, and considering the nature of its claim, it
> >> >> >would nearly be bigger than science, if true.
>
> >> >> You seem like a leading theoretician of Hubbardism. Care to explain what
> >> >> the dimensions of the terms in the Equation of Potential Value are?
>
> >> >No; not really.
>
> >> understand it.
>
> >If the above is anything but snideness I've failed to understand you.
>
> You're claiming something is "bigger than science", but you decline to
> discuss one of the only two equations in the book, which makes claims to
> describe an "exact science".
>
> What's snide about it? I'm just pointing out you don't know what science
> is. Part of science, I can tell you, is not publishing gibberish, or at
> least pointing out gibberish when it's published.
>
> So far, every explanation of Hubbard's Equation of Potential Value I've
> found from a Holy Techie has been absent or gibberish.
>
> Your response counts as absent. That's better than gibberish, just.
>
> It's a really easy question. What are the units of the equation?
>
> Let's take a well know equation, E mc**2
> E is in joules
> m is in kilograms
> c is in meters per second
What are the elements in jakes equasion measured in. Dianetics was
not a complete science in 1950. Let's build a better bridge.
Exactly. If you can name an other science intended to replace
psychiatry, invented by a person who's formal education was not in
psychiatry or psychology, and started a movement intended, in part, to
abolish psychiatry, I will be quite impressed, since I've not heard of
it. Eric Berne, and Thomas Szaz were not so grand in there reform
efforts, yet I find them impressive.
>
>
> >All that having been said. Theres no question, that scientologists
> >regard dianetics and scientology as special cases, and hubbard as a a
> >truly exceptional person. Tho not so much as 1 might think.
> >Scientists (The dogmatic [or just scared/greedy...it's all about
> >funding/grants, ya know]materialist majority, currently in science)
> >tend to be the same way about all "paranormal"/"parapsycological"
> >data.
>
> According to Hubbard it's an "exact science". Where the paranormal?
Much of scientology deals with what is called "paranormal".
>
> >If they ever get close to admitting their heads up their arses,
> >they just say they like it that way. If you finally show a "sceptic"
> >their wrong they then say they simply have no interest in the
> >subject.
>
> On the contrary, show me your spooky oat tea powerzzz. Knock peoples' hats
> off at fifty paces. You won't want for people changing their minds, I
> think.
I've not gone ot yet.
>
> >The not so amasing Randy cheats.
>
> Ah, the voice of the true believer. It's not Randi that's cheating you,
> it's Nature, imho.
In your not so humble opinion, and 1 that interests me only to a very
limited extent.
>
> *please* follow up to ars. You know how these conversations can upset
> Homer.
>
> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
What are you a fan of?
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
I read that book.
Slarty
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am not a member of the church. Other than that equation, what other
problems are being had w/dmsmh? Math is NOT my subject.
Slarty
Where you goin w/this Maureen? Where you comin' from on this,
Maureen?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wollersheim
>
> Maureen- Hide quoted text -
Jommy Cross
wrote in msg
<7211cb8e-e156-46e8...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>:
<snip>
> not a complete science in 1950. Let's build a better bridge.
Sure. How about you stop pretending it's got anything to do with science?
That'd be better.
<snip>
>What are you a fan of?
<snip>
Magic, religion, art and science. And knowing the difference between them.
Incident zero: Ron trolled you
Ever yours in fandom,
Jommy Cross
---------------------------------------------------
This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
before you hallucinate
--------------------------------------------------
Richard Ford
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:26:25 -0800 (PST), Slarty <thaddeus.sl...@gmail.com>
> wrote in msg
> <7211cb8e-e156-46e8-875a-b2dec7818...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com>:
> <snip>
>
> > not a complete science in 1950. Let's build a better bridge.
>
> Sure. How about you stop pretending it's got anything to do with science?
> That'd be better.
>
> <snip>>What are you a fan of?
>
> <snip>
>
> Magic, religion, art and science. And knowing the difference between them.
>
> Incident zero: Ron trolled you
>
> Ever yours in fandom,
> Jommy Cross
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> This message brought to you by Radio Free Albemuth:
> before you hallucinate
> --------------------------------------------------
Look... let us keep is simple.
WHERE ARE THE CLEARS? Show me one clear (as defined by DMSMH) and I
will agree with him.
Just one... in sixty years.
Slarty
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yeagh; you are a dogmatic materialist. My elevator does not go that
low. You are in my kill file.