What makes Scientology a pseudoscience and separates the reactive mind from real scie

[Darat]

The major, most basic, reason that Scientology is not science is that LRon just made it all up. I don't have my copy of Dianetics - the Raving of a Lunatic Conman to hand but there has never been any evidence produced that he researched his theories before, during, or after writing that book. It is all confabulated hand waving.

True and there is plenty of evidence he lifted it from the works of other writers.

From A.E. Van Vogt's 1948 The Players of Null-A:

....

From his height of greater understanding he assured the younger individual that the affective incident must be looked at from a different angle than that of a frightened youth. Assured him that fear of pain and fear of death were emotions that could be overcome, and that in short the shock incident which had once affected him so profoundly no longer had any meaning for him. More than that, in future he would have better understanding of such moments, and he would never again be affected in an adverse fashion.

It was one more Null-A training make-shift, as had been all the others. But is was a system of self-therapy that was scientifically sound, and which would bring definite benefits.

"Relax," the voice soothed on. And because of what he was doing, every word meant, "Relax the tensions of a life time. Let all those past fears and doubts and uncertainties be discharged from the nervous system."

The effect did not depend on any belief that something would happen, though conviction made it more powerful. But it would take time. There were many suppressed memories that would have to be skilfully brought out in the open, before the therapy could be used on them.

...

 

[marplots]

Since it came up, I wanted to address the "It helped me" bit.

First, "It helped me" isn't a claim. It's a statement about something that happened to this person. It may be a misattribution of cause and effect, but on a single case basis, there's no way to tell.

If, along with the "It helped me" you get the implied, "...and it will help others too" - then you have something else in play because the "others too" makes it a statistical claim instead of a one-off. Now we can apply science.

One response to this new claim might be, "Well, what percentage of people do you think it will help, and why?" The lack of rigor in the original statement now becomes immediately apparent.

 

[Crocoshark]

One further question. How are engrams different from memories? Because I already have a word for memories. Focus on the functional differences and test those. Don't allow the cop-out of, "they are just powerful memories."

I guess they're "memories of pain and unconsciousness that trigger symptoms meant to ward you away from a similar environment.

Here's a part of the DVD I linked to earlier that first explains the "reactive" mind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xpqWczB9U&index=3&list=PLfflewFZs6v_NUM-Y-Xpru-Uy5o02uUD1

By the way, I love your analysis/commentary on this stuff

not just relabel what we know with new terms.

B-b-but . . . That's what Scientology is best at . . .

 

[mifune]

I found a "debunking scientology" playlist on youtube and it only had videos of scandals of the church, which is like debunking the bible by exposing the evils the Christian church has perpetuated. I typed "debunking scientology" into google and while I found some analysis of the e-meter, I didn't find much. Operation Clambake has one page on the TRs, one page on tech alterations over time and one page where you can download a scientific study of Dianetics auditing. Other than that I found very little actually debunking Scientology as opposed to digging up unsavory dirt. The ARC and KRC triangles? Neither, actually.

I should preface what I say with the fact that I am no expert on scientology, nor have I ever been a member. I did a fair amount (too much, as I now know a bunch of weird jargon) reading on scientology a few years ago, but take whatever I say as just a (informed) laypersons opinion.

The ARC triangle.
What Scientology says (from your link):

ARC stands for Affinity, Reality and Communication, the components of understanding (according to Hubbard).

These words have their regular English meanings, more or less. Affinity is the love or liking for something or someone, and is thought to involve the consideration of distance. In other words, the greatest affinity for something would involve occupying the same space as it. An example would be people hugging, seemingly trying to occupy the same space. Similarly, if you dislike something, you usually try to put more distance between it and you.

Reality is a matter of shared agreement. If two people see something in the same way, they are said to have a common reality. The word is also commonly used by Scientologists in this manner: "Sorry, that's not my reality at all," meaning that the speaker doesn't see things in the same way.

Communication involves the interchange of ideas, although it can be as basic as someone communicating with a wall by touching it and being aware of the touch, with no hidden exchange of ideas needing to occur for it to still be labelled as a communication.

A, R, and C are interrelated, and the term ARC Triangle is commonly found in Scientology. Increasing or decreasing one or two of these factors will tend to affect the remaining ones similarly. For example, if you talk to someone (Communication) about something real to both of you (Reality), you will tend to like each other more (Affinity

This is a pretty good example of scientology jargon. The definitions they give for Affinity/Reality/Communication are not controversial as such but they are specific, and they are not really the common definitions in english that they claim to be. This is part of a deep seated trend in scientology to invent jargon, its a way of defining them and us, and its why many scientology discussions are impenetrable to outsiders. (see this thread for a mild example).

But then the way the concept of 'ARC triangle' is then used is straight up weird. "Increasing or decreasing one or two of these factors will tend to affect the remaining ones similarly" is demonstrably false. It's trivial to find examples where it seems to be true but its also trivial to find counterexamples. The example they give 'talk to someone (C) about (R) and (A) will increase' is false in all the many cases where you talk to someone about a real thing and they like you less.

The KRC triangle is more complex because we would have to dig into the whole 'at cause' and 'at effect' stuff first. I am not going to do that now but I will point out it is an even more egregious use of in-group jargon that the ARC triangle. I will post later on KRC if I have time.

In general though debunking each specific bit of tech is extremely tedious, as you know there are literally volumes and volumes of the stuff. And it is all just 'stuff Hubbard pulled out his arse'. Some aspects are trivially true, like yeah, increasing knowledge does tend to increase your abililty to do something. But most is just wrong, or not even wrong. The question you should ask is how do I evaluate this stuff, scientology has you take it on faith at the end of the day - just trust Hubbard. But if this stuff actually worked or was useful it would be testable in double blind test conditions, ask why should you believe the words of Hubbard, because you shouldn't, you should instead ask why it isn't proven outside of scientology.

I have 22 thousand words or more that I wrote picking apart Scientology.

I like what I've written, it's a perspective I've never seen anywhere else and I value it in its own right.

At the same time I feel like I woke up in a paper bag and wrote a map of how I, inch by inch, moved over every crease to find my way out when there was always the obvious fact that it's made of paper and can just be ripped through. I wonder whether what I wrote is very roundabout or complicated in reaching a conclusion that can be reached much more simply.

You put this particularly well imo! Starting from a point of belief in the tech and trying to disprove it piece by piece is the wrong way to go about it. What if its all nonsense written by a madman? Why waste your energy on it in the first place? Instead you should try putting aside your previous belief and approach it from the outside, can any of it be proved to be useful? Actually proved with tests and statistics? If it relies on you feeling right for it to work then it is not real.

There's also the fact that, as with anyone raised in a religion, I'm prone to the bias to remember the reasonable aspects and downplay the unreasonable. I see the reactive mind for the more plausible aspects such as the idea of past trauma causing fear and distress in the present.

"the idea of past trauma causing fear and distress in the present." is a well studied part of psychology (irony!). The theory of the reactive mind is not useful or necessary, and in fact is demonstrably wrong in many instances.

Depends what you mean by that. I was raised in Scientology, took a couple courses and got some auditing on a few occasions, and feel it's not for me. On the other hand, I was still raised in it, it's still part of my life via my family and your roots will always influence how you think, good or bad.

True, but it is possible to break free of your parents religion, people do it all the time. On the other hand its probably true to say that scientology is harder than most to get away from, they are real experts at getting in your head and their dogma is contructed in such a way that scientology is never wrong, and the consequences for breaking with them can be extreme (ie. disconnection, harassment for critics, legal actions etc.).

Sounds like you are out from the organisation as such (congrats if true) and you are one foot in/out with the tech. I wish you well

 

[mifune]

A believer is not going to be convinced by argument. Short of a deprogramming which might work, there's no formula. Reality is not welcome in the mind of belief.

Indeed.

"You cannot reason yourself out of a position you did not reason yourself into." (cant remember the source)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I was a believer. Than I learned about science and skepticism and started applying what I learned to my beliefs. .....

Here's the problem. Applying the scientific method to Scientology was never done by Mr Hubbard, nor to my knowledge has any science been applied to the conclusions and claims since.

If people believe they get better following Hubbard's mumbo jumbo (sorry but that's my word for "reactive mind") then apply the scientific method and test it.

You can't because it fails.

 

[Crocoshark]

Starting from a point of belief in the tech and trying to disprove it piece by piece is the wrong way to go about it.

To be fair, that's not really how I've been going about that. It's more like I'm going over a building looking for building code violations or red flags. Did you read the bit I wrote about why Scientology is unscientific I posted under a spoiler tag earlier? My writings are like that. Often I'll take an aspect of Scientology midnset or culture or common Scientology cliche and just tear into it in as many ways I can. "Scientology is a science" was one essay. What I posted actually had a bit cut and pasted from that covers similar subject matter but from the angle of tearing at the idea Scientology "isn't" a cult of personality before criticizing the way Scientology positions itself as an island in a dwindling spiral of society.

My personal problem with doing Scientology is that it is the body of someone else's personal philosophy and perception of what works. I haven't exhausted my own personal approaches to my own problems yet or even really tried to tackle my own problems at this point for long enough to feel a natural shift to looking to other people's advice and philosophy for help. If I had the motivation and drive to put together an “admin” scale or read a course book to try to address my problem, I'd wonder why I was wasting my time and not using that motivation and drive to directly attack my problem. My problem is personal drive, and if I had the drive to read a course book, I wouldn't NEED to read a course book. That's my current view anyway, I have not yet explored and tested my problems and their solutions to forego my own solutions and latch on to someone else's.

And I can't do Scientology auditing just to “try” or “test” it. You have to go into a self help thing with an actual problem you're trying to solve and an actual intent and belief that you will use said approach x`to solve it. (Of course, if you have a real problem you're trying to solve, would you prefer to do it your way, or a way you don't feel can be relied on and has to be tested first?).

Some Scientology tech works, even just by probability since anybodcites down all of their advice and ideas and experience of how best to do things they're going to churn out both common sense and workable novel ideas, especially if they're well-researched.

And watching the Scientology handbook video the other day, that's what some of the Scientology tech felt like; the organization board, the third party law, the cycle of action. Sure, my mom claims every last thing is all well-researched and tested, but my mom knows the huge **** tons of Scientology tech that exists. You're gonna tell me Hubbard had the time for ALL of it be well-researched, including all the things he tried and tested that didn't work and didn't make it into his books? He observed every single tone level on a statistically significant number of people in controlled observations to compare and confirm the order of how well people survive in each tone? Every single piece of administrative tech was tested on a number of different companies including a number of different variations and competing ideas? You're gonna tell me not a single thing Hubbard wrote down was something that worked for him and a few others he tried it on or he just saw as self-evident? That when something didn't work he never dismissed the failure as being due to the technique not being applied right? Or that his writings weren't subject to his confirmation bias or personal interpretation?

To me it doesn't just look like a body of Hubbard's “discoveries”, but also his personal beliefs, biases, hang-ups, paranoias, philosophies and his own personal ways and habits for going about things. Like the book Going Clear said, his personality. And Scientologists are people that share or try to assimilate his things; his passions, his habits, his peeves. A personality that was a product of it's time, a time when psychiatry was more brutal, alternate spirituality and self help movements were cropping up. Was Hubbard ahead of his time on any social issues, or a product of his time?

I can understand why some people call Scientology a cult, due to this assimilation of a founder's personality traits that seems to be a part of it. I think it can be considered a cult of personality. Scientologists will object to this if you bring it up; “Hubbard says 'What's true is what's true for you!' they will say, unanimously parroting the same person, “Hubbard never said he was infallible.” But you mainly hear these things when Scientology gets questioned or challenged, it's not something you see evident when the church or Scientologists are just talking about the tech. It comes off as lip service. That's what they say but that's not how they act.

On Scientologist fear of “false data”

Scientologists give lip service to evaluating things for yourself, but you can't do that without data of comparable magnitude. They fret about false data “out there” but you can't know something is false if you don't compare it to other things. The only way to know the validity of Scientology is to compare it to other religions, philosophies, self help movements, mental “sciences” and other things it claims to represent. And you can't compare it unless you study the “false data”.

Not to mention using “false data” as a warning against getting into non-Scientology (or even, gasp, Scientology-critical) materials betrays the uncritical Scientology thinking. They've already assumed what is and isn't false data beforehand, and it betrays that they're believing Scientology based on believing authority rather than judging for themselves. Tha t's already a conclusion that the data “out there” is false and studying Scientology carries little to no risk of studying false data.

And it shows they're not questioning things when they study things. If you are questioning how a source researched and arrived at their data and comparing it to the real world and evidence, it doesn't matter where the data comes from or if it's false, because you'll figure it out anyway. It doesn't matter if you get your ideas of morality and philosophy from Scientology, Calvin & Hobbes, Freud or an internet blog, you should be analyzing it and comparing it to other sources and letting it stand or fall on on those tests. If it's true, you have more certainty on it, if it's false, you have learned how to spot false data and still know more about how the world works. You learn either way.

That's the only way you get anything out of anything. Insight is something you create from a work based on whether you put insight into it in the first place.

You get out of something what you put into it. Just look at people that get complete opposites from Christianity; some get pacifism, others get violence. You can get truth from fairy tales. You can lift yourself up from any school of thought that resonates with you.

Scientology as an island in a spiraling world

But Scientology claims to offer more than insight and self-betterment. It claims you are in an endless cycle of reincarnation, that the world is in a dwindling spiral and that it offers the only path to sanity on this planet. Of course on no level is a dwindling spiral evident to me.

Not in terms of life or millenia, as the life we know about has only grown more vibrant and diverse over its existence. Thetans going from bacteria bodies for hundreds of millions of years before going into mammals and birds and finally humans is not a downward spiral.

I don't see the downward spiral on the scale of humanity and centuries, as my reading of history shows humanity was far more insane and violent in the time of the witch burnings, widespread use of torture and conquest or annihilation of other nations. My mom likes to think of that time as a time when people were more honorably willing to die for what was right. But a hell of a lot of that war was not righeous, but out of domination and conquest of people seen as inferior. I guess it was righteous for the defensive side to die in battle, though. And you can't compare current wars to the civil war or WWII. The media coverage, cause and reasoning and the stakes are totally different. Tangeant later*

I don't see a downward spiral in America on the scale of decades. The 50s were a time when sexism, racism and domestic violence were much more acceptable and widespread than today. Psychiatry was more barbaric and more against religion and spirituality than it is today.

What does the decline look like? How do I see it in a way that rules out personal interpretation and nostalgia? What signs do I look for and much more importantly, if they're there, is Scientology better in these respects than general society?

My dad told me the decline can be seen in society being litigious. Is Scientology less litigious?

My mom says it can be seen in the amount of gossip. Are Scientologists less interested in the lives of celebrities or in reporting the misconduct of their fellow Scientologists?

My dad suggests it is the increasing control of government heading toward a police state. Is Scientology culture more celebratory of civil liberities, free speech and freedom from the control of an organization?

My mom points to people being unethical. Is Scientology's history less marred by scandal?

Does the Church of Scientology take more responsibility for bad things that happen under it or to it? Does it have better confront? Better communication? More understanding of its enemies?

If you don't stand out from the problem . . . you're part of it.

I suggested to my dad, “Why should I do Scientology this life time, when it doesn't seem to be working. I'm a thetan with infite lives and time on my hands. Why not wait until it's proven itself a bit more?”

He said because the country could become a police state and I could be unable to do Scientology in the future. Never mind that dictatorship's only tend to control one country of many, and fascism that tries to control multiple countries doesn't last long.

But . . . that future scenario IS the test isn't it? If Scientology is so weak that one country being a police state prevents everybody in the world from doing it or so weak that it can't prevent this police state or its spread across the developed world, if it is so weak that it will be unavailable to me in the future in any country but America, than it has failed. If it can only succumb to the insanity of the future, it wasn't worth doing in the first place and I don't want to do it.

If it can't solve the human condition or thrive despite it . . .

If it's not part of the solution

It's part of the problem.

It becomes just another trap for someone to spend one life time on, only to be back to square one the next.






Also, if Scientology is a science, that means it could be discovered by anyone applying empiricism. There are many obvious directions I could go with this point, but on top of those obvious directions I'll add it means that being the one that discovered Scientology doesn't automatically make one good. A person can be, say, a brilliant scientist and still be corrupted by the power their discoveries gave them. That power can especially be corrupted if the discoverer dies and the power falls into the hands of others. And yes, that technology doesn't automatically make the person wielding it “good.” to make them more powerful. And the word of the inventor that they must be good because the technology makes people good is circular reasoning.

Universal truth (If what's true in Scientology is universal, even provable, shouldn't there be more focus on the rest of the world discovering it in their own way, not by reading LRH but through the funding of experiments that prove things to the collective knowledge of mankind (science) and not privately to individuals (philosophy)?

I think my most recent one is this one about the dismissal of ex-members and the media being nothing but lies and sensationalism.

Innocent until proven guilty applies to both the accused and the accusor; you don't watch a video of a tobacco company spokesperson with the thought they're a liar because someone told you only a liar would defend tobacco smoking. You believe they're a liar because there are scientific studies proving the actual facts which you can look at for yourself. I don't presume the dishonesty of people criticizing the Vatican or Mother Theresa's homes for the dying. Scientology claims that anybody who criticizes it is a criminal who don't want to confront their own crimes . . . and yet, I don't declare someone a liar when they ARE ACTUAL CRIMINALS. When a convicted prisoner talks about the ****** environment of a prison; how you're forced to join a gang to survive and can get shanked by anybody, they ARE criticizing an institution that's supposed to be a public good; supposed to keep criminals away from society. But I don't immediately declare that they only say that because they don't want to be in prison or take responsibility for their crimes. 'Cause that would make me an *******. But the whole mentality that people only criticize you because you're doing so much good and they're bad people . . . That's the mentality of the popular high school girl who says people only hate her because she's so pretty and awesome, and anyone who hates her is totally a whore.
More convincing is the argument of how sensationalist TV news is, that they seek a good story over the truth. Although not every news network is the exact same low of journalistic integrity as TMZ and some news shows do try to get the argument of the other side. But that's neither here nor there in the internet age. It's 2016, I haven't watched TV regularly once this entire decade. This is an age where news belongs to the people, and anyone, anywhere can put their side of the story out there. People accused of something can make their side of the story known on blogs and social media sites hours before the news media does, people can post youtube videos of where they work or how they live, members of a TV show fandom can put together scientific studies and documentaries about their fandom. The market place of ideas is immense and there is no ******** opinion that doesn't have someone, somewhere calling it out. Scientology needs only communicate, but this is an issue where Scientology believes communication . . . is a bad thing. No, the way the Church of Scientology handles communication on this issue is absolutely no better than the insanity and mob hate that it condemns.

I'm sure these essays cover some of the things that an outsider would say much more quickly. They're just not very succinct.

If it relies on you feeling right for it to work then it is not real.

By that you mean if it relies on your subjective experience to know if it worked?

"the idea of past trauma causing fear and distress in the present." is a well studied part of psychology (irony!). The theory of the reactive mind is not useful or necessary, and in fact is demonstrably wrong in many instances.

Cool! Could you elaborate?

Sounds like you are out from the organisation as such (congrats if true) and you are one foot in/out with the tech. I wish you well

Thank you.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Here's the problem. Applying the scientific method to Scientology was never done by Mr Hubbard, nor to my knowledge has any science been applied to the conclusions and claims since.

If people believe they get better following Hubbard's mumbo jumbo (sorry but that's my word for "reactive mind") then apply the scientific method and test it.

You can't because it fails.

As I said in my post #53 above.

The major, most basic, reason that Scientology is not science is that LRon just made it all up. I don't have my copy of Dianetics - the Raving of a Lunatic Conman to hand but there has never been any evidence produced that he researched his theories before, during, or after writing that book. It is all confabulated hand waving.

I'm surprised that I did not get a comment. Does everyone have me on Ignore or is it that my Reactive Mind reacting.

There were people who knew him during the time he was developing his Mental Science. He did nothing in the way of research. No one has ever come forward and said "I knew LRon when he practiced on me to develop his great work". He made it all up.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Second, more broadly, what makes Scienology a pseudoscience?

It makes sciencey sounds without any actual scientific meaning behind them. "Hubbard TOTALLY studied this you guys, it really works" is not science.

In my medicine cabinet right now I have a prescription painkiller, Percocet. I can look that up in pubmed and get articles like this, comparing its efficacy to a similar drug in a statistically significant manner. I don't have to say "Percocet relieves pain because it works for me," I can show you the real numbers. I can compare it to placebo. That's science.


Also,

What's true is what's true for you!

Is the precise opposite of science and its parent philosophy, empricism. What's true is true for everybody.

"I crap chocolate and piss rainbows" is more scientific, because at least you can check.

 

[Crocoshark]

As I said in my post #53 above.
I'm surprised that I did not get a comment. Does everyone have me on Ignore or is it that my Reactive Mind reacting.

There's a handful of people in this thread who simply made a good point, I nodded when I read it, and I moved on because I didn't have any questions. I appreciate everyone who responded to this thread even if I didn't respond to them and all the people I didn't respond to in this thread made good points I thought needed no further elaboration.

That said, if a comment is what you wish;

There were people who knew him during the time he was developing his Mental Science. He did nothing in the way of research. No one has ever come forward and said "I knew LRon when he practiced on me to develop his great work".He made it all up.

I always assumed he tested on a bunch of people who were early Scientologists or future Scientologists, which upon me saying that I guess doesn't make any sense 'cause Scientology wouldn't exist at the time of the research and even if they were future Scientologists and stayed shut up 'cause Scientologists are like that, there'd still be ex-Scientologists speaking up.

One time I asked my Mom where Hubbard's research was and she said during the briefing course he talks about what tests he did and how he did them. I don't know the details and apparently you'd have to take the course (a ridiculously huge, long one) to look at them.

"I crap chocolate and piss rainbows" is more scientific, because at least you can check.

If you are pissing rainbows you should contact your doctor immediately.

And ask him if taking high quantities of Dash is right for you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

.... I always assumed he tested on a bunch of people who were early Scientologists or future Scientologists, which upon me saying that I guess doesn't make any sense 'cause Scientology wouldn't exist at the time of the research and even if they were future Scientologists and stayed shut up 'cause Scientologists are like that, there'd still be ex-Scientologists speaking up.

One time I asked my Mom where Hubbard's research was and she said during the briefing course he talks about what tests he did and how he did them. I don't know the details and apparently you'd have to take the course (a ridiculously huge, long one) to look at them....

You asked what made it pseudoscience and not science. The answer, which more than one of us has posted, is the lack of applying the scientific method to the claims.

Now take what you say here:
You assume he "tested a bunch of people" and, your mom "said during the briefing course he talks about what tests he did and how he did them."

That is not the scientific method. Perhaps your misunderstanding of what the scientific process is, is where your problem lies.

The scientific process uses methodology that is properly tested, peer reviewed and repeatable. In addition, to prove an hypothesis you then need to use the conclusions to predict and test that said predictions prove correct.

Study designs have to demonstrate they show what the researcher claims they show. Properly designed tests need controls to rule out other variables. Tests need to be repeated by other researchers.


What you are describing is not science, it is classic pseudoscience.

 

[Crocoshark]

Now take what you say here:
You assume he "tested a bunch of people" and, your mom "said during the briefing course he talks about what tests he did and how he did them."

That is not the scientific method. Perhaps your misunderstanding of what the scientific process is, is where your problem lies.

The scientific process uses methodology that is properly tested, peer reviewed and repeatable. In addition, to prove an hypothesis you then need to use the conclusions to predict and test that said predictions prove correct.

Study designs have to demonstrate they show what the researcher claims they show. Properly designed tests need controls to rule out other variables. Tests need to be repeated by other researchers.


What you are describing is not science, it is classic pseudoscience.

Honestly, I have no idea what methodology Hubbard claims to have used in the briefing course. It's a black box to me. For all I know he could've described double blinding, control groups and listing sample sizes, though that's highly unlikely. I've no idea what study designs he actually describes, if any.

Though whatever he says in the Briefing course, like I said in the OP, Scientology's idea of independent verification is that individuals try it themself.

 

[marplots]

Though whatever he says in the Briefing course, like I said in the OP, Scientology's idea of independent verification is that individuals try it themself.

As long as they refund your money if it doesn't work as expected.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Honestly, I have no idea what methodology Hubbard claims to have used in the briefing course. It's a black box to me. For all I know he could've described double blinding, control groups and listing sample sizes, though that's highly unlikely. I've no idea what study designs he actually describes, if any.

Though whatever he says in the Briefing course, like I said in the OP, Scientology's idea of independent verification is that individuals try it themself.

Why are you here asking, "What makes Scientology a pseudoscience and separates the reactive mind from real science?" When we answer you you say, "I have no idea what methodology Hubbard claims to have used in the briefing course. It's a black box to me."

Whatever you know or don't know, you asked us and there are many people on this board who do know. We have answered your question and you are now arguing with us while admitting you don't know.

By the way, "try it and see for yourself" is also classic pseudoscience.

 

[Jodie]

"Though whatever he says in the Briefing course, like I said in the OP, Scientology's idea of independent verification is that individuals try it themself."


But that doesn't make it a viable treatment if it has never been tested outside of the church.

 

[Crocoshark]

Why are you here asking, "What makes Scientology a pseudoscience and separates the reactive mind from real science?" When we answer you you say, "I have no idea what methodology Hubbard claims to have used in the briefing course. It's a black box to me."

Whatever you know or don't know, you asked us and there are many people on this board who do know. We have answered your question and you are now arguing with us while admitting you don't know.

By the way, "try it and see for yourself" is also classic pseudoscience.

i said I didn't know what Hubbard said in the briefing course, not that I didn't know whether Scientology was a pseudoscience, which is what people in this thread are answering. And those answers were seperate from what Hubbards unpublished methodology actually was. (evidence is accepted based on "what's true for you", no independent testing, doesn't change over time, etc.). One person talked about his methodology, saying he simply made everything up. He didn't say he knew what Hubbard said on the course either..

All I was saying was I didn't know what Hubbard said in the briefing course. He could've described fabricated double-blind experiments for all I know of the course material of that particular course.

 

[Jodie]

You just said that Scientology's idea of independent verification was a matter of trying it for one's self. It takes more than that for a treatment to be recognized as efficacious. This is what makes it pseudo science. End of discussion.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You just said that Scientology's idea of independent verification was a matter of trying it for one's self. It takes more than that for a treatment to be recognized as efficacious. This is what makes it pseudo science. End of discussion.

Exactly. It appears that the OP's posts seem to amount to a Croc of....

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

i said I didn't know what Hubbard said in the briefing course, not that I didn't know whether Scientology was a pseudoscience, which is what people in this thread are answering. And those answers were seperate from what Hubbards unpublished methodology actually was. (evidence is accepted based on "what's true for you", no independent testing, doesn't change over time, etc.). One person talked about his methodology, saying he simply made everything up. He didn't say he knew what Hubbard said on the course either..

All I was saying was I didn't know what Hubbard said in the briefing course. He could've described fabricated double-blind experiments for all I know of the course material of that particular course.

Note highlight. No, that was not "one person". That is a multitude of persons, many of which reside on the forum and many more which I know personally. Hubbard is a well known among the skeptical community as a huckster.

 

[Planigale]

Honestly, I have no idea what methodology Hubbard claims to have used in the briefing course. It's a black box to me. For all I know he could've described double blinding, control groups and listing sample sizes, though that's highly unlikely. I've no idea what study designs he actually describes, if any.

Though whatever he says in the Briefing course, like I said in the OP, Scientology's idea of independent verification is that individuals try it themself.

The placebo effect.

Unfortunately individuals trying things for themselves, is support for any 'woo' from iridology to ley lines to homeopathy to recovered memories.

It is perfectly possible to do good scientific black box research. One does not need to know how the brain works to do experiments. Placebo controlled randomised trials of therapy with blinded observers assessing outcomes requires no assumptions about how the brain works. Cognitive behavioural therapies are very good at dealing with phobias, empirical observation. They do not need to make any assumption about the mechanism of origin of the phobia.