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

[arthwollipot]

It seems that a number of posters have approached this thread assuming that Crocoshark is attempting to defend the pseudoscience of Scientology, and taken a combative stance according to that assumption.

How about you all read what Crocoshark is actually trying to say? Hint: it's not Scientologist apologetics.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It seems that a number of posters have approached this thread assuming that Crocoshark is attempting to defend the pseudoscience of Scientology, and taken a combative stance according to that assumption.

How about you all read what Crocoshark is actually trying to say? Hint: it's not Scientologist apologetics.

He's not exactly attacking it either. It appears he's playing some kind of middle ground game.

 

[arthwollipot]

He's not exactly attacking it either. It appears he's playing some kind of middle ground game.

The very thread title labels it a pseudoscience and suggests a separation between it and real scie. It's easy enough to see that the full word there would be "science".

Crocoshark is approaching the subject from the point of view of someone who was raised in scientology, but who realises that it is not science. They are trying to find out exactly what separates the pseudoscience of scientology from real science. And people are attacking them for it. You should be helping, not belittling.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The very thread title labels it a pseudoscience and suggests a separation between it and real scie. It's easy enough to see that the full word there would be "science".

Crocoshark is approaching the subject from the point of view of someone who was raised in scientology, but who realises that it is not science. They are trying to find out exactly what separates the pseudoscience of scientology from real science. And people are attacking them for it. You should be helping, not belittling.

Croc appears to be rejecting the reasoning as to why Scientology is not science. It's a game plenty of believers have played in the forum before.

 

[arthwollipot]

Croc appears to be rejecting the reasoning as to why Scientology is not science. It's a game plenty of believers have played in the forum before.

And yet Croc has stated outright that they are not a believer, so why are people treating them like one?

 

[thaiboxerken]

And yet Croc has stated outright that they are not a believer, so why are people treating them like one?

Because of the hard time Croc is giving the "Scientology is not a science" posts.

 

[Andy_Ross]

It seems to me he says he doesn't believe but can't quite convince himselfl

 

[Elaedith]

Because of the hard time Croc is giving the "Scientology is not a science" posts.

Croc should be giving them a hard time. Virtually none of them address the question. And if you want to be rational, you should aim to evaluate arguments independently of what position you or the other person holds on an issue. In other words, it should be irrelevant to the argument whether the person you are arguing with believes or disbelieves in Scientology.

 

[Elaedith]

Scientologists point to the scientific method; You make an observation, do an experiment to test it by trying a Scientology technique) and form a conclusion based on the result. This is empiricism, at least to the Scientologist. And that is the scientific method applied on a personal level to find out what works for oneself.

I think this has been answered by now. Science is more than just empiricism. You need to use methods that control as much as possible for error and bias and will falsify the hypothesis if it is false. Pseudoscience typically uses methods that do not control for error or bias or allow for subjective interpretation of the outcome to fit an existing belief system.

If you compare Scientology with psychodynamic psychology, Freud also relied on empiricism, but not on adequate scientific methods. The methods simply allowed any data to be interpreted to fit the existing theory. Psychodynamic psychology is now generally regarded as pseudoscientific for this reason, despite the fact that many people still use and claim that it works. The Freudian concept of the unconscious has been replaced by more testable theories about the roles of unconscious processes in behaviour.

Many ideas from Scientology practice could potentially be tested scientifically. The lack of studies in peer-reviewed journals suggests they have not been.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Croc should be giving them a hard time. Virtually none of them address the question.

Plenty of arguments have addressed the question very reasonably. Scientology does not uses scientific processes, peer review, have transparency in data and methodology or use any logical approach to discovery. Croc's argument against these facts appear to be the same apologetics believers use to dismiss reality.

 

[Pixel42]

Perhaps it would help the OP to read Richard Feynman's famous talk on cargo cult science (aka pseudoscience).

http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm

 

[marplots]

To be fair, scientific validity doesn't care if Hubbard was a scammer and "made it all up." It doesn't care if Hubbard got it from alien scientists or if it were read off golden tablets delivered by an angel. All the scientific method cares about is whether or not some idea passes testing and gives us confidence that we are describing reality.

Hubbard's character and the way Scientology is run does matter when it comes to the level of testing you want to perform. It gives us context. If I get a hundred dollar bill at the bank when I cash my paycheck, I'm probably going to accept it as real currency, without too much scrutiny. If someone wants to sell me a hundred dollar bill in a dimly lit bar for $50, I'm going to be suspicious and check thoroughly to see if it's counterfeit.

I think outsiders miss part of what's going on with Scientology. They don't start with the full-on nutty stuff. They build trust with self-help style "hacks" that do work - for some meaning of "work." It probably doesn't mean much to me what the explanations are.

Say I'm told that using people's names will help me increase in-person sales. I start doing it and by golly, in-person sales do increase. Fine and good. I am satisfied that the technique accomplishes its objective. I am told the technique works because of this deep understanding of the world told to us by St. Hubbard and there's much more to come. This is the bit that isn't tested. The explanation might as well be fairies fornicating in used kitty litter. On the other hand, as I accumulate techniques in this way, the Hubbard line gains credibility. I have no particular desire to delve into the scientific method to see what may actually be going on.

Here's an example: I learned and use a memory technique I learned ages ago. It involves using "hooks" to retain stuff that would otherwise be hard to remember. I don't much care why it works, nor have I investigated other, competing methods to see if one might work better. I'm just not interested - I have something that suffices. On the other hand, I don't have to make some life committment just to use the technique. I'm not asked to continue down some road based on it. The technique stands alone, is good for what I use it for, and that's it. Making it part of a larger process isn't justified at all - at least not with the surface level of scrutiny I've given it.

And that's a key difference between the usual self-help stuff and Scientology. We aren't just asked to "try and see what works," but to buy into a larger scheme which, in order to "try" we'd have to devote a great deal of our lives to. It's like Pascal's wager. The premise is that it costs nothing to try out Christianity and maybe it will pay off after you die. Hell no! It costs your entire life. A life spent doing A instead of B, C, or D.

To corrupt a meme: Scientology consists of useful and original practices to improve one's life. It's just that the useful stuff isn't original and the original stuff isn't useful.

 

[Crocoshark]

Note highlight. No, that was not "one person". That is a multitude of persons,

I said one person in this thread said that point. Everyone in this thread agree with it, but he was the only one who gave that as an answer in this thread.

Hubbard is a well known among the skeptical community as a huckster.

Yes. That says nothing about what claims he did or did not make in the briefing course.(Or even whether or not he tried Scientology techniques in a shoddy attempt at research.) Only that they can't be trusted.

 

[Crocoshark]

He's not exactly attacking it either.

Because this thread isn't about my own thoughts. I came for the thoughts of other people.

That said, already gave my attack on Scientology as a science in this post;

Yes. But my initial answer was a five page essay (edited down to three pages), and I didn't want people to just take what I said in my own answer. I was hoping someone could give a more succinct outsider perspective on the theory of the reactive mind, as well as the logic for Scientology being a science presented in the OP. I don't want my own answer to prevent people from giving their own.

Scientology as a science

In Scientology, you’re told "What's true is what's true for you." which basically means you accept data based on opinion and intuition. Scientology also advertises its “scientific” efficacy through strings of positive anecdotes, which you could use to sell almost anything from gambling to leeching. Some people have been helped thanks to psychiatric drugs and therapy, to a point where they no longer needed it. I brought this fact up to a Scientologist family member and she said that so what, everything works for 20% of the population. Well then, that sure makes the strings of Scientology success stories irrelevant.

Testimonials are not evidence in science.

Science is also not about personal knowledge based on what works for you. That's philosophy or opinion or personal journey.

Also, while applying physics doesn't make you a physicist, following and applying Scientology makes you a Scientologist, which is not a type of scientist. A biologist doesn’t sit indoors all day studying the works of Darwin and never adding to the field; he catalogs new information, modifies, and sometimes overturns previous theories.

Data is made a part of Scientology because that's what Hubbard wrote. It doesn't incorporate any other knowledge, even from it's public followers, unless it has Hubbard's stamp on it. While science fights to test and add to old knowledge, with the possibility of striking it from the books, Scientology fights to preserve it and keep it stagnant, with the possibility of it being altered by official management, like papal decrees.

Real science can be altered by scientific discovery. The youngest person to publish a study in a scientific journal was a nine year old doing a school project.

Scientologists can't make new discoveries.

Scientologists don't study Scientology and publish an analysis of their findings. The closest they get to is writing a success story.

If it's a science, why not experiment with slight alterations of Scientology processes? In Scientology, that's called “squirreling”. Translation; Hubbard's infallible. Even though Scientologists claim they don't accept anything unless they observe it to be true for them. In fact, you can't follow that with a lot of the things Hubbard talks about, from anchor points as gold balls floating in front of you to past track incidents. If they truly only accepted what they observed, a lot of Hubbard's lectures would have very little to offer.

Science thrives on questioning and challenging theories. That’s how it grows, how it remains alive at all. It operates by theories being reviewed and tested by peers. For Scientologists, the critic is always wrong.

Hubbard never laid out his methodology, his sample sizes for each experiment, what he used as a control group (all important parts of scientific testing). He doesn’t seem to have made such information readily available to be reviewed by other people. What percent of people stick with Scientology until they reach Clear? And how long does it take on average, What’s the rate of customer satisfaction? What measurable ways is the life of a clear improved from the general population? For example, lower divorce rate, higher annual income, fewer illnesses. None of these numbers are available to be evaluated by an unbiased third party. It cannot be criticized, corrected or compared to other data if it is flimsy.

But a greater issue with Scientology’s claim to being a science is that it’s said to be the science of the spiritual world.

In order for a theory to be scientific, it must be falsifiable; there must be conditions where it can be disproven. Scientists investigate theories by attempting to disprove them; that’s how we learn. For example, evolution could be disproven if we found a species that could not be classified in the phylogenetic family tree, or if one animal gave birth to completely unrelated animal, or if a poodle was found fossilized in the Permian, And every time we find a new species or fossil, it’s a test of whether evolution is correct.

How could the soul be tested and potentially disproven? Or any matter of the spirit? Science is a tool for measuring the physical universe, it’s territory is rigorous experimentation and physical evidence. When it comes across something untestable, maybe it will approach it, a hand fumbling as it tries to find something to grab onto, but soon it sighs as it realizes that it has nothing to work with. You can’t have a science of the spirit in the same way you don’t have a field of biology to do with rocks. Rocks don’t have biology to study, and the spirit has no physical nature to observe and measure.*

Anecdotes and people’s memories have the same problem of being untestable. Hubbard can say he remembers other planets and implant stations, and following the power his suggestions other people can say they remember it as well. What do we have to go on that we were once all powerful beings that created the universe and got trapped in bodies? It was revealed to Hubbard, not through a deity but through trillion year old memories, but isn’t it revelation nonetheless? The competing Christian and Muslim gods as well as Buddha’s Nirvana were revealed through a sort of revelation, and I don’t feel fully assured that Hubbard’s revelation is less fallible.

Falsifiability is also an issue for the reactive mind.

Are there any human behaviors or other evidence that would be incompatible with the reactive mind? Behaviors that, if discovered would disprove or be evidence against the reactive mind? Maybe if a trauma actually improved someone’s mental health? I showed the biggest Scientologist I know an article about people who gained amazing artistic talent following brain injuries, including British man Tommy McHugh who had an aneurism and afterward not only gained an urge toward painting, sculpting and poetry he’d never before expressed but ended is lifelong streak of bar violence to become a much nicer, peaceful person. That’s easily explainable; engrams can have positive effects to.

Someone can take any behavior at all and decide without investigation that it's the reactive mind.

How about someone born bad? That’s explained by past lives and the spirit.

Why do pheromones, drugs, surgical brain tampering and some kinds of parasites affect personality traits, memory and behavior of humans and other animals? Why can you selectively breed for certain personality traits in dogs? Why would ones proclivities, IQ, etc. correspond so drastically to what kind of body they’re in? Because the spirit has tightly bound itself to the body and made the agreement to act in all respects like their mind is based in the brain. So all humans and other animals are set to act in every way like their mind is their brain, but you can’t fall for it.

Past life memories

In Scientology, you trust your memory completely, going with whatever feels real to you.

I have memories that I can’t distinguish from dreams and dreams that felt just like memories; one dream where I tried to wake up repeatedly until I was convinced I was awake by the realistically slow, vivid experience of getting out of bed, feeling the bed under my body as I sat up, etc. (satisfied, I went on to play in the ever-growing amusement park in my hotel room). Dreams where I thought I felt stinging cold water, solid ground, and the inability to breathe. Once as a little kid, I woke up mad at my mom for ignoring me. She asked when this happened. *When we were on Sesame Street! It was only when the absurdity hit me that I realized it was not a memory, but a dream.

I knew that was false because it fell way outside the timeline of recent places I'd been. Past lives have no continuity to distinguish true and false memories.

In the 1980s and early to mid-1990s, people under questionable therapeutic techniques used by therapists were recalling memories of satanic ritual abuse by cults numbering in the thousands. They recalled witnessing rituals, being impregnated, and that babies were being raised for sacrifices or sex work. Parents, teachers and schools were investigated by police and put on trial. The FBI investigated and eventually . . . no one found any evidence of widespread satanic cults. Only tiny few crimes had been confirmed that even resembled the horrors described in people’s memories. There was no evidence that many of the “victims” had ever been victimized, impregnated, etc. Innocent people had been sent to prison, families torn apart and jobs ruined under the false pretenses of unreliable memories.

Memories can be created by various factors such as suggestion, more recent information, personal expectations, inferences and imagination, and by existing memories altering naturally with the passage of time. In one episode of the History Channel's Unsolved History a fake crashed military weather balloon being “recovered” was staged on a hiking trail. A group of test subjects were lead past the scene and a year later some of them “remembered” seeing alien bodies pulled from the wreckage.

How do you know a memory's accurate after billions of years? According to Hubbard, only accurate recollection gets rid of the engram. How did he eliminate other variables?

For example, my mom says her arachnophobia stems from having been a giant spider who was killed by humans. Isn’t that like someone having a bad spider bite and thus later becoming terrified of other people? Wouldn’t inheriting the fears of what body you take or being empowered by imagining yourself as the very thing you fear or feeling an understanding from the spider’s perspective all be equally or more sensible ways that that memory, true or false, cured a phobia? Therapy for phobias works by repeated exposure to the feared object, and that also certainly happens when you recall events in auditing

This is a long answer. I was hoping someone else could give their own answer based on the ideas and arguments Scientology proposes to newcomers and beginning Scientologists.

Any other attack on Scientology would be off topic. Even though, I gave other attacks on Scientology in this post.

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.

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

Cool! Could you elaborate?Thank you.

I hid them under spoiler tags because they are gigantic sections of text and I did not want them to become a focus of discussion. But I suggest you read them. All of them.

Croc appears to be rejecting the reasoning as to why Scientology is not science.

How?

Croc's argument against these facts appear to be the same apologetics believers use to dismiss reality.

. . . Where have I argued against these facts?

I have presented Scientologist apologetics in the OP and later in a comment, but I wasn't presenting them as my own argument.

I've also gotten into an argument 'cause I said I didn't know what research Hubbard claimed he did in the briefing course.

Because of the hard time Croc is giving the "Scientology is not a science" posts.

I apologize for getting frustrated at the beginning of this thread. But other than that, I think most of my responses have been to ask for further information (or support) or continuing discussion. Though I did challenge a few posts/arguments that I felt did not address the question I was focused on.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I said one person in this thread said that point. Everyone in this thread agree with it, but he was the only one who gave that as an answer in this thread.Yes. That says nothing about what claims he did or did not make in the briefing course.(Or even whether or not he tried Scientology techniques in a shoddy attempt at research.) Only that they can't be trusted.

That's the same thing. If I can't trust someone's results (say, because they're a demonstrated fraud in every instance where the seekrit briefing material has come to light) it doesn't really matter what new claims they may be making. The burden is on them to show their work and reestablish trust. If they hide that too behind a long, (I assume) expensive course, it's a justifiable assumption to expect it to be crap like everything else has been crap.


What are these "courses," anyway? I'm picturing interminably monotone powerpoint presentations meant to mash your brain to jelly, spiced up with chipper presenters spouting the meat of whatever nonsense is being peddled, which people glom on to in a sense of basic self-preservation. Maybe even over multiple days, in a cloistered context somewhere to keep supplicants away from outside contact before the programming is complete.

 

[Crocoshark]

That's the same thing. If I can't trust someone's results (say, because they're a demonstrated fraud in every instance where the seekrit briefing material has come to light) it doesn't really matter what new claims they may be making. The burden is on them to show their work and reestablish trust. If they hide that too behind a long, (I assume) expensive course, it's a justifiable assumption to expect it to be crap like everything else has been crap.

I've been meaning to ask, how does one "show their work" in a way that's actually reliable? Isn't it all just paper? If Hubbard described sample sizes and control groups and drew diagrams that wouldn't prove he actually got off his ass to do anything but write and draw.

What are these "courses," anyway? I'm picturing interminably monotone powerpoint presentations meant to mash your brain to jelly, spiced up with chipper presenters spouting the meat of whatever nonsense is being peddled, which people glom on to in a sense of basic self-preservation. Maybe even over multiple days, in a cloistered context somewhere to keep supplicants away from outside contact before the programming is complete.

A Scientology course room is usually students sitting quietly at long desks reading books or listening to lectures on headphones.

People looking at books

People listening to Hubbard lectures

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems that a number of posters have approached this thread assuming that Crocoshark is attempting to defend the pseudoscience of Scientology, and taken a combative stance according to that assumption.

How about you all read what Crocoshark is actually trying to say? Hint: it's not Scientologist apologetics.

I have read what he's said. He apparently doesn't understand what the scientific process consists of.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've been meaning to ask, how does one "show their work" in a way that's actually reliable? Isn't it all just paper? If Hubbard described sample sizes and control groups and drew diagrams that wouldn't prove he actually got off his ass to do anything but write and draw. ...

You describe your methodology, describe your findings and draw your conclusions. Then other people look at it and point out where you succeeded or failed. If you succeeded, other researchers repeat your study to see if they get the same results.

No it is not just 'paper'.

As for Hubbard's "sample sizes and control groups", he has never submitted any actual research for peer review. That is pseudoscience, not actual science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And yet Croc has stated outright that they are not a believer, so why are people treating them like one?

Because he ignores the answers as to what science is and simply repeats the same thing over again, (paraphrasing) "but what if you think you hear science in the lecture?"

 

[Pixel42]

I've been meaning to ask, how does one "show their work" in a way that's actually reliable? Isn't it all just paper? If Hubbard described sample sizes and control groups and drew diagrams that wouldn't prove he actually got off his ass to do anything but write and draw.

If he'd documented his methodology and results an independent team could have reproduced the methodology and verified those results.

Experiments always have to be replicable - and independently replicated - before the results are accepted as part of established science.