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

[HSienzant]

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.

You just answered your own question. It's not a science or a pseudoscience, it's a religion.

Scientology is a science until it needs to be a religion to get the tax exemption to avoid paying taxes on their business earnings and donations.

It's a religion until it needs to be a business to copyright its teachings (the bible and the koran aren't copyrighted) to continue to fleece the suckers charge for them.

And it's a business until it needs to be a science to establish it's not just a bunch of gibberish by a science fiction author.

Repeat as needed.

Hank

 

[Crocoshark]

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

I'm eager to learn wherever I've screwed up.

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'.

Thank you.

I suppose one way to think of it would be showing your work in math; you *could* just write a bunch of made up numbers, but anybody trying to examine or repeat what you did would find glaring errors.

 

[HSienzant]

I am more interested in the testable "how", than the subjective, experiential aspect; a question that Scientology, and I suppose all pseudoscience, skips over to leap to whether or not someone gets a certain experience in the end.

A simple test, analogous to using a placebo for half the patients to determine the effectiveness of a given drug.

Build an e-meter that has a randomizing [double-blind] effect half the time. If you get pretty much identical results from the random readings as you do from the real ones, the e-meter basis for the claims is nonsense.

Did Hubbard ever conduct such studies? Of course not.

Did Scientology? Why would they? It would kill the goose.

Once you strip away the e-meter, where is the science?

Hank

 

[Beelzebuddy]

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.

That's why the trust in accurate reporting of results is so important. It IS possible for someone to fool other scientists with made up numbers. It happens from time to time. Some even manage it for years. But that trust, once broken, is hard to regain.

But as for showing their work: independent replication, lots and lots of it. People who have absolutely no link to Scientology at all duplicating their protocols and getting the same results. Since Scientology doesn't easily part with either one of those things, I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[HSienzant]

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 problem with that, of course, is you always get false positives for placebos among some subset of the population. If a person gets a false positive under Scientology, that person is more like to pay for more courses. That's how you get converts to Scientology. There doesn't have to be anything scientific about it.

Hank

 

[Crocoshark]

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?"

By paraphrasing your attributing your own made up interpretation of what I said.

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.

First, I was sharing it as an anecdote pertinent to the topic of Hubbard having hidden research I cannot look at.

Second, the post says nothing about actual science existing. "Testing" and "research" does not equate to the claim of "quality" or "science".

Here's the rundown.

The topic of Hubbard's white whale "research" came up, with the person expressing the view Hubbard did jack ****.

I shared an anecdote where I asked someone where I could find this "research".

They claimed they saw it in a place I am not able to look.

Personally, I believe they did see something that they themselves believed was "research".

I wanted to look at what this "research" was.

I stated I did not know what Hubbard actually had in this place that the other person had seen.

I do not subscribe to the absolute certainty that Hubbard never, ever described testing anybody anywhere, and I wanted to read what my mom considered to be Hubbard "describing his research."

That's it.

Stop raising a mountain out of a molehill. It's like you're calling someone an anti-science pig because they wanted to actually look at a photo their friend says has the Loch Ness Monster and when he can't see it admits he doesn't know what the friend interpreted as a monster sighting.

It was ridiculous yesterday, and still is.

 

[HSienzant]

First, I was sharing it as an anecdote pertinent to the topic of Hubbard having hidden research I cannot look at.

Well, that should tell you it's a scam.

As I understand it, Scientology is saying this:

(a) We have a solution that will improve your life, but it will cost you.
(b) If you want to see the proof it will improve your life, that will cost you even more. And you can't see it until you purchase the solution we're offering.

Reputable science doesn't work that way.

I have a even better solution, so let me know if you want my mailing address to purchase it. ;D

At its core, Scientology is no different from the Nigerian email scams promising you untold riches for just a little money right now. It's dressed up a bit, and it's far more elaborate, but it's the same scam. And like the Nigerian scammers, once they reel you in, they keep coming back for more.

Hank

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... I suppose one way to think of it would be showing your work in math; you *could* just write a bunch of made up numbers, but anybody trying to examine or repeat what you did would find glaring errors.

Good analogy. Peer review and independently replicated results help distinguish between the subjective or erroneous and the objective and factual.

 

[Crocoshark]

I know this thread is dead but there was one last think I wanted some elaboration on

The theory of the reactive mind is not useful or necessary, and in fact is demonstrably wrong in many instances.

I was interested in hearing what instances you were thinking of

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I know this thread is dead but there was one last think I wanted some elaboration on

I was interested in hearing what instances you were thinking of

OK, I thought you were actually looking for answers and spotted you some cred earlier on. This, however, is a ridiculous question at this juncture. Dump Scientology altogether and reboot, or not. Your choice, but not one for the rest of us to fret about.

 

[Crocoshark]

I can think of a couple examples of my own but I wanted to find out what the specific person I responded to had anything I didn't think of. My mindset s one greedy for both ammo and certaint on debunking the reactive mind. I enjoy picking apart ideas and if there is a disproof of the reactive mind I don't know about I want it. I don't follow scientology but my family sure does and I live with them and the stronger "no" I have personally the bettet.

I asked that question because approach to reading this thread is that I am a fool, and other people see more stuff that I'm missing. I feel like modern science has said more to discredit the reactive mind than I know, but the only example I know of is that photographic memory is a myth.

I should have rephrased my question to "anything I missed/any ways the reactive mind is demonstrably wrong not yet mentioned in this thread" that was my real question.


I never meant to post in the thread and bump it. I wanted to send a pm. I went to the thread to get the quote wrap html so I could cut and paste but hit submit on accident. I found the "quote in private message" button afterward an will use that in the future. I am sorry.

I am posting this comment to clarify my above post and apologize.

 

[marplots]

I'd like to see the thread continue. Crocoshark has an insider's perspective we rarely get to interact with.

On the "reactive mind," I think the first difficulty I have is in creating the distinction. I don't see where segregating out the "reactive mind" as a category has any value. How, for instance, is it different than just "the mind"? After all, I am quite able to construct scenarios in my head, things that never happened, and react to those as easily as remembered things. For instance, I can picture getting stuck in traffic if I leave later in the morning. This causes me some anxiety and so I leave earlier in the morning to avoid the traffic.

Notice, in that example, an actual traffic jam isn't required. I can be making the whole situation up in my head and still allow it to shape my actions. I don't even need the experience of getting stuck in traffic to do all this either. Maybe I heard about someone who had a heart attack and the ambulance couldn't reach them in time because of traffic. And maybe that story wasn't even true. The point is, when my own imagination interacts with itself it seems a mistake to start labeling parts of the mind as "reactive" in the way it's being used.

Comments? How far away is my critique from what is actually meant by "reactive mind" ?

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I can think of a couple examples of my own but I wanted to find out what the specific person I responded to had anything I didn't think of. My mindset s one greedy for both ammo and certaint on debunking the reactive mind. I enjoy picking apart ideas and if there is a disproof of the reactive mind I don't know about I want it. I don't follow scientology but my family sure does and I live with them and the stronger "no" I have personally the bettet.

I asked that question because approach to reading this thread is that I am a fool, and other people see more stuff that I'm missing. I feel like modern science has said more to discredit the reactive mind than I know, but the only example I know of is that photographic memory is a myth.

I should have rephrased my question to "anything I missed/any ways the reactive mind is demonstrably wrong not yet mentioned in this thread" that was my real question.


I never meant to post in the thread and bump it. I wanted to send a pm. I went to the thread to get the quote wrap html so I could cut and paste but hit submit on accident. I found the "quote in private message" button afterward an will use that in the future. I am sorry.

I am posting this comment to clarify my above post and apologize.

OK, cool. I'll be checking in. These hot summer days and all the crapola hitting fans worldwide has me edgier than even usual.

 

[Crocoshark]

I'd like to see the thread continue. Crocoshark has an insider's perspective we rarely get to interact with.

On the "reactive mind," I think the first difficulty I have is in creating the distinction. I don't see where segregating out the "reactive mind" as a category has any value. How, for instance, is it different than just "the mind"? After all, I am quite able to construct scenarios in my head, things that never happened, and react to those as easily as remembered things. For instance, I can picture getting stuck in traffic if I leave later in the morning. This causes me some anxiety and so I leave earlier in the morning to avoid the traffic.

Notice, in that example, an actual traffic jam isn't required. I can be making the whole situation up in my head and still allow it to shape my actions. I don't even need the experience of getting stuck in traffic to do all this either. Maybe I heard about someone who had a heart attack and the ambulance couldn't reach them in time because of traffic. And maybe that story wasn't even true. The point is, when my own imagination interacts with itself it seems a mistake to start labeling parts of the mind as "reactive" in the way it's being used.

Comments? How far away is my critique from what is actually meant by "reactive mind" ?

Well, "engrams" only refers to memories of real life pain and unconsciousness. Growing up in Scientology, I think you realize that it's perfectly possible for anxieties to be caused by something *other* than past trauma, and even if you still think the reactive mind is plausible, it becomes one of multiple explanations, though an avid Scientologist may speculate that you're example connects to past experiences of having been in traffic jams.

Maybe the difficulty you're having in distinguishing the reactive mind is exactly why it can be so easy for a Scientologist to believe in. You know past trauma can have negative effects on people; everything from orphaned elephants to serial killers' childhoods provides confirmation, you just have your own version of the mechanics. But looking at examples like that, you don't think about it the specifics 'cause in Scientology it's up to the traumatized individual to find the cause between specific incidents and specific "abberrations". All you know as an observer is what everyone knows; that the stuff they went through screwed them up.

Probably worth noting that "unconsciousness" is something imagined as existing in degrees; a sick person is more "unconscious" than a healthy person, but less unconscious than someone totally blacked out. In auditing you go over a past incident over and over, trying to recall more and more details until you are conscious of the entire memory, remembering any details you forgot. The unconsciousness of those forgotten details or entire forgotten incidents is supposedly what's causing your problem.

OK, cool. I'll be checking in. These hot summer days and all the crapola hitting fans worldwide has me edgier than even usual.

Oh yeah, I'm living in Florida right now. I also noticed most of the recent threads on this forum were from "Social issues" and heard about some of the police shootings today. I should probably check that out.

(Violence and protests, it feels like the 60s)

 

[marplots]

Maybe the difficulty you're having in distinguishing the reactive mind is exactly why it can be so easy for a Scientologist to believe in. You know past trauma can have negative effects on people; everything from orphaned elephants to serial killers' childhoods provides confirmation, you just have your own version of the mechanics.

My version is even worse. I don't think "past traumas" can be sorted into negative or positive, but are always a mixed bag. We learn a lot of useful things from trauma. Fire burn. Is that a positive or a negative? Here is where I object to the language and the framing.

Probably worth noting that "unconsciousness" is something imagined as existing in degrees; a sick person is more "unconscious" than a healthy person, but less unconscious than someone totally blacked out. In auditing you go over a past incident over and over, trying to recall more and more details until you are conscious of the entire memory, remembering any details you forgot. The unconsciousness of those forgotten details or entire forgotten incidents is supposedly what's causing your problem.

Do they ever verify this stuff? There's some pretty good evidence that, when pressed, we simply make things up that never happened at all.

 

[Crocoshark]

My version is even worse. I don't think "past traumas" can be sorted into negative or positive, but are always a mixed bag. We learn a lot of useful things from trauma. Fire burn. Is that a positive or a negative? Here is where I object to the language and the framing.

One of the analogies you're given in Dianetics is that the "reactive mind" evolved to protect us; a fish gets bitten in a certain area and than avoids that area supposedly because of unconscious memories of being bitten as opposed to conscious ones. The problem with the reactive mind for humans is that we have language, and our words become subconscious commands that effect our behavior.

The learned knowledge that fire burns would be considered part of the analytical mind. The reactive minds would be any negative feelings you might get upon seeing a fire again.

If I see a video of a hospital room and feel like I can detect the sickening smell of being in a hospital I experienced from childhood, that'd be considered the reactive mind.

Do they ever verify this stuff? There's some pretty good evidence that, when pressed, we simply make things up that never happened at all.

I'm not sure how you'd verify most childhood/other long ago memories, especially if the new details you're unearthing are small rather than entire incidents, so no. There *was* a Myth busters episode where they tested whether hypnosis could recall forgotten details of a memory and concluded that you could, but hypnosis is also notorious for false memories. Coming up with both real or fake memories is possible, so when you're actually in an auditing session, who the bleep knows

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

One of the analogies you're given in Dianetics is that the "reactive mind" evolved to protect us; a fish gets bitten in a certain area and than avoids that area supposedly because of unconscious memories of being bitten as opposed to conscious ones. The problem with the reactive mind for humans is that we have language, and our words become subconscious commands that effect our behavior.

The learned knowledge that fire burns would be considered part of the analytical mind. The reactive minds would be any negative feelings you might get upon seeing a fire again.

If I see a video of a hospital room and feel like I can detect the sickening smell of being in a hospital I experienced from childhood, that'd be considered the reactive mind.

I'm not sure how you'd verify most childhood/other long ago memories, especially if the new details you're unearthing are small rather than entire incidents, so no. There *was* a Myth busters episode where they tested whether hypnosis could recall forgotten details of a memory and concluded that you could, but hypnosis is also notorious for false memories. Coming up with both real or fake memories is possible, so when you're actually in an auditing session, who the bleep knows

Do you have an irrational fear of knitting needles?

 

[marplots]

I'm not sure how you'd verify most childhood/other long ago memories, especially if the new details you're unearthing are small rather than entire incidents, so no. There *was* a Myth busters episode where they tested whether hypnosis could recall forgotten details of a memory and concluded that you could, but hypnosis is also notorious for false memories. Coming up with both real or fake memories is possible, so when you're actually in an auditing session, who the bleep knows

That's troublesome, but aligns with what I think of when I think "pseudo-science." Verification doesn't have the importance it has (or should have) in "real" science.

The scientific method relies on being wrong - a lot of being wrong. The assumption is that there's always going to be some wrong (if only a little) and identifying it helps get us a bit closer to right than before. You hardly ever see this mechanism in pseudo-science.

The focus shouldn't just be, "it works for me," but the more interesting, "Why didn't it work for that other guy?" Understanding a thing gives you access to both parts.

 

[Crocoshark]

Do you have an irrational fear of knitting needles?

Nope. Not too scared of hypodermic needles either, if that's the connection you were thinking of.

That's troublesome, but aligns with what I think of when I think "pseudo-science." Verification doesn't have the importance it has (or should have) in "real" science.

The scientific method relies on being wrong - a lot of being wrong. The assumption is that there's always going to be some wrong (if only a little) and identifying it helps get us a bit closer to right than before. You hardly ever see this mechanism in pseudo-science.

The focus shouldn't just be, "it works for me," but the more interesting, "Why didn't it work for that other guy?" Understanding a thing gives you access to both parts.

Oh, Scientologists have many explanations for why it didn't work on the other guy; out-tech, overts and with-holds, misunderstood words, and they will try to eliminate these variables until the tech works. Or cause the person to dump Scientology trying.

 

[marplots]

Here is a contemporaneous review in the American Scientist of Dianetics from Oct 1950. It's interesting to see some of the themes mentioned in this thread.

http://www.lermanet.com/dianetics/american-scientist-on-dianetics-1950.htm