• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

It doesn't seem to matter to you that Hubbard didn't believe in Scientology.

An interesting piece on Tony Ortega's site: Did L. Ron Hubbard believe his own rap? Here’s what he admitted about Scientology in 1952

http://tonyortega.org/2016/05/16/di...s-what-he-admitted-about-scientology-in-1952/

If he was really just kidding in 1952, he was not kidding in 1986 when he tried to cure his ‘body thetans’ with electricity. It is a long-standing argument among exes and never-ins as to whether Hubbard really drank his own kool-aid. I would say he probably knew how weak his theories were but eventually became invested in them.”

and

. . . in the final chapters of Mark “Marty” Rathbun’s 2013 book Memoirs of a Scientology Warrior, was testimony from Steve Pfauth, who was with Hubbard in his final years in seclusion, and who said that during Hubbard’s final months the frail old man was earnestly searching for those invisible, disembodied alien souls — body thetans — hoping to chase them away. Hubbard really seemed to believe his own science fiction at that point.

Randi himself has pointed out the danger of coming to believe in one's own con.
 
Well you've changed this to an attack on his person, which is not true.
I'VE changed this into an attack on his person? I'm not the one who brought him up . . . :confused:

So? My mother-in-law puts a curled-up hair snippet on our sons' foreheads when they are sick, and she swears it cures them.

Feelings are not science.
I never said they were, my point was about Hubbard's monetary motivations being meaningless argument to someone who believes they've seen something's effectiveness.

My point is not about Hubbard or science, it's about your argument. It's a bad argument. I could agree that Scientology is a predatory cult and Hubbard a terrible person and your argument would still be a bad argument.

I put effort into arguing against it because the particular style of argument on the subject annoys me.

Also, I would like to rephrase my response to your original comment.

Yes I don't care because this thread is about the concept of the reactive mind versus modern psychology and the structure of pseudoscience versus science. And because your statement is interpretation and not fact.


I'm not advocating following the metaphorical dog around to make sense of it. And that analogy implies you actually think I believe in Scientology in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I feel like I should ask questions here, but I'm not sure what to ask.

I think I'll go with

1. What place to un-recalled memories have in modern psychology? What effect is it believed they have on people? How do we know what we know? If the effect is ever negative how is it treated?

2. I have similar questions for the unconscious in general, just a general request for how it usually works, what effect it has and how we know what we know, to whatever degree it's possible to keep your answers within the scope of a forum post with a few linked articles.

3. Would you be able to list specific points of contention where the two mindsets rub against each other? What do we know now that leaves the reactive mind dated if not discredited? (Other than the different views on homosexuality? (On that particular topic, I can't at the moment think of another behavior Hubbard calls aberrant that reeks of 1950s prejudice).

My ability to answer these questions is limited by my limited understanding of scientology and auditing. If the idea of auditing is that a galvanic skin response to a question might reveal some unconscious memory which can be recalled by repeated probing and forced recollection, I will point you to these papers on the current understanding of autobiographic memory. It is not a tape that can be replayed. It is malleable and subject to suggestion, and altered by repeated recall.



http://digitalcommons.conncoll.edu/...,26#search="autobiographical memory accuracy"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810014002293

"In the modern view of human memory memories are mental constructions. It is important to note that they are not reconstructions. They are not like videos, photographs or other recording media, even though they frequently contain mental imagery. They are transient constructions and although they may to some degree accurately represent the past they are time-compressed and contain many details that are inferred, consciously and non-consciously, at the time of their construction. Thus, all memories are to some degree false in the sense that they do not represent past experience literally"

If you are able to learn something about teh current underdtanding of memory from these links, you may be better able to appreciate where the differences with scientology lie.
 
IMHO,after reading quite a lot about Hubbard and the COS,Scientology was started by Hubbard as an out and out con,but he ended up falling for his own nonsense. Not an unusual scenario.
 
"In the modern view of human memory memories are mental constructions. It is important to note that they are not reconstructions. They are not like videos, photographs or other recording media, even though they frequently contain mental imagery. They are transient constructions and although they may to some degree accurately represent the past they are time-compressed and contain many details that are inferred, consciously and non-consciously, at the time of their construction. Thus, all memories are to some degree false in the sense that they do not represent past experience literally"
What a delightfully written paragraph. Every word is loaded with meaning.
 
An interesting piece on Tony Ortega's site: Did L. Ron Hubbard believe his own rap? Here’s what he admitted about Scientology in 1952
.

All con men act like they believe in their own con. This is not evidence.

A spoon-bender insists he can bend spoons with his mind. But he has to bend them with his fingers every time. So he does not believe. Because we watch him bend the spoon with his fingers.

Likewise, if Hubbard actually could cure people, then just as with the spoon-bending he would not have used all of the abusive manipulative tactics to con people into paying him. He would have subjected himself to scientific review.

His actions fit 100% those of a con man, not of a medical professional.
 
I'VE changed this into an attack on his person? I'm not the one who brought him up . . . :confused:

You seem not to understand logic. Attacking Hubbard's ideas is not an attack on the person of L. Ron Hubbard. A personal attack is not a logical argument.

I never said they were, my point was about Hubbard's monetary motivations being meaningless argument to someone who believes they've seen something's effectiveness.

My point is not about Hubbard or science, it's about your argument. It's a bad argument. I could agree that Scientology is a predatory cult and Hubbard a terrible person and your argument would still be a bad argument.

I put effort into arguing against it because the particular style of argument on the subject annoys me.

Also, I would like to rephrase my response to your original comment.

Yes I don't care because this thread is about the concept of the reactive mind versus modern psychology and the structure of pseudoscience versus science. And because your statement is interpretation and not fact.


I'm not advocating following the metaphorical dog around to make sense of it. And that analogy implies you actually think I believe in Scientology in the first place.

A lot of disjointed partial thoughts here. So I guess when in Rome do as the Romans...

The problem with Hubbard is he didn't understand the mega-mind. The mega-mind is what the reactive mind shields from harm by stifling electro-chemical signals from the cortex to the inherent self.

Deep within the inherent self are globules of zen-energy that sustain us through tears in the fabric of our identity. Without controlling these globules, their energy is unfocused and even counterproductive. We call this the State of Imbalance. With $140 in an introductory session, I can steer you into many more sessions that will help you obtain the State of Balance.
 
All con men act like they believe in their own con. This is not evidence.
If, as seems likely, Hubbard suffered from undiagnosed and untreated schizophrenia, then it's almost certain he believed in his own con. And it would have got worse as he got older, since he was not receiving any kind of mental health care.
 
All con men act like they believe in their own con. This is not evidence.

A spoon-bender insists he can bend spoons with his mind. But he has to bend them with his fingers every time. So he does not believe. Because we watch him bend the spoon with his fingers.

Likewise, if Hubbard actually could cure people, then just as with the spoon-bending he would not have used all of the abusive manipulative tactics to con people into paying him. He would have subjected himself to scientific review.

His actions fit 100% those of a con man, not of a medical professional.

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make but his actions near the end of his life show that he believed in his lunatic theories. If he did not believe, he would have found a medical doctor to help him. Unless you think he was such a dedicated con man that he was willing to keep up the pretense even if it killed him.
 
Edited by jsfisher: 
<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement.


This is a thread about the concept of the reactive mind.

YOU are the one saying the whole discussion should be jettisoned because of Hubbard's character

If you're not even going to address my statement that YOU'RE the one making the fallacious connection, it's perfect demonstration of why you're not worth responding to.

Originally Posted by AlaskaBushPilot:
A lot of disjointed partial thoughts here. So I guess when in Rome do as the Romans...
You might as well have written "Haha, I didn't bother reading any of that, TLDR sucker, lulz."

I didn't want to have a conversation with you, because you put absolutely no effort into understanding anything you read, and now I see I shouldn't have even given you the chance that I did.

Happy to be done with you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My ability to answer these questions is limited by my limited understanding of scientology and auditing. If the idea of auditing is that a galvanic skin response to a question might reveal some unconscious memory which can be recalled by repeated probing and forced recollection, I will point you to these papers on the current understanding of autobiographic memory. It is not a tape that can be replayed. It is malleable and subject to suggestion, and altered by repeated recall.

Thank you for the links and explanations.

I think the first two questions can be answered without Scientology knowledge, as it's basically just asking what science's own understanding of the role of unrecalled memories and the unconscious is in human behavior.

But if you wanna better compare to Scientology's concepts of the unconscious, which is not original to Scientology as it's basically repressed memories of past pain and upset causing future pain and upset, here's a Scientology video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7xpqWczB9U&index=3&list=PLfflewFZs6v_NUM-Y-Xpru-Uy5o02uUD1. Basically, the idea that current negative feelings and pain can be caused by words and stimuli from past negative experiences having an unconscious influence on a person.
 
The problem with Hubbard is he didn't understand the mega-mind. The mega-mind is what the reactive mind shields from harm by stifling electro-chemical signals from the cortex to the inherent self.

Deep within the inherent self are globules of zen-energy that sustain us through tears in the fabric of our identity. Without controlling these globules, their energy is unfocused and even counterproductive. We call this the State of Imbalance. With $140 in an introductory session, I can steer you into many more sessions that will help you obtain the State of Balance.

Heratic, as anyone knows it is the globules that cause the tears. Send me $100 and I will start you on the True Path to the Handrail of the Bridge.
 
This is a thread about the concept of the reactive mind.

Exactly. It cannot be understood without the concept of the mega-mind. Globules of zen can be focused to heal instead of creating more imbalance as you are showing. I just need your $140 or it won't work.

YOU are the one saying the whole discussion should be jettisoned because of Hubbard's character

You have reversed the order. It is L. Ron Hubbard's bad faith, his manipulative, psychologically abusive and control-freak construction of the Scientology fraud that proves his bad character.

You've reversed it to say we can't use his bad character against scientology. Rather, it is Scientology that proves the bad character of Hubbard.

This was very important to James Randi: the socially destructive aspects of woo. All woo practicioners perpetrate antisocial conduct. The way they dupe people is deceptive. Abusive.

If a person does not cooperate, and agree to a science fiction writer's made-up jargon, he is attacked. He is a bad person. This is a perfect example of Scientology tactics: abuse the person who is not manipulated.

Jargon like the positively puerile "reactive mind", engrams, clear, etc. has manifold purpose. First, it imbues the cult with a pretense of insight, of elitism. Second, introductory nonsense terms bait newcomers into believing that going further into even more nonsensical terms will help them better understand the introductory nonsense terms. Just keep paying, eventually you'll get clear.

The purpose of jargon is to shut down critical thinking. Asking people to accept the term is asking them to stop thinking critically. The purpose of inventing the term "reactive mind" and all the rest of the piffle is to shut down people's ability to reason.

Within the group jargon creates a sense of camaraderie and snobbish superiority. Outside the group, it becomes difficult to communicate with people. It serves to isolate members away from reason and common sense so as to better control them.

This is the scientific understanding of Scientology: it's a fascinating but chilling demonstration of how woo practicioners prey upon people: the underhanded manipulative tactics they use. To enrich the con artist L. Ron Hubbard.

You have no ability to shame or guilt-trip me into accepting made-up terms outside any kind of science framework. Any more than I should accept comic book superheros as real. Doing that is what makes me a dupe of con men, and this represents a danger to my well-being.
 
If, as seems likely, Hubbard suffered from undiagnosed and untreated schizophrenia, then it's almost certain he believed in his own con. And it would have got worse as he got older, since he was not receiving any kind of mental health care.

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make but his actions near the end of his life show that he believed in his lunatic theories. If he did not believe, he would have found a medical doctor to help him. Unless you think he was such a dedicated con man that he was willing to keep up the pretense even if it killed him.

Hubbard, early on, exhibited personality disorder/character disorder. I have no doubt that in the end he was bat-**** crazy, but as a general psychological condition as opposed to his comittment to Scientology in the end.

His doctor was shooting him up with Vistaril in his last days. That is decisive in disproving the assertion he did not find a medical doctor to help him. Ironically it is an anti-psychotic too, which Hubbard and Scientology rail against. From his autopsy report:


http://www.xenu.net/archive/hubbardcoroner/hubbard_toxicology_report.jpg

His doctor testified to the coroner that this is what he was using, and the only drug he was administering in Hubbard's last days.

Nothing in the Coroner's report about his reactive mind. You can get it on Operation Clambake. It's 15 pages.
 
You have reversed the order. It is L. Ron Hubbard's bad faith, his manipulative, psychologically abusive and control-freak construction of the Scientology fraud that proves his bad character.

You've reversed it to say we can't use his bad character against scientology. Rather, it is Scientology that proves the bad character of Hubbard.
Fine and dandy, that's a perfectly valid argument.

You have no ability to shame or guilt-trip me into accepting made-up terms outside any kind of science framework.

I'm not *trying* to shame/guilt you into accepting terms.

The negative tone of my post had to do with the fact nothing you say sounds like a response to my actual position. That includes your latest post. You kind of go on about stuff I don't really disagree with so I kind of just shrug and have nothing to say..

Any more than I should accept comic book superheros as real.
You know using a term in a discussion is not the same as accepting its validity right? You can use the words "intelligent design" or "X-men" in a breakdown of everything wrong with those things from a scientific perspective without accepting those things as real . . .
 
Last edited:
Hubbard, early on, exhibited personality disorder/character disorder. I have no doubt that in the end he was bat-**** crazy, but as a general psychological condition as opposed to his comittment to Scientology in the end.

His doctor was shooting him up with Vistaril in his last days. That is decisive in disproving the assertion he did not find a medical doctor to help him. Ironically it is an anti-psychotic too, which Hubbard and Scientology rail against. From his autopsy report:


http://www.xenu.net/archive/hubbardcoroner/hubbard_toxicology_report.jpg

His doctor testified to the coroner that this is what he was using, and the only drug he was administering in Hubbard's last days.

Nothing in the Coroner's report about his reactive mind. You can get it on Operation Clambake. It's 15 pages.

I guess the Vistaril helped him so well he died of it. But at least he was not anxious.
 
Hydroxyzine is most commonly used as an anti-allergen, secondly as a sleep aid. It's disingenuous to suggest it's being used as an anti-psychotic/anxiolytic without additional evidence.
 
Hydroxyzine is most commonly used as an anti-allergen, secondly as a sleep aid. It's disingenuous to suggest it's being used as an anti-psychotic/anxiolytic without additional evidence.

OK then. He did not die with a runny nose or with insomnia.

Assuming that the coroner's report at:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/hubbardcoroner/hubbard15.png
is talking about aphasia (the copy is truncated and there is no English word sphraisia), LRon was diagnosed with "Partial or total loss of the ability to articulate ideas or comprehend spoken or written language, resulting from damage to the brain from injury or disease." for eight days before he died. The poor slob should have been in hospital.
 
If, as seems likely, Hubbard suffered from undiagnosed and untreated schizophrenia, then it's almost certain he believed in his own con. And it would have got worse as he got older, since he was not receiving any kind of mental health care.
He certainly didn't believe in dianetics when he launched it but I wouldn't be surprised if over the years his mental illnesses resulted in him having delusional beliefs.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom