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

[MuDPhuD]

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.

A few thoughts while watching the video:

No, the unconscious mind is not infallible, It is composed of fallible neural circuits, connected to fallible sense organs, etc. Its just as fallible as the "conscious" mind.

Emotions arise from the limbic system, they are not "errors". Limbic functions arise from deep cerebral structures, which have more direct connections to basic body functions through the autonomic nervous system. The limbic system functions to protect the organism from danger, and to ensure that basic necessities are met. It gives rise to fear (flight), anger, rage (fight), hunger, libido, and pleasure. True, it is not logical, logic is the purview of particular cerebral cortical circuits. The angry couple in the video are behaving like spoiled children who have not learned to control themselves. Letting emotions override the cortical functions is a matter of discipline, which can be learned.
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...rity_trial/links/00b7d526f023053816000000.pdf

The "reactive mind" as described in the video does not exist. The human memory system is complex, (I hope you take a look at the articles I posted above) but there is no separate memory system for painful memories versus other memories. All autobiographical memories are associated with limbic system content. Recalling a particular memory will give rise to emotional content good or bad. Painful memories will obviously be unpleasant to recall, and recall will be avoided, and the memories altered to make them less unpleasant.

No memory is "completely accurate down to the finest detail". They made that up (see my previous post). Memories are not exact copies of what happened, and are subject to modification with repeated recall.

Memories are not formed under anesthesia, or when you are unconscious.

Learned aversion is based simply on the associations which are part of a memory. There is no "reactive mind", which thinks "everything is equal to every other thing". The boy's aversion to eggs is based on the appearance and smell of something he ate previously which made him ill. That's how memory works. Yes he could also associate unrelated sounds (tuba) and occurrences in the environment with getting ill, and react to them in the future.

The adage A=A=A is apparently a description of the fact that a memory is an association of events, their environment, and sensory experiences. A particular smell may trigger memories of grandmother's house, memories of the music she played, and the way you felt when you were were there. That is simply the nature of autobiographical memory, no "reactive mind" needed, and all the components linked in a memory are not equivalent. "A" associated but not equal "A", etc.

The evidence that these spurious descriptions of the non-existent reactive mind are accurate is, presumably, the success in treatment you have described. Unfortunately these successes are not convincing because there are no actual experimental trials, only anecdotal reports by those who "feel better". As I said before this is the same record of success as homeopathy, herbal medicine, chiropractic, and voodoo. If you do not understand the necessity of controlled trials I suggest you read :
https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Science-Quacks-Pharma-Flacks/dp/0865479186

 

[HSienzant]

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.



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.

That sounds great! Where do I sign up?








Hank

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Fine and dandy, that's a perfectly valid argument.

And may I tip my hat to you, sir? Thank you.

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

It is begging the question:

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 . . .

We can assume something for purposes of argument. But we can't assume the conclusion. That is called begging the question.

If we assume the reactive mind exists, engrams, etc. We have assumed Scientology.

 

[krelnik]

A few easy "rules of thumb" seem (to me) to point very quickly to Scientology being pseudoscience.

1. Real science drops outdated ideas when better ones with better evidence come along. Drugs are taken off the market when side effects are proven. Surgical techniques are superceded by better ones. Pluto is no longer considered a planet. Etc. Etc.

Dianetics has been around for 66 years. Can you tell me five or six important things that were believed true early on by Scientology that have since been dropped in favor of something else, based on additional research being done? (It seems to me that it's been just the opposite - Hubbard continually added new ideas and new techniques, and never really dropped anything. Always a bad sign).


2. Real science advances through the back-and-forth of peer reviewed literature. And in particular, the gold standard medical science (of which psychology is a part) are double-blind placebo-controlled studies of new interventions.

Over 66 years, how many peer-reviewed papers about Dianetics/Scientology reactive mind techniques have been written? How many controlled studies of Scientology techniques have been done? (I know of none).


3. Repressed memories seem to be a key element of Scientology. But there is a considerable body of peer-reviewed scientific literature that seems to indicate repressed memories are not a real thing. (See Elizabeth Loftus and her co-authors for many fine papers on this).

How do you reconcile this research with Scientology? Seems like one of them has to be going completely down the wrong track.


It seems to me just those three quick rule-of-thumb considerations would rule out Scientology/Dianetics from being a real science.

--Tim Farley

 

[dudalb]

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.

That's a given. In his last days Hubbard was trying to cure himself using the "tech" he created with Dianetics.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Try reading the thread.

His attending physician was administering Vistarel, an anti-psychotic that was confirmed by the coroner, cited above.

He had a physician. He was being administered an anti-psychotic. But go ahead and make up your own story, I guess...

 

[MuDPhuD]

Try reading the thread.

His attending physician was administering Vistarel, an anti-psychotic that was confirmed by the coroner, cited above.

He had a physician. He was being administered an anti-psychotic. But go ahead and make up your own story, I guess...

Is this what he was given?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroxyzine

Vistaril is mostly used as an antihistamine, and as a sedative, rather than as an antipsychotic.

 

[fuelair]

I'm talking about low level Scientology material only. Spurious BS that only comes much later is not relevant. This is not about the claims made in the upper levels of Scientology. This is about the logic Scientologists use to define something as a science.

It's not that I don't have an inkling (or more) to the answers to these questions for myself, I just want to compare my own answers to yours, so I'm playing devil's advocate and asking where exactly the reactive mind differs from known psychology other than assertions about the subconscious. I was raised in Scientology, so I've had a bias to emphasize the parts that correspond with common knowledge while looking over the debatable aspects. I mean Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and phobias acquired from bad experience are known facts right? Other than dealing with the subconscious and cell imprints, the reactive mind doesn’t seem to much differ from what’s accepted about the mind other than being an arbitrary border between rational and irrational aspects of the mind.

I know I just partially answered my own question, I just want to know if I fully answered it.

Second, more broadly, what makes Scienology a pseudoscience?

After all, Scientologists say Hubbard tested his techniques on a number of people to see what worked and what didn't work and kept only what was workable. Is the right answer just a matter of "It needs to be confirmed by independent studies or peer reviewed"? Or is that the wrong direction for an answer? That usually gets a response about not needing approval from scientists who know nothing of the subject and thus aren't qualified.

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.

What is wrong with this criteria for "science"?

Edit: I need to give some examples of what a Scientologist might test and believe to work

- They run out a traumatic experience from the "reactive mind" in auditing and feel a chronic pain go away or some other improvement.

- They do a touch assist or nerve assist and feel better afterward.

- They do a scientology course and feel they can handle life better.

- They do the communication course and feel they can communicate better

No, you apparently know nothing of Scientology. It was completely made up by a low life mediocre SF author back in the 40's because (as he said to others who have been often quoted on same) that he could make a lot more money on/in a fake religion than on writing SF. Unfortunately enough nut cases out in the world to prove him right. Or, in the words of a much smarter gentleman than he, "Never give a sucker an even break!" and or: the best sign for idiots ever: ["This way to the Egress" >>>].

 

[fuelair]

Why the best? It was halfway through the museum and led to the Egress (Exit ) door. The uneducated would go out (not knowing the term "egress") and the door locked behind them as it closed. They had to buy another ticket to get back in". Oh, it was P T Barnum wot did that one!!!

 

[Crocoshark]

If we assume the reactive mind exists, engrams, etc. We have assumed Scientology.

No idea why you'd assume that. Why do you want to assume those things are real?

(Don't like it when I do it to you, do you? Make strawman arguments, I mean)

Though more genuinely, I have no idea why you think what you quoted from me has ANYTHING to do with assuming anything to be true. Seriously, how'd you . . . Is there nothing you can't twist?

All I said is that a conversation debunking something often uses the name of that thing in a sentence.

Apparently you think that's the same as assuming it to be true

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Try reading the thread.

His attending physician was administering Vistarel, an anti-psychotic that was confirmed by the coroner, cited above.

He had a physician. He was being administered an anti-psychotic. But go ahead and make up your own story, I guess...

The coroner's report, which I quoted from above, said he 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.

Either he had a terrible physician or he refused medical advice. He should have been hospitalized.

 

[marplots]

The coroner's report, which I quoted from above, said he 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.

Either he had a terrible physician or he refused medical advice. He should have been hospitalized.

Sounds like stroke, doesn't it?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why the best? It was halfway through the museum and led to the Egress (Exit ) door. The uneducated would go out (not knowing the term "egress") and the door locked behind them as it closed. They had to buy another ticket to get back in". Oh, it was P T Barnum wot did that one!!!

Isn't it a female Egret?

 

[Donn]

After a lifetime of stroking his ego, his ego finally stroked back.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Sounds like stroke, doesn't it?

Elsewhere on the 'net I see that that is the diagnosis of experts. But, if you are under attack by Thetans, surrounded by toadies, and paranoid, the chances of getting true medical care are close to zero.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Isn't it a female Egret?

Step right up and buy a ticket, Captain.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

The coroner's report, which I quoted from above, said he 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.

I see. So after he was dead, the coroner interviewed Hubbard and found this dead man to have trouble writing? lol.

The coroner interviewed his physician. He did not interview the dead man.

Either he had a terrible physician or he refused medical advice. He should have been hospitalized.

I take his personal physician's opinion over anonymous internet posters. A coroner is obligated by law to report deaths that result from (in his opinion) negligence as homicides. So this coroner is backing up the personal physician.

Honestly, two people above - so extremely lazy - I linked to the source, his personal physician, who testified to the coroner that the purpose of the drugs were anti-psychotic...

A *********** sedative, Mud just like you quoted from Wikipedia, but you need the intramuscular drug citation. I already cited the source, but here is webMD:

http://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-53/vistaril-intramuscular/details

Hydroxyzine is used for the short-term treatment of nervousness and tension that may occur with certain mental/mood disorders (e.g., anxiety, dementia). It is also used to help manage withdrawal symptoms (e.g., anxiety, agitation) in alcoholics. Other uses include helping to decrease anxiety and nausea before/after surgery or during childbirth or helping certain narcotic pain relievers (e.g., meperidine) work better.

Why, after his personal physician testifies to formal proceedings that it is as a sedative, would any reasonable person assert instead that it is for a stuffy nose? Talk about inventing whole narratives!

marplots I gave you the citation. You read none of it and asked for a citation for the citation I already gave. Really, just some small amount of paying attention would prevent thread derails.

I see this compelling need to wish a different ending into existence for Hubbard. A need to say he died because he believed in his own ****. Well that didn't happen. He was going mental at the end of his life. He had a personal physician who tried to mellow him out with an intramuscular sedative.

Dysphasia is the condition you referred to Gord. It's on page 1:

http://www.xenu.net/archive/hubbardcoroner/hubbard01.png

On or about Jan 16 according to the attending physician Eugene Denk. Dr. Dink (lol) testified he had been living with Hubbard for two years as his personal physician.

It is a lie to say he died without medical treatment. He had a physician, Eugene Denk. He was treating Hubbard with an intramuscular sedative for basically his brain blowing a gasket.

Dr. Dink flatly stated he had no doubt it was a CVA: that means Cerebro-vascular-accident ie STROKE.

It is wonderful irony because Hubbard and scientology hated exactly that: drugs for broken brains. No, no - it is engrams and the reactive mind, blah blah blah...

Hubbard had no third party caretaker by virtue of incompetence. It was clearly his decision to both have a personal physician and agree to being shot up in his rear end. His personal lawyer was also in attendance those last days, also present with the physician when questioned by the coroner.

One day before he died, Hubbard signed a new will. So the Coroner wanted an autopsy done to see if he could conclude Hubbard was not mentally fit to sign a will the day before he died, after the CVA.

The coroner had to sign for release of the body before anything could be done with it. Hubbard had signed, in his wills, his religious objection to an autopsy. So the coroner did a physical inspection of the outer body and a toxicology test.

This report is very detailed. It explains his condition was the CVA and that is what the intramuscular vistaril was for. It is in plain English you guys, please show some small amount of initiative and read the report I have cited.

The coroner further said the new will was basically the same as the 1982 will and the 1983 amendment that he made for the religious objection to an autopsy. So there wasn't anything nefarious going on with switching beneficiaries. It looks rather that his lawyer, his physician, and Hubbard knew he was dying and wanted to have it made certain people knew these were indeed his last wishes.

This is incontrovertible. L. Ron Hubbard was of sound mind, knew he was dying, signed his last will again with his lawyer and personal physician attending him. He voluntarily took an anti-psychotic, a sedative, for a "CVA" or commonly known as stroke, instead of Scientology treatment. This is bullet-proof physical evidence, professional medical doctor testimony and corner that he did not believe his own ******** about Scientology in the end. Nor the beginning, nor the middle for that matter.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

This is incontrovertible. L. Ron Hubbard was of sound mind, knew he was dying, signed his last will again with his lawyer and personal physician attending him. He voluntarily took an anti-psychotic, a sedative, for a "CVA" or commonly known as stroke, instead of Scientology treatment. This is bullet-proof physical evidence, professional medical doctor testimony and corner that he did not believe his own ******** about Scientology in the end. Nor the beginning, nor the middle for that matter.

Well I'm so glad that is settled. By some random poster on the Internet yet.

However: https://scientologymoneyproject.com...lie-about-the-death-of-founder-l-ron-hubbard/

The secondary problem with Hubbard’s death is this: We have here an elderly post-stroke man suffering from slurred speech; who may not be able to write or to comprehend written materials; is under the influence of a psychoactive drug; and who arguably has diminished mental capacity. However, we are asked by Church of Scientology officials to believe that L. Ron Hubbard was mentally fit to sign a new will on the day before his death. At the time, San Luis Obispo County Chief Deputy Coroner Don Hines expressed this precise concern:

Interview with someone who actually knew and worked for Hubbard and might just possibly know more about him than anyone here:

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

All I said is that a conversation debunking something often uses the name of that thing in a sentence.

Apparently you think that's the same as assuming it to be true

I'm proving, right here, that you are doing exactly that:

They run out a traumatic experience from the "reactive mind" in auditing and feel a chronic pain go away or some other improvement.

Describing it that way is assuming Scientology. There isn't such a thing as the reactive mind. So no, I do not have to assume a correlation between a fantasy concept, a nonexistent thing, and a real one. Just this statement above is begging the question - assuming the conclusion.

You just got the exact same reaction from fuel air, and we know you don't like it. You don't like having it pointed out that fantasy writing is not reality.

It is far, far simpler than you are trying to make it out to be. We don't need weights and scales, microscopes or telescopes, it is elementary on the face of it:

Assuming nonexistent things into existence is not science. You need go no further. Hubbard invented "reactive mind" as a term in a science fiction magazine. He has no training. He is a fiction writer, writing fiction. How can you say fiction should be considered science?! It is unbelievable you can't see this as relevant.

You asked about how you would tell a newcomer to Scientology why it isn't science. Many of us keep telling you the most elementary reason and you just keep insisting it is irrelevant. You are wrong.

Why you are so stubborn about a logical fallacy has been a in intellectual curiosity for us.

Being able to see a con-artist at one glance is what we are trying to get through. This is a skill people need in many different walks of life. Someone who just invents his own alleged "science" without any connection to that science - okay, how stupid are we supposed to be?

If someone tells you they are a boxer, but they don't belong to the club, they have no bout record, they show no sign of having trained physically - you stop right there and say he is lying. A liar that needs no further listening to.

It is hard to believe you think lying is irrelevant to science. ! Science is about truth. You have to accept that as a principle of science. You cannot even communicate without truth.

The three pages of what you wrote for the newcomer in that spoiler on page 1 - that goes after this initial no-brainer.

It is a curiosity for many of us why you just hate this so much, since it really is the most obvious thing to say about scientology.

It comes down to lying. Being able to see obvious deceptive behavior. And the strategy is to compare what people are saying vs. what you can see with your own eyes. We are to believe the man pooping in front of us is having a baby? Well, no matter, let's assume just for argument that it is true and get an obstetrician to write a paper on why poop is not a baby.


You can tell L. Ron Hubbard is a liar, a con man, within moments of knowing his basic story line. Science-minded people know to go no further. Total waste of time learning jargon, etc. The person represents a danger to you.

It isn't just that he is wrong, but that trusting him can bring you a lot of harm. When you see a liar, someone who is asking you to trust the words coming out of his mouth instead of what your eyes can see - you RUN the other direction.

You don't accept this as science? Well it is not only science, but a kind of science that has wide application from car salesmen to religion to lawyers to the guy who just approached you, walking through the park. Picking a wife.

Scientology is a lot more than "not science". It follows a very specific science that is a danger to people's lives and safety. It is the science of abusive manipulation, mind control, of predators sucking the life and vitality out of people.

You would have gotten a lot further with people here if you had not been so contemptuous of that, and claiming incorrectly that this was not a scientific objection to Scientology.

You can tell by its positive actions, not by what it lacks, that it is criminal behavior, were it not for the pretense of religion. We should not say criminal behavior is a huge red flag to whether something is science?!

That's why you are getting the reaction you are getting.

 

[marplots]

marplots I gave you the citation. You read none of it and asked for a citation for the citation I already gave. Really, just some small amount of paying attention would prevent thread derails.

That's unfair. Maybe you mixed me up with someone else? The cite you posted that I challenged was a one page toxicology report showing Vistaril detected. My sole objection to this was that you can't tell on this basis alone what the diagnosis was - the medication isn't specific enough.

If you now add the information from the prescribing physician, that's different. That's the way to go. Because what you are interested in is the diagnosis, not the medication used to treat it.

I don't think I've put forth an opinion as to Hubbard's beliefs at the time of his death. Seeing into someone's mind is tricky, even when they are sitting in front of you, alive and responsive. It becomes a game of "deathbed conversions" without much point. If we agree he had a stroke, then anything subsequent isn't as informative as to his pre-stroke condition, since we know strokes can lead to mental changes from the damage.

If his physician says that Hubbard didn't believe in Scientology, then his opinion carries the same weight as anyone else who knew Hubbard well. Those opinions are the best we have to go on. None of this will be apparent in a single page toxicology report.