Scientology abandoned by Hubbard's granddaughter & Miscavige's father

[dafydd]

Of course I don't believe in the E-meter.
It's been shown to be a cheap fraud.

AW c'mon! Justinian has said the opposite, isn't that enough for you? What more proof do you need? An actual peer reviewed paper?

 

[dafydd]

Whether the blatant illogic and unwarranted arrogance in this post are intentional or unkowing, it is an accurate and telling representation of cults in general and Scientology in particular. You can also note the similarities with the cry of many Christians who say "If you just let Jesus into your heart then you will understand. Until then, you just won't get it."

There is only the thinnest facade of false rationality.

All cults are the same. All started by cheap frauds.

 

[Robrob]

If you don't know for certain that the Emeter works, then discussing even the first step - Life Repair - is folly.

One must be a believer before one can evaluate the research and facts?

Discussing OT is absurd.

Truest thing you've said yet.

Every Scientologist knows with 100% certainty that the Emeter works in the application for which it was designed.

Also quite true, just not in the way you think.

That's 100% certainty! There's no room for other opinions. Scientologists have a solid belief that the Emeter works.

As do the believers in any other supernatural cult. How does this common fact validate yours?

If you don't believe in the Emeter, get a demonstration in Scientology.

I certainly believe Emeters exist. Why is it so difficult for you to explain the research validating their effect?

A prerequsite for these discussions is a belief that the Emeter works. If you don't believe that the Emeter works, you won't believe in anything else, so why argue?

I also don't believe the Earth is flat.

Arguing Scientology with a person that doesn't believe that the Emeter works is like arguing a newspaper article with someone that doesn't believe that people can read.

You really need to work on your analogies.

It would be insane to discuss Scientology with anybody that doesn't believe that the emeter works.

Notice the reoccurring theme, belief is required to evaluate facts and evidence.

It only takes moments for the Church of Scientology to give you a demonstration of the Emeter and an hour for an Introductory session. It is insane to discuss the emeter to anyone that won't avail himself of those opportunities. A demonstration is worth a thousand words to each person that wants to know.

Simple links to the research validating the Emeter's effects would take even less than "moments."

 

[marplots]

Whether the blatant illogic and unwarranted arrogance in this post are intentional or unkowing, it is an accurate and telling representation of cults in general and Scientology in particular. You can also note the similarities with the cry of many Christians who say "If you just let Jesus into your heart then you will understand. Until then, you just won't get it."

But they are just being honest. You ask them and they answer with what their experience has been. So, the statement, "The e-meter works" isn't some conclusion from a scientific study or a derived mathematical proof, but a statement about an experience. And the premise is the same as with Jesus, "If you undertake to have this same experience I did, you'd agree with me."

I don't see why this is a problem. A great deal of information transfer happens just this way. I'll grant it isn't rigorous, but it certainly isn't rare either.

 

[shuttlt]

I've had a look on Google scholar for variations on "emeter" and "scientology" with very little success. I am not optimistic that any study exists validating the emeter. I did manager to find Hubbard's book Understanding the Emeter which presumably should be the primary source. The first 30 pages are kind of hard going, but I did find this:

"In Scientology it has been discovered that mental energy is simply a finer, higher level
physical energy. The test of this is conclusive in that a thetan "mocking up" (creating) mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can increase the body mass and by casting them away again can decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and an increase of as much as thirty pounds, actually measured on scales, has been added to, and subtracted from, a body by creating "mental energy". Energy is
energy. Matter is condensed energy."

So auditing should reduce your mass. I had been concerned that the emeter and auditing in general might be quite challenging to test, but I see that isn't the case. It seems to me that it would be easy to confirm this.

 

[Garrette]

But they are just being honest.

Which is one reason I said "illogic" as opposed to dishonesty and also one reason I said "intentional or unknowing."

You ask them and they answer with what their experience has been.

Yes, and let's assume that we are talking about basically honest believers. It is similar to those who fall prey to the likes of John Edward; their experience is that it "worked" for them, and little or nothing will dissuade them of it or will convince them of confirmation bias or any of the other actual explanations for their experience. They remain, however, just as wrong about the fundamentals of their claims as Justinian2 is regarding the emeter.

So, the statement, "The e-meter works" isn't some conclusion from a scientific study or a derived mathematical proof, but a statement about an experience.

I disagree. Justinian clearly means that the e-meter works in a scientific sense, beyond any personal experience. He equates the personal experience with the scientific conclusion and attacks those who point out the difference.

And the premise is the same as with Jesus, "If you undertake to have this same experience I did, you'd agree with me."

The inaccuracy of the statement becomes apparent when others undertake to have the same experience but end up with a different experience; then there are versions of the No True Scotsman fallacy aplenty. Those who, like me, were raise in the Jesus Experience, even defended it vigorously and considered making it a profession, but who then realize the errors of it are dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion. Sometimes, with Christians, they refuse to discuss people like me. Justinian2 is not quite so blatant; he at least pretends to discuss people like me (the Scientology version), but he doesn't really do so.

I don't see why this is a problem. A great deal of information transfer happens just this way. I'll grant it isn't rigorous, but it certainly isn't rare either.

The problem is that it's wrong. Simple as that. The emeter does not work.

Of course, you can define the definition of "work" down to something like "I had a beneficial therapy experience during that hour," but then you're abandoning the initial claims of the emeter and such, turning the emeter into just a placebo, which is what I have said before.

 

[dafydd]

Also quite true, just not in the way you think.

True, the emeter is extremely effective at parting mugs from their cash.

 

[dafydd]

I disagree. Justinian clearly means that the e-meter works in a scientific sense, beyond any personal experience. He equates the personal experience with the scientific conclusion and attacks those who point out the difference.

Does he know the difference?

 

[Garrette]

Does he know the difference?

I imagine he does in topics that are not threatening to his beliefs. I could be wrong, though...

 

[shuttlt]

But they are just being honest. You ask them and they answer with what their experience has been. So, the statement, "The e-meter works" isn't some conclusion from a scientific study or a derived mathematical proof, but a statement about an experience. And the premise is the same as with Jesus, "If you undertake to have this same experience I did, you'd agree with me."

I don't think your summary is an accurate rendition of the posts of either pro-scientology posters or pro-Christ posters on the forum, or at least not the ones that these kinds of arguments happen with. My experience is that it takes a great deal of work to get to the point where they say "no, there is no measurable/testable/scientific evidence for what I believe, all I've got is my subjective experience of my beliefs". People who say, "my only evidence for my belief is my own subjective experience of life" have relatively little trouble on the forum, so long as your belief is something not trivially testable of course, like a God who doesn't interfere, or something. Your personal beliefs are your personal beliefs after all.

 

[dafydd]

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/11/15/18551277.php

The emeter is sold with this disclaimer!! Hilarious.




''By itself, this meter does nothing. It is solely for the guide of Ministers of the Church in Confessionals and pastoral counselling. The Electrometer is not medically or scientifically capable of improving the health or bodily function of anyone and is for religious use by students and Ministers of the Church of Scientology only. HUBBARD, E-METER and SCIENTOLOGY are trademarks and service marks owned by RTC and used with its permission.''

This disclaimer is in response to a 1971 ruling by the United States District Court, District of Columbia, that declared: "the E-meter has no proven usefulness in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease, nor is it medically or scientifically capable of improving any bodily function." This ruling came after nearly a decade of legal wrangling with the government over concern "that the devices were misbranded by false claims that they effectively treated some 70 percent of all physical and mental illness" (Janssen 1999)
http://www.skepdic.com/emeter.html


More hard facts for Justinian to ignore.

 

[drewid]

All cults are the same. All started by cheap frauds.

I have to disagree. Hubbard was an expensive fraud.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So, the statement, "The e-meter works" isn't some conclusion from a scientific study or a derived mathematical proof, but a statement about an experience.

Ah, but this is Scientology. Founded on scientifically-proven facts, according to L. Ron Hubbard. If that's true, then there should be scientific evidence, and the e-meter should come out of being tested scientifically by having all the qualities L. Ron Hubbard claims of it.

So, in this instance, we are talking about a scientific study. The e-meter isn't like a communion wafer, or whathaveyou. It's a piece of electronic apparatus which works on scientific principles and which, it is claimed, has a scientifically-proven effect. So belief and opinion are worthless. Science doesn't work on belief or opinion, it works via the scientific method.

 

[dafydd]

I have to disagree. Hubbard was an expensive fraud.

I meant his character

 

[Garrette]

I meant his character

Well, yeah, but that was before he used his e-meter.

 

[marplots]

Which is one reason I said "illogic" as opposed to dishonesty and also one reason I said "intentional or unknowing."

Yes, and let's assume that we are talking about basically honest believers. It is similar to those who fall prey to the likes of John Edward; their experience is that it "worked" for them, and little or nothing will dissuade them of it or will convince them of confirmation bias or any of the other actual explanations for their experience. They remain, however, just as wrong about the fundamentals of their claims as Justinian2 is regarding the emeter.

The thing is, they don't really need or desire anything more fundamental than their own experience. So, for example, if I insisted that boiled peanuts taste great and desired that you too should partake of their goodness, fully expecting you would agree if you only tried them -- why would I desire to explore the complex nuances of taste receptors and the anatomy of the tongue?

I disagree. Justinian clearly means that the e-meter works in a scientific sense, beyond any personal experience. He equates the personal experience with the scientific conclusion and attacks those who point out the difference.

This stems from the idea that science illuminates true things. If I already think I have a "true thing" I would expect science to validate it. But I don't have to arrive at the truth by way of science, and, from his perspective, why bother?

Here is a ham-handed illustration. I have a tree in my front yard. Should I desire to prove to you the tree exists, I would want you to see, touch, maybe even taste it. I would rely on you being pretty much the same sort of being I am and that you would agree, after the experience, that the tree exists. Science could come into it, but only if I were trying to prove something of a general class without having the tree to offer you. I would fully expect any scientific study to demonstrate what I've said about the tree and would have to reject a study that didn't. My experience trumps other methods of obtaining knowledge.

The inaccuracy of the statement becomes apparent when others undertake to have the same experience but end up with a different experience; then there are versions of the No True Scotsman fallacy aplenty. Those who, like me, were raise in the Jesus Experience, even defended it vigorously and considered making it a profession, but who then realize the errors of it are dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion. Sometimes, with Christians, they refuse to discuss people like me. Justinian2 is not quite so blatant; he at least pretends to discuss people like me (the Scientology version), but he doesn't really do so.

This is very true. And scientific observation, data and so on is a good way to communicate things. But I propose it doesn't help when someone has had a personal experience (or in this case, an experience coupled with an explanation they believe). What they end up thinking is that you, who do not get the same import from the demonstration, are flawed in some fashion. In other words, the believer thinks they are a better measuring instrument for truth than either you, or the scientific method.

The problem is that it's wrong. Simple as that. The emeter does not work.

But they claim it does. And that brings up another point. Perspective.

Of course, you can define the definition of "work" down to something like "I had a beneficial therapy experience during that hour," but then you're abandoning the initial claims of the emeter and such, turning the emeter into just a placebo, which is what I have said before.

They have an out here as well. If one of the essential elements is belief, then a lack of believe would give negative results. Unless we say the emeter is something that doesn't require this element, as an anti-biotic could be slipped into someone's drink and still work -- if it's claimed to be like that, it fails utterly. If it does require participation of the "patient," we have another matter. Any failure can recruit this as part of the mix.

This isn't unusual when it comes to treatments. Mostly on the psychological front. I would not expect someone who refuses to participate in their treatment to gain much, if any benefits.

But, insofar as claims about curing cancer and whatnot, it would be more convincing if they had some case studies to look at. They don't, so I have no reason to believe them unless I happened to experience it for myself. I am very unlikely to do so. It seems nonsensical to me. But now the shoe is on the other foot. On what basis can I claim his experiences are wrong? I can make a case they don't mean what he thinks they mean, but I cannot directly attack the experience itself.

Instead of hammering away by asking for scientific proofs, it would be better to offer another explanation for what happened -- one that had the same elements of experience, but a different underlying phenomenon. I am partial to the unconscious micro-gestures (hand clenching for example) that are paired with thoughts, although not specifically enough to do much good.

Good parallels might be had with a pendulum or a Quija board. "Here is the same phenomenon in a different form. Try it and see if the experience matches."

I also think there is the interaction with the auditor that makes a great deal of difference. It has to be reinforcing when you 1) pay to have it done and 2) have someone else there to boost your beliefs.

 

[dafydd]

So, for example, if I insisted that boiled peanuts taste great and desired that you too should partake of their goodness, fully expecting you would agree if you only tried them -- why would I desire to explore the complex nuances of taste receptors and the anatomy of the tongue?

How much would you charge me? $cientology charges quite a lot for their scam.

 

[dafydd]

. On what basis can I claim his experiences are wrong?

A total lack of scientific evidence. $cientology has never cured cancer. When my daughter was seven she was diagnosed with brain cancer and I took her to a good neurosurgeon, I didn't hook her up to an emeter and let some $cientology nut talk to her. Why are you bending over backwards to defend this wacko cult?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

If I already think I have a "true thing" I would expect science to validate it.

Yes you would. Which leads again to the question of why Justinian is so terrified of even entertaining the idea.

But I don't have to arrive at the truth by way of science, and, from his perspective, why bother?

In other words, the believer thinks they are a better measuring instrument for truth than either you, or the scientific method.

And they're wrong. The scientific method is, to date, the only means of determining reality which has been proven to work.

It's also what L. Ron Hubbard claimed Scientology was based on. That's why it's named after it.

Good parallels might be had with a pendulum or a Quija board. "Here is the same phenomenon in a different form. Try it and see if the experience matches."

Why? That's still a lie. Say Justinian and his auditor try a pendulum and discover that it can work just as well as an e-meter. Then they just have an additional tool with which they can reinforce their already held beliefs. Nothing has changed.

However, in this particular case, what we have is a piece of electronic equipment which, it is claimed, works on scientifically-proven principles. If Justinian can demonstrate that this is true, then I will happily re-assess the e-meter. That's what science, scepticism and reason are all about - going where the empirical evidence points. But if he can't and he'll stop poking his head in the sand long enough to consider why there isn't any scientific verification for these supposedly scientific claims, and why he's so scared of even entertaining the thought of subjecting these claims to any kind of empirical testing then, perhaps, something might change.

But Justinian is pretty well immersed in it all, and is extremely unlikely to be able to look at any of his beliefs or claims in anything approaching an objective manner. On the other hand, there may be lurkers reading this thread. Who knows, one of them may have thought at some time about trying Scientology, or may even have gone for the free introductory "mood test", or whatever they call it. If they read this thread, it'd be good for them to see the facts being presented by those arguing with Justinian and be able to observe his lack of objectivity, inability and unwillingness to engage on even slightly challenging topics, and utter inability to provide any science to back up the fundamental pseudo-scientific claims underpinning his faith. After reading this thread they'll be far less likely to become a Scientologist.

 

[shuttlt]

The thing is, they don't really need or desire anything more fundamental than their own experience. So, for example, if I insisted that boiled peanuts taste great and desired that you too should partake of their goodness, fully expecting you would agree if you only tried them -- why would I desire to explore the complex nuances of taste receptors and the anatomy of the tongue?

That isn't really a fair comparison though. I might like boiled peanuts, you might prefer Surströmming, we're all good. Your preference doesn't diminish my enjoyment of peanuts. This misses something about religions though. Each religion makes claims that are incomparable with other religions. People who prefer peanuts to Surströmming don't generally believe that the Surströmming fanciers are wrong.

If you want to reduce the claims of religion in general, and Scientology in particular to being like liking Surströmming. You enjoy it, I don't, but it doesn't matter because none of us actually believe we are making objective claims about the world, then fine, but I don't think that is actually what most of the religious people who come here actually believe.

This stems from the idea that science illuminates true things. If I already think I have a "true thing" I would expect science to validate it. But I don't have to arrive at the truth by way of science, and, from his perspective, why bother?

Why then come to a sceptical forum?

Here is a ham-handed illustration. I have a tree in my front yard. Should I desire to prove to you the tree exists, I would want you to see, touch, maybe even taste it. I would rely on you being pretty much the same sort of being I am and that you would agree, after the experience, that the tree exists. Science could come into it, but only if I were trying to prove something of a general class without having the tree to offer you. I would fully expect any scientific study to demonstrate what I've said about the tree and would have to reject a study that didn't. My experience trumps other methods of obtaining knowledge.

Generally if your beliefs are well founded Science will agree with them. If Science persistently disagrees with your beliefs you might want to take a step back and have a think about whether you are absolutely sure. I mean, if you thought the experiment would validate your beliefs, but it didn't, you are clearly wrong about your beliefs in some way, or the experiment would have worked... no?