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

[Crocoshark]

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

 

[ehcks]

Is it really possible to say that it "works" to claim that all negative symptoms are caused by the ghosts of aliens?

 

[Crocoshark]

Your sentence structure looks nonsensical to me.

But no Scientologist being asked to first try Scientology anywhere is ever being asked to do something involving the ghosts of dead aliens. Most Scientology courses have nothing to do with OT III materials and auditing below the level of "clear" has to do with ones own past traumas hidden in their "reactive mind".

Saying "Scientology=dead aliens" is like saying all anime is naughty tentacles.

I am talking about the actual majority of stuff Scientologists focus on, not just the sensational stuff.

 

[Fudbucker]

Your sentence structure looks nonsensical to me.

But no Scientologist being asked to first try Scientology anywhere is ever being asked to do something involving the ghosts of dead aliens. Most Scientology courses have nothing to do with OT III materials and auditing below the level of "clear" has to do with ones own past traumas hidden in their "reactive mind".

Saying "Scientology=dead aliens" is like saying all anime is naughty tentacles.

I am talking about the actual majority of stuff Scientologists focus on, not just the sensational stuff.

I'm all for challenging the status quo, but Scientology just could not survive the age of the internet, when Hubbard's "great revelation" was revealed to all:

"The head of the Galactic
Confederation (76 planets around
larger stars visible from here)
(founded 95,000,000 yrs ago, very space opera)
solved overpopulation (250 billion
or so per planet -- 178 billion on
average) by mass implanting.
He caused people to be brought to
Teegeeack (Earth) and put an H Bomb
on the principal volcanoes (Incident 2)
and then the Pacific area ones
were taken in boxes to Hawaii
and the Atlantic Area ones to
Las Palmas and there "packaged."
His name was Xenu. He used
renegades. Various misleading
data by means of circuits etc.
was placed in the implants.
When through with his crime Loyal Officers
(to the people) captured him
after 6 years of battle
and put him in an electronic
mountain trap where he still
is. "They" are gone. The place (Confed.)
has since been a desert.
https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/OTIII/

Maybe Scientology got some things right by accident, but any theory that has that ^^ as its foundation will be rejected by rational people. It's just way too loopy.

 

[Crocoshark]

So you're saying that without the OT III material Scientology would be totally scientific?

Great news, I'll tell the world that aside from the BS creation myth/OT III material Scientology is totally not a pseudoscience and is completely scientific.


Yeah

This was supposed to be a discussion about the logic I discussed in the OP about what supposedly made Scientology scientific. It's actual claims aren't even relevant.

I'm

Trying

To

Discuss

The

Definition

Of

Science

Scientologists

Use.


Can't people talk about ANYTHING on this subject OTHER than the few points that have been beaten to death?

 

[William Parcher]

Most Scientology courses have nothing to do with OT III materials and auditing below the level of "clear" has to do with ones own past traumas hidden in their "reactive mind".

This is incoherent gibberish to me. Your OP seems mostly incoherent as well and I can't identify any understandable question that you may be asking.

My understanding is that Scientology is a religion. I would not expect scientific claims to come from a religion and would instead refer to such things as religious proclamations.

When a Catholic priest says "The body of Christ" when he hands you a communion wafer is he making a pseudoscientific claim, or is that instead a religious proclamation?

 

[thaiboxerken]

What scientific journals do scientology hypothesis and theories appea?

 

[William Parcher]

I'm

Trying

To

Discuss

The

Definition

Of

Science

Scientologists

Use.


Can't people talk about ANYTHING on this subject OTHER than the few points that have been beaten to death?

Is this really Devil's Advocacy or is it trolling?

 

[Fudbucker]

So you're saying that without the OT III material Scientology would be totally scientific?

Great news, I'll tell the world that aside from the BS creation myth/OT III material Scientology is totally not a pseudoscience and is completely scientific.


Yeah

This was supposed to be a discussion about the logic I discussed in the OP about what supposedly made Scientology scientific. It's actual claims aren't even relevant.

I'm

Trying

To

Discuss

The

Definition

Of

Science

Scientologists

Use.


Can't people talk about ANYTHING on this subject OTHER than the few points that have been beaten to death?

No, I'm saying the whole concept of "auditing" is ********, which totally didn't surprise me based on Hubbard's ******* crazy theories and cult-of-personality worship.

Sounds you have an axe to grind. Good luck with that.

 

[Crocoshark]

Scientologists introduce Scientology by introducing Scientology counseling (called auditing) to get rid of traumatic memories of pain and unconscious (called engrams, these memories make up what Scientologists call the reactive mind). Scientology auditing comes with a bunch of rules about how to run people through chains of similar painful memories.

They introduce "assists" like the "touch assist" where someone touches you closer and closer to an injured area and after enough repetition that's supposedly causes the pain to go away, or have practical exercises that are supposed to make you more aware and alert.

The first course they introduce is the communication course which involves "training routines" that are supposed to increase your communication skills.

Scientology has a bunch of courses on everything from marriage to work that are supposed to help you in those areas.

Scientologists say these things are what separate it from other religions; they have techniques applicable to the improvement of oneself and one's life. They say the techniques were thoroughly tested by Hubbard and tell newcomers to try the techniques themselves as proof that it works. They say Hubbard's research and the testing of it by newcomers is what makes it science.

 

[ehcks]

Scientologists introduce Scientology by introducing Scientology counseling (called auditing) to get rid of traumatic memories of pain and unconscious (called engrams, these memories make up what Scientologists call the reactive mind).

These memories being the memories of the brainwashed alien ghosts. Not the person's memories.

 

[Crocoshark]

Is this really Devil's Advocacy or is it trolling?

This is personal frustration that I grew up in Scientology and can't talk to non-Scientologists about any aspect of it other than OT III materials and all the bad stuff the church did.

 

[Crocoshark]

These memories being the memories of the brainwashed alien ghosts. Not the person's memories.

If you don't know what the concept of the reactive mind in Dianetics is this thread was not aimed at you.

I just told you what the reactive mind is. They are your own pain and unconsciousness. There are body thetans added on later but Scientologists begin by looking at their OWN memories, and do so until they are supposedly "clear".

 

[ehcks]

If you don't know what the Scientology concept of the reactive mind is this thread was not aimed at you.

Everyone knows the story behind Scientology at this point, even though the story also says that everyone who knows it without proper training will die.

Arguing that auditing has benefits is like arguing that faith healing has benefits.

 

[Crocoshark]

No, I'm saying the whole concept of "auditing" is ********, which totally didn't surprise me based on Hubbard's ******* crazy theories and cult-of-personality worship.

Sounds you have an axe to grind. Good luck with that.

You said the creation myth in Scientology is ********, which I'm not arguing.

I wanted to talk about one aspect of Scientology, other people only want to talk about another. I do have an axe to grind about the inability to cross this divide.

 

[Sherman Bay]

What scientific journals do scientology hypothesis and theories appea?

What's an "appea"?

 

[ehcks]

You said the creation myth in Scientology is ********, which I'm not arguing.

I wanted to talk about one aspect of Scientology, other people only want to talk about another. I do have an axe to grind about the inability to cross this divide. Yes.

Okay then, next step. The galvanic response test is meaningless. You can get exactly the same effect by finding an old analog ohmmeter and holding the two terminals. You can move the pointer by squeezing them harder.

It's even less useful than a polygraph test.

 

[Crocoshark]

Everyone knows the story behind Scientology at this point, even though the story also says that everyone who knows it without proper training will die.

Arguing that auditing has benefits is like arguing that faith healing has benefits.

I didn't say people didn't know the creation story of Scientology. I said you didn't know the definition of the "reactive mind", which is separate and can be critiqued and debunked on its own right.

It's like if you wanted to have a discussion about faith healing and all people would talk about is the ******** of the old testament. Yes they're both ******** but they are also separate.

I'm not arguing that auditing has benefits, I'm trying to discuss WHY it's ********. More specifically, I'm gave Scientologists idea of what makes something scientific and wanted to ask people what was wrong with that particular argument. And JUST that argument.

 

[Crocoshark]

What scientific journals do scientology hypothesis and theories appea?

Thank you.

This is a response to my actual discussion topic.

 

[ehcks]

It's like if you wanted to have a discussion about faith healing and all people would talk about is the ******** of the old testament. Yes they're both ******** but they are also separate.

They're not, though. Faith healing is the belief that if you pray to God hard enough, he'll heal you. But there is not God.

You're talking about about a belief system wherein brainwashed alien ghosts infect humans and cause mental trauma, but you can remove them with special training. You're tying to skip all that and just say that just the training itself is useful. It's not, because we're not infected with alien ghosts.