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

[Crocoshark]

Describing it that way is assuming Scientology.

My apologies than, I did not intend for it to come across that way. I put "reactive mind" in quotes and described the believers personal/subjective experience.

How can you say fiction should be considered science?!

I've never said fiction should be considered science.

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.

Coming from everything else you know about Hubbard and Scientology, and from never believing it in the first place, and from never feeling like it helped you and people you know, that sounds very reasonable.

But to somebody who feels Scientology has helped them and people they know and personally thinks that some of the stuff he wrote is really observant, can you not see how it just sounds like you're saying "Once a fiction writer they can never be anything but a fiction writer, everything he said is fiction because I said so."?

This is an argument about what is a good, persuasive argument.

It's similar with your boxer analogy. While I agree you have a valid comparison, to the Scientologist this is a boxer that they've been punched good by. They know the boxer's not part of any clubs and may even agree how skinny he looks, but in their heads they're going "They can clearly throw a punch, the system is just prejudiced against them."

I think non-Scientologists would do a lot better discussing research in false memories, the placebo effect and all the problems with anecdotal evidence rather than repeating "Well, he wrote science fiction novels." ad nauseum.

Hubbard invented "reactive mind" as a term in a science fiction magazine.

As for the reactive mind, I went years looking at the reactive mind as barely different from things we already knew about negative associations and memories. That's why I made this thread with one of the purposes being to get people to rub in my face the differences between the reactive mind and actual science.

You asked about how you would tell a newcomer to Scientology why it isn't science.

Actually, my scenario is more about explaining to a believer why it's not science. That's why I've been so hard on arguments that a believer would not buy for a second. When non-Scientologists and Ex-Scientologists can't even agree on Hubbard's mindset, I think it's best to just argue from the position that he didn't know how science works and responded to rejection like the immature and paranoid conspiracy theoriest he was when he got criticized. The discussion of Hubbard's intentions I feel has too much subjectivity and controversy in it to be a good argument.

You can tell L. Ron Hubbard is a liar, a con man, within moments of knowing his basic story line.

Could you clarify what you're referring to as his basic story line? Just so I know we're thinking of the same thing.

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,

I didn't think I was contemptuous of that.

Actually, I don't think that subject has really been discussed in this thread.

We should not say criminal behavior is a huge red flag to whether something is science?!

Are you referring to church scandals or omnipresent manipulative traits?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

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.

Nope. I referred to operation clambake where you can get the coroner's entire report and lots of other stuff.

See if you can find operation clambake.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I've never said fiction should be considered science.

You've deployed a premise that something fictional is science until proven otherwise, when its fictional nature alone is sufficient for declaring it unscientific.

But to somebody who feels Scientology has helped them and people they know and personally thinks that some of the stuff he wrote is really observant, can you not see how it just sounds like you're saying "Once a fiction writer they can never be anything but a fiction writer, everything he said is fiction because I said so."?

Science says so, not me. Fictional things are not the subject of science. Not because "I said so". You seem to be oblivious to the fact Hubbard declared it a religion. Religions are based on faith, not evidence and reason. So there is no more need be said on that score too, and not because "I said so".

You've described a person susceptible to cult indoctrination. You've used a cult defense mechanism, the straw man argument, to defend the cult.

That is exactly what you will get to all three pages of your paper. We see it here relentlessly. Someone already in the spell of the cult - it requires something different from this whole approach. Like isolating them away from the cult, ie deprogramming methods that fight the manipulative hold they have on the people. After you have been with sane people for a while, Scientologists will seem like crazy people.

, I think it's best to just argue from the position that he didn't know how science works

That would be a lie. He went to college. He knew what science was. Why is there a need to lie?

The discussion of Hubbard's intentions I feel has too much subjectivity and controversy in it to be a good argument.

You obviously have a problem with the moral character of science. I am trying to figure out why you object to this so strongly.

You don't seem to mind scientology lying through their teeth about Hubbard's education, his training, his whole life - to make him out to be superman. Scientologists get you to believe in his theories by lying to you about his education and experience. Saying this is irrelevant is preposterous. You cannot use his fake credentials to validate his work, then deny the truth about those fake credentials to invalidate it.

So it is okay to fabricate "credentials" - no problem there, Scientology is loud, loud, loud about how incredible L. Ron Hubbard is. Nuclear physicist, etc. But to tell the TRUTH about those lies - oh, that's awful. Not a good argument.

So he remains the nuclear physicist, pioneer explorer, military commander, master of art, poetry, philosophy - no place where he had not contributed mightily...

So that we have no question as to the validity of the "reactive mind". Because it came from the great scientist, L. Ron Hubbard. That is begging the question.

 

[Crocoshark]

So it is okay to fabricate "credentials" - no problem there, Scientology is loud, loud, loud about how incredible L. Ron Hubbard is. Nuclear physicist, etc. But to tell the TRUTH about those lies - oh, that's awful. Not a good argument.

So he remains the nuclear physicist, pioneer explorer, military commander, master of art, poetry, philosophy - no place where he had not contributed mightily...

So that we have no question as to the validity of the "reactive mind". Because it came from the great scientist, L. Ron Hubbard. That is begging the question.

That is not how Scientologists get you to believe in his theories. You are waaaay over-estimating how much Scientologists believe based on Hubbard's biography. and way oversimplifying why Scientologists believe.

Scientologists get you to believe selling you "What's true is what's true for you." and having you try something yourself. When the person feels better they are more prone to believe the theory behind it is correct. They use testimonials of OT abilities, past life memories and endless ways people feel their lives were changed by auditing. Doing training routines over and over also influences people to believe.

Hubbard gets people to believe by using means such as stretching out unoriginal or common sense ideas into mind blowing revelations, instilling doubt and confusion about everything else humans have written in the opening of almost anything he writes, talking about himself as if he were some unnamed scientific organization and . . .

. . . Honestly, I've only read the first few chapters of any of his books because his writing makes me want to throw the book against a wall.

You've deployed a premise that something fictional is science until proven otherwise, when its fictional nature alone is sufficient for declaring it unscientific.

I've declared a premise of rebutting somebody that already believes it's science.

On the subject of the reactive mind I only wanted to spark a discussion of how the idea of the re4active mind differs from actual science, since Hubbard has a habit of re-naming common ideas with his own jargon, and I'd gone years thinking the reactive mind didn't sound that different from non-Scientology ideas to me. It would probably would've been better to explain why I had this POV in the OP.

Science says so, not me.

Science does not say "X is not science because of the profession of the person producing the claims.". It says something is not science because there is no proper experimentation behind the claims.

The youngest person to get a research paper published in a peer reviewed medical journal is a 9 year old named Emily Rosa.

You've described a person susceptible to cult indoctrination.

I was describing a Scientologist so . . . .

You've used a cult defense mechanism, the straw man argument, to defend the cult.

I wasn't using it as a defense of Scientology. That was not the point of what said. I asked you whether or not you can see how your argument looks weak to someone from a perspective other than your own.

That is exactly what you will get to all three pages of your paper. We see it here relentlessly. Someone already in the spell of the cult - it requires something different from this whole approach. Like isolating them away from the cult, ie deprogramming methods that fight the manipulative hold they have on the people. After you have been with sane people for a while, Scientologists will seem like crazy people.

You're right. While I do not support "deprogramming" (at least not the forcible kind), the only way to break the shell is to expand someone's worldview and social circles, to knock their mind into the larger world where people have meaning and success in their lives without the need for faith-based myopia. That is to say, for someone head over heels committed.

I had a Scientology phase as a kid before I moved onto other subjects and my mind expanded elsewhere. I still thought of myself as a Scientologist but it was a non-practicing one who mostly watched cartoons and documentaries on TV.

The three pages I wrote are part of what helped wedge me away from Scientology.

You obviously have a problem with the moral character of science.

. . . What?

 

[marplots]

Nope. I referred to operation clambake where you can get the coroner's entire report and lots of other stuff.

See if you can find operation clambake.

I'll take your word for it. It appears I was arguing about something you'd already moved past and given good evidence to support. Entirely my error.

 

[MuDPhuD]

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.



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



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.

Yes, it's a great sedative, not so good of an antipsychotic.
"Antihistamine" is a drug class, and the effects are much more wide ranging than curing stuffy noses. Antihistamines, as you rightly suggest are very sedating, and by the way also used to treat dyspepsia (Pepcid,Zantac, etc.). Their antipsychotic uses are limited, and that was my point. Someone was suggesting he was given an antipsychotic, and my point is simply that the drug used is more likely given as a sedative.

I think the coroners point was that the patient was unable to communicate. When a patient appears conscious but does not respond to voice, the next trick is to check if they are able to respond to written instructions (to read).

Honestly, your style is unnecessarily condescending.

 

[Waterman]

Let’s step back I think that what Croc is trying to get at is: What is the observation that allows people to buy into as Scientology and he is focusing on the concept of the reactive mind. Never mind that their promotional materials are fairly overt that if you are a ‘failure’ it is not your fault, is the ‘repressives’ in your life. For only a pittance you can be a successful person by learning what we know.

This is like people feeling better after going to a chiropractor. Yes they feel better but not for the reasons that they think. They have had a focused attention of a trusted ‘medical’ professional and a massage. Who wouldn’t feel somewhat better? However it didn’t have ANYTHING to do with subluxations.

I think that what is getting lost in the discussion is the choice to use the phrase ‘reactive mind’ (see subluxations above). The reactive mind is terminology steeped in Scientology and hard to extract from the rest of the BS that permeates it.

Even less complex brains than humans can be trained to associate stimuli with positive or negative events (Pavlov’s Dog). These associations and be created or modified in many ways, by training, awareness, time or by accident. Specific sensory input can trigger memories of significant events, a song, a smell, a phrase, an image, an item. That is a nugget of reality. What the reactive mind ‘theory’ (please note quotations) does is to create reasonable sounding practice and assigns cause and effect without validation. Then using this unvalidated theory to speculate even further into the underlying mechanisms that is then packaged a universal truth.

It is like the shaman’s concoction of herbs, smoke and ceremony. There may actually be an active ingredient in one of the herbs that has a positive effect on the condition. However that does not mean that his chants to the forest spirit were answered.

 

[Donn]

Science does not say "X is not science because of the profession of the person producing the claims.". It says something is not science because there is no proper experimentation behind the claims.

The youngest person to get a research paper published in a peer reviewed medical journal is a 9 year old named Emily Rosa.

I don't know about the mind, but I'd think the peer-reviewed paper than Emily produced is a watershed between science and fiction.

It does not matter how well some adherents feel after auditing, that's all basic human self-deception and ego. What matters is one question: "Did Hubbard lie in his many claims to scientific rigour?"

Seems to me he did.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

That is not how Scientologists get you to believe in his theories.

Scientologists, and Scientology itself disagrees with you. You did that with all of the high-level Scientology drivel too. You don't get to have your own definition of Scientology and its practices, cutting out what you don't like or don't want to deal with.

One of the things you have either a capacity for on your own or have learned with Scientology is how to argue disingenuously.

Wild exaggerations about Hubbard's credentials and accomplishments are ONE of the manipulative ways of ensnaring victims.

Scientologists get you to believe selling you "What's true is what's true for you."

I see them quoting it as an exact tautology: "What's true for you is true for you".

I can be just as disingenuous and say that you are oversimplifying why people are Scientologists. There is a battery of cult mind programming tactics they use. Like tautologies.

They use testimonials of OT abilities,

And those are lies too, so here we are with you using lies to validate Scientology, but nobody can say they are lies. Lies about L. Ron Hubbard's education and experience plus lies about what Scientology can do.

Science is not based on lies. You continue to object to lies not being part of science when it is about the most essential thing of all: truth.

You have agreed with me here:

Hubbard gets people to believe by using means such as stretching out unoriginal or common sense ideas into mind blowing revelations, instilling doubt and confusion about everything else humans have written in the opening of almost anything he writes, talking about himself as if he were some unnamed scientific organization and . . .

Exactly as I have been saying. It may not have been important to you but Hubbard and Scientology sure as hell have made it important to them.

. . . Honestly, I've only read the first few chapters of any of his books because his writing makes me want to throw the book against a wall.

So the way to learn about something is not to read about it. That's why you are such an expert? Because you don't read Scientology literature?

Science does not say "X is not science because of the profession of the person producing the claims."

Disingenuous straw man. I said no such thing, nor does Science.

Science requires reason. It is a requisite for even discussing science. You insist implicitly that we should abandon reason before we even begin to discuss Science.

Simple reason dictates lies cannot be taken as truth. You object to that strenuously. So you are susceptible to indoctrination and you need to train yourself out of that.

The youngest person to get a research paper published in a peer reviewed medical journal is a 9 year old named Emily Rosa.

Which you use for exactly the wrong purpose. Unlike Hubbard, she published in a Science journal. She made up nothing. She lied about nothing.

It is a deceptive way to say what happened too. Because she was coached from the outset by her mother, a Registered Nurse, who was on a campaign against "Thereputic Touch". So she had her daughter do a 4th grade science experiment.

From there, a professional organization took up the project. Stephen Barret, MD was senior author. Her mother and father were lead author and statistician. They did their own experiments, and the girl had nothing to do with it.

So there were three co-authors. All with REAL professional credentials, who wrote the paper in the journal, and the girl was referenced as a contributor. I'd say that's fair.

Pretending the girl came up out of the blue with a peer-reviewed medical journal is a lie. We call it lie by omission, but it is a lie just the same. And I keep telling you that lying is a huge red flag to anti-science. You are making a patently anti-science argument by lying here.

The purpose of the lie is to make it sound plausible that L. Ron Hubbard could, like this 9 year old girl, sit down and write out a peer-reviewed science publication. Except neither one of them did that.

I asked you whether or not you can see how your argument looks weak to someone from a perspective other than your own.

I don't give a ****. I have been teaching and coaching since 1974. You don't ask the students to tell you what a weak argument is.

We can say the same thing about every line in that three-page paper: your arguments look weak to a committed Scientologist.

You're right. While I do not support "deprogramming" (at least not the forcible kind), the only way to break the shell is to expand someone's worldview and social circles, to knock their mind into the larger world where people have meaning and success in their lives without the need for faith-based myopia. That is to say, for someone head over heels committed.

By embracing this kind of wording throughout, you prove the point: your three pages aren't going to de-program anyone. So please do not be so hypocritical and insist nobody else is allowed any other "scientific" criticism of Scientology.

Like insisting we can't point out lying. That lying is anti-science. You have an amazing aversion to that.

We have a word called "elegant" in science. It means the shortest proof is the best. It isn't going to be three pages. Lying is enough. Hubbard is lying about Scientology. My goodness, if his lips were moving, he was lying.

I had a Scientology phase as a kid before I moved onto other subjects and my mind expanded elsewhere. I still thought of myself as a Scientologist but it was a non-practicing one who mostly watched cartoons and documentaries on TV.

The three pages I wrote are part of what helped wedge me away from Scientology.

So there is only one way people gain insight? Your way? I accept this was right for you, but with the strong objection you were not a Scientologist.

. . . What?

Exactly. I know you don't get this. The morality of science.

 

[carlitos]

My apologies than, I did not intend for it to come across that way. I put "reactive mind" in quotes and described the believers personal/subjective experience.
I've never said fiction should be considered science.
Coming from everything else you know about Hubbard and Scientology, and from never believing it in the first place, and from never feeling like it helped you and people you know, that sounds very reasonable.

But to somebody who feels Scientology has helped them and people they know and personally thinks that some of the stuff he wrote is really observant, can you not see how it just sounds like you're saying "Once a fiction writer they can never be anything but a fiction writer, everything he said is fiction because I said so."?

No one said this. Cut it out please. ABP mentioned that "reactive mind" was coined by fiction writer, L Ron Hubbard, while he was writing in a Science Fiction magazine. You are not saying that "fiction should be considered science," but you might research and comment on the origin of the term you are writing about. Thanks.

 

[Crocoshark]

Exactly. I know you don't get this. The morality of science.

Why should I respond to anything you say if you pull this condescending crap? The sentence of mine that you responded to had NOTHING to do with the morality of science. That came out of *********** nowhere. When I say "What" that means "What the hell are you even talking about" and "where does your out of the blue nonsense even come from?"

I absolutely do NOT see science as immoral. "What?" was the most civilized response I could give, inviting you to actually EXPLAIN yourself but you didn't get hint.

I'm getting so sick of your strawmanning and word twisting. There's nothing I can say that you won't twist into something I NEVER SAID.

Stop that BS and I'll actually respond to the rest of your post. Needless to say, it had other examples of twisting my meaning to the worst possible interpretation. This example is just the worst.

 

[HarryHenderson]

...I absolutely do NOT see science as immoral...

Pro tip, that's not what he meant.

 

[Crocoshark]

Then he should've just explained himself. That was the invitation of my "What".

His comment that I object to the "moral character" of science sounded like saying I had a problem with science's moral character.

I assume he meant the issue of lying?

Obviously lying is bad. I just said that because it's easier to talk about someone's actions and claims (he gave no evidence, his claim has these problems) than intentions, I personally prefer focus on the former

 

[Crocoshark]

You did that with all of the high-level Scientology drivel too.

To be specific on that point, I made this thread to discuss the concept of the reactive mind, and Scientology's idea of what it means to be "scientific" and the ways in which these things differ from actual science.

I did not make this thread to be about the aspects of Scientology other than the ones I listed; namely OT III materials and L. Ron Hubbard's character.

Wild exaggerations about Hubbard's credentials and accomplishments are ONE of the manipulative ways of ensnaring victims.

Fair enough. My opinion is that's not the number one or two way, as I've not heard Scientologists I live with describe it when relating why they believe, but I'll concede to this..

I see them quoting it as an exact tautology: "What's true for you is true for you".

Actually I see it the same way. It's kind of just an observation on what people do anyway. But it also gets use when I bring up things I've read online. "Ignore what anyone else says and just do what works for you." (Of course, if Scientology doesn't work for you they have plenty of evaluations as to why the problem was not the tech)

There is a battery of cult mind programming tactics they use. Like tautologies.

That was my own point, yes.

And those are lies too,

It's perfectly possible for people to believe they've had supernatural experiences without being deliberately dishonest.

so here we are with you using lies to validate Scientology,

I'm not using anything to validate Scientology, you keep acting like I'm trying to validate Scientology.

So the way to learn about something is not to read about it.

That's not what I meant or said. The point of that sentence was admitting I DIDN'T know. You're twisting words and looking for confrontation.

That's why you are such an expert? Because you don't read Scientology literature?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on Scientology literature. That's not my argument. And it's not even in any part of your argument.

But I have sat through countless Scientology DVDs about Dianetics and other basic Scientology beliefs. And listened to Scientologists talk about their beliefs my entire life. Enough that reading the same beliefs stretched out over hundreds of pages is not easy for me.

Simple reason dictates lies cannot be taken as truth. You object to that strenuously.

No, I'm saying intent to deceive is not as knowable as simply discussing whether or not a claim has any support. Unless you have proof that someone knew what they were saying was false, it's a matter of inference and personal bias. For example;

You are making a patently anti-science argument by lying here.

See? This is exactly why you're not somebody I would trust to assess whether or not someone is lying.

The omission was on the part of the Guinness Book of World Records and other sources I've heard it from. I did not have the context you gave before you clarified it.

You don't ask the students to tell you what a weak argument is.

We're not student and teacher. We're two people arguing on the internet.

We can say the same thing about every line in that three-page paper: your arguments look weak to a committed Scientologist.

Fair enough.

By embracing this kind of wording throughout, you prove the point: your three pages aren't going to de-program anyone. So please do not be so hypocritical and insist nobody else is allowed any other "scientific" criticism of Scientology.

Fair enough.

So there is only one way people gain insight? Your way? I accept this was right for you, but with the strong objection you were not a Scientologist.

Also fair enough.

 

[Crocoshark]

I did not make this thread to be about the aspects of Scientology other than the ones I listed; namely OT III materials and L. Ron Hubbard's character.
.

My wording there's really awkward. By "namely" I'm naming the alternative topics I did not intend thread, not the ones I did.

I'd edit it but I'm passed the editing cut-off.

Also, I should clarify the reason for my initial objection, other than the above quote about me having specific ideas for the topic of this thread. I was objecting because your phrasing was a generalization and absolutist in nature.

A different comment, like this one;

What matters is one question: "Did Hubbard lie in his many claims to scientific rigour?"

Seems to me he did.

I have no problem with that. It's specific, and about a particular action rather than the sincerity of a thought, "Hubbard lied about scientific rigor.". And it's 99% certain. Nothing in that quote would I bother arguing against.

The phrasing of your original comment just struck me the wrong way.

My responses only give you fodder to extend this conversation longer rather than helping anything resolve. They've been phrased things in frustration rather than patience.

I would like to bring this to a close.

 

[carlitos]

Good choice.

 

[Marcus]

To be specific on that point, I made this thread to discuss the concept of the reactive mind, and Scientology's idea of what it means to be "scientific" and the ways in which these things differ from actual science.

I did not make this thread to be about the aspects of Scientology other than the ones I listed; namely OT III materials and L. Ron Hubbard's character.

A general scientology thread would be more useful. If one doesn't believe in the "reactive mind" or care what Scientology thinks is scientific, there is not much to talk about.

Normally thread drift would take care of this (you don't own the thread) but we seem to be bereft of anyone willing to defend Scientology and Lron.