Food for thought

Malcolm X, at the Audubon December 13, 1964:

“One of the best ways to safeguard yourself from being deceived is always to form the habit of looking at things for yourself, listening to things for yourself, thinking for yourself, before you try and come to any judgment. Never base your impression of someone on what someone else has said. Or upon what someone else has written. Or upon what you read about someone that somebody else wrote. Never base your judgment on things like that. Especially in this kind of country and in this kind of society which has mastered the art of very deceitfully painting people whom they don’t like in an image that they know you won’t like. So you end up hating your friends and loving your enemies.”

Advertisements

49 responses to “Food for thought

  1. “Never base your impression of someone on what someone else has said. Or upon what someone else has written. ” Is the message of Malcolm X.

    Do you find any irony in quoting that statement ? This is the type of advice that “sounds good” when you hear it. If it becomes some sort of doctrine or a strict rule to live by, you would not even be able to admire or disagree with Malcolm X.

    If it is taken to an extreme, all history is invalidated, and you are left only with “what is true for you”. The wisdom of another era would be lost simply because you never met the person who saw fit to record the event for prosperity, and leaves only the people you are in contact with as authorities.

    There is truth in the statement. Last night I left this comment on your old articles about “Anonymous UK”:

    Listening to the phone call I didn’t hear many of the things you mention.

    The young man was not rude, he did not threaten to do anything to you except expose you if you try to hurt people.

    You say “He had no clue who Mahalia Jackson was” when in fact he said he had listened to her.

    You say:
    “I told him the only group I knew of that covertly threatened people for peacefully practicing a religion or philosophy – and who took great pains to not identify themselves – was the KKK. ” – But that is also not true, you did not say anything like that.

    You also say: “two emails from people identifying themselves as Anonymous affiliated my computer contracted spyware and crashed.”

    Those two things are things we have heard before about Anonymous. That they are “hackers, and equal to the K.K.K.” those are false claims made by the Church of Scientology.

    Further it appears to me that you still enjoy claiming to be a victim like the all the past and current spokesmen for Scientology.

    And to close your phone conversation you stated what is true for you, is this article you wrote still “true for you”? now that a recording of that conversation can be heard by anyone in multiple places on the internet ?

    Malcolm X continued:

    “Especially in this kind of country and in this kind of society which has mastered the art of very deceitfully painting people whom they don’t like in an image that they know you won’t like.”

    So he followed his generalization of not listening to people you don’t know, by making a blanket statement about how the country that he lives in is “only out to get people”. – Perhaps that is the same idea as LRH’s “Chaos Merchant” from “Scientology Zero” ? IMO, this is the type of thought that segregates groups of people from the rest of society. And leads to the thinking that encourags the label given by Malcolm X when calling people “blue eyed devils” .

    “For me, my ‘X’ replaced the white slavemaster name of ‘Little’ which some blue-eyed devil named Little had imposed upon my paternal forebears.” — Malcom X

    It seems in the above quote Malcom X seemed to violate his own advice of “Never base your impression of someone on what someone else has said. ” He was unaware of the conditions that he was “renamed” and came to the conclusion of what was true for him. It is very possible that his assumption was entirely correct, however it was still an assumption.

  2. That’s exactly the reason why most Scientologists don’t act and demand an end of the human rights violations perpetrated by DM. They have read the SP times article and the stories of abuse, but they say that they won’t act, since they don’t have witnessed any of these abuses themselves and because there is no proof that what you say about DM is correct.

    • So you’re saying that you should believe every thing you read in the news papers and screw personal observation….

      So when do you expect them to find those WMDs in Iraq that the NYT reported existed?

    • No you said and I quote: “That’s exactly the reason why most Scientologists don’t act and demand an end of the human rights violations perpetrated by DM. They have read the SP times article and the stories of abuse, but they say that they won’t act, since they don’t have witnessed any of these abuses themselves and because there is no proof that what you say about DM is correct.”

      What you seem to be saying is that Scientologists should just accept what the Times says with out evaluating their own personal experience.

      The reason that the article resonates with many of us is because we’ve experienced much of what Marty and others have said ourselves. Not because the SP Times published the article.

      This may come as a surprise but News Papers don’t always publish the truth.

      • That’s only what i SEEM to be saying to you, but in fact i didn’t say that.

      • I am beginning to understand why DM kicked you and Mr. Rathbun out, considering that you so severely lack the ability to understand and duplicate, what is being said.

    • LOL!!!!!!

      Anonymous you’re hysterical man!

      That’s good.

      I owe ya one 🙂

  3. It’s quite ironic how anonymous likes to say “we’re not your personal army” yet are expecting it from Marty?
    Thank you Marty for speaking out . I do hope that you’ve only touched the tip of the iceberg and that much more will be divulged to stop the human rights abuses in the COS. However, it is not my decision as to when you do this – you’re not my personal army and I as anonymous do not demand this of you.

  4. Marty,

    I answered your question, you deleted it.

  5. Pingback: Delted debate on MR's Blog - Why We Protest | Activism Forum

  6. Marty, you wrote in your 31 Factors Article…

    >Scientology is valuable to the many when studied and practiced in a sane environment. To allow it to be destroyed by the driven greed of a sociopath would be to condone a travesty. Scientology practiced in accordance with Hubbard’s Code of a Scientologist, Credo of a True Group Member, and the Creed of the Church can contribute something vital to society.

    How do you reconcile the writings of Hubbard with the Malcom X quote you have just provided?

    Things are not true if someone “believes” they are. Things are true if they can be demonstrated to be true.

    With that in mind, consider Scientology. Why are there no studies put forth that show Scientology has a positive effect on eyesight, IQ, the immune system, etc.

    I can tell you, that with my science background (BSc Biochemistry), it’d be fairly easy to prove that Scientology in fact improved eyesight. Simply have 100 people have an eye exam and then follow it up after a year in Scientology.

    Why is this sort of work not done? Wouldn’t it be the ultimate nail in the coffin for everyone who is critical of Scientology? Wouldn’t hard evidence bring in scores of people?

    Isn’t the fact that there is no objective, proven evidence on any of the claims of Scientology the real proof here?

    • There was already a series of psychometric testing that was conducted at the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation in 1951 which included the ‘California Test for Personality’ , the ‘Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) ‘ and the ‘Taylor-Johnson Temperament Analysis (T-JTA) ‘ that all showed a significant improvement in the scores of individuals who received Dianetic Processing which were basically refuted or ignored by the Psychiatric and Psychological establishment.

      For over twenty years the CIA and other intelligence agencies conducted research into Remote Viewing based on Scientology technology. Again producing significant results that again were either refuted or ignored by the “scientific” establishment.

      I’m sure if they found someone whose eyesight improved through Scientology or Dianetics they’d do as they’ve pretty much always done. Refute or ignore the prima facie evidence, because they’ve already concluded prior to any testing that Scientology has very little redeeming value.

      • Logical Mind

        There was? I’d be very interested in reading those papers. If they are not available, could you tell me what the hypothesis was, how the tests were conducted and by what party the study was conducted. Also, the conclusions that were reached.

        From your description, as a scientist I see three key problems with your description of the study.

        1) The study was performed by an interested party. For anyone who knows anything about scientific papers, the appearance of bias is a killer. With the element of bias, it’s easy to contend that the results were manipulated.

        2) I know little about the psychological field, however I can tell you that even today, psychology is a pseudo-science. We don’t get consistent results and we don’t have “facts” per se in regards to elements of the mind. The biochemistry is a different matter however, but I digress. As such, I would find that the confirmation or rejection of any study back in the 1950’s suspect. I’d need recent studies to actually accept anyone’s position.

        3) In my research, I have found the “California Test for Personality” listed as questionable and discontinued in current literature. I have found the MMPI has gone revisions (Ie, it wasn’t correct at first revision) in 1989 and the T-JTA is at best a yardstick and does not delve into an individuals specific details. Therefore, one can only logically conclude that even if the study’s conclusions were valid in 1951, they are most certainly not valid today.

        RJ Said:
        I’m sure if they found someone whose eyesight improved through Scientology or Dianetics they’d do as they’ve pretty much always done. Refute or ignore the prima facie evidence, because they’ve already concluded prior to any testing that Scientology has very little redeeming value.

        I disagree and I do know as an individual person who has seen unlikely papers make it through, despite massive objections otherwise.

        If Scientology produced a well written, free from bias and completely air tight scientific paper, Scientists could not offhandedly reject it. This is a concept that isn’t really widely understood outside the scientific community.

        ===============================

        As for your conspiracy quote, I don’t think it holds water and I’ll tell you why. I hope you don’t take this the wrong way.

        Even if the studies were categorically denied by every single scientific journal that exists offhandedly, they would still provide an excellent read to Scientologists.

        Furthermore, rational and impartial people like myself would read these works and say “Wow, this has some actual logical methodology behind it.” Because up until now, I have found nothing that is remotely logical or scientific (ie, factual) that is associated with Scientology.

        For the cost of a lab, people and study, you’d have yourself one hell of a PR tool and something you can present to people one on one showing that scientology works.

        So, even in the worst case scneario, Scientology still benefits from the study.

        So, when I consider your argument that Scientology doesn’t do studies because of a conspiracy that occured in 1951 I have to logically disregard that statement, because if that was the primary reason, I’ve shown why it simply does not matter.

        RJ Wrote:
        For over twenty years the CIA and other intelligence agencies conducted research into Remote Viewing based on Scientology technology. Again producing significant results that again were either refuted or ignored by the “scientific” establishment.

        And yet “remote viewing” whatever that means is not a scientific principal today. Just because someone “researches” something does not mean it’s valid. The only time something becomes valid is when it’s proven to be true.

        Again, this is where unbiased, well reasoned and logical scientific papers are required for evidence. Again, this would be very easy to test and very cheap to do so. Have a skeptic place an item into a room and have scientologists go into that room and see the item. Tape record the whole thing.

        Yet this isn’t done. Why?

      • Aren’t the CIA experiments questionable also? Weren’t there a lot of criticisms about the setup of the experiment that could have revealed information to the scikicks? Weren’t there also budget and timeline concerns, conflicting interests, and an obvious motivation for the participants to be dishonest? Weren’t they looking to make a name for themself to sell their services later?

        I forget a lot of the details, it’s been awhile.. I did a quick google and found this, but I remember reading more convincing accounts other places.. work google around a little bit if you get curious, it’s interesting.

        http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html

      • Come on you like to one article in the septic dic which is about as reliable as Wikipedia which is about as reliable as Pravda during the glory days of the good ol’ USSR.

        Any way here’s a link that has more information than the dismissive crap that passes for “research” by the septical community:

        http://irvalibrary.com/

        Now go do some actual home work on the subject instead of just googling.

        Like…..maybe….(gasp) ….read a book or two.

      • Meh.. Google’s good enough for me.. Like you said, that’s sites sketchy, but there are others out there and they quote primary and secondary sources.

        That’s about all I’m interested in searching for now though…I used to believe in magic too, but I grew up. Trust me though, you’d see some other silly crap on my bookshelf that I bought into because I wanted to believe.

        If somebody’s making a buck off of a book.. well, conflicting interests, no?

    • Logical mind I’ll take two points of your argument here because I feel they are the most salient.

      LM: And yet “remote viewing” whatever that means is not a scientific principal today. Just because someone “researches” something does not mean it’s valid. The only time something becomes valid is when it’s proven to be true.

      I disagree a lot of the time it is not necessarily what is true but what is accepted as “true” by the Scientific Community.

      Remote Viewing is considered a paranormal phenomenon therefore falls out of the purview of orthodox Science. However it can be demonstrated statistically and in many cases objectively by seeing if the target described by the remote viewer is the target that has been selected. For example the target randomly selected was the Golden Gate Bridge and the viewer miles away describes the Golden Gate Bridge not the Houston Astrodome or something else it is considered a hit which is what occurred quite often during the program. No principle of why this would occur was ever devised.

      See the following link which will give you a list of articles on RV:

      http://mypeoplepc.com/members/catalyst/catalyst/id20.html

      Again, this is where unbiased, well reasoned and logical scientific papers are required for evidence. Again, this would be very easy to test and very cheap to do so. Have a skeptic place an item into a room and have scientologists go into that room and see the item. Tape record the whole thing.

      Yet this isn’t done. Why?

      The fact is this sort of thing was done many times to satisfy so called “skeptics” yet they either ignored the results or claimed they were fraudulently obtained.

      This is covered in the book Mind Reach by Targ and Puthoff

      CSICOP went as far as to conduct their own “independent” test by testing individuals who had no familiarity with the protocols devised for Remote Viewing and came to the “conclusion” which was a priori that the ability didn’t exist. In other words they set up the experiment to fail!

      See the following on one of its members:

      http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/rayhyman.html

      Yes it should be an easy thing just to prove the existence or even the possibility that such phenomena exist but it is not, because there are many individuals who wouldn’t believe it even it was true anyway.

  7. Marty,

    Thank you for stating that my post was deleted. I still feel a little out exchanged because you did promise something in return.

    Also thank you for not publishing my entire e-mail address.

    RJ

    In 1953 there was scientific testing done on Dianetics by Harvey Jay Ficsher (spelling) it was the only test on record at that time. according to NYU Library.

    http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/fischer/index.html

    It tested Dianetics on 36 subjects. there is a link above. and below is breif info:

    Transcriber’s notes:

    This paper is the only formal scientific study of dianetic therapy in existence. I designed the pages to be easily read as hypertext (HTML 3.2) and to be reproducible on standard-sized paper (U.S. and Europe). I have preserved the author’s formatting wherever possible. I know of only 2 “hard” copies in existence. My copy originated from the deteriorating microfiche owned by the NYU library.

    if you have a link to the 1951 test could you please post it.

    • Thanks Jim for the link to the 1953 paper.

      I’m going to be a stickler on both sides, as it’s the only fair way.

      1) The paper uses a very small sample size.

      2) The tests were not swapped both ways, for example, half the students get test A, the other get test B. Then after the therapy, the A half get B and the B half get A. This would eliminate arguments that one test was harder then the other.

      Other then those, I can’t see anything else wrong. /shrug

  8. I was in the original introduction to the Book Science of Survival which also included the graphs as well.

    Information on it can be found here:

    http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Science_of_Survival

  9. Malcolm X seems to be saying; do your own evaluation about someone, not on hearsay!

  10. http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Science_of_Survival

    RJ: Did you properly read the content at that link? ‘Cause it’s not really supporting your position…more eluding to, but declining to elaborate on the contrary.

  11. Yeah I did read the content of the link Diablo.

    As I wrote that the tests were done and the results were disputed which is exactly what occurred even to the point of questioning the provenance of the testing .

    I also cited the fact that the test results were cited in the original edition of Science of Survival.

    • RJ, of course the test was questioned. From your own link…

      ===============================

      The names of the persons in this “group of psychologists” are not mentioned. The booklet presents case histories and X-Rays and says that it proves that Dianetics can cure “aberrations” including manic depression, asthma, arthritis, colitis and “overt homosexuality.” The booklet further says that it used twelve different tests and presents results from five, four of which came from the California Test Bureau and had according to an 1946 investigation of V. E. Ordahl of the University of California no evidence of reliability or validity.

      ===============================

      What sort of methodology would be used to prove all of these? Because in all my years reading scientific literature, not a single one suggests a test and then “finds” random things and reports them as fact.

      Secondly, the fact that the names of the researchers are not listed is a HUGE RED FLAG.

      The scientists were not rejecting the paper because of a conspiracy. They were rejecting it because it was foolish, unverifyable and obviously doctored.

      • How can you say that the tests were “unverifiable” the signature of the Psychologist involved in the testing was at the bottom of each test.

        Also as I remember the Psychologists involved were mentioned in the published study.

        Also these were considered standard tests at the time they were done, even though over thirty years later they were considered flawed.

        Based on what?

        Opinion of course!

        You charge the tests were “doctored” yet you offer no proof. How exactly were they doctored?

        You say the tests were “foolish”. Yet you accept the results of what claims to be the only “scientific” study of Dianetics with very little criticism even over looking the grossest omission and that was the fact that no trained Dianeticists participated in the actual study!

        This is like doing a study on physics and not allowing any physicists to participate and concluding that physics as a science is a fraud!

  12. RJ Wrote:
    How can you say that the tests were “unverifiable” the signature of the Psychologist involved in the testing was at the bottom of each test.

    Also as I remember the Psychologists involved were mentioned in the published study.

    ===========================

    Do you have a source that I can view this paper at? That would make me most happy. Mainly because I’d like to see what methodology they used to prove what they claim in the paper.

    ===========================

    RJ Wrote:
    Also these were considered standard tests at the time they were done, even though over thirty years later they were considered flawed.

    Based on what?

    Opinion of course!

    ===========================

    No, I base my conclusion on logic. As time progresses, Science does as well. You have to understand that Science is what we know given the information we have at hand.

    This is espicially true in the field of psychology. Something you should be well aware of being a Scietologist.

    If we examine your position “tests back then are valid”. I’d present to you witch tests back in medieval times. Are their conclusions still valid?

    ===========================

    RC Wrote:
    You charge the tests were “doctored” yet you offer no proof. How exactly were they doctored?

    The proof is in the claims of Hubbard himself. I do not need to even see the document because the concept behind it is so far fetched that it’s laughable.

    No single paper could have a methodology to prove that dianetics cured all those problems in a single sitting. Not possible. That’s why it’s doctored.

    And that’s why it’s also foolish. Because anyone who has read any scientific paper would recognize that.

    ===========================

    RC Wrote:
    This is like doing a study on physics and not allowing any physicists to participate and concluding that physics as a science is a fraud!

    No, it’s like doing a study on Physics and I reject any study that does not prove it’s point or is so poorly written and obviously flawed that I disregard it.

    The problem here is that you’re not knowledgeable enough in the practices of science to understand why this paper is a forgery.

    • Wow! Your arrogance is almost breath taking!

      I see so it’s alright to alter the Scientific Method if the science isn’t accepted as a science a priori.

      Then there is really no point in arguing with you because it seems that you have the capability to rationalize any flaw in actual Scientific Method when it supports what you consider as a “forgone conclusion” based solely on your bias.

      No wonder many people consider orthodox “Science” has become a religion.

      • Seriously RJ. You need to go and do some background reading on “experimental design”, maybe some basic statistics. I am not a scientist, but I have more than a passing familiarity with science (esp. psychology) and how to critique it.

        I have read and listened to A LOT of LRH’s philosophical/pseudo-scientific theories, and is so clear that he has no grasp of issues like test-retest reliability, extraneous and confounding variables, control groups, statistical analysis…etc. The fact he uses the term “proof” repeatedly (there is no true “proof” in science…only evidence) only cements my view of him as a person who was completely ignorant of the methodologies of science…and played on the ignorance of others’ in order to gain “credibility’…even if only amongst the credulous.

        In fact, anyone who knows anything about science can instantly spot that LRH’s assertions ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY BASED. They are anecdotes…most likely completely fabricated (that last bit is an educated guess)…definitely NOT science…it’s pure rhetoric.

        If you want a discussion on the scientific method it seems there are plenty of people here able to oblige, but if you want such a debate, you may wish to do some background reading, because so far, your argumentative repertoire seems rather limited and it’s putting you at a distinct disadvantage.

        And I’d also like to see some of these supposed papers. If they exist, I have no doubt it’d be fun picking them apart. So I guess the challenge is out there! Quoting the results in “science of survival” is not enough. Original papers please!

  13. +

    Seriously RJ. You need to go and do some background reading on “experimental design”, maybe some basic statistics. I am not a scientist, but I have more than a passing familiarity with science (esp. psychology) and how to critique it.

    Psychology isn’t really considered a “science” per se much like politics its considered an art.

    I have read and listened to A LOT of LRH’s philosophical/pseudo-scientific theories, and is so clear that he has no grasp of issues like test-retest reliability, extraneous and confounding variables, control groups, statistical analysis…etc. The fact he uses the term “proof” repeatedly (there is no true “proof” in science…only evidence) only cements my view of him as a person who was completely ignorant of the methodologies of science…and played on the ignorance of others’ in order to gain “credibility’…even if only amongst the credulous.

    I haven’t seen any references cited as examples that would demonstrate that you’ve actually read any thing by Hubbard.

    You seem hung up on this would “proof” obviously you think that nothing can be proven to exist.

    By the way “evidence” is not proof.

    In fact, anyone who knows anything about science can instantly spot that LRH’s assertions ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY BASED. They are anecdotes…most likely completely fabricated (that last bit is an educated guess)…definitely NOT science…it’s pure rhetoric.

    Again you do not cite the purported assertions.

    You just generalize.

    Can you be a bit more specific?

    If you want a discussion on the scientific method it seems there are plenty of people here able to oblige, but if you want such a debate, you may wish to do some background reading, because so far, your argumentative repertoire seems rather limited and it’s putting you at a distinct disadvantage.

    So far I’m not impressed by your “scientific method”. I’m sure any so called “disadvantage” I would ostensibly have would be in your mind only.

    And I’d also like to see some of these supposed papers. If they exist, I have no doubt it’d be fun picking them apart. So I guess the challenge is out there! Quoting the results in “science of survival” is not enough. Original papers please!

    Your papers please?

    Ah yes. Such is the problem without papers the individual can not be proven to exist by the average bureaucrat and so it is with any subject that doesn’t have the orthodox “Science” stamp approval.

    My suggestion is find out for yourself whether Dianetics and Scientology work or not. If you’re not interested in doing that then I suggest you skip it.

    • Psychology isn’t really considered a “science” per se much like politics its considered an art.

      No, it is considered a science. I’ve studied it. I can vouch for that. Not above criticism for sure, but psychology is probably MORE of a science that some of the “established” fields, in so much the weight of theoretical incumbency is not as strong so newer and sometimes anti-intuitive theories can get a look-in.

      If you are genuinely interested in a particular aspect of psychology, I can go find some further reading/articles…but I’m not gonna be stuffed trawling through all my books/folders for someone who doesn’t really care about learning more about the subject.

      I haven’t seen any references cited as examples that would demonstrate that you’ve actually read any thing by Hubbard.

      I haven’t cited a bunch of references for brevity. Since you seem to know your LRH material, I didn’t think it was necessary to point you towards the obvious…but how about this little gem from “6309C24 – SHSBC (new #340) – “Summary I”

      “Now you may not be aware of the fact – completely – in a concrete way – that the 24th of July – the lecture 24th of July on down to Thursday’s lecture of this week, you have a complete summary of modern scientology on all levels and all processes on those levels.

      the tapes from 24 july on forward to the tapes of this coming Thursday, which is the 26th of September.

      And in those 25 lectures you have a totality and summary of modern scientology. Nothing lying outside the province of those lectures has any great validity” (bold added)

      Anyway where were we?

      You seem hung up on this would “proof” obviously you think that nothing can be proven to exist.

      By the way “evidence” is not proof.

      Huh? No, I just have studied the history and philosophy of science. Doubting the existence of everything would be radical skepticism. I’m not a radical skeptic. So you assume wrong.

      Also, people using the word “proof” in regards to science is a pet peeve of mine, since the defining criteria for a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. I don’t know if you ever done some basic philosophy/epistemology before, but if you have you may have heard the story about “white swans”….and that it only took the discovery of one black swan to falsify the proposition that “all swans are white”. Look it up.

      Also, I’m well aware evidence is not proof. That’s why I drew attention to it. Duh! 😛

      Your papers please?

      I’m not a scientist. My interest lies in the meta-scientific issues and more recently in the delightfully entertaining “History and Philosophy of Hubbardarian pseudo-science!” Lots of fun. No papers.

      Ah yes. Such is the problem without papers the individual can not be proven to exist by the average bureaucrat and so it is with any subject that doesn’t have the orthodox “Science” stamp approval.

      Whatever! They manage to publish every other bloody thing, why not these alleged papers? They run how many periodicals? If they wanted to publish they could have. Simple as that.

  14. http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

    “At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion.

    Like religion, human psychology has a dark secret at its core – it contains within it a model for correct behavior, although that model is never directly acknowledged. Buried within psychology is a nebulous concept that, if it were to be addressed at all, would be called “normal behavior.” But do try to avoid inquiring directly into this normal behavior among psychologists – nothing is so certain to get you diagnosed as having an obsessive disorder. ”

    Hmmm seems the jury’s still out on whether it’s a science or not.

    Maybe pseudoscience might be more accurate.

    Anyway where was I?

    Yes so you quoted a few lines from one of Hubbard’s many lectures given on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course given in 1963 out of context of course.

    You and Miscavige would be fast friends because that’s exactly what he does as well.

    I’m not really into Black Swans or Schroeder’s cat or other thought experiments.

    Maybe you are. Also you are obviously in paper. Well all I can say there is lots of paper in the nearest rest room 🙂

  15. NEWSFLASH: My bent is academic, NOT clinical. I have plenty of criticisms of clinical psychology, but to make the two synonymous and then expecting clinical practice to be a science in the stricter sense, is like making synonymous the people developing cancer treatments in a laboratory, and the people in the hospitals administering the treatment. Hello? Not exactly like-and-like.

    Also, how was that quote out of context? I’m always willing to retract an assertion if it’s clear that’s I’m incorrect. So feel free to elaborate.

    Although, now that I think about it, you may be right on a technicality, since LRH’s disjointed linguistic journey through the scattered mind of a very messed up man, renders pretty much everything he says “out of context”. Make no mistake, I don’t think he was stupid. I think he had a deep intuition for human psychology, and the kind of calm certainty that the CoS was unable or perhaps unwilling to replicate after his death…but still, he was a sandwich (or two) short of a picnic. 😛

    But yeah, you don’t seem serious about real debate…else you wouldn’t be dissing thought experiments out of hand, and accusing me of taking things out of context without actually demonstrating where and in what way it is misleading (hint-hint – this is a good starting point for your rebuttal). Go on, google yourself a transcript…crack out the ol’ cassettes. You’ve got some work to do. 🙂

    • News flash

      Lutus didn’t distinguish clinical from academic Psychology in the following paragraph:

      “Like religion, human psychology has a dark secret at its core – it contains within it a model for correct behavior, although that model is never directly acknowledged. Buried within psychology is a nebulous concept that, if it were to be addressed at all, would be called ‘normal behavior.’ But do try to avoid inquiring directly into this normal behavior among psychologists – nothing is so certain to get you diagnosed as having an obsessive disorder.”

      As far as I’m concerned the distinction you’ve given is purely academic in more senses than one 🙂

      Originally I cited the whole paper by Lutus on psychology while you only cited several paragraphs transcribe from one of Hubbard’s lectures with out citing the whole transcript. Personally I consider that intellectually disingenuous. Why cite just a section of the whole lecture? Why not cite it all so the reader can see in what context that statement was made?

      The fact is I’ve heard that lecture many years ago along with many other lectures that are considered part of the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course. From what I remember he was talking about what was now considered “Modern Technology” at the time in 1963 and that the lecture was given at a time when the subject was evolving.

      So what was considered “Modern Technology” earlier no longer is. Obviously the word modern didn’t tip you off to this fact possibly you didn’t understand the word which is defined here:

      of or relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past : the pace of modern life | modern Chinese history.
      • characterized by or using the most up-to-date techniques, ideas, or equipment : they do not have modern weapons.
      • [ attrib. ] denoting the form of a language that is currently used, as opposed to any earlier form : modern German.
      • [ attrib. ] denoting a current or recent style or trend in art, architecture, or other cultural activity marked by a significant departure from traditional styles and values : Matisse’s contribution to modern art.

      According to the Oxford American Dictionary .

      I recommend using one when studying any subject. Not just Scientology that way the subject will seem less “disjointed” and you might actually understand it.

      • Nice! I was wondering if you’d pick up on the subsequent discussion about how ‘well, actually all that preceded it is important because it was the research that lead to this’ (paraphrased).

        [SIDE NOTE: Noticed that this lecture is flagged on the master table as retracted by HCOB ’12 Oct 63′ and never released, yet obviously it was. anyone know what the deal was with that?]

        And yes, it is described as restricted to the domain of auditing (practice). Even so, the statement I originally bolded is implying that all auditing up until then was based on assertions subsequently demonstrated to be invalid EVEN THOUGH they were being presented at the time as absolutes. Does this not strike you as at least somewhat problematic? What degree of confidence can one attach to the validity of the clinical methodology outlined in these 25 lectures, given this history? Why are non-modern Scientological auditing methods largely invalid (where did it break down as a theoretical construct and/or practice?) In what way does the “modern” material contained in these 25 lectures address it’s predecessor’s shortcomings? Shouldn’t lectures recorded prior to this, now come with some sort of disclaimer regarding the validity of any auditing methods described therein? Lots of questions!

        But anyway, for the most part I’ll say, well played. I see you will be a worthy opponent, if not on psych matters, certainly on LRH material.

        Even so, I think that too much emphasis has been placed on defining “modern”, when you could have spent more time better explicating the point you were trying to make. When it comes to efficently communicating a point, dictionary meanings aren’t always particularly helpful (and can make it look like your “padding out” your argument even if your not), when what’s required is a description of how YOU interpret a word or phrase, and WHY.

  16. And I’ve done a bit of other googling for you and recommend you have a good read of the page below. Still don’t know if you’re familiar with research methods material or not, but assuming your not, having a basic understanding is really important in “decoding” a journal article/scientific paper, and knowing what to look for in terms of potential problems with it.

    http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/variablesvalidityreliability.html

    • Thank you I’ll do my own own research on the subject when I’m interested. Actually modern Psychology doesn’t really interest me. It used to be a subject that studied the human spirit but it no longer does, since it doesn’t even acknowledge the possibility that the Human Spirit exists. Like Dialectic Materialism it is now based on Marxist philosophy.

      It is used by the Military Industrial complex as a weapon for controlling populaces under various Psywar and Psyop applications.

      What science there was to the subject has been perverted to the objective of world domination.

  17. sorry, top got cut off from post (can you delete previous?):

    Thank you I’ll do my own own research on the subject when I’m interested. Actually modern Psychology doesn’t really interest me.

    If a, then b
    a
    ————-
    therefore b

    or rather:

    If I am interested in a subject, then I study it.
    I am not interested in modern psychology
    —————————–
    Therefore I do not study it

    Way to present yourself as an open-minded individual who is equipped to engage in a meaningful debate involving this subject.

    I think you are seriously mistaken about the nature of psychology. I have urged you to look further at some introductory material, BEFORE I start bombarding you with linkage and references. Again, why should I appoint myself your personal research assistant if you don’t actually care about this subject? Or worse, why alienate you further from the topic by directing you to material that will go over your head? Just unhelpful IMO.

    It used to be a subject that studied the human spirit but it no longer does, since it doesn’t even acknowledge the possibility that the Human Spirit exists. Like Dialectic Materialism it is now based on Marxist philosophy.

    Okay, so what’s your problem with Marxist philosophy or Dialectic Materialism? My own experience (from my psych lecturers, who were also researching and publishing) is that the psychology department had people of ALL kinds of ideological and theoretical bents – and a homogeneous characterization is just soooo not what the teaching staff are actually like.

    On the issues of whether there’s a soul or not, it’s pretty par for the course that those subjects run under the “science” banner deliberately leave aside these matters. It’s not their job. Maybe once…but things change…and universities as public institutions (at least in some places) have a duty to the public to remain relivant.

    I can say that in the psych department, that ‘being spiritual’ (in whatever form that might take) is not perceived as abnormal or a problem as a matter of course. Depending on the sub-discipline area, the self-concept of one as a “spiritual being”, if pertinent to the type of theory being tested, would be taken for what it is (a self-concept that needs to be taken into consideration in this particular experimental context).

    See, psychology doesn’t pretend to answer things it can’t answer. And that’s cool. Actually, even though I consider myself loosely Christian (I have my own ideas on things, but I can’t say my upbringing did not inform my world-view), and I am VERY HAPPY that psychology does not make judgements on spiritual matters. It is not their domain and it would be unnecessarily divisive and restrictive in terms of theoretical constructs, if they did.

    If you want to muse on theology or philosophy, there are whole departments dedicated to that too, and the staff are lovely, and their lecture theaters have much way more comfy seats.

    * * *

    Anyway, in the interests of making this discussion somewhat more structured I propose we take something like “dyslexia” which is covered both by Psychology and Scientology. We can use that as a case study, from which to better explore the LRH and modern psychological concepts of disorders of language, and the implications in terms of subsequent intervention…and of course a critique of both.

    Is this satisfactory to you?

    If it is, I’d very much appreciate any lecture references that could help me better understand LRH’s position on this? I’ve already cracked out the old text books and am currently strolling down neuro-psych memory lane.

    • Whoops I should have changed that conditional to the bi-conditional.

      So it’s “if and only if”, rather than “if”

      Otherwise there’s like a total logical falicy because it’s like:

      a > b
      ~a
      Therefore, ~b

      Which you might have noticed is just totally wrong.

    • Ok to answer your question in your previous post the process that the lecture discussed was withdrawn. This is covered in a bulletin of 2 October 1963 entitled URGENT, GPMs
      EXPERIMENTAL PROCESS WITHDRAWN.

      Again GPM technology was evolving at that time what was considered valid one month earlier could be considered invalid a month later, because of the design of the reactive bank and the items contained within it.

      However just because a process or series of processes is considered invalid doesn’t mean the technology that evolved it is.

      An analogy would be the fact that there were many internal combustion engines designs developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century that are considered invalid today, like for instance those devised with a constant loss oiling system, rotary valves, magneto(which is still used in aircraft but impractical for modern automobiles) or hand cranking starters, etc. However this doesn’t make the theory behind the internal combustion engine invalid.

      Yes I must admit I only read what interests me. The subject of Psychology currently doesn’t interest me. Though I’m glad that you have found answers in your study of it.

      Right now I have othe research projects that are more important to me (they actually have nothing to do with Scientology either) personal.

      Having said that I have a somewhat limited study of the subject. For instance I thought Wilhelm Reich’s ‘Mass Psychology of Fascism’ was a brilliant work. Same with Freud’s ‘Outline of Psychoanalysis’ . More of an allied field much like Szazs’ books on the subject of Psychiatry which I also enjoyed.

      As far as “dyslexia” is concerned there is no specific Scientology technique that has been specifically designed to handle the condition. Despite what Tom Cruise might have said about Scientology handling his “dyslexia”.

      Besides the objective of Scientology is to make the able more able. For instance if you felt you wanted to be a better psychologist, artist, executive, safe cracker whatever, that’s what Scientology was originally designed to do. Improve an individual’s ability to do the things he or she wants to do better. Not to handle conditions like “dyslexia”. That it may happen in auditing or in studying the subject is merely a by product. Not the actual goal.

  18. Okay. Yesterday there was no coffee in the house so I was incapable of replying…but I am now sufficiently caffeinated to express myself coherently.

    So, back to validity. Been giving this topic quite a bit of thought since engaging in this convo, and may be something I need to do some focused research on, but anyhow…

    You say:

    However just because a process or series of processes is considered invalid doesn’t mean the technology that evolved it is.

    An analogy would be the fact that there were many internal combustion engines designs developed in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century that are considered invalid today, like for instance those devised with a constant loss oiling system, rotary valves, magneto (which is still used in aircraft but impractical for modern automobiles) or hand cranking starters, etc.

    See, I’m not sure if this metaphor is entirely appropriate for illustrating the notion of validity. I wouldn’t say that an improved engine design “invalidated” the previous design. The previous design is still valid, though sub-optimal.

    What would be invalidated is the assumption/proposition that the old engine design was the optimal design. (The old engine design being the subject of the proposition, but the proposition itself is the thing being invalidated). So I agree that the theoretical validity has not been undermined in this case, unless of course the designed was posited to function in a manner which it simply did not achieve in reality. In which case, it did not take a successor to invalidate the design.

    But anyhow, perhaps I can have a shot at a metaphor for what you’re conveying and suggest the story of Newtonian physics. So, as you probably already know, Einstein came along with relativity and it was like, “oh…so this (relativity) accounts for/predicts some really freaky stuff like gravitational lensing and the event horizon around black holes…but it means that Newton was wrong about reality when he assumed static euclidean space ’cause time and space can bend!…cosmic!”

    But the thing is, that when you’re calculating motion, Newtonian physics has been theoretically invalidated by relativity (or at least you could say some key assumptions have been demonstrated invalid) but it is still seen as “an excellent approximation in the limiting case of motion at low velocity in a weak gravitational field.” (Accioly et. al, 1994), i.e. here on Earth – and hence, you probably did more than a few Newtonian calculations in your high-school days, and no doubt relativity and quantum physics would not have existed without it. (But there’s whole books dedicated to this topic…totally engrossing stuff).

    So, this is probably closer to the metaphor you were going for, yeah?

    Now, there’s some messy stuff that I really want to write about, but it involves teasing out the multiple types of validity in play, so the below is very much in the formative phase.

    See, I was thinking that concepts like “the reactive bank”, really only have meaning under the metaphysical constructs posited by LRH. The metaphysical “layer” of my analysis would comprise the basic stable philosophical framework, through which Scientological content (theory and practice) is organized and interpretted.

    Under that would be the theoretical layer, which would be all those theories about the nature of reality that can be “discovered” through the Scientological methodology. (Tad blurry with metaphysical…but I’m thinking it’s worth considering them separately, with the acknowledgment the is some overlap)

    Speaking of which, this kind of methodology would fall under the umbrella of “practice”, but it isn’t the only type (see point 3).

    1. Metaphysical

    2. Theoretical

    3. Practice
    a) ‘Researching’ the nature of reality. (methodological – strong links to the metaphysical constructs through which the methodology is justified)

    b) ‘Individual-Therapeutic’- or “making the able more able”
    i. “Diagnosis” – i.e. OCA
    ii. “Treatment” – i.e. Auditing, training, etc., designed to address (i)

    c) ‘Collective-Survival’ – Aspects of organizational functioning implied by (1) & (2)

    Anyway, I have a bunch of stuff brewing away in my head (and an increasingly bloated bookmarks list), so I thought I’d pause and put this out there…see if it is broadly making sense from more than just my perspective. Might all seem kind of abstract at this stage, but it relates to teasing out: ( 1) the exact assertion or assumption under examination. (2) it’s ontological categorization. (3) the most appropriate criterion/s for testing it’s validity. After that, there would also be the issue of theoretical interdependence…the whole a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link thing; So too, a chain of reasoning.

    Anyhow, I totally understand if you’ve had enough of this topic, but I’ll probably be following it independently anyway. Okay. Time for more coffee. 🙂

    • That blows charge!

      • I’m not entirely sure what that means 🙂

      • martyrathbun09

        In Scn, when someone confronts the simple truth of something it tends to release whatever pent up confusions the guy might have been walking around with to explain something that he didn’t really get. In a roundabout way, the rattling off of the complex formulas and vias at getting at truth that you performed sort of made the point I was trying to make about Science and Scientology, at least to me. It was also a bonus as I could identified with your waking from a state of slumber by means of caffeine and letting her rip. Thanks.

      • Ah, a fellow caffeinated individual! Wonderful! I offer you a virtual cup of coffee. 🙂

        Well, I’m very glad that our little detour has been unexpectedly fruitful (and that we didn’t totally irritate you by, oh, say taking over your comment section with commentary that was only loosely related to the topic). But, anyhow…

        Since I haven’t yet, I do have to say “congrats!” for getting out and all that. You probably gathered I’m a never-in, and while our evaluations of LRH’s work, I imagine, are rather different, I wouldn’t even know there was anything there worth deconstructing if it weren’t for those who’ve been inside the Hubbard-verse and emerged to tell us who haven’t what’s inside.

        So thank-you muchly! I might be picking your brain at some stage (if you didn’t mind that is). 🙂

        You have a good one.

      • martyrathbun09

        Thanks. Be my guest – but there isn’t much left to pick.

    • All I can say El Diablo wow that is so cool 🙂

      Personally I can understand the concept of too much blood in my caffeine system!

      Any way your philosophical construct blew some charge for me as well 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s