==Scientific status of mind control theories== 

 The following sentence is misleading: 

 :the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as disproven or as unscientific (as some comentators assert)  only as not scientifically proven 

 There are three options for describing a scientific theory: 
 #proven to be true 
 #indeterminate 
 #proven to be false 

 Theories which are 91) "proven to be true" become part of science, i.e., scientists pretty much stop questioning it, and courts consider it to be reliable. 

 Theories which are either (2) indeterminate or (3) "proven to be false" are not considered part of science.  

 What happened with Singer is that she claimed mind control was part of science (i.e., #1, proven to be true). The APA has said that it is "not part of science", which leaves two possibilities: (2) that it's indeterminate or (3) that it has been proven false.  

 Anti-cult groups are correct in saying that the APA didn't label mind control false (i.e., #3). But if they are using the excluded middle fallacy to imply that "not proven false" means it "must be true" then that's the misleading part. 

 The article text I quoted above makes two tangled-up assertions, which I untangle here: 
 * that the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as "disproven" but as "not scientifically proven" 
 * that the brief did not characterize the theory of brainwashing as unscientific 

 The first assertion is correct. The secord assertion is false (or at best, misleading). 

 It hinges on the meaning of the word "unscientific". It seems to deny that APA had contradicted Singer's claim that her mind control was (a) scientific and therefore (b) admissible as expert testimony in court. However, Singer herself obviously did not take it that way. In fact, she sued the APA (at least once), because their statement had the effect of getting courts to believe that her theory was not scientific or proven or part of science, and she lost money because she couldn't get anyone to pay her to give expert testimony any more. 

 This needs to be clarified. I have presented this analysis, but I don't know how to word it in the text. Can anyone help me here?