From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:52:30 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bw2nnF.J84@csn.org>, pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.190846.3630@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>In article <Bvx1vI.9IM@csn.org>, pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
>>> 
>>> When Scientology claims to be a science, it is not attacking the Church to
>>> ask for proof.[...]
>>
>>Anybody can examine the basic fundamentals (ARC, the Tone Scale, etc..) and
>>then they can find out for themselves if it works or if it doesn't.
> 
> No. None of those sources are adequate. To use an analogy, it's kind of like
> you're asking me to read The National Enquirer to get the proof that UFOs
> exist and that Elvis Lives. In the domain of science, these are not credible
> sources.
> 

   To use another analogy it's kind of like I'm telling you to go outside
and look at the UFO hovering over your house to get the proof the UFOs
exist.

> 
> All I'm asking for is that scientific proof. 
> 

   And all I'm asking you to do is LOOK for yourself.  Personally
I don't want to accept something just because someone else said it was
so, I want to find out and know for myself.   Look for yourself at 
Scientology, be as scientific as you like and devise your own experiments.
  

>>The only standard I would like to see Scientology held to is "Does it
>>accomplish what it claims?"  I know that it does, but then I have
>>investigated it for myself and I know that I can apply the data and get a
>>result.  This is what Scientology means by calling itself a science.  I know
>>that it works.
> 
> This is not how Science is understood in the world. In the agreed-upon
> definition of Science, Scientology is an oxymoron.
> 

    Agreed upon by whom?  My dictionary and encyclopedia both define Science
in a way that applys to Scientology.  Perhaps you have your own definition,
but you'll never really know if its a Science or not unless you look and
see what Scientology is.
 
>>Scientology books are available from every Scientology Org.  They contain the
>>data you need to examine the principles.  Those who are truly interested in
>>examining them will.
> 
> ...and the Weekly World News is available at my local grocer. I won't use
> either as a reputable source of scientific information. Give me an independent
> source of information.
> 

    Yawn...

> Is Scientology a Science? What proof can you provide?
> 

    I won't waste my time trying to prove anything to someone who isn't
willing to look for themself.

>>I disagree.  Scientology as a science works invaribly.  I can prove that
>>Scientology is a science at anytime that I choose.
> 
> I challenge this assertion. You cannot prove Scientology as a science.
> 

   Perhaps not by your definition because there are no independent journals
or some such thing, but I can demonstrate that Scientology accomplishes
what it claims to anytime.

>>I'm just not interested in prooving myself and Scientology to people who have
>>no real interest or inclination to ever even look for themselves.
> 
> If you were going to prove Scientology as science, how would you do it?
> 

   I'd start by understanding the subject.  And then I would apply it and
see if it worked or if it didn't.  As long as I could use the subject to
find out more about myself as a spiritual being, about knowledge and my
relationsip to it, and about the nature of reality and the universe, and as
long as what I found out was true and I could see for myself that it was
true, I would call it a science.

   Maybe I would even be willing to write about it and review parts of the
subject for a "scientific" journal.  Aside from the fact that there is so
much suppression on the data that nothing positive could ever be printed
by an independent source, none of the "real scientists" would ever take 
it seriously.

> We are more than willing to look. At any independent journal which has
> examined the science of Scientology. 
> 

   If any independent journal were to examine Scientology, first they would
have to examine Scientology and understand what they were trying to
proove or disproove.  Why don't you be the first to find out about Scientology
and demonstrate how it isn't a science.  And I'm sorry but saying that
it isn't a science because it isn't in your journal is very weak reasoning.
The only reason that Scientology is not in any journal, is because nobody
has been willing to find out for themselves and report about it.

>>I'm also not interested in silencing critics.  Mostly, the only
>>people who listen to them anyway are the other critics.  People who truly
>>want to find out about Scientology will, and everyone else will just
>>complain that I won't prove it to them.
> 
> Tell us where to look. Where are the objective sources?
>

    I guess you can be trusted to be objective can't you?  Find out what
Scientology is and then see for yourself.  Don't worry, because nobody will
"sue or harass" you.  

    Just look and see.  Do your own experiments and then report for us
"Did the technology get the specified result?"  

    But insisting that it isn't a science just because nobody will write
about it in some journal is very shallow.

    This thread is beginning to bore me...

John Holifield