From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:43:30 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <6NyXTB2w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman) writes:

>> Please re-read may assertion.  The key phrase is "vested interest".
>> _Most_ scientific research organizations aren't businesses who sell
>> the results of their research (whether it is programs to increase
>> intelligence or a cure for cancer) as products to a non-scientifically
>> trained public.

> Like Intel, General Dynamics, etc. etc.?

Yeah, like Intel and General Dynamics, etc.  I happen to be a customer
of Intel products and I would never (again) start a major development
without getting independent verification of things like performance
figures.  And I am sure I share that sentiment with any other engineer
who has had the bad luck to instigate a development program based upon
a major turkey like the Intel iAPX 432 (which looked like a sure
winner in the performance figures published by Intel Corp.)

And if I was paying for a high performance cruise missile, I'll would
certainly require independent testing before I would sign the
acceptance papers.

I am quite surprised about your appearent ignorance in this matter.  I
work in a research lab, and in almost every major project we
undertake, there is an activity known as "QA" (Quality Assurance).
This activity involves a number of things, but a major one is to get
someone _outside_ the project team and our own organization to audit
the procedures and results and actually sign their name on a dotted
line stating that they vouch for the results with their professional
reputation (This paper is known as an "audit report", and is described
in detail in the International Standard Organization's recommended
practice ISO 9000).  The fact that there exist an international
standard for these things indicate that this type of independent
investigation isn't such a rare occurance.  My experience is that it's
really a routine activity in serious research.


> See above.  This occurs in medical treatments and testing of drugs,
> although the fact remains that this is a flawed system, and not
> always in the best interest of the public.  There has been a history
> of independent studies of independent studies that have proved that
> the tests conducted were flawed and incomplete. The field of
> artificial sweeteners is one example of this.

I see.  So because there has been instances where independent studies
have been proved "flawed and incomplete", it is better to _not_ have
independent tests, but trust whatever procedures and claims
organizations with a vested interest in the outcome come up with.
This must be the sort of logic one requires Scientology enhanced
intelligence to grasp.

>> I'll be happy to discuss a case where intelligence gain is achived and
>> testing is conducted according to "standard church practices" (which
>> -- I understand from your posting -- has been violated in John's

> The source for this is published in Science of Survival.

I've ordered it through our library.  I'll report back when I've
read it.  I assume the author is LRH.

--
Meta-disclaimer: A society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.
 
- gisle hannemyr  (Norsk Regnesentral)
  OSI:   C=no;PRMD=uninett;O=nr;S=Hannemyr;G=Gisle (X.400 SA format)
         gisle.hannemyr@nr.no                      (RFC-822  format)
  Inet:  gisle@ifi.uio.no
  UUCP:  ...!mcsun!ifi!gisle
------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.religion.scientology:2487 alt.religion.kibology:4543