From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Summary: Is Scientology a science?
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:06:49 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

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.

>    Typically what happens on this newsgroup is that someone critical
>of Scientology posts that Scientologists committed a crime, or that 
>Scientology is out to get your money.  They will post anything that seems
>strange, or might scare someone away from finding out for themselves
>what Scientology is about.  Then, after a Scientologist defends the
>religion, the critics start to demand "proof" that Scientology is a 
>science and act like that was all they wanted in the first place.

What's the point? That's *not* what's happening in this discussion, and I
don't plan to start.

All I'm asking for is that scientific proof. 

>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.

>The people who are critical of Scientology pretend to only want to
>know if it works, but actually they will never study the material or
>apply it.  Why?  Because they are only interested in proving to everyone
>else that Scientology is a scam.  If they were sincere in wanting to know,
>they could easily find out but that is not what they have in mind.  

I will study any independent source that you will quote. None have been
provided.

>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.

>>>Do you see what I mean?  Critics try to say that Scientology doesn't work
>>>and that auditing is an expensive rip-off.  Some even suggest that auditing
>>>should be free.  If it was, Scientology could never survive but nthat is
>>>just what the critics have in mind.  Scientology services are the most
>>>valuable things in existence at this time, and would be worth the money if
>>>the donation was 10x higher.
>> 
>> Where did you come up with this from?
>
>Perhaps you don't understand just how much time, and how many people
>it takes to deliver an hour of auditing.  If auditing was free, there would
>be no funds to pay staff, pay utilities, pay rent, advertise, train new
>auditors, train other technical staff etc... 

Fine. It doesn't mean that Scientology is a Science because it takes a lot of
time to deliver an hour of auditing.

>How would the org ever survive if auditing was free.  I'm going out on a
>limb, but I would bet you anything that people who say on this newsgroup that
>Scientology should be free, would be very happy if the Church didn't ever
>expand.

Earlier, you made a request that we stick to the subject: is Scientology
a Science? I request you do the same.

Is Scientology a Science? What proof can you provide?

>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.

>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?

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

>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?

>Anyone who wants to know about Scientology should read books and get trained.

Any discipline that claims to be Science should provide evidence within the
scientific domain. Science without a foundation of rigor is not science. 
Without scientific proof, Scientology is an oxymoron.

>John Holifield

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology