From: ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology is good??
Date: 11 Nov 1992 00:27:21 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

Please excuse the length of this post.  It is, IMHO, well worth
the read.  Please muddle through.

In article <Z8yXTB3w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> (Bill Hardman) writes:
>> ph36@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk) writes:
>>> In article <qToPTB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> (Bill Hardman) writes:

 with regards to PV=I*D^x I ask:

>>>>       What are the units of _PV_,_I_,_D_ and _x_?
>>>        Re-read the chapter.  It's self-explanitory.
>>      No its not.  Nowhere in part 1 of "Dianetics" is there a
>>discussion of the units.  If anybody knows, please tell me!

Bill says:
>How many dynamics were discussed in the first chapter?
>How does society measure intellegence?
>To keep it simple for you, try using units of 1 to 10.

  Ah!  I see now.  Bill has mistaken "cardinality" for "units of 
measurement"!  In other words, Bill, you don't seem to know what 
I meant by "units".  Thats O.K.  A quick explanation is in order.

NB
  those of you who know what units are, may want to skip
  this bit, but stay for the rest.

STAY TUNED BILL!

  When I say units, I am refering to the units of measurment.  When 
we talk about a defined physical quantity, such as length, we must
have some common reference length, such as the metre, that we all
know about.  It is of no good to say that I am 1.9 tall, because
you, who might be familiar with feet, will say to yourself "OH! he
is 1.9 feet tall!", when actually I am 1.9m tall.  So you see, it
is important to attach some identifier at the end of a number to
let your reader see what YOU are talking about.  Here are some
examples of units:

  LENGTH can be measured in units of metres, centimetres, fermi, inches,
                            light year, parsec, etc.
  TIME can be measured in units of second, hour, minute, etc.
  MASS can be measured in units of kilogram, gram, slug, atomic mass unit,
                            tonne, etc.
  CHARGE can be measured in Coulombs, esu, etc.
  
In fact, these are the basic quantities that we, in physics(read
science), are worried about when we do some experiment.  It turns out
that any physical quantity can be expressed in terms of length, time,
mass and charge.  For example, in particle physics, we like to look at
the ENERGY a particle has.  We, in this case, would measure energy
in terms of eV, or electon volts.  Now we can take 1 eV and find out
"what it is made up of" by finding the equivalent measures of length,
time mass and charge to put into it.  This is a conversion factor:

        1 eV = 1.602*10^-19 J

this simply means that 1 eV has 1.602*10^-19 Joules of energy in it.
Now the unit for Joule can also be expressed as (kg*m^2)/(s^2). 

        1 eV = 1.602*10^-19 (kg*m^2)/(s^2) 

So we see that energy can be expressed in terms of the four basic quantities.
In fact all _physical_ measurements can be expressed this way.

    BUT HEY!  This is a big digression!

  Now when we have an expression, such as v=d/t, where v is the velocity
of my car, d is the distance my car has travelled and t is the time taken
for my car to travel that distance, we must use units (of measurement) to
get a meaningful answer:

       d = distance my care has travelled = 1000 m
       t = time taken for my car to travel distance d = 60 s
       v = velocity of my car = ?

       v = d/t
         = (1000 m)/(60 s)
       v = 16.7 m/s   (rounded off, of course)

but my friend may like mph better, since she knows that 1 m/s = 2.236 mph
she can just multiply my value for the speed by 2.236 mph/(m/s), this
number is called a conversion factor.  She will get for v:

      v = 16.7 m/s * 2.236 mph/(m/s)
	note that the m/s cancels out
      v = 37.4 mph
      
and we conclude that 16.7 m/s = 37.4 mph.  This is the way units
work.  For a better understanding consult any first year college
physics text.
====================================

O.K. Back to good stuff!

  I'm going to hold off discussing the range of x that Bill mentions
 for my next post.

I say, refering to the values of PV,I,D and x:
>>>>       How do you measure them?
Bill answers:   ">>> With widely accepted testing."
I ask:">>      WHAT "widely accepted testing"?  Be specific!"
Bill:">Haven't you ever had your intellegence tested?  Use that value."

  Why yes!  I just did this morning, I had a physics 406 exam!  In
fact, I get my intelligence tested twice a year, during finals.  Hey!
I could use my GPA (grade point average) for the _I_ value ...
... calculating ...
... calculating ...

nope, still gets the wrong answer, and of course the units are still
wrong   ie [$] != [GPA]

I ask:">>>> What ranges of values are normally seen?"
Bill: ">>>  Below average."
I return:">>      By RANGES I mean, give me values, give me the
          >>upper and lower bounds, the most common values AND the
          >>average value.  Or make it easy and just send me some data."
Bill">It would depend on what ranges you decided to apply to "x"."

     Well it shouldn't!  Aren't _I_ and _D_  independant of
"x".  More on ranges In my next post.

>>>>       How do you apply the equation?
>>>        Insert the known factors and use standard algebra.
>>      Brilliant! You must be a "hi skool grajuate"!
>You asked the stupid question, not I.

  I apologize for my insulting remark.  It was out of line.

  But I had a perfectly legitimate question.  It's not at all
stupid.  Standard algebra (ie: the need for meaningful units)
doesn't seem to apply here.  The question is one that I, and my
colleagues, ask our professors over and over.  Doing examples
is one of the best ways to teach.

I ask:">>>>    What experimental evidence is there to show that it works?"
Bill: ">>>     Do it and find out.  Why take someone elses word?"
ME    ">>      Do what?  Why do you take Ron's word for it?"
ME    ">>>>    Can someone suggest an experiment?"
Bill  ">>>     Apply it to yourself."

  I did Bill, it didn't work.  Now it's your turn.  Show us the
correct method of applying the equation.

I said:
>>I want to find my PV.  O.K. since money is so important to the CoS
>>(see my next post!) PV must be in units of the American dollar.  Now
>>my potential income next term from my student loan is about
>>$2500.00 (US) and from my part time job is about $700.00 US.  So
>>my PV must be  $3200.00.

Bill replies:
>I can see that you will never make it in the private sector.  It is
>obvious that you were asleep during your high school education.

  On what evidence do you base this!(re private sector)  You've 
never seen my resume.  As a matter of fact I HAVE "made it" in 
the "private sector", very successfully!

stuff deleted: 
  where I say that since my I.Q. must be average (in fact
it's not, but that's a different, more hilarious story) so 
I=125 I.Q. points and sinc I would like to see the human race
and all its little symbiotes survive my D=4.  I also say that
D is unit less because no units are mentioned in "Dianetics".

Bill says, regarding the units of D:
>Wrong.  The unit is between 1 and 4.

  Well Bill, now that you know what units are(see above), I'll leave this
alone.

Now, I argue that:
>>x, according to Bill, is magnitude on which the person is
>>surviving on the dynamic.  Oh!  'x' must be unitless, since
>>it is a power and not multiplied by any constant.  Hey!
>>It must be a probability(quite a leap I realise, but I'm grasping
>>here)!  Well I'm alive, so the magnitude of the probability
>>that I'm surviving is 1... x=1

>Anyone with a grain of sence would use a value of one to ten to
>measure the magnitude on which the person is surviving on the
>dynamic.  That should say enough.

  But it doesn't say enough.  Nowhere in part 1 of Dianetics
does it say what x is.  I will continue this bit in my next
posting!

[ deleted: where I found that PV = 500 I.Q. point which was not
  equal to expected value of $3200.00 ]
 
I make the comment:
>>      It seems like this theory needs a lot of work!!!

Bill retorts:
>Not as much as you do.

Ouch!

[ deleted: where I argue that PV=I*D^x is not a meaningfull equation,
  and I include an anecdote about a philosphers view of the theory 
  of relativity...]

once again I ask:
>>>>       Could someone e-mail me the experimental data?

Bill says:
>>>        Why, it's simple to do.  I have observed over 500 people
>>>with a simple high school education work the equation to their
>>>complete understanding.  The only help they required was making sure
>>>that they fully understood the words used.

500 people Bill?!?!?!?  Wait a moment, let me get a previous post
... searching ...
... searching ...
FOUND IT!

   "For the purpose of honesty and truth, please post your reference,
    hearsay evidence is not admissable"

Now who said that....hmm....HEY! BILL! It was YOU!  Sure, in article
<3NXXTB1w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org>.

  You obviously have access to a lot of statistical evidence, so POST IT!

>>      O.K. help me out here, Bill, explain the words!!!

>It's not worth my time.

  It seems that Bill has given up!  Can anybody take up where
he has left off.  In my next post I will restart my question
and summarize what I have learnt so far.

ME  >>>>  Is the origional experiment reproducable?
BILL>>>   Yep.
ME  >>    Good.  Post the description of the original(now that I have
    >>  my dictionary) experiment.  And the data, if there actually was an
    >>  experiment.
BILL>   Read "Science of Survival".

  I doubt that "Science of Survival" will clear this up any better
but I will try to get a hold of it when time allows.

Bill quotes from the great Ron:
>>>        "The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes
>>>confused or unable to learn is because he or she has gone past a
>>>word that was not understood." LRH

I said:
>>Yup, I read that.  I don't feel that it's always applicable.

Bill retorts:
>You have proved it is.

As have you!  For this ONE instance anyway.  But one instance does not
a proof make.

>Bill Hardman

Richard Nistuk    4th year physics at U.B.C.
ph36@unixg.ubc.ca    (soon  nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca)



Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology