From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: double blind
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Sep26.111512.3400@memstvx1.memst.edu>
	<1992Sep26.172357.19295@tc.cornell.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 11:20:34 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Sep26.172357.19295@tc.cornell.edu> homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:

[[ I wrote ]]
>> There is a number of beliefs in Scientlogy that can be proven false
>> beyond shadow of doubt if one are willing to believe in other
>> sources.  

> On the surface, Gisle statement is absurd, one can not
> prove something false beyond a shadow of a doubt by appealing
> to other present authority and or belief.

Several times in this thread, you have stipulated that scientists used
to believe that the earth was flat, but now they know better.  But for
some strange reason, you refuse to acknowledge that the process that
lead scientists to abandon the flat earth theory and adopt a new
paradigm is an essential part of science.

To me, looking out the window this very minute, the earth does indeed
look flat!  So if I should only accept the "observations" (internal
and external) that I myself experience I should keep believing that
the earth is flat, and disregard all external authority (be it the
clever experiment with sticks and the length of the shadow devised
by a greek scientist more that 2000 years ago, or the more recent
Apollo photographs).

As the British philosopher George Berkeley noted when he compared the
then novel notion of "atoms" with his own observations of a seemly
soild table, things are not necesserely as they appear to an observer.

So -- while I have the greatest respect for your scepticism -- that
you only trust your own observations, deductions, inductions and
theories, etc. I also think that when you refuse to acknowledge
and follow up on legitimate critisism of your theories, you are
more than a tad arrogant.  I didn't reject Dianetics as pure and
undiluted lunacy (with some sensible bits that was better expressed
by the original authors Ron stole the ideas from) before I had
done what a Scientologist told me was the required pre-condition
to appreciate the genius of L. Ron Hubbard -- I read the book.

Take the purification rundown.  Ron says that it works because he
knows that toxins and radiation are stored in fatty body tissue and
can be purged by sweating.  Scientologists who has done the PR says
that they believe this is correct -- not because of Ron's authority,
but just because they feel great after doing the PR.  So far, so good.
A good starting point is to trust one's senses.  Then "science" rises
its ugly voice and says that the whole metabolic theory behind the PR
is bull.  Scientologists retorts that, well we don't accept the
authority of "science" either.  So far, so good.  Nobody suggests that
you should believe something just because science says that it is so.
But why don't you take the obvious step, and really try to find out?
It should be simple to collect some of the sweat from a rundown, take
it to a lab and get it analyzed for abnormal levels of toxins and
radiation.  But no Scientologist has ever been willing to do this.  It
is as if the "find it out for yourself" doctrine has limits that
cannot be overstepped.
--
Disclaimer: THESE ARE MY OPINIONS!  MINE!  MINE!  ALL MINE!
 
- 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
------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology