From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: A Question for Critics.
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
	<1992Oct12.190846.3630@memstvx1.memst.edu> <Bw2nnF.J84@csn.org>
	<1992Oct13.195231.3646@memstvx1.memst.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 10:46:21 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Oct13.195231.3646@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> 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.

If you insists using analogies, I would venture to say that it's like
you telling me that the clear bright light we both observe in the sky
is an ET vehicle filled with little green men from the planet Xrthft,
while I insist that alternative explanations (e.g. that it is Venus
rising) at least merits some independent investigation if the thing
is to be taken seriously.

>> 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.

One of the weirdest things with Scientlogy is LRH's fixation on
dictionaries, and the doctrine that true understanding of a concept
comes the proper application of a good dictionary.  But let's play the
game his way:

My Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (2nd college
edition) has the following to offer:

   "sci'ence [...]  2) systematized knowledge derived from observation,
    study and experimentation carried out in order to determine the
    nature or principles of what is being studied [... and] 5) skill
    or techniques based upon systematic training [...]

and I must concede that -- provided LRH actually did his observation,
study and experimentation -- this definition applies to Scientology.
It really does apply to a lot of things, as the editors ow Webster
seems to have noted, as they list both "the science of mathematics"
and "the science of cooking" as examples of usage.

My concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (6th edition) have added
a subtle twist to its definition:

   "sci'ence [...]  4) Branch of knowledge (esp. one that can be conducted
    on scientific principles)"

If one presumes that "scientific principles" has something to do with
testing procedures, experimental design, controls, publishing, independent
replication in controlled experimental settings, then this dictionary
defintion of science does _not_ apply to Scientology.

However -- to believe that the "agreed-upon" defintion of Science is
to be found in a dictionary is just plain stupid -- and IMHO a most
improper application of a dictionary!  What LRH never seemed to grasp
is that a dictonary does _not_ give unambigious defintions of complex
concepts.  The real purpose of a dictonary (from a lexicographer's
viewpoint) is to catalogue _all_ the multiple meanings and usages of a
word, and that's why the dictionary provide multiple definitions of
most complex concepts.  When the word "science" can be used in such
different contexts as "the science of mathematics" and "the science of
cooking" it should be evident to anyone that has more than half a
brain that the word does not necessarely mean the same thing in
both cases.  To keep referring to the Webster defintion and refuse
to discuss scientific principles to justify Scientology's claim
of being a "science" indicate a single-mindedness that I personally
find scaring.

To conclude -- when talking about the "agreed-upon" defintion of
science, Phil Earnhardt was probably not referring to the multiple
defintions of the word "science" that can be found in dictionaries --
he was talking about the concept of science as it is understood in the
scientific community.  To understand this defintion of the word
science, you need to know something of scientific principles.  And to
employ a trick commonly used by Scientilogists in these type of
discussion: I am now going to insult you, John Holifield, by
suggesting that science is a subject you know nothing about, and that
you really should shut up until "you've read the books and found out
for yourself what science really is all about".  I have posted some
reading recommendations earlier in these group, but I'll repeat some
references to four authors whose writings I consider good
introductions to understanding the concept of science: David Hume,
Rudolf Carnap, Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper.  READ THE BOOKS!!! :-)

>>> 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...

When you're stuck for an answer, say so.  Opening you mouth wide
opening and making strange noises only make you appear stupid.

Btw.  I've read a number of those books.  I tried to apply
the principles.  It didn't work for me.  Which I guess means
that the claim that scientology _always_ work is false, QED.

> And I'm sorry but saying that it isn't a science because it isn't
> in your journal is very weak reasoning.

So is saying it is a science because three lines of the Webster's
defintion of "science" have some similarity to the activities LRH
claimed he conducted.

> 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.

There are several thousand Scientologists out there who presumably
have found out about it.  And they keep writing reports about it too!
But their reports seems all to be targeted for "True Confessions".
Not a single one of them seems to be capable of writing a report in a
format acceptable for a scientific journal.  I must confess that for a
minute, I wondered whether this statistic was a good quantative
indicator that Scientology turns your brain to mush, but then I
remembered all the supression going on :-).

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

Yes it did.  The result specified by RTC.

I.e.: It turned you into a person no longer capable of recognizing
when he is being conned.  As evident from our discussion some time
back about your Scientology assisted 50 points IQ-gain.  It was
clear from your own description of how the CoS measured your progress
that the most reasonable explanation for your gain was a very improper
(IMHO fraudulent) application of IQ testing procedures (i.e. letting
you take multiple tests and reusing the same test multiple times).

> This thread is beginning to bore me...

Really -- I think it is just beginning to look interesting.

--
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
------------------------------------------------