From: gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr)
Subject: Re: Define Scientology...
Organization: gisle@ifi.uio.no
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 19:42:20 GMT
Originator: gisle@gyda.ifi.uio.no

In article <1992Sep26.152537.17122@tc.cornell.edu> homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith) writes:

> My point is that there are untold numbers of things that I can
> alone observe about myself, that I can never hope to show anyone else,
> and I MAY EVEN BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT I CAN NEVER SHOW THEM TO ANYONE
> ELSE!

Of course you can.  But -- as you yourself state -- these things can
only be known to you, so is there really any point in telling me about
them?

> I also take you to task for denying me the word science for such
> a study, without telling me what else I should call it.

> I object to the word religion only because it has such a
> derogatory meaning in the world at large, especially when it comes
> to the scientists of the world, to whom it means blind faith, being
> told what is true, suspension of the critical faculty etc.

I think you should leave it to the "scientists of the world" to state
what they mean -- and would be very surprised if there was a general
concensus about this in the scientific community.  And I would imagine
that a number of scientists (both religious and non-religious) find
the opinions about religion that you have taken the liberty to put in
their mouth insulting.

I don't know whether I deserve the title "scientist" (that's what the
company I work for has put on my card, but that's because they think
that it will make customers less offended when I show up at meetings
not wearing a tie). So, _not_ speaking for the scientists of the
world, I would like to state that I see nothing derogatory in the word
"religion".  A number of perfectly good religions (e.g. Zen Buddhism)
emphasises observation of the "inner self" and that you yourself must
discover what is true.  Zen Buddhism has even developed a number of
very intriguing drills (e.g. "koans") to help the student in this
process.

> Pray tell, if I can not prove that others exist, and I can not,
> and I can not prove that external manifestations exist corresponding
> to my internal states, then what am I to call this rigorous study 
> of the internal?

Does it has to have a name?  Okay, just to oblige you, here is a word:
"grok" (introduced by Robert A. Heinlein in the novel "Stranger in a
Strange Land"). The way RAH used it seems to me to cover fairly well
what you seem to be engaged in.

> Perhaps if it is not to be called science, then perhaps
> the Scientologists will take up this new word too that you give me,
> and apply it to themselves and leave the word 'science' to those 
> who would study what they can never know for sure.

I would appreciate that very much, but haven't much hope.  The words
"science" and "religion" seems to hold an enormous attraction to RTC
and the Church of Scientology.  It is easy to see what the facination
is.  Being able to call something a "science" (even an "exact
science") and "religion" at the same time gives (among other things)
scientologists the opportunity to play mind games like this:

  - Scientology is a science!
  - Please prove <some outragous claim> in a way acceptable to scientists.
  - We don't have to do that -- because Scientology is a religion!
  - Then admit that all you offer is a religious experience.
  - But it is much more than that -- it's a science!
and so on ...

A good example is the E-meter.  RTC managed to avoid the standard FDA
requirement that they provided some proof that the meter worked as
advertised by labeling it a "religious artifact".  Then the next minute
they insisted that it also was a precise "scientific instrument".

===========
PS: How about that bridge I offered you in my last posting?  Do you want
    a good price on the Brooklyn Bridge, or have you already bought one?
    And if the latter is the case, how much did you end up paying?
--
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
------------------------------------------------