From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Some definitions and Comments
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:58:00 GMT
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <Bw5Eq9.D5K@csn.org>, 
         pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.225824.3677@memstvx1.memst.edu> 
       isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>>
>>So here are some definitions AS SCIENTOLOGY DEFINES THEM for some
>>of the words that you might have different definitions for.
> 
> But why? Why do you assume we use the words as Scientology defines them?
> Why can't Scientology speak in the language that we already understand?
> Why introduce words to mean things that already have a set connotation?
> 

   I'm not assuming that you are using the word the same way that I
am.  I realize that words have more meanings than one.  Certainly, you
aren't using the word science as Scientology defines it.  More on this
later...

>>Having a different definition for the word doesn't make Scientology any less
>>of a science, it just means we aren't talking about the same thing.  So what
>>is the point in arguing about the definition of the word anymore?
> 
> This thread started by your question of why people criticise Scientology.
> Maybe part of the reason is that they don't understand that your definition
> of science is different from the public's definition.       ---------------
> -----------------------------------------------------

   This is the main point where I disagree with you.  You as a scientist
have a certain connotation for the word science.  I sincerely doubt that
the definition of science used by the public is the same as yours.  I'm
certain that Scientology IS a science in the sense that the public
views science.

>>In telling other people about Scientology, I feel justified using the
>>word "science" because it communicates to them.  They know what I am
>>talking about.  By the definition of science used in conversation by
>>most people, Scientology IS science.
> 
> This is the fundamental point of contention in this discussion.
> 

    Exactly.  I'm not saying that according to your definition of
science, Scientology is a science.  BUT what I am trying to make clear
to you is that if I tell an average person that I meet that Scientology
is a science, they know what I'm talking about because I am using their
definition.

    You are a scientist right?  I'm a student and sales rep.  The people
I meet and associate with are much more "average" public, than you and
your scientist buddies.

> Could you post some more of your "experiments" and see if we can find
> one that we agree is Science?
> 

    Not today, but sometime soon I'll try.

>>But if you are still waiting for "independent verification" methinks
>>you'll be waiting a long time.  Scientology doesn't work that way.
>>We don't waste time trying to prove anything to anyone.  Anybody
>>who wants to, may find out for himself, and untill he finds out for
>>himself, I or any other Scientologist don't expect him to simply take
>>our word for anything.
> 
> This sounds like a principle common to all religions.
> 
> Why is it that what you claim is not "true" for all religions? 
>

    I don't think I'm duplicating what you're trying to ask.  Sorry.
 
>>What I've been trying to say all along is that anyone who wants to
>>verify Scientology can.  I feel that anybody who really wants to know
>>about Scientology can study the subject and verify it all they want to.
>>And lets face it, anybody who really WANTS to know will.  
> 
> People can do that for any religion. What makes Scientology distinct here?
>

    Still don't really get what your asking, but religion or science
or whatever, you have to look to know, and you have to be willing to look
in order to look.
 
>>Look at what you really want to do.  Do you want to know if it works
>>or not, or do you just want to proove that it can't?
> 
> I'm asking what makes the religion Scientology distinct from any other
> religion.
>

    Is that what you're getting at with those other questions?  I guess
the main distinction that I can make at the moment, is that I don't have
to accept any dogma as true, I can look for myself.  Other religions I
have examined and participated in seem to discourage this.  From reading
this newsgroup I can see that several people will howl at that comment.
 
>>I realize that no matter what I say, some will still keep saying
>>"No, give us independent verifiable proof."
> 
> That's the price you will have to pay -- verifiable proof -- before Scientists
> will start accepting Scientology as a science. As it stands now, I classify
> Scientology as a religion with a name that's an oxymoron.
> 

   Not really an oxymoron.  In this instance, I feel it is completely
justified for Scientology to use its own definition of itself.

TTYL,

John Holifield
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology