From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Validity of Scn revisited
Date: 23 Nov 1992 21:36:42 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Keywords: tongue pulled

In article <1992Nov23.094308.5771@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>In article <1992Nov23.071512.4160@random.ccs.northeastern.edu> 
rogue@ccs.northeastern.edu (Free Radical) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov22.001242.21768@lds-az.loral.com>
>>jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes: 
>>>In article <1ei0ctINN1p1@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca
>>>(Richard Nistuk) writes: 
>>>>In article <1992Nov19.040649.16011@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com
>>>>(J Barbera) writes:
>>[...]
>>[not sure who said this, the attrib has been lost]
>>>>>>>>	Has the church of scientology published _any_ unsuccessful stories?
>>>>
>>>>	J (can I call you that?), buddy!  Here you should have "just
>>>>said NO"!  Instead you go nuts and say:
>>>
>>>I said, no: they don't publish the unsuccess until it is a success after
>>                                              ^^^^^
>>'Until'?  This implies that every case is eventually a success.  Or
>>did you mean 'unless'?

>Every case is eventually a success unless the person quits in the middle.

	Then that case is *not* a success.  How many cases were
quit in the middle? How many unsuccessful cases are there?


>>>the following:
>>>>>>>If someone was dissatisfied, the source of the dissatisfaction is
>>>>>>>found and 
>>>>>>>handled.  It doesn't happen too often, but when it does there are several
>>>>>>>things that they check (the Case Supervisor can double-check the PC folder
>>>>>>>to see if anything was missed, etc.)...
>>[...]
>>>There would be a review of the auditing to see if the auditor missed
>>>something or whatever.  On the other hand, a problem would arise if
>>>the PC was PTS (various types).  Again, the PC isn't blamed.  This
>>>is merely something that would need handling before auditing would
>>>be beneficial.
>>[...]
>>[A discussion of procedural review in other situations accidentally deleted]

I believe I had suggested that an in depth review of *all* the scientology
cases, by the appropriate professionals (not me), would be a fundamental
part of any study conducted of Scn.

Jonathon balked at this, he said that he wouldn't want his personal
information reviewed.

I said it happens all the time in other fields, I said that the place
my wife works for is undergoing a provincial gov't review right now.
I also gave of examples of other organizations such as dental offices,
hospitals, etc. which regularily undergo such reviews, and, of course,
in such reviews peoples files get inspected.
 
>>>Do people's private lives get reviewed in depth?  Otherwise, it doesn't
>>>compare.

>>I am unfamiliar with how psychiatric outfits are reviewed, but would
>>assume the answer to this is 'yes'.  Could someone back me up on this?

>The patient files of psychiatrists are private, yes?

>In any case, Richard was comparing it to a business being reviewed.

    Actually, no I wasn't.  The clients my wife works for are getting
thier historys reviewed, the clients, BTW, are physically challenged
(ie: deaf and blind), my wife works in care home.



Jonathon had suggested that I, or skeptics in general I presume, take
a free auditing course, to "do some of our own research".
To this I responded:
>>>>	This is certainly not research!  To carry the car dealer analogy
>>>>a bit further:  Do I need to become a Ford dealer to learn how good a car
>>>>is?

Free says:
>>Jon - you missed this question.  I just want to point it out.  If your
>>answer is 'no', please tell us why one needs to become a trained
>>Scientologist in order to learn whether Scn is good or not (as I
>>believe you have indicated).

Jonathon says:
>I stated that if someone out there wanted to research Scn tech, then
>becoming trained would be a natural requirement. 

Not true.  There are many non-scientologists who are perfectly
qualified to conduct research on the validity of Scn Tech.  I, for
example, have enough training to determine what an E-meter would
measure(current, voltage, etc.), if I saw the workings of one.  A
medical Doctor could examine the purification rundown to see if
the claims of Scn are true(this has even been done),  the
claims associated with the "clear" individual can likewise be
verified.
  
>                                                 However, finding
>out if Scn is good can be determined from merely reading books or
>receiving auditing.

Again, not true.  Auditing is an application of something
that has not been clinicaly proven effective.  And as for 
the books, they  make many, seemingly unverifiable, claims
but provide no references to actual research.

Now I will leave my previous attempt at describing what research
might entail.  Note this is only a thumbnail sketch, actual
research is not this simple:
>>>>O.K. here would be _some_ of what research _may_ entail:
>>>>
>>>>	a detailed disection of the CoS.  This would include
>>>>looking at every aspect of the church individualy to asses the
>>>>viability.  Here an INDEPENDANT, TRAINED research TEAM would look
>>>>at:
>>>>	the CoSs' finances and business practices
>>>>	each training course
>>>>	each piece of Scn tech: E-meters, etc...
>>>>	each Scn "medical type" treatment ie: the purification rundown
>>>> 	(please add more...)
>>>>
>>>>as well another team could do a statistical study of, say, three
>>>>groups of people:
>>>>
>>>>	people who are taking Scn courses
>>>>	people who are taking other self help courses
>>>>	people who would rather have their tongues pulled than
>>>>take a self help course.  (a control group, if you will).

Free says:
>>Here is the information I was looking for earlier, which gives us a
>>good foundation for discussing whether Scn would allow rigorous
>>investigation of its methods.  Jon - would a group of Field Auditors
>>be able/allowed to conduct research in this manner?  Which parts would
>>be objectionable, and why?

Jonathon says:
>The above is regarding looking into the Church.  The second is
>regarding courses.  Neither are applicable to a field auditor who is
>auditing people.

Again, NOT TRUE.  Please re-read, I said a *detailed disection* of 
*every* aspect of the church.  This *would* include the courses,
*and* the field auditors, it includes *everything*. period.  Look
at the part where I describe a statistical study, I specificaly 
mention people taking the courses!

Please read more carefuly, Jonathon.


>Jonathon
>Barbera
-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca