From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Some definitions and Comments
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 05:46:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.225824.3677@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>If we don't agree on the same definition, we aren't talking about the
>same thing, right?

Absolutely. This is good -- this is an excellent place to begin this
discussion.

>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?
What purpose is served by overloading the words that we already have?

Why not introduce different words instead?

>You may or may not agree with these defintions, but that is how
>Scientology defines the words.  Of course it doesn't proove that
>Scientology is a science, but I assert that by these definitions,
>Scientology is a science.

By this logic, I could go off and make anything a science. Just define
the words the right way...

>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.

>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.

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

>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? 

>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?

>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.

>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.

>This is true,

Truth is a very tricky thing. I suggest you read what philosopher Richard
Rorty has to say about Truth in his essay "The Contingency of Language." It's
part of the book _Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity_. Rorty has some very
interesting things to say about the distinction between truth and reality.

>John Holifield

--phil

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology