From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Hi guys
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 18:59:16 GMT

In article <TdV=KwA@engin.umich.edu> davidb@engin.umich.edu (David Bonnell) writes:
>One cool analogy would be to pretend that there was this two dimensional worm
>that didn't know what up was.  Then one day while crawling around he bumps
>his head on a stick sticking straight up into the sky (sort of like getting a
>Dianetics or Scientology book) He is not real sure about it but he decides to
>try to climb up the stick.  He crawls up just a little bit and looks around
>and sees the world from another entirely new viewpoint.  He gets very excited
>about all this and quickly climbs down and tries to find his friends to tell
>them all about it.  He tries to tell his friends about what he saw but they
>say he is crazy and it just can't be.

Typically, this isn't the nature of the discussion in this newsgroup.

What happens is that Scientologists will make claims about something and will
never, ever provide any rigor to back up their claims.  Recently, John
Holifield added a new twist to this discussion:

In <1992Dec10.182222.4524@memstvx1.memst.edu>, John Holifield writes:
>Phil writes:
>>In other words, are you just a Guy in a Bar -- someone expressing an opinion
>>about the physical universe with no rigirous physical evidence to support
>>your opionion? Why should I respect what you have to say more than, say,
>>Steven Hawking when he talks about cosmology?
>
>No I don't have any rigirous physical evidence, but scientists have no
>rigirous evidence either.

My question, (which John has so far failed to answer): Does Scientology
*really* believe that there is *no rigirous evidence whatsoever* for the
current Scientific models of the origins of the Universe? If I start quoting
current theories and the physical evidence that those scientists cite, will
you be able to demonstrate that none of what I say has any rigor?

Part 2 of the question: does this apply to all sciences? In the eyes of
Scientology, does no science have rigor? If some do and some don't could you
please tell us which is which? Also, please tell us why the Scientists in
the "valid" sciences would tolerate the "invalid" sciences. 

>Also I'm open to honest questions and inquiries.  My temper runs very short
>for smart-asses and people who know nothing about Scientology who try to slam
>it for kicks.  I have a policy of immediate reverse slamming.

Then please address the unanswered questions in the FAQ. I have strived to
eliminate flames and have "honest" questions there. If you do not feel the
questions are "honest," then tell me why you think so.

If you do not have the FAQ, send me e-mail. I'll start posting it monthly,
both here and in the news.answers [hierarchy] in January.

So far, no Scientologist has ventured any comments, public or private, on
the FAQ.

>Very shortly I will be posting large amounts of information about
>why Scientology appears controversial and where all the lies and
>falsehoods about this subject come from.

Before you do this, could you look at what's in the FAQ and address the
unanswered questions there? I don't think anything will be proven by posting
billiyons and billiyons of bytes of "information" to this group. Other than
which of us are using slow modems...

>-dave

--phil