From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: A question or 2 about "science"
Organization: ScotSoft Research
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:14:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.212305.3675@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

   I would like to ask a few questions. 

   If I observe something for myself and see that it is the way LRH says,
   why doesn't this make it true?  I mean, I concede that some of what LRH
   wrote can seem sort of off the wall at times, but if it works, then
   it works, period.  What is wrong with that?

Why doesn't observation make something true?
--------------------------------------------

There's an old, old joke about a scientist who does an experiment with
a fly. First he makes a loud noise, and the fly buzzes around its
cage. Then he pulls the wings off of the fly. This time when he makes
a loud noise, the fly doesn't move. So he writes in his journal: "If
you pull the wings off of a fly, it can't hear."

The phenomena the scientist is seeing is real, but his explanation is
obviously flawed. Some of the critics feel that LRH is in the position
of the scientist above: He had a few things that worked, but his
explanations are wrong or at best, untested.

And of course, there is the possibility that not only is the theory
cockeyed, but the phenomena you are seeing isn't actually a product of
the procedure. For example, there used to be a treatment for ulcers of
the upper intestine where the patient would swallow a deflated balloon
with tubes attached, and then a refrigerated solution was pumped
through the balloon for an hour. The theory was that the cooling
reduced acid secretion and allowed the ulcer to heal. It seemed to
work, was used for many years and even had experimental proof on its
side with experimental proof published in prestigious journals like
JAMA. Many doctors and patients swore by it, even claimed they owed
their lives to it.  Why isn't this remarkable treatment in use today?

Because it didn't work.  The design of all the experiments was flawed.
Later experiments (performed several years later) demonstrated
conclusively that this 'gastric freezing' had no effect. It was
immediately abandoned by all good physicians.

The parallel to scientology here is that you might be seeing
improvement from some practice (such as auditing), but the improvement
might not be due to the audit, for example it might have happened
anyway, or it might be due to some specific in the situation, such as
the auditor or a change in your lifestyle. Because most people
involved in the sciences have had experiences like the 'gastric
freezing' experiment above, where we have had to discard our own
observations and beliefs many times, they are (rightly, in my opinion)
reluctant to accept that something is true just because someone says
'it works for me'.

   Also, I still don't understand why something has to be independently
   verified in order to qualify for a "science" as you define it.

This is just a simple admission that we are all human, and all make
mistakes. The gastric freezing story above has this as its moral too:
If no one had ever re-examined the old experiment, and tried a new way
to verify it, then doctors would still be using an ineffective
treatment.


   I say that Scientology can be independently verified at anytime, and you
   tell me that It can't because it is the Church's responsibility to
   do the verification.  But then If I give you some type of verification,
   you will say that its unacceptable because it comes from the Church
   and not an independent source.  What gives here?

Well, I have asked for independent verification of many things in
scientology, and have yet to see even one. If you can actually provide
independent verification for the Purification Rundown, I would be
interested in seeing it.

   Just some things I was curious about....

I hope I have satisfied your curiousity.  I suspect you will get many
answers to these questions.

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com





Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology