From: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and intelligence
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 00:21:36 PST
Reply-To: hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.org (Bill Hardman)
Distribution: world
Organization: Bark At The Moon Productions

>gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:

>In article <6NyXTB2w165w@throb.mcws.fidonet.org> hardman@throb.mcws.fidonet.o
>
>>> Please re-read may assertion.  The key phrase is "vested interest".
>>> _Most_ scientific research organizations aren't businesses who sell
>>> the results of their research (whether it is programs to increase
>>> intelligence or a cure for cancer) as products to a non-scientifically
>>> trained public.
>
>> Like Intel, General Dynamics, etc. etc.?
>
>Yeah, like Intel and General Dynamics, etc.  I happen to be a customer
>of Intel products and I would never (again) start a major development
>without getting independent verification of things like performance
>figures.  And I am sure I share that sentiment with any other engineer
>who has had the bad luck to instigate a development program based upon
>a major turkey like the Intel iAPX 432 (which looked like a sure
>winner in the performance figures published by Intel Corp.)
>
>And if I was paying for a high performance cruise missile, I'll would
>certainly require independent testing before I would sign the
>acceptance papers.
>
>I am quite surprised about your appearent ignorance in this matter.  I
>work in a research lab, and in almost every major project we
>undertake, there is an activity known as "QA" (Quality Assurance).
>This activity involves a number of things, but a major one is to get
>someone _outside_ the project team and our own organization to audit
>the procedures and results and actually sign their name on a dotted
>line stating that they vouch for the results with their professional
>reputation (This paper is known as an "audit report", and is described
>in detail in the International Standard Organization's recommended
>practice ISO 9000).  The fact that there exist an international
>standard for these things indicate that this type of independent
>investigation isn't such a rare occurance.  My experience is that it's
>really a routine activity in serious research.

There is no ignorance other than the assertions of ignorance in the
absence of understanding.  I have worked for a number of research
labs, following up on flawed independent tests that have cost my
clients in the form of suits.  Four such cases tried to fall back on
the "audit report" proving their product, only to have the other
party prove the product failure.

I never stated that independent research is rare.  Someone assumed
that.  I stated that it isn't an entirely "routine activity", and
gave instances as examples.

As I stated in previous postings, independent testing is not always
a irrefutable proof as to the validity of a product, or practice.
We are talking about spiritualism, and mental health, so let's not
wander too far from the topic.  If independent testing is routine,
which company validated the findings of the:

        Catholic Church
        Mormon Church
        Buddism

What was the research group responsible for the independent testing
of the mental health practices like:

        lobotomy
        ECT
        Transorbital Leukotomy
        Freudian Analysis

All that was required to implement these "cures" was to have some
Phd say it's so, no testing, just case studies.

Scientology claims to help the spirit of man feel better through
greater knowledge of the basic fundamentals of life.  Much the same
as any religion.  The basic tenant being that if the spirit of the
man is better, his ability to handle his environment will be better,
and his mental health is more stable.  This is brought about through
education and councelling, much the same as any religion, with the
exception of regulated costs for services, and a wider variety of
topics covered.

>> See above.  This occurs in medical treatments and testing of drugs,
>> although the fact remains that this is a flawed system, and not
>> always in the best interest of the public.  There has been a history
>> of independent studies of independent studies that have proved that
>> the tests conducted were flawed and incomplete. The field of
>> artificial sweeteners is one example of this.
>
>I see.  So because there has been instances where independent studies
>have been proved "flawed and incomplete", it is better to _not_ have
>independent tests, but trust whatever procedures and claims
>organizations with a vested interest in the outcome come up with.
>This must be the sort of logic one requires Scientology enhanced
>intelligence to grasp.

NOT.  Only a fool would take someone elses word, without exerting
first-hand observation into the area.  Flaunting ignorance with
WildOutOfLeftField statements does not make a point, nor create a
foundation for an argument (meaning the posing of an opposing
viewpoint).  Just because something has independent testing done,
and an ISO 9000 signed and filed, to trust in that demonstrates the
same logic you are knocking.  It all boils down to taking someone
elses word for it, one way or another.  Just the worship of a
different type of god.

>>> I'll be happy to discuss a case where intelligence gain is achived and
>>> testing is conducted according to "standard church practices" (which
>>> -- I understand from your posting -- has been violated in John's
>
>> The source for this is published in Science of Survival.
>
>I've ordered it through our library.  I'll report back when I've
>read it.  I assume the author is LRH.

Assuming again Gisle?  Now, Now... :)

Bill Hardman


------------------------------- :) -----------------------------------
   hardman = hardman@throb.uucp [modem (818) 352-6297]
                (Bark At The Moon Productions)
                        *A Secret Cult*
If you don't have anything nice to say....Say something Rude!!!!