From: pae@teal.csn.org (Phil Earnhardt)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Scientology and the Physical Universe
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:48:13 GMT
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.

In article <1992Dec10.182222.4524@memstvx1.memst.edu> isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
>> Someone provided me with a reference for the FAQ that quotes the 6.0 x
>> 10^13 number.  Could you provide me your reference (Title, Author,
>> Publisher, ISBN Number)? Was the reference provided to me incorrect?
>> 
>
>  I think the number you refer to is the length of the time track.
>This isn't necessarily the age of the universe.  I don't know if the
>reference is correct or not because you neglect to tell me where you
>got it (Title, Author, etc...)   :-)

It's in the FAQ. That was posted several days ago. Did you receive the FAQ
on your site?

>> What parts of Scientology do you think are Science? By what criteria do you
>> categorize them as Science?
>
>ARC, KRC, Tone scale to name a few.  

ARC? The "equation" that nobody can name the units for? Does that meet
your criteria for rigor?

>>Ignore psychology. Answer the question: by what criteria do you categorize
>>them (ARC, etc.) as science? What is the methodology? Jonathon's definition
>>of science includes testability? What methodical tests of these "Sciences"
>>can you present to us?
>
>   I was using the definition you proposed.  You know very well what
>Scientology's methodology for testing is.  "What is true for you is true"
>Really all that means is be skeptical and see for yourself.

Would "see for yourself" mean get access to the raw data? That sounds like
an excellent way to examine something.

>> Can you produce an example of research accepted as Science in the last 40
>> years where the researcher wouldn't give access to his raw data? If not,
>> why should we make an exception for Scientology?
>
>   How about Scientology?  Lots of people accept it as science because they
>have observed it themself.  That's how it works.  Why should Scientology
>make an exception for you?

You missed the key words in the question: Accepted as Science. Scientology
is not accepted as science.

Lots of people accept UFOs because they have observed them themselves. That's
how the "science" of UFOlogy works.

No, you have to use something *other* than Scientology as an example.

>>The technical term in the Software Engineering industry for describing
>>software that doesn't exist as if it does exist is Vaporware. What evidence
>>can you produce that this research isn't all Vaporware?
>
>How do you prove something ISN'T anything?  How do you prove you aren't in
>the CIA?  How do I prove I'm not from the Free Zone?

You provide a counterexample. In the question at hand, you tell us how to
get access to the raw data of Scientology...

>>>Sure science strives to minimize subjective phenomena.  Unfortunately for
>>>science it can never eliminate the subjective completely, because it
>>>incorrectly assumes reality to be objective.
>> 
>>Bingo. That's why LRH as the sole investigator of Scientology smells fishy.
>>And it starts to smell like a huge seafood market when *nobody* has access
>>to the raw data of his "research."

No comment?

No real science would ever get away with this kind of "research."

>My friend, if you defeated your powers of observation, how would you ever be
>able to get in front of the bus?  How would you move your body at all if you
>couldn't observe it?

Perhaps we should define Scientology as the hand-waving science of circular
definitions. That's what you've provided us with here.

>> That's a broad and sweeping statement about other religions. Can you provide
>> some rigor behind your claim?
>
>Notice that I said it was the only religion "I KNOW OF" that does that.  I've
>personally investigated many religions and I don't know of any that even
>claim something similar.  If anyone knows otherwise, I'd love to know about
>it.

I want to know what you mean by "many." How many? What religions did you
examine? Did you look only at western religions, or did you examine world-wide
religions? Could you list the religions that you examined?

And, by the way, how can we be sure that you didn't "Squirrel" some "tech"
from those many religions that you examined?

>John Holifield

--phil
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology