From: homer@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Homer Smith)
Subject: Re: double blind
Organization: Me
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:14:29 GMT

>
>Several times in this thread, you have stipulated that scientists used
>to believe that the earth was flat, but now they know better.  But for
>some strange reason, you refuse to acknowledge that the process that
>lead scientists to abandon the flat earth theory and adopt a new
>paradigm is an essential part of science.

     You mistake me, I am trained in the discipline of science
as you use the word.  Of course later observations made by yourself
and others will contradict earlier observations, this leads
to an alteration of theory with further deductions and verification.
 
     I am just not so fixated on needing OTHERS to verify, replicate
or pass judgement on my findings, especially in those fields where
others can not actually observe what I have.  Where they can,
it would be foolish of me to refuse them the opportunity, unless
I was running a scam or they were.  Possibly if I were doing
proprietary research, intended for copyright and trademark use,
I would protect my research from others for the sake of financial
gain.  This does not lessen the quality of science that I am doing,
nor throw doubt on the 'truths' that I have found.  It does 
however increase the possiblity that I am wrong, as it always helps
to have many minds probing the question rather than one.

>
>To me, looking out the window this very minute, the earth does indeed
>look flat!  So if I should only accept the "observations" (internal
>and external) that I myself experience I should keep believing that
>the earth is flat, and disregard all external authority (be it the
>clever experiment with sticks and the length of the shadow devised
>by a greek scientist more that 2000 years ago, or the more recent
>Apollo photographs).
>
     I see your point, but your analogy is bad because my first
impression that the world is flat is not my only observation on the
matter, it is merely my first.  Other easily made observations such
as the shadow cast on the moon imply that it is round, and serious
study quickly convinces one that this is so.
 
     The APPEAL TO AUTHORITY is bogus and has little place
in my determining for myself what is true.  I might want
to replicate their experiments however to see if their
authorized view of the world is replicatable and reasonable.
 
     But just because someone in authority said so, has zero
bearing on whether something is true or not.  It does usually however
increase the probability that it is true assuming that
the resident authorities are held to be such because of long
hard arduous hours actually doing research and publishing what
they found without bias.

>As the British philosopher George Berkeley noted when he compared the
>then novel notion of "atoms" with his own observations of a seemly
>soild table, things are not necesserely as they appear to an observer.

     Yes and may I suggest that you and I both suffer from possible
short sigthedness as to the true nature of things being caught
up in the illusion of maya as we all are.
 
     That the universe is possibly a spiritual universe is not
obvious, and in fact preposterous to some, even me at times,
but that non spirituality is itself PART OF THE SPIRITUALITY
of the universe and many on Earth are still falling for the illusion
that all is stone, that one IS a body, etc.

>
>So -- while I have the greatest respect for your scepticism -- that
>you only trust your own observations, deductions, inductions and
>theories, etc. I also think that when you refuse to acknowledge
>and follow up on legitimate critisism of your theories, you are
>more than a tad arrogant.  

    This is a straw man arguement if it is meant as a criticism of
me.  I do not have the failings of the Scientologists when it
comes to independent verifyability of my premises, but neither do
I fall for the 'if you can't prove it to others, it isn't true routine.'   

     Nor do I fall for the 'well you reported it to be true, so
you had better prove it is true to us or else...'  
To them I would say 'I should you what to prove, go prove it for
yourself.'

>I didn't reject Dianetics as pure and
>undiluted lunacy (with some sensible bits that was better expressed
>by the original authors Ron stole the ideas from) 

     This is little barb is very unscientific ad hominem on your part,
I am surprised you lower yourself to such.  If Ron stole everything
he knew from the Veda, so what, if its all true, it just means
that Ron has good taste in knowledge.
 
     Now his claiming that he discovered it all himelf may make
him out to be a master of fiction and spinning a tale, or a
pathological liar, 
but it does not invalidate one bit the truth of what he wrote.
 
     You know this, I know this, we all know this, so why waste
band width with 'well he stole it all from others, so its unimportant,
false and not worth reading or knowing.'

>
>But why don't you take the obvious step, and really try to find out?
>It should be simple to collect some of the sweat from a rundown, take
>it to a lab and get it analyzed for abnormal levels of toxins and
>radiation.  

     This is an absolutely incredibly good idea, has anyone
brought it up before?

>But no Scientologist has ever been willing to do this.  It
>is as if the "find it out for yourself" doctrine has limits that
>cannot be overstepped.
 
     So this would not speak well of them, eh?  So why
don't YOU go do the experiment?  Or get others to do it for them.
It would easy enough to get someone doing drugs into
a sauna and collect his sweat and see what's in it.
 
     Since no one has done this, no one has the right to 
say its false, now do they.  And if they HAVE done it, and they
can find not a single drug metabolite in the sweat or any other
excretion of the body increased because of the sauna, then
Ron's theory is plumb wrong.
 
     This does not invalidate the Purification Rundown, it
only invalidates the explanation as to why it works, if it does.
 
     And even if it is true, THAT does not mean the Purif works
or should be used.

     Now are we really that far apart on this?

     Homer
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology