From: nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca (Richard Nistuk)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: !(New Tech Bulletins --> Research)
Date: 23 Nov 1992 18:49:50 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca
Summary: new tech bulletins do not imply reasearch

In article <1992Nov23.080059.2068@lds-az.loral.com> jerry@lds-az.loral.com (J Barbera) writes:
>>>Unfortunately, I can not provide this data because I am not tech trained
>>>and can only refer to the books (not the tech references).
>>
>>	But you work at a CoS Org!  Can you ask a tech trained
>>person to give you the data?  If not,  why not?

>You misunderstood something.  I am not currently on staff at a Scientology
>organization.  This will change by January, but is not currently the case.

Sorry.  Maybe in January you could get one of the techs' there to
get an internet account.


>>>                                                           But, I can
>>>point out that if one would compare modern Scn to Scn since 1952, one would
>>>find a very large number of changes made as new research was done.
>>
>>     But the major changes seem to be aimed at removing references
>>to the more fantastic sections of the origional books.  

[deleted: where I suggest things like the space opera stuff]

>Wrong.  No references to such have been removed from books.  First, there
>are still a number of materials containing whole track data which to an
>outsider would be possibly unpalatable.  Nothing has been changed for this
>reason.  The changes have been in the tech and its application.  One of
>the first auditor's handbooks was The Creation of Human Ability which is
>still available.  However, this book is not used now as a guide to
>auditing.  Another example was that a refinement of Dianetics at one time
>was Expanded Dianetics which, in 1978, was "replaced" by New Era Dianetics.
>Book One (Dianetics: MSMH) auditing is primarily used as a form of
>introductory auditing now.  It is not used to clear people in its
>original form.  There have been several other changes regarding auditing
>steps and when they are used.  Also, the content of two or more (?)
>advanced courses were very revised at one point because of newer data
>revealed by additional research.

Fair enough.  But post some references to the research papers.  And 
the details about the experiments.

>>>There have been many tech bulletins revised over the years.  Doesn't
>>>this at least indicate that something like research was being done?

>>	Not neccesarily.  Jonathon, have _you_ seen any of this new
>>research?  Have you seen teams of researchers in labs doing this
>>research?  Have you seen the technical reports?  Have you seen anything
>>published in the proper journals?  In fact have you seen anything at
>>all resembling evidence of research?

>I have seen the fact that older tech bulletins have been revised.  Comparing
>the previous Tech Vol 1 to the newer Tech Vol 1 would illustrate this.
>Newer discoveries have been made since 1952 and have been implemented
>at one time or another.

     Again, this does not show that research has been done for a fact.
In physics, or any other "real" science, one just doesn't come out and say
"Hey!  This is my result!  It is absolutely correct!  Apply it!"(well
some have tried, I suppose).  Usually a physicist writes research papers
and submits them to journals.  The research papers are read by other
researchers and the experiments are attempted.  If the experiments 
don't pan out, new theories are proposed and tested. (very simplified 
version, but close to what happens, I believe). 

>>	BTW, could you please post a tech bulletin?  Or part of one?

>I only have copies of a couple of tech bulletins.  Maybe in the near
>future I'll type one up and post it.

Excellent!

>Jonathon
>Barbera
-- 
Richard Nistuk               4th Yr Physics at U.B.C.
nistuk@unixg.ubc.ca