Talk:Dianetics/Archive 8

message: I agree there are some voices that claim Dianetics is a pseudoscience. 
But we also must agree that Wiki should appeal to reason and fairly reflect the result of that process in accordance with Wiki policies and guidelines.
I submit that Dianetics uses the scientific methods of Francis Bacon, [as represented in Novum Organum]. Some people have represented Francis Bacon as the Father of Modern Science. The methods of Bacon is cited in Evolution of a Science Such methods are written about by L. Ron Hubbard and presented as his record of personal researches into the nature of the spirit and Life, by the Dianetic publishers of his materials that are cited on Wiki. These are valid publishers of such materials. They have sold tens of millions of copies and reached tens of millions of people that have at least that level of interest in the subject. I believe Wiki should be responsive to what these people might expect to be informed about on an encylclopedic website like Wikipedia.
Wikipedia does not require peer-review in all cases for presentations of scientific theories. Not even for academic articles.
Eight precepts, a majority of which a theory might meet to be called Scientific have been presented without citation. I have submitted discussions and citations that demonstrate Dianetics meets these criteria.
Four Daubert criteria to meet legal criteria in the USA have been presented in the article. They do not require peer-review by another science in all cases. Dianetics meets these criteria.
Four voices disputing the science of Dianetics have been presented; Fischer, Fox, Carroll, and Davis. I have presented citations or refuting discussions for each. [Fischer was a student not a scientist, Fox was a study of one, Carroll had the information available he could not envision existing, Davis argued Hubbard had something apriori in mind with the idea of axioms instead of nothing and testing as the citations prove.]
Editors here have presented PR to tie all this, and extensive material from the ID page, together into an emotional appeal for pseudoscience treatement here. I would like show the reason of the actual situation that should be shown on Wiki. Spirit of Man 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is like saying "There's no way to determine that a $3 bill is counterfeit; there's no such thing as a genuine $3 bill, and therefore there's nothing to compare a $3 bill to to see if it's counterfeit." -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For some time the article contained the review of Dianetics by Hayakawa, a professor at the University of Chicago representing symantics and psychology, that accused all science fiction writers of misusing "analogy". Of course, in his review he accuses Hubbard of likening the human mind to a computer. You use the analogy of a $3 dollar bill in much the same way he accuses Hubbard of misusing analogy. Haykawa said Hubbard believe his "analogy" and then made his  generalizations from that, instead of investigating and familiarizing himself with the human mind. Hayakawa had done no tests and had not even observed a Dianetic session. I think your analogy is much like Hayakawa's review, it is not based on your tests, your personal understanding or familiarization or even a careful reading of the subject. Hayakawa claimed, for psychology and symantics, and any mental study, that there were NO results possible in mental science because of the Placebo effect. Dianetics has produced about 50,000 Clears, if you knew what that ment [second chapter of DMSMH] you would have to concede that it takes a considerable amount of technology and work to do that. I have cited a study from 1950 requested by the APA and credited and certified by psychologists. It is just one study that produced the results stated in the study. The study didn't have the information of 50,000 Clears to back them up in 1950. Spirit of Man 17:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments against the characterization of Dianetics as a pseudoscience