Talk:Dianetics/Archive 3

message: The current rewrite and previous versions does not represent the WP:NPOV concept of presenting both sides of the issue fairly. One view or side might be the philosophy, science and therapy of Dianetics written by the author of Dianetics, L. Ron Hubbard with citations for any claims and including a section for any Controversial citations seen by editors. The second point of view and the only one allowed for some time has been to steadfastly confuse any understanding of the first view and fill the article with opinion, or tabloid citations only, disputing a subject that has never been Introduced or presented. Here is the prime example: The test result citations from Science of Survival proving Dianetics, were removed and reverted, then rewritten as if from a different report that had published criticisms that don't apply to the SoS reference. (the SoS citation presents Wechsler-Bellevue, Form B, IQ tests and data that were selected by named licensed psychometrists who conducted a study and the tests of 88 students new to Dianetics. It was used in WWII to select adults for military service, not children. The author of the latest rewrite presents finally the SoS data but surrounded by the criticism from a Sci Fi fan magazine called RHODOMAGNETIC DIGEST: BEING THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ELVES', GNOMES' AND LITTLE MEN'S SCIENCE-FICTION CHOWDER AND MARCHING SOCIETY, that is critical of the Wechsler NOT being used and the tests selected by the HDRF, NOT the licensed psychometrists and then says the test had been normed for children NOT adults. It is presented to "refute" the validity of the test results presented in SoS. Then the article is filled with tabloid citations what say there are no "test results".) I would like to see the NPOV concept of presenting both sides fairly, actually used on this Article. See the discussion below and the history of the article. I think you will find it confusing as well. Spirit of Man 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The article doesn't present Dianetics.  The manner in which it doesn't present Dianetics is spelled out by Spirit of Man.  Dianetics begin with some idea of proving itself.  But the only proof we can find seems to be the Science of Survival published proof.  Since psychiatry and other groups haven't done a study we seem to be stuck with the only published data, done as Dianetics says it has to be done to prove its worth.  Let's at least put that one study into the article. Terryeo 06:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Removing this Series Template from across the Scientology related pages.  This is not correct usage of Series Templates per the guidelines.  They were set up to show the history of countries and were different articles form a sequential series.  This is not the case with the Scientology pages, which are random pages on different topics – not a sequence of any kind.  Wiki’s definition of a series is: “In a general sense, a series is a related set of things that occur one after the other (in a succession) or are otherwise connected one after the other (in a sequence).” Nuview, 12:10, 10 January 2006 (PST)
:Restoring, series are not only chronological, they can also be navigational. Ronabop 00:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Series Template

message: Under "Theoretical basis" was this sentence.  This sentence is used to define the word "engram" (which, in the best of situations is not an easy idea to grasp); "(as opposed to how it was defined by Karl S. Lashley, the inventor of the term)" And I would say,  What possible contribution can that sentence make to the understanding of the reader?  If it is appropriate to introduce a word's history then good.  But sticking such a word history into the definition of a newly introduced idea does not contribute to a reader's understanding of the word. And this is particularly true of "ENGRAM" because the word, even today, has one use in a common dictionary and another use (according to Povmec) in other fields. To stick its history into a definition is not good practice and disperses a reader's attention. If ChrisO feels it is really necessary to introduce the history of that word then his article should place an endnote which points to a reference or even a section deeper in the article which explains how Mr. Hubbard was not the first person on the planet to have uttered the word, "engram." Terryeo 15:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I commented to ChrisO above about the engram definition used in your paragraph from the article. I may have been too harsh. It should contain the idea of "mental image" moments, not "physical" moments. That is basically what is missing. In researching further, I was able to find his incomplete quoted definition in the glossaries of DMSMH and Evolution of a Science, but by 1951 the idea of a recording or "mental image" goes forward in glossaries from there. In DMSMH the reference to "a recording" is p79 for the more complete meaning, "An engram is a complete recording." In Evolution of Science the reference is p67, "An engram is an energy picture." A more modern Dianetics definition is from HCOB 23 Apr 69 and includes the above and the idea that "It must by definition have impact or injury as part of its content." It may also include the idea that "this is the source of all aberration, insanity and chronic sensations, known as psychosomatic illness". I don't think the history, nor the link to that, is an appropriate meaning for the article. As I pointed out above the author of the original term could not actually prove his structural idea and conjectured that research would lead to essentially what Hubbard provides in the 1969 definition. If the article means to point to a complete definition of "engram" in Dianetics, it should use the one from Dianetics, not another subject. Spirit of Man 18:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As usual you're totally correct Spirit of Man and I was incorrect to state anything about an engram being in any way connected to the physical universe.  It is a memory recording, a memory almost like any other memory, differing in only one way from every other memory (some degree of unconciousness).  It is my thinking that if a good introduction is made then more can be created.  Dispersive statements like putting "through soul" deep in the article, or like tossing in word histories aren't going to explain the idea to the reader. Terryeo 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thought on "memory", that may be too purist for some. A memory implies something is being brought to mind. We have two seperate things. An energy recording of actual experience that contains all of the accurate details of the physical universe experience . This is called a "mental image picture". To view the full extent of the details of this image, you have to return to that exact instance in mental time and look. After this recording exists then some details of the recorded experience can be "brought to mind" by thinking of something, say "the taste of honey". A copy is then made of the original that may not contain much more than a tiny concept of the original but satisfies what was needed, a time when there was "a taste of honey." This is what is normally known as "memory", not the actual recording that was created at the instant of the actual experience. This copy is such a shallow reflection of the ultra-detail full three-dimensional detail of the original that it is said to be a thought or "memory". What is brought to mind is a shallow copy of the original image, NOT a new image of the physical experience. You can access the original a thousand times per day and dim it. But if you return to that exact instant and view it with full fidelity with the idea you are resonsible for it or for the creation of it, then it can be removed from the mind. Spirit of Man 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked back at the "through soul" issue, not in terms of where it is, but I think ChrisO has a point on "soul" or "mind". I don't think it makes much difference. LRH simply says it is best described in this way. It is not a translation. I think of it this way. We address the spirit. Only the spirit may heal the body according to the Creed. When the spirit looks at the body, an ill body, he will see a picture as he looks at the body. That picture is part of the mind. He is looking "through the mind". When he handles the pictures causing the illness, he and the body will not be ill. Spirit of Man 23:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both "through soul" or "through mind" describe an action, some kind of motion or activity and the action involves thought.  Hubbard said, "the subject matter of Dianetics is thought."  One point of view would be:  "an individual, through their own individuality address thought."   And another point of view would be: "through the mind (thought) an individual does Dianetic actions."  Thought is what is addressed and manipulated.  Examinations of engrams, sometimes mentally doing things with mental energy.  Any of it is about thought, thoughts, past and present thought.  hmmm. so how much closer are we to an introction. heh ! Terryeo 14:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To me "thought" in popular culture evokes the wrong idea. It lacks the idea of substance. Does "thought" mean you can measure the resistance of a thought or thought change? Does it mean a person's weight can be measured to change due to a thought? Does it mean that it can react on the person in such a way as to make him feel terror or to drop him to his knees with a migraine headache? Does it mean it can have the power to utterly control a persons life? Does it mean it has the power to disfigure a body? Does it mean that by simply removing an engram the disfigurement and pain of arthritis can be relieved entirely?  How about leukemia? Who believes the chronic sensation called leukemia is merely a thought containing certain content? To me the simplicity is; there is a spirit, there are mental image pictures, there is the body. What the spirit or soul is doing to the body, he does with energy pictures or with the mind. As far as an Introduction, the Wiki material on NPOV says that both sides of an issue must be fairly presented. One view is that Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy discovered, researched and developed by L. Ron Hubbard. We currently only have one side of the issue fairly presented. How do we appeal to the people that presented that side to fairly present the second side in accordance with Wike NPOV? Spirit of Man 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cut from article, pasting here for discussion a sentence 

message: "It is a therapy in the sense that its application, as spelled out by Hubbard in 10 publications, results in a more able human being."
Terryeo, please read WP:NPOV.  And then read it again.  And then read it some more.  And some more.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read it several times.  On one hand (your side of the story) there is no, what you call, scientific, evidence any of it works.  That's fine, all anyone would have to do is present that no studies have been done.  No problem at all.  Since no studies have been done there is no informational base to draw a conclusion from.  I don't have a problem with that.  Where is your problem with it?  If there is no information then there is no citeable information.  Wikipedia is presenting Cited information.  Cited sources A (mine) and B (yours) are both presented.  The reader becomes informed.  Dianetics has 10 books.  Those are published and citeable.  Now your task, Antaeus, should you choose to accept it, is to find 10 OTHER publications which study the techniques of Dianetics and present your side of the story.  Until you do, my side (10 books and many transcribed lectures, newspaper articles, opinions and other cited sources) will be used to present this side of the story.  Happy Hunting Antaeus.  Terryeo 13:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for adding more evidence.  In your edit summary you pretend to misunderstand; you pretend to think that the wildly disputed claim is the description of Dianetics as a "therapy", and here you show that you understand very well that the wildly disputed claim is that it "results in a more able human being".  I believe you know quite well that merely adding "as spelled out by Hubbard in 10 publications" does not make it acceptable to repeat this claim by Hubbard as if that claim was not (to understate wildly) widely disputed. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm, I'm not sure if you are stating that I have made a misleading edit summary of if you are stating that Hubbard's statement; "Dianetics is a therapy" is a "claim by Hubbard."  I would say if a man originates a subject, his is the word on the subject until proven differently.  Are you saying, "Dianetics is a threapy" is a wildly disputed claim? If that is the case, the solution is quote and attribute a source making the statement. Terryeo 19:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not go past your misunderstoods.  It has already been clearly stated for you that the wildly disputed claim is that Dianetics "results in a more able human being".  I believe you know quite well that merely adding "as spelled out by Hubbard in 10 publications" does not make it acceptable to repeat this claim by Hubbard as if that claim was not (to understate wildly) widely disputed.  As for whether "Dianetics is a therapy", that depends on whether we are calling anything intended as a therapy, no matter what actual results it gets, as a therapy.  If we decide instead that the description of something as a therapy must be reserved for methods that actually show verifiable results then Hubbard's word is most definitely not the word on the subject, for obvious reasons. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps I haven't replied to what you attempted to state, Antaeus.  NPOV means that various sides of a controversial subject be presented.  But it does not mean they should be presented in a manner which does not allow them to be understood by the reader.  You should present your side in the best possible light, in a manner so a reasoning person can understand your POV.  Note this is quite different than attempting to demonstrate to the reader how his powers of reasoning can never grasp any part of either side of the subject.  You present your side in a reasoned manner.  The reader then can understand your objections and apply his understanding to the reasoning of the other side. Terryeo 14:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Anteaus doesn't present his side of things well, I agree with that.  Hubbard built something which today has many adherents and as it manifests in the Church of Scientology, owns millions of dollars of property across the planet.  He didn't do it by "proving it" and the Church of Scientology has specific policy about "proving it" in that sense.  Prove it!  has long been a cry which attracts attention.  Henry Ford built cars on the idea that the common person might own a car.  Today his techniques have been proven.  But it wasn't done by his complying with poeple around him, he just went ahead and did it.  So too with Dianetics.  The medical, science and psychiatry communities simply ignored it.  They cry "prove it" and call it pseudoscience untill it is proven to them.  It won't be proven to them.  No Church of Scientology or Dianetics organization will put out the years of effort, will put out the controlled studies to satisfy those organized groups.  It isn't going to happen.  The reason it isn't going to happen is, it simply isn't needed.  It would be a waste of time, money, energy and it would result in nothing different (or very little different) than is already present.  Hubbard made specific policy about this matter within the Church of Scientology.  You'll never find the Church attempting to satisfy "Prove it" in this area. Terryeo 09:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like what you two are saying back and forth to each other is that you don't think Scientology should have to prove its claims, the claims that you want inserted into the article as if they were undisputed facts, to anyone's satisfaction but its own.  Needless to say, this will not happen.  Neither will the claims of Scientology which you say that the Church will not put forth the effort to prove be inserted into the article as if they were facts simply because no study has specifically disputed them; if someone inserted "the moon is made of green cheese" into an article, it would not be considered "undisputed" or treated as such until such time as a NASA study formally debunking the idea that the moon is made of green cheese was added to the page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying what Dianetics should do, or should not do. Nor the Church of Scientology either.  I have stated what I expect they will not do, they will not "prove it."  I have stated why I am pretty sure they won't.  Terryeo 16:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: this section begin because I stated: "It is a therapy in the sense that its application, as spelled out by Hubbard in 10 publications, results in a more able human being."  The subject is Dianetics.  Dianetics presented itself for some years as a therapy.  Let me give you an example, you tell me what to call it.  If a person who could not bend his knees and walk normally undergoes Dianetics and then walks normally, what would you call it?  I understand, your reaction is, "There is no proof that happened" but allow me to ask, anyway.  If that did happen, then what would you call it?  How about if a person felt just miserable and then talked with a friend about how his wife cheated him.  And suddenly he felt better.  What would you call that?  Would you call that a therapy?  You know, what do you call it when after a person talks to another person then they feel better?  Terryeo 16:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you are already stipulating that it need not ever have actually happened I'd call it the existential fallacy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wildly disputed claim presented as fact 

message: Its not like there isn't Wikipedia direction for ChrisO's footnotes, there is.  There is plenty of clearness but ChrisO's notes don't follow it.  Why is it necessary with you people to point out that simple, straightforeward statemetns like:  "Term, Topic, Context" mean 1. Term. 2. Topic, 3. Context.  In the case of these footnotes ChrisO refused to include many needed details.  For example, "Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health" is mentioned with a page number in footnote.  But That year not only was that book published in a number of languages, it was published in more than one format.  There was a hardbound version and there was a softbound version.  There might have additionally been some leatherbound collector's versions.  Which is exactly why our beloved wikipedia says to include an ISBN if possible, or if not possible then to include enough information so a person could find that book, newspaper article, pamphlet, report, etc if a person wanted to.   So, the atual quality of the notes doesn't stand up to inspection.  This is after everyone who knows the subject told ChrisO how his convoluted writing has hidden the meaning of the subject.  Further,  besides the convoluted introduction of the meaning of the word well after the introduction,  besides the poorly done notes which are themselves poorly done,  the actual USE of the notes is very poor also.  My nickle is we should remove almost the whole article and start with nothing.  It would have slightly more meaning than what we have now. Terryeo 20:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terryeo, when are you going to stop lying?  It is definitely lying now; you have been clearly informed more than enough times that the "simple, straightforeward  statement" you are referring to of "Term, Topic, Context" does not exist.  It has never existed in the form you claim it does (the form that you claim justifies your rigid interpretation) at the page you claim contains it.  You even know quite well by now that the page you claim supports your rigid interpretation in fact contradicts it.  What exactly do you hope to gain by constantly repeating claims about Wikipedia policy that you know to be false? -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Antaeus, I appreciate your concern and efforts in attempting to enlighten me about your point of view.  I see the page I had pointed to is now different than it was when I pointed to it.  I would still say, generally, the idea of presenting the word, its meaning, what makes is a topic and not merely a word and then a context within which the topic falls; is an appropriate manner of introducing a subject.  For example this article pluot does that.  Its a reliable method which doesn't attempt to sway the reader to one point of view or another. Terryeo 00:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "is now different than it was when I pointed to it" -- absolutely irrelevant because as has already been clearly explained to you it never said what you claimed it said.  If you still think it does then go into the edit history and pick out any version which states that only an ordering of "Term, Topic, Context" is correct.  There isn't one; every version which contains the sentence which you have been misinterpreting as prescribing a rigid "1. Term 2. Topic 3. Context" ordering also clearly contradicts that interpretation by showing the context coming first in the examples demonstrating what is meant by "context".  Again, this has been explained to you multiple times.  Why is it, precisely, that you are pretending it is new to you and you still don't understand? -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your assertion that we should delete the entire article and start over because you don't like the footnotes is bizarre and absurd. As far as I can see, you haven't stated a single substantive objection to anything other than the introduction. Where's the beef? -- ChrisO 00:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "the beef" has been clearly stated from the first day you removed everyone's hard work and put your own hard work in substitution.  People who know Dianetics told you at that time "the beef."  As I've said before, the article is uninformative and misleading.  Other persons who know the subject said somewhat different things.  It has been perhaps a week, a few days anyway and you listened to no one but those who support your ideas and who think you did good.  Those of us who know Dianetics, who have used Dianetics have opinions which you ignored.  I tried minor editing of the introduction in ways which did not disrupt your note list.  Even those were not tolerated.  In the help topics which discuss how to make notes, endnotes and so on, it cautions against using them in heavily edited situations.  You really expect to stop all other points of view because you have posted a longwinded point of view with a lot of notes? Terryeo 00:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The quality of the footnotes and references is very very poor 

message: Your second note lists "Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health and gives a page number.  In 1988, the year which apparently, your copy was published, the Library of Congress says 3 publications of that book were being printed.  Their ISBNs are; , , and .  Which specific publication are you talking about with that footnote?  To describe your footnotes as unprofessional is an understatement.  Practically none of them are helpful to a reader.  Further, why exactly do you point a reader to a webpage titled about a lost job?  First you poorly document a book so a person can not pick up your particular copy of the book and find page 11 and read the quote which you say it quotes.  Then you further mislead the reader by pointing him to quite another copy (no published or sold in 1988, page 11) with yet another information for him about losing a job.  I believe ChrisO, what you mainly do is present Dianetics as a controversy.  At no time do you admit Dianetics might be a subject.  At no time, either in discussion nor in the article do you mention the millions of copies of Dianetics which have been sold.  At no time do you conceed there is information about the mind which can be delt with and people's lives improved from understanding their thoughts better.  You present "Dianetics is a controversy."   That would be okay if you allowed that there are other points of view.  Dianetics is a subject, an extant body of information.  Some of us know Dianetics can be known and communicated, some of us view it as a subject worth knowing.Terryeo 08:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More about "the beef"