Re: Narconon

I ranted: * > which you don't experience is not real, or is a lie. If Elizabeth reads * > this, please don't take this as a flame, and if I'm wrong please correct * > me. But it unsettled me to see you respond in this way.

To which Elizabeth McCoy (emccoy@jade.mv.net) replied: * Ah. You're not entirely wrong, but not entirely right -- I apologize for * being unclear.

No need. Thank you very much for the clarification you made. I'm actually surprised you responded, since I tend to take a heavy flame approach much of the time. Thanks for letting me air some of my thoughts. Are you ready?

* When I say "no data" -- that means I have no personal data to either * agree with *or refute* the topic that I'm saying that about. It is often * applied to something that just doesn't mesh with what I *have* seen -- I * honestly, deep down, can't believe it. Some of it gets a reaction akin * to being provided proof (or "proof) that George Washington was actually * Jack the Ripper, say.

It all depends on the source of the proof, doesn't it? A more "real world" scenario would be the assertion: Ronald Reagan wears women's underwear. the credibility depends on ther source, right? If you heard it randomly on the street, you would feel justified in ignoring it, as it not only violates years of exposure to Reagan's image but it also comes from an unknown source with unknown motives. If you read it in the papers as being attributed to a "close aide" you would probably think a little more on it but still reject it as unverifiable. If, however, his former Chief-of-Staff appeared on the news, claiming to have not only witnessed Reagan wearing frilly panties, but he has pictures of him prancing around the Oval Office, then it would be pretty hard to deny the assertion, even if one's own masculinity were defined be Reagan (believe me, I've known them).

What needs credibility in our own eyes is not so much the assertion, but the source. And a lot of times it's hard to give up our assertions, so we often dump the source. Even the best minds struggle with it: Einstein rejected Quantum mechanics in part because it was not an aesthetic solution that agreed with hisa belief in an orderly universe. Schroedinger did not accept the concept of quantum jumps or some aspects of wave-particle duality despite the math. He believed in an orderly transistion between states described by his wave equation, when in fact none were ever observed.

One can look at my second sentence in the paragraph above and say "Gotcha! that's JUST what you're doing to Hubbard!" True, I don't believe the assertions, but the cause and effect are reversed. I don't reject Hubbard because the assertions are hard to accept, but rather I reject the assertions because Hubbard is hard for me to accept. I need a credible source before I'll entertain an assertion, and what I read here leads me to discount Hubbard.

So why then do I give credibility to what I read here, I know you're asking? The sources. Much as Andy Milne would object, the sources of allegations that I read here are mostly from former high level scientologists, some of whom were very close to Hubbard, even his own son. Any one of these might be bad sources, but the similarities in the stories, and the fact that these sources knew they'd be sued or harrassed in many cases, makes the whole story more credible. On the other hand, the OSA reps here have frequently lied and posted some real ugly bait. Their credibility suffers. Hubbard's credibility suffers when I read his books. "History of Man", "Clear Body, Clear Mind", and "All about Radiation" contain some of the worst drivel I have ever seen that tried to pass as non-fiction. I can't give any credibility to such a source. If he was so obviously wrong about THOSE things, what else might he be wrong about?

You, on the other hand, have a different set of criterion for deciding whether a source is credible or not. But remember, Dennis had a pretty high position at Flag. If anyone there knew the tech, it was Dennis. That doesn't change with his status in scientology.

[snip]

* If you don't tell me where I'm being unclear, then I can hardly fix it, * nih?

Quite so. The reverse, as always, applies.

[snip]

* [...] * >That's why they'll never * >admit to any outside knowledge: they can't! It isn't real. Even worse, * >it's actively false, not just wrong. * [...]

* Not an attitude that I'm entirely familiar with... I can think of a * few... fervernt people who might go for that, but... <shakes head> <grin> * No data, for or against. I'm willing to look at much of it from the

Well, I stated it a little forcefully. Try this: Throughout Dianetics, Hubbard refers to pre-clears as "aberrees". He lays the foundation that all of mankind is normally in an aberrated state, with these aberrations caused by engrams that can only be cleared through auditing. He warns that engram restimulation can cause major problems, and that engrams normally drive people to destructive behavior. He also states that a Dianetics Clear is the start of being a sane being. Now, if you are a Dianetics Clear, free of your engrams and master of your mind, how do you view the rest of humanity? Can they be credible sources? They suffer from problems that you don't. They respond to engram drives you no longer have. They don't have control of themselves. Their actions are guided by their engrams, so you KNOW they are trying to destroy something good, something that restimulated them. How could you possibly believe anything they say?

Now step up to scientology, where you suddenly have more powerful drives by more powerful entities controling humanity, and you add control of spiritual matters to the arsenal of the clear, and the gulf widens. You, as the OT, KNOW that you have cause over yourself, and you KNOW that the public is driven by the programming provided by their insane Body Thetans, so you KNOW the source of their attacks on your church. How can what they say have any truth? Witness recent posts by Russell Shaw who adamently claims that the hardcore critics here are fighting a battle in another time. He's convinced that actions here are caused by BT's in restimulation. How, then, could he ever see anyone here as a credible source? All he can ever see is insane people driven to attack by restimulation and poor humans who are deluded by them attacking something the only hope for mankind. He CAN'T accept any data from the critics here, because he doesn't see them as equals.

* standpoint of: "It does *something*, and there are certainly a decently * large number of people who think it's a good something." But I'm not * necessarily going to claim that what it does is *the truth*. I'll * generally believe much of it, absent other scientific data (where

That's the crux of a large number of threads here: There is no proof that it does anything at all. there is only anecdotal evidence. There is no way to say WHAT exactly caused a change in someone without controls, and the few times that scientology has allowed that, it has failed. For every person who claims that Narconon cured them of their addiction, I can find ten who say that Jesus did it for them. There just isn't any proof.

* scientific data is entirely applicable -- psychology is *not* entirely * scientific, IMO, since it deals with unpredictable neural nets...), but

Well, strictly speaking, it's the root of all evil. You should know that!

Some aspects of psychology are indeed very scientific, since they deal with controlled and repeatable testing of a hypothesis.

* I'm not *totally* immune to Science. Of course, I'd like to find *other* * reasons for why things work, rather than hearing "It doesn't work that * way, therefore it cannot work."

Sure, but when someone says "It works in THIS manner", with no proof, and someone else says "Does not, and here's the proof", well ,I'll take the does not view. Chris is a biophysicist. He deals daily with a large body of work on how the body works at a very low level. If he says that most drugs aren't stored in fat, and that drugs do not get stored in the body for long periods of time, then I believe him. If the Purif claims to work because it acts on drugs stored in the fat for years, I have to discount those claims because they run counter to what has been discovered over years of medical research that is repeatable and open for study.

* This was talking about Purif, I think? <shrugs> At the risk of being * labled trivial, maybe it's something akin to American Indian sweat * lodges? Those were a part of their religion. (Don't hit me if I'm * terribly wrong -- my most recent "research" was from Mercades Lackey's * _Sacred Ground_, and *she* admits that it's a hodge-podge...)

Could be, but it's moot on the scientific points.

* >For this reason you can talk biophysics until you're blue in the face. * >You could walk them into a lab and force them to watch a test of sweat * >for excretions and they wouldn't believe you.

* I might -- though I get real obstinate when I'm forced to do anything. * <grin> I'd probably be incredibly fascinated with a lab test type thing.

I doubt that ANYone would want to force you to do anything you didn't want to.

* I'd probably say more, but I have a *nasty* headache (probably comes from * eating mini-apple fritters (apple mini-fritters?) for breakfast -- at

Getting restimulated, perhaps? <ducks flying utensils>

* BTW, I've got a short-story in consideration for MZB's Fantasy Magazine * right now -- wish me luck?

Great! I hope they accept it. I have several friends trying to break into the fantasy and sci-fi markets. I know how tough it is!

* --emccoy@jade.mv.net * "(And -- hey -- _don't_ you wanna see the offspring of Kahvi and Tyldak?? * Lean, graceful, ethereal, floating, foulmouthed, black-humored, * good-natured, hedonistic warriors? Eh? Eh?!" --smandel@fas.harvard.edu

-- / Xenu stole my lunch money \ / Andy Testa (KoX) I'm OT! I could KILL you with \ \ testa@hou.moc.com a thought! BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAAAA! / \ Contributing to the downfall of Scientology since 1995. /