guanoloco
As-Wased
Your description doesn't sound like placebo effect to me. The characteristics of Scientology auditing that you describe sound to me like being consistent with the idea that Scientology's explanation for the generated phenomena is not an accurate explanation of what is actually going on when somebody is audited. So it's more like "incorrect explanatory model" than placebo effect.
Placebo effect, like 'confirmation bias' can be used by people as a proxy for the principle "if it doesn't fit my view of the world, then it's a placebo effect/confirmation bias/[similar scientifically-sounding collocation]'. Such people will accept the evidence of their own eyes when it fits with their preconceived model of the world, but reject it as 'observational error' in all other cases. That's not really science, in my opinion. I'm not claiming that "such people" include the poster - I'm just generalising my point a bit to cover other reactions that I observe frequently in people.
Without diving into it I think Bill is talking about some people believe to the extent that there are results. Sort of like telling wounded soldiers that sugar pills are the most potent dosage of morphine available. Some dont feel any pain after taking them and some do...because they're sugar pills. However, morphine has 100% results.
If Scientology was morphine it wouldn't get sugar pills-as-morphine results.
Therefore, it's sugar pills. Not morphine.
Last edited: