What's new

Scientology is all bad

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Just for Infinite's peace of mind.

Let's take a look at what the scientists say about Scientology.

1. The engrams do not exist, as the research done at NYU shows. This means that Dianetics is a piece of shit.

The NYU experiment was flawed. Catch up on some later news. Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/health/research/06brain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

2. The OT experiences is a series of hallucinations (I covered this topic at the thread OT Hallucinations posted at OCMB). The views presented at that thread are not mine but of the psycholgists who analyze self-induced hallucinations.

Your psychologist friend is quite mistaken. It's something else. Read about it.

3. The Management Series are the rantings of an idiot who has absolutely no knowledge of the economics. I have MS in Financial Engineering, which shows that I am qualified to analyze the Hubbard shit. I presented my analysis at an OCMB thread, The Incredibly Idiotic Management Series.

Your analysis was also flawed. Too many errors to count.

<snipped the rest due to lack of patience>
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Just for Infinite's peace of mind.

Yes, because I disagree my mind must be in need of something. You have no idea how grateful I am to you.

The NYU experiment was flawed. Catch up on some later news. Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/health/research/06brain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

Flunk - apples/oranges. The article addresses the brain - not the non-existent "reactive mind" - identifies a quantifiable "substance" - not some non-existent non-measurable spiritual "scar" - and suggests this substance can be moderated (not "as-ised" into non-existence) by the use of drugs - an anathema to Scientology.

Your psychologist friend is quite mistaken. It's something else. Read about it.

Ahhh, yes. The perenial Scientology response: "you're wrong, I won't tell you why, go read a Scientology book".

Your analysis was also flawed. Too many errors to count.

But you won't address a single one?

<snipped the rest due to lack of patience>

A common response among those who have come realise they are on a hiding to nothing. The other one is: "this has all been discussed elsewhere, I have no interest in further participation".

Methinks the pissed-offedness is feigned.
 
Last edited:

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Just for Infinite's peace of mind.



The NYU experiment was flawed. Catch up on some later news. Read this http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/06/health/research/06brain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all



Your psychologist friend is quite mistaken. It's something else. Read about it.



Your analysis was also flawed. Too many errors to count.

<snipped the rest due to lack of patience>
Apparently, you have no idea what you are talking about -- the experiment described in NY Times has nothing to do with Dianetics. Your remarks show poor judgement and inability to understand scientific articles.

Rather than saying that "my psychologist" is wrong, you should be able to point out to inconsistencies in my presentation. But you have failed to do it so far. The statments of general nature are not permissible in scientific discussion.

Again, you should provide a valid critique of my article about the Management Series rather than saying that I made mistakes. I bet, you cannot prove me wrong because your knowledge of the economics is on the Hubbard level.

PS. The NY Times article is about biochemical changes in the brain caused by the events (memories) that occured when a person was wide-awake, not unconscious. Apparently you have forgotten that the Hubbard engrams are installed when a person is unconscious. This shows that the article is beyond your mental grasp.
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
If you think I'm feigning being pissed off, go read Demented's thread about CofS GI sources over on OCMB.

Infinite, I really can't be bothered arguing with you. The point of the NYT article was to show that *scientists* are still struggling to understand the actual nature of memory.

The NYU experiment that supposedly debunks Hubbard's engram theory was pathetic; Scopalomine, a pinch and reading text from a physics book just doesn't cut it.

I propose that either you or Demented LRH volunteer for a *real* Engramic Experience experiment; we could set up video recording with audio, then hit one of you repeatedly in the head until you go unconscious. :wife:

When you get out of hospital we could try to audit it out with Dianetics and see how well the "engram" content uncovered matches the video recording. That'd be a very satisfactory experiment, IMO, regardless of the outcome. :biggrin:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
It's not that I can't refute your naive view of things scientological, Demented, it's that I can't be bothered doing so.

Seriously, Infinite, are you going to continue labeling me as a *scientologist* in order to make your points? It's a very tiresome thought-stopping technique.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Panda, if you are saying that the NYU experiement was "pathetic", you should have no trouble telling us what went wrong with it. I am dying to see your analysis of the experiment; please, do not leave me disappointed.

The same is true about my posts -- if you found any mistakes in them, throw my blunders at me. But just saying that I made mistakes does not impress anyone, you of all people should know that.

PS. Go back and read all my posts, I did not label you as a Scientologist. I see you as a victim of Scientology, which is not the same as being a Scilon.
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
A few words about a Dianetics experiment - I lost conscience once in a dentist chair (I was 12 at that time) because the pain was great. The dentist kept talking to my mother without noticing that I passed out for about 10 seconds. Later, when I became a Scientologist, I asked my friend, who was a Class V auditor, to help me recall what my dentist and my mother were talking about when I passed out. I was curious about the "powers" of Dianetics. But I could not recall a thing during the auditing. I was young and stupid at that time, I blamed my friend for the poor result, not Hubbard -- I though that she was a bad auditor. Well, she was one of the best auditors as I was told afterward by her colleagues. Still, I wanted to believe in Dianetics, so I did not take their words seriously.
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Panda, if you are saying that the NYU experiement was "pathetic", you should have no trouble telling us what went wrong with it. I am dying to see your analysis of the experiment; please, do not leave me disappointed.

The same is true about my posts -- if you found any mistakes in them, throw my blunders at me. But just saying that I made mistakes does not impress anyone, you of all people should know that.

Well, I don't really feel obliged to do those things. If you are willing to do some serious research and look at alternative points of view, you could possibly become much better informed on these subjects but I'm not here to teach you those things, I'm just here to criticise you.

I wondered how you'd feel if you were, say, the original Hubbard and read some Demented Hubbard-style criticisms directed back at you. Now I know. I was originally going to use your exact words (you know, "your theory is shit" etc) but thought that might be too obvious.

I'm just being devilish, mate. :devil:

Try not to take it too seriously.

PS. Go back and read all my posts, I did not label you as a Scientologist. I see you as a victim of Scientology, which is not the same as being a Scilon.

That comment was addressed to Infinite, read it again and you'll see that. I'm neither a scientologist NOR a victim of scientology but your saying so simply shows that you know nothing about me.
It's OK, though, I forgive you. :)
 

Demented LRH

Patron Meritorious
Well, I don't really feel obliged to do those things. If you are willing to do some serious research and look at alternative points of view, you could possibly become much better informed on these subjects but I'm not here to teach you those things, I'm just here to criticise you.

I wondered how you'd feel if you were, say, the original Hubbard and read some Demented Hubbard-style criticisms directed back at you. Now I know. I was originally going to use your exact words (you know, "your theory is shit" etc) but thought that might be too obvious.

I'm just being devilish, mate. :devil:


Try not to take it too seriously.
You are not obligated to prove anything unless you want to be taken seriously.

I suppose, when people say something they want others to believe them.
There is an exception to this rule -- a person may not want to be taken seriously because he is joking, which is a good thing to do. Therefore, I assume that everything you said at this thread, including the remark about my shitty theory, is a joke. I'm laughing now!:yes:
 

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Well, my original comment was simply a question to you. If you had answered that question, we would have had the conversation I was hoping to have.

I well remember the discussion we had on OCMB where I told you a lot of things about CofS Income Sources such as Solo NOTs and The L Rundowns etc. We didn't get to have the conversation because Infinite took offence on your behalf and did his usual "Scientology 101" thought-stopping routine. Too bad, IMO, maybe another day.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
..

. . . 1. The engrams do not exist, as the research done at NYU shows. This means that Dianetics is a piece of shit . . .

That NYU experiment really is quite remarkable. It was carried out in 1950, the same year Dianetics came out, and involved the direct cooperation of L Ron Hubbard's own people. The conclusion, needless to say, was not helpful for Dianetics:

. . . This paper formulates two hypotheses concerning the retention of events occurring during states of unconsciousness. It describes an experiment in which a passage selected from a physics text was read to a subject placed in an unconscious state by administration of sodium pentothal. During a period of almost six months, dianetic auditors were unable to recover the passage. Thus, the engram hypothesis was not substantiated by this experiment.

Even before those results were published, the one medical doctor L Ron Hubbard had on his side, Dr J A Winter, had become disillusioned with Dianetics and, particularly, Hubbard. In 1951, Dr Winter wrote his "A Doctor's Report" in which he concluded:

" . . . By October, 1950, I had come to the conclusion that I could not agree with all the tenets of dianetics as set forth by the Foundation. I could not, as previously mentioned, support Hubbard's claims regarding the state of "clear." I no longer felt, as I once had, that any intelligent person could (and presumably should) practice dianetics. I noted several points on which the actions of the Foundation were at variance with the expressed ideals of dianetics: one of these points was a tendency toward the development of an authoritarian attitude. Moreover, there was a poorly concealed attitude of disparagement of the medical profession and of the efforts of previous workers in the field of mental illness. Finally, the avowed purpose of the Foundation -- the accomplishment of precise scientific research into the functioning of the mind -- was conspicuously absent . . . "

Although L Ron Hubbard immediately set about destroying Dr Winter, perhaps the good doctor's point about the need for scientific evidence spurred Hubbard into again lending his assistance three years later in another scientific evaluation of Dianetics. In 1953, Dianetics auditors were involved in that scientific experiment, this time looking at whether or not auditing increased a person's intellectual ability, mathematical ability, and ability to handle personality conflicts.

Under the aegis of the New York University and with supervision from Professor John G. Rockwell, Professor Edward L. Kemp, and Associate Professor Milton Schwebel, psychology doctorate student Harvey Jay Fischer found there was no measurable increase in any of the abilities mentioned.

L Ron Hubbard knew he was lying when he said he used Dianetics to cure war injuries - and then, the same year the book comes out, the very premise of his "Modern Science of the Mind" is not substantiated by scientific experimentation. The next year his associate, Dr Winter, writes his report. Then, two years later, another NYU experiment does away with some of the major claims made by Dianetics. It beggars belief that L Ron Hubbard's original intent was anything other than to defraud.

Accordingly, it seems to me a little unfair to describe Dianetics as "a piece of shit". Its certainly true so far as science is concerned, but the description detracts from that fact that that single book has under-pinned a multi-billion dollar scam which has been running for more than 60 years. There must be something about Dianetics which reaches into a person's psyche and delivers them into the clutches of the cult. Simple answers for simple people? Sort of, although that avoids the reality that most of the people sucked into the mind fuck in the first place are not simple. Dunno what it is but, for a lure into the age old bait'n'switch its far from a piece of shit. Perhaps Dianetics speaks to the reader's nascent realisation of the spiritual for the single purpose of corrupting it.
 
Last edited:

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Well, my original comment was simply a question to you. If you had answered that question, we would have had the conversation I was hoping to have.

I well remember the discussion we had on OCMB where I told you a lot of things about CofS Income Sources such as Solo NOTs and The L Rundowns etc. We didn't get to have the conversation because Infinite took offence on your behalf and did his usual "Scientology 101" thought-stopping routine. Too bad, IMO, maybe another day.

Ummmm . . . no. Your original comment was a flat out ad hom, designed to detract from the comment you were replying too. My pointing out your use of:

Scientology 101: when confronted with undeniable facts and/or irrefutable logic, apply ad homs.

. . . also contained a handy-hint for you to follow. I'm pleased you took my advice and to see the resulting conversation. VWD.
 

Dilpickle

Patron with Honors
..



That NYU experiment really is quite remarkable. It was carried out in 1950, the same year Dianetics came out, and involved the direct cooperation of L Ron Hubbard's own people. The conclusion, needless to say, was not helpful for Dianetics:



Even before those results were published, the one medical doctor L Ron Hubbard had on his side, Dr J A Winter, had become disillusioned with Dianetics and, particularly, Hubbard. In 1951, Dr Winter wrote his "A Doctor's Report" in which he concluded:



Although L Ron Hubbard immediately set about destroying Dr Winter, perhaps the good doctor's point about the need for scientific evidence spurred Hubbard into again lending his assistance three years later in another scientific evaluation of Dianetics. In 1953, Dianetics auditors were involved in that scientific experiment, this time looking at whether or not auditing increased a person's intellectual ability, mathematical ability, and ability to handle personality conflicts.

Under the aegis of the New York University and with supervision from Professor John G. Rockwell, Professor Edward L. Kemp, and Associate Professor Milton Schwebel, psychology doctorate student Harvey Jay Fischer found there was no measurable increase in any of the abilities mentioned.

L Ron Hubbard knew he was lying when he said he used Dianetics to cure war injuries - and then, the same year the book comes out, the very premise of his "Modern Science of the Mind" is not substantiated by scientific experimentation. The next year his associate, Dr Winter, writes his report. Then, two years later, another NYU experiment does away with some of the major claims made by Dianetics. It beggars belief that L Ron Hubbard's original intent was anything other than to defraud.

Accordingly, It seems to me a little unfair to describe Dianetics as "a piece of shit". Its certainly true so far as science is concerned, but the description detracts from that fact that that single book has under-pinned a multi-billion dollar scam which has been running for more than 60 years. There must be something about Dianetics which reaches into a person's psyche and delivers them into the clutches of the cult. Simple answers for simple people? Sort of, although that avoids the reality that most of the people sucked into the mind fuck in the first place are not simple. Dunno what it is but, for a lure into the age old bait'n'switch its far from a piece of shit. Perhaps Dianetics speaks to the reader's nascent realisation of the spiritual for the single purpose of corrupting it.

I have not read the NY Experiment, but just from the tiny bit I see here, it makes sense that the phrases said to the unconscious person were not recovered with Dianetics, because there was no ENGRAM to run out. Even if one picks up bits and pieces of phrases while unconscious, if there is no PAIN involved, perhaps they don't STICK into the formation we have come to know as engrams. When I have run out Engrams, it seems the most important part of the running, is looking at phrases and ideas that became abberrated reactions.. things with Charge. If someone said to me "Nice weather we're having" while I was unconscious, if there IS a File Clerk, I doubt that file clerk would feel that was an important thing to toss up to me to Run.. Just another one of my wacky opinions. You can believe Dianetics works or doesn't, but I don't think the NY experiment proved anything.. Dilpickle
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I have not read the NY Experiment, but just from the tiny bit I see here, it makes sense that the phrases said to the unconscious person were not recovered with Dianetics, because there was no ENGRAM to run out. Even if one picks up bits and pieces of phrases while unconscious, if there is no PAIN involved, perhaps they don't STICK into the formation we have come to know as engrams. When I have run out Engrams, it seems the most important part of the running, is looking at phrases and ideas that became abberrated reactions.. things with Charge. If someone said to me "Nice weather we're having" while I was unconscious, if there IS a File Clerk, I doubt that file clerk would feel that was an important thing to toss up to me to Run.. Just another one of my wacky opinions. You can believe Dianetics works or doesn't, but I don't think the NY experiment proved anything.. Dilpickle

Please, read the write up and get back to me.

" . . . Following a suggestion from a representative of the Dianetic Research Foundation, the passage was "anchored" by some pain. Mr. Lebovits produced pain during the reading of the last 18 words of the passage by exerting pressure upon the tissue between the subject's fingers . . . "
 
Last edited:

Dilpickle

Patron with Honors
I really don't want to read the whole write-up.. I'm just saying that in order to do a True Experiment, they would have had to knock a woman unconscious, rape her, and keep saying something like "ALL MEN ARE BAD" over and over.. I can GUARANTEE you that if someone did that, and you later ran out the incident, the person's file clerk would cough up that phrase, if you asked for a phrase. These days, in Dianetics, no phrases are asked for. PS: I am not advocating that anyone actually RUNS that kind of an experiment.
 

Dilpickle

Patron with Honors
PS: Another point is, as an auditor, you DO NOT tell the PC WHICH incident to run. That's what was wrong with making people run the Xenu incident on OT III. The FILE CLERK is going to tell you which incident to run. I am sure the File Clerk had much more pressing issues to run than someone causing a bit of pain on someone's fingers.
 

Gadfly

Crusader
I can GUARANTEE you that if someone did that, and you later ran out the incident, the person's "file clerk" would cough up that phrase, if you asked for a phrase.

You can guarantee that?????

:hysterical:

Maybe in your imagination . . . . . :confused2:

You have provided a wonderful example where ones BELIEFS are shown to directly interfere with, supercede, and confuse with REALITY.

This idea of a "file clerk" is a METAPHOR for some function of a mind that may exist or not, and to some degree or another. It is a highly theoretical "model".

I took my "file clerk" out to dinner last night and we had a fantastic time. :biggrin:
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
I really don't want to read the whole write-up.. I'm just saying that in order to do a True Experiment, they would have had to knock a woman unconscious, rape her, and keep saying something like "ALL MEN ARE BAD" over and over.. I can GUARANTEE you that if someone did that, and you later ran out the incident, the person's file clerk would cough up that phrase, if you asked for a phrase. These days, in Dianetics, no phrases are asked for. PS: I am not advocating that anyone actually RUNS that kind of an experiment.

Ignoring the "true Scotsman" fallacy, lets address the argumentum ad ignorantiam. You seem to be saying that the only experiment which would prove the existence of engrams is an experiment which (for ethical reasons) cannot be carried out. With this in mind, would you please demonstrate the logic upon which you base your "GUARANTEE".
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
I really don't want to read the whole write-up.. I'm just saying that in order to do a True Experiment, they would have had to knock a woman unconscious, rape her, and keep saying something like "ALL MEN ARE BAD" over and over.. I can GUARANTEE you that if someone did that, and you later ran out the incident, the person's file clerk would cough up that phrase, if you asked for a phrase. These days, in Dianetics, no phrases are asked for. PS: I am not advocating that anyone actually RUNS that kind of an experiment.

I lol'd.
 

Dilpickle

Patron with Honors
Ignoring the "true Scotsman" fallacy, lets address the argumentum ad ignorantiam. You seem to be saying that the only experiment which would prove the existence of engrams is an experiment which (for ethical reasons) cannot be carried out. With this in mind, would you please demonstrate the logic upon which you base your "GUARANTEE".

I've run out similar things on myself and others, and have seen such phrases come up. And the person has felt better and no longer "hates all men" or whatever the phrase was telling them to do.

While thinking about all this, I am realizing how evil OTIII is.. imagine the confusion of the File Clerk if I INSISTED someone run out an incident where they were eaten alive by gophers.. and they felt they HAD TO.. poor File Clerk would get very confused indeed. I believe Ron deliberately devised OTIII as a Trap - something that would make people very crazy, and I think OTIII DID make people crazy.
 
Top