For the record

[themadhair]

And nobody can prove or disprove anything.

It's not testable.

Multiple issues with this.

1) Burden of proof, or at least some evidence, is on the claimant. And, when you read around what many claimant’s write, it is not just I did this and such and such happened – there is a specific attribution being made to Hubbard tech. It is only really when challenge, from what I can see, that the claim becomes more and more vague.

2) The lack of testability is probably a good argument that the underlying claim is devoid of meaning. I did process X and I got result Y is not an untestable claim in principle, so there is certainly plenty to be discussed.

 

[Isene]

Thank you. That is all I was trying to say.

So I think if Geir wants to be intellectually honest he will at least reserve his judgment when he makes such claims as the factual workability of the Tech.

The Anabaptist Jacques

You may want to read my OP again - I don't make any claims for the tech I only make claims for my own exposure to the tech. And as others have argued, so can anyone on anything. You may make a claim that chocolate makes you happy and more "alive" and thus better at picking up girls the next half an hour or so. Sure. I respect what people observe in their own lives.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

But he is making the claim that he got his gains from Scientology.

He says his gains came from the application of exact procedures of Scientology.

First of all, I don't accept the idea of gains. but that is besides the point. ...

That is true.

... If he is going to say that the applications of precise procedures produced said result, then he has to show some evidence of the result and the connection to the procedure. ...

No, he doesn't.

This is a discussion board, not a scientific journal. Geir is as free to report his own observations & experiences as is any other. Frankly, he does a far better job of maintaining an objective & fact-based attitude in his comments than many others.

It would be reasonable to argue that hubbard should have provided such data and analysis, but obviously he didn't. He claimed to have based his work on scientific research, but there is no evidence that he even understood how to conduct such research much less ever did so.

Geir's comments are reasonable & intelligent. Don't blame him for your own earlier failure to hold hubbard to an higher standard.

... If not, then anyone can make the claim that the gains came because someone prayed for him or some such reason. ...

Such far-reaching & unsubstantiated claims are often made by others, often by self-styled critics of scientology, but not by Geir. Since departing the church Geir has been very circumspect in his comments and routinely applied a very high standard of fact & rigor in his many posts.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Veda]

Nice bait

Someone started arguing about the one point regarding my communication training in Scientology, that's all.

No bait.

I'm not following this thread, so I apologize.

Still, aren't you just a wee bit disappointed in the "EP" of having done the entire Bridge?

 

[Smilla]

It's quite alright for Scientologists, or anyone else to decide for themselves that a certain thing has been helpful to them. This applies to astrology, love-potions, spells, etc just as well as it does to Scientology. Where Scientologists come unstuck is when they expect other people to give their beliefs the same validity that is given to well conducted scientific research. 'It Works', is a big statement that should be challenged. 'I feel it helped me' is fine, and doesn't need to be challenged.

The efficacy of L Psycho's 'Study Tech' is:

Not Proven.

If you take three steps back from Scientology, what you see is Cargo Cult Science, with a big dash of Superstition. If you can't see that, you need to take the three steps back.

 

[themadhair]

You may want to read my OP again - I don't make any claims for the tech I only make claims for my own exposure to the tech.

From the link in the OP (with emphasis):

I believe Scientology contains much value – in the basic philosophy and in the tools it offers.
I owe much to Scientology auditing; Personal integrity, confidence, artistic creativity, calmness, enlightenment, not taking everything so serious in life, enjoying life more fully.
The lower Bridge is generally very good. The upper Bridge (OT levels) did me wonders – but I belive it handles something different than what L. Ron Hubbard describes in his very dramatic sci-fi way.
I owe my surge in communication skills to the communication drills I did in Scientology. I owe my skills as a public speaker also to those drills, as well as to Mark Schreffler – the best public speaker I have seen.
I know Scientology to give great insight into how reality comes about.
I believe that the Tone Scale is a good tool to understand and help others.
I find the Admin Scale a great tool to help people get effective in life. The Admin Scale can be improved, something I will cover in an upcoming book.
I have seen the Study Tech, although incomplete, do wonders with kids and adults alike.

I don’t think the problem was the OP being misread….

 

[Isene]

No bait.

I'm not following this thread, so I apologize.

Still, aren't you just a wee bit disappointed in the "EP" of having done the entire Bridge?

I'm not sure on what basis you would want me to be disappointed. I have not listed all my gains in Scientology or from the Bridge. But since you are asking; No, I am actually very satisfied with what I got from it. I have said in many interviews that if I had the chance to do it again, I would - even at double the price.

 

[TG1]

TAJ, perhaps there's still one difference between your take on this and mine.

When Geir says he's had a win, I'm perfectly happy to let him have his win. I also am fine with him saying his win was due to Scientology. Since I don't know Geir or his life or childhood or adolescence or anything else about him, I'm in no position to tell him his conclusion is flawed or not.

Also, I don't care.

But you seem a lot pickier than I am, although (I assume) you don't know Geir's personal history any better than I do. You seem to have decided a priori that Scientology could not effect a win of the nature Geir claims. Ergo, Geir's conclusion must be wrong.

And I've now used two Latin terms in this post and the verb effect correctly in a sentence, so I must be right.

Scientology's no longer my cup of tea. I'll admit these nit-picking arguments are also not my cup of tea.

I prefer to get exercised about child and young adult Scientologists dying for no good reason and old Scientologists getting offloaded in strange cities with $500 and a handshake and psychologically forced abortions and physical and verbal abuse and human trafficking.

Those are the things that really get me going.

TG1

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

You may want to read my OP again - I don't make any claims for the tech I only make claims for my own exposure to the tech. And as others have argued, so can anyone on anything. You may make a claim that chocolate makes you happy and more "alive" and thus better at picking up girls the next half an hour or so. Sure. I respect what people observe in their own lives.

If you are not making claims for the Tech, then how can you say the gains from your exxposure to the Tech was from the Tech?

By the way, do you think you will respect what I have seen in my own eyes not only about the Church of Scientology but Scientology itself?

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[themadhair]

Geir is as free to report his own observations & experiences as is any other. Frankly, he does a far better job of maintaining an objective & fact-based attitude in his comments than many others.

I dispute the underlined, particularly after you have tried to justify the opposite a few posts back….

 

[Isene]

From the link in the OP (with emphasis):
I don’t think the problem was the OP being misread….

This is the very reason that I emphasized it with "I believe" all around it ... to the point that someone flamed me back-channel for my use of "belief" in that post. I guess you can't please'em all

 

[themadhair]

This is the very reason that I emphasized it with "I believe" all around it ... to the point that someone flamed me back-channel for my use of "belief" in that post. I guess you can't please'em all

I don't think the phrase "I believe" in any absolves you from the legitimate criticism those statements are receiving.

If I state that "I believe Jews are an inferior race" I would expect to get challenged, with no comfort afforded because of the "I believe" qualifier.

 

[Isene]

If you are not making claims for the Tech, then how can you say the gains from your exxposure to the Tech was from the Tech?

By the way, do you think you will respect what I have seen in my own eyes not only about the Church of Scientology but Scientology itself?

The Anabaptist Jacques

I sure do respect what you have seen. And I really appreciate the points you made back-channel. I hope you respect what I have seen just the same.

Respect.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

TAJ, perhaps there's still one difference between your take on this and mine.

When Geir says he's had a win, I'm perfectly happy to let him have his win. I also am fine with him saying his win was due to Scientology. Since I don't know Geir or his life or childhood or adolescence or anything else about him, I'm in no position to tell him his conclusion is flawed or not.

Also, I don't care.

But you seem a lot pickier than I am, although (I assume) you don't know Geir's personal history any better than I do. You seem to have decided a priori that Scientology could not effect a win of the nature Geir claims. Ergo, Geir's conclusion must be wrong.

And I've now used two Latin terms in this post and the verb effect correctly in a sentence, so I must be right.

Scientology's no longer my cup of tea. I'll admit these nit-picking arguments are also not my cup of tea.

I prefer to get exercised about child and young adult Scientologists dying for no good reason and old Scientologists getting offloaded in strange cities with $500 and a handshake and psychologically forced abortions and physical and verbal abuse and human trafficking.

Those are the things that really get me going.

TG1

I understand and thanks.

Just let me say that what I think is driving the forced abortions and physical and verbal abuse is people's allegiance to the validity of the Tech.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[Isene]

I don't think the phrase "I believe" in any absolves you from the legitimate criticism those statements are receiving.

If I state that "I believe Jews are an inferior race" I would expect to get challenged, with no comfort afforded because of the "I believe" qualifier.

To qote TAJ:

"By the way, do you think you will respect what I have seen in my own eyes..."

That's really all it boils down to.

Respect.

 

[TG1]

Multiple issues with this.

2) The lack of testability is probably a good argument that the underlying claim is devoid of meaning. I did process X and I got result Y is not an untestable claim in principle, so there is certainly plenty to be discussed.

Madhair,

In all my comments above, I've been referencing Geir's claims that he used to be very shy and that now he has great confidence in his current abilities to communicate publicly and well.

When you claimed that protesting publicly seems to be a great confidence builder, I took your claim the same way: "I did process X, and I got result Y."

TG1

 

[themadhair]

In all my comments above, I've been referencing Geir's claims that he used to be very shy and that now he has great confidence in his current abilities to communicate publicly and well.

When you claimed that protesting publicly seems to be a great confidence builder, I took your claim the same way: "I did process X, and I got result Y."

So close. Now just take this 2 steps further in the logic...

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I sure do respect what you have seen. And I really appreciate the points you made back-channel. I hope you respect what I have seen just the same.

Respect.

I respect you. I don't necessarily agree with your interpretations of what you have seen.

You may think that I am trying to discredit the Tech.

Believe me, I wish the Tech worked.

I dedicated my life and enrgy once for a long time because I believed that it worked.

But, in time, and armned with a better education, I realized my belief was in vain.

I haven't given up the ideals I once held.

But I am now of the opinion that Scientology, not just the Church of Scientology, is actually working to supress those ideals.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

To qote TAJ:

"By the way, do you think you will respect what I have seen in my own eyes..."

That's really all it boils down to.

Respect.

Now I think we may have different definitions of respect.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[TG1]

Madhair,

I don't know much about you, but I've picked up along the way that you were never a Scientologist, but have made quite a study of many Scientology references.

Clearly, you're very bright.

And based on a Dublin conference video I watched (the "We Stand Tall" cover), you're quite effective on the street at protests. I have no doubt you have many other fine abilities.

I mean the above quite sincerely.

Here's a very sincere question for you: Do you think that anyone who was once a Scientologist is less able to think logically or to process information or is in any way permanently disabled by their past Scientology training?

What do you really think of ex-Scientologists?

TG1