FreeZone- my protest

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Well, I've posted proof.

I think it more likely that you've posted Anecdotal Evidence, which doesn't qualify as proof in this case. If you do have proof though, I'd love to see it. The Cof$ would pay you millions for it.

Anecdotal evidence and faulty logic

"A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:

"There's abundant proof that drinking water cures cancer. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. After drinking water she was cured."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic

2942503151_none_300x300_answer_103_xlarge.jpeg




 

Terril park

Sponsor
I think it more likely that you've posted Anecdotal Evidence, which doesn't qualify as proof in this case. If you do have proof though, I'd love to see it. The Cof$ would pay you millions for it.


Sigh!

Not yet recieved my cheques from Big Pharma for protesting,
or my millions from COS. :(

Anecdotal evidence is....... evidence.

Having posted successes from the FZ for a decade or so, around half were never asked for.

You earlier commented that these were usually screwed out of people in elegantly to put it mildly. And there is some truth to this in CO$.

However roughly half of the successes I posted were spontaneous posts to forums that were not requested.

They are sometimes somewhat off the wall, it can be hard to express
such matters at times, they are however honest comments.

Proof?

Proof that something good is going on.

Just as the stories here are.

Or should we also dismiss these as anecdotal?
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
"A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:

On thing that is common to scamologist in the CO$ (including me when I was in) and out as independant is that they have been indoctrined to loose their critical judgement and to request for ''scientific'' or factual proof of anything LRH and his tech claims.
(It's a crime as in any cult - the Guru Knows The Truth)


In fact we never get any proof that LRH did his so-called researches - nor he published in scientifical publications nor he kept track of his pseudo-researches .

In healing field - physical and psychological- the way we can know\proove something is to conduct a double-blind pacebo study.

Like we would asses OT 8 John ALLender with a ''wog'' to evaluation their IQ - psychological health- sense of hapiness- control intheir life..
with getting scientology processes
and without.
(no head camera allow)

I read a specialist about cult who made a specific point about the destroying of the ability to uses one's critical mind.
Then one can be ''feed'' with anything for true as it comes from the great master or it's elite corp.
:confused2:
 

loose cannon

Patron with Honors
"A common way anecdotal evidence becomes unscientific is through fallacious reasoning such as the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, the human tendency to assume that if one event happens after another, then the first must be the cause of the second. Another fallacy involves inductive reasoning. For instance, if an anecdote illustrates a desired conclusion rather than a logical conclusion, it is considered a faulty or hasty generalization.For example, here is anecdotal evidence presented as proof of a desired conclusion:

"There's abundant proof that drinking water cures cancer. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. After drinking water she was cured."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic
Anecdotal evidence is unscientific, that's all. Science can't give you all the answers. So it depends to a high degree on a persons subjective view whether something should be taken as evidence or not and many times he or she shouldn't be made wrong for that.

BTW: I'm for using scientific thinking, but against total use of it. See my blog article http://vitprofant.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/scientology-and-the-scientific-method/

PS: Now I've outed myself although I allowed Terril to do that. I'm sorry. ;)
 
Last edited:

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
Unsolicited testimonials are also invalid as scientific evidence, because they represent a self-selected population.

For example, there's some evidence that about 20% of breast cancers will spontaneously shrink at some stage (though usually they later start growing again). Suppose for the sake of argument that this is really true, and imagine that a hundred people with breast cancer all drink a glass of water that has been 'blessed' by a televangelist. Up to 20 of them may send in an enthusiastic 'success story' about how the blessed water made their tumors shrink. The remaining 80 or so probably won't say anything, because it's not news that drinking water does nothing for cancer.

The result is a surge of enthusiastic testimonials for a treatment that in reality does nothing at all. A careful study, in contrast, would have gotten the 80% negative reports as well as the "successes", and also seen that the 20/80 ratio was about the same as in a control group who drank no blessed water.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Actually, the original comment was:

If you could prove any beneficial results from the application of Dianetics or Scientology, you'd have achieved something that nobody else has managed to do - including your Mr Hubbard.

The above doesn't say scientific. I'm not saying it's scientific. Some of YOU are saying that. I never thought it was scientific even when I was involved in it.

You do know that a lot of the gains people feel they have from psychotherapy is also anecdotal, right?... just sayin...:p:whistling:
 

Vittorio

Patron Meritorious
Actually, the original comment was:



The above doesn't say scientific. I'm not saying it's scientific. Some of YOU are saying that. I never thought it was scientific even when I was involved in it.

You do know that a lot of the gains people feel they have from psychotherapy is also anecdotal, right?... just sayin...:p:whistling:

I think success stories are valid or actually even scientific proof that something has done good to someone. Who is better to state the value of something than the person who has tested? I think there is great doubt, however, with Scientology success stories in that they seem wholly imbalanced against the hurt and suffering that many go through as a result of their experiences of being in Scientology and that many wins and gains have come hand in hand with a lot of heartache.
 

MrNobody

Who needs merits?
I think success stories are valid or actually even scientific proof that something has done good to someone. Who is better to state the value of something than the person who has tested? I think there is great doubt, however, with Scientology success stories in that they seem wholly imbalanced against the hurt and suffering that many go through as a result of their experiences of being in Scientology and that many wins and gains have come hand in hand with a lot of heartache.

Well, I could find some re-published success stores that had originally been published in some $cn-publications: http://members.chello.nl/mgormez/fun/

Please name one that contains any validity or any scientific proof of anything.

Seriously, all one could ever get from these kinds of stories is anecdotal evidence.

Also: Most of these stories are written directly or shortly after the writer had his/her "winning" session, so they hardly qualify for objectivity - they're merely artificially hyped-up results from temporary euphoria, IMHO.
 

loose cannon

Patron with Honors
Also: Most of these stories are written directly or shortly after the writer had his/her "winning" session, so they hardly qualify for objectivity - they're merely artificially hyped-up results from temporary euphoria, IMHO.
I find this argument valid. I'd personally like to see real success stories, meaning stories of success in life. I like reading anecdotes.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
Also, just speaking for myself, when I say that I've had some assistance from Scn and found it helpful and/or saw others helped by it (both of which are the case- no pun intended) I am not talking about writing/posting success stories.
 

Smilla

Ordinary Human
Also, just speaking for myself, when I say that I've had some assistance from Scn and found it helpful and/or saw others helped by it (both of which are the case- no pun intended) I am not talking about writing/posting success stories.

I was going to leave this thread, but:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone honestly stating that they feel they had good results with Scientology, or saying that they've seen other people get good results. That's perfectly reasonable. Where things turn sour, is when people start 'promoting' something as a '100% sure-shot, works wonders for everyone, every time' product. If I use a cream for dry skin, and it helps, I don't need further proof, because I did the experiment on myself, and got a favourable result. That doesn't mean it would work for everyone, but if somebody asked me about the cream, I could reasonably say that "It worked for me - it might work for you."

A sweet man whom we both know and love, claims too much sometimes, and causes people like me to make posts about 'proof' to shake his perch, and make him think about which claims are reasonable to make, and which are not.

Sometimes it's best to be fairly tentative about claims of efficacy, lest we mislead the uninformed.

I really am leaving this thread now :)




 

Terril park

Sponsor
I was going to leave this thread, but:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with someone honestly stating that they feel they had good results with Scientology, or saying that they've seen other people get good results. That's perfectly reasonable. Where things turn sour, is when people start 'promoting' something as a '100% sure-shot, works wonders for everyone, every time' product. If I use a cream for dry skin, and it helps, I don't need further proof, because I did the experiment on myself, and got a favourable result. That doesn't mean it would work for everyone, but if somebody asked me about the cream, I could reasonably say that "It worked for me - it might work for you."

Its what I've done for a decade. No comments re any sure shot.
Some may have indicated such over the decade. Mostly was personal.

A sweet man whom we both know and love, claims too much sometimes, and causes people like me to make posts about 'proof' to shake his perch, and make him think about which claims are reasonable to make, and which are not.

I make no claims generally. I post stories of those who are happy for them to be posted.

Generally those here like stories, but there is resistence to
positive ones.

Sometimes it's best to be fairly tentative about claims of efficacy, lest we mislead the uninformed.

I see how that could be a useful direction. And in fact I'm in favour.

But of course I'm in favor of looking at the alternative.



I really am leaving this thread now :)


[/QUOTE]
 

Clarence Rockaway

Patron with Honors
Many people on this site put up with the Cof$ because they fervently believed it had the only answers to the truth. Eventually or quickly, they found out otherwise. So they left. The FZ seems to be a group that still believes Scienwhatchamacallit works, and they object only to the goon squad tactics of the organization. So they continue the tech/dreck independently.

Most of us know that the tech gives only temporary eurphorias and nothing more. And that no matter who you pay for your floating needle jollies, it isn't worth it. So most of us aren't FZers. Personally, I feel that anyone who still believes that Scn. beyond a touch assist or a few other things that HumpBoard plagerized, works, is lost in space. But he/she is free to waste their money if they like.
 
Last edited:

loose cannon

Patron with Honors
The FZ seems to be a group that still believes Scienwhatchamacallit works, and they object only to the goon squad tactics of the organization. So they continue the tech/dreck independently.
I'm sure it seems that way, but I consider myself to be a freezoner (not a scientologist anymore), yet practically from my leaving the CoS I knew that at least claims that admin tech is so perfect and it's self-correcting are BS after what I had experienced. And later I found out other unworkabilities.
I repeat that FZ isn't a homogenous movement, fortunately, and due to that all the attempts to assume a leading position for the whole freezone have failed. But those who are loudly trying to do so with their 100% adherence to LRH (which mean they operate on a wrong why) certainly make the whole FZ look like them.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
I wonder how many times people have been told that the FZ is just a blanket term, in a way, and the underlying "group" is NOT a group, but is only a loose knit- sometimes not even "knit" at all- group of individuals? Yet they keep on. Group group group.

I think they're so used to CofS that they can't help but have only that as a frame of reference, facts be damned.
 
Top