This is an excellent threefold distinction, and it is going to apply to pretty much any large body of ideas and practice, including religions. The critical issue is the first one: what is the solid core of subject matter in Scientology? I agree that we can discard the dictates of an institution, or the accumulated folklore of believers, without necessarily condemning the subject in itself. The question is whether the subject itself is more than a handful of good gimmicks, which could be salvaged without amounting to a major subject. Is there really a baby in the bathwater, or just a rubber ducky?
I have not invested anything like 500 hours of study in Scientology, nor am I prepared to do so. I don't accept that I would have to do this, in order to gain some appreciation of what the solid subject of Scientology is. It's brainwashing that necessarily takes huge amounts of time, to slowly bend the mind away from even thinking of certain questions; understanding does not have to take so long. Understanding is a matter of degree, and while total comprehension of a big subject might take many decades, one can reach a decent level of understanding in a lot less than 500 hours, if there is really something there to understand.
And here is where I am sure there is something quite wrong with Scientology, though it could possibly be just the Church's machinations or the folkloric accretions burying the real substance. I may not have hit 500 hours, but I have already invested enough time in investigating Scientology that by now I would expect, based on my experience learning about other subjects, to have gained some clear appreciation of what it's really and concretely about. And all I have been able to gather so far is a tub of dirty bathwater, with perhaps a couple of real but limited tricks that don't nearly amount to a baby.
I've been studying physics for around 25 years, and in no way can I convey all of that expertise to anyone in a message board post. But because I've spent those 25 years, and because physics is a solid subject, I can write few-paragraph answers to basic questions that convey clear, concrete, and substantial meanings. At some point I have to limit the detail level, but I can give a take-away message that amounts to something. It's not easy for me, and I may not achieve it every time, but I can do it regularly.
Solid subjects are like that. I've learned to acknowledge that tons of subjects other than physics are also solid in this way. There may be some fluff and crap in any field, but in a lot of subjects I have eventually run into the people who can deliver the real goods, in the form of clear, concise, and substantial answers, and convince me that they are doing something genuine.
I have yet to find this in Scientology, and it is approaching the point at which I will conclude, as I have with the superpowers, that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If people could give clear, concrete, and substantial explanations of Scientological ideas or practices, in the several-paragraph range as opposed to either cryptic one-liners or long-winded books, then surely they would. And I'm beginning to think that if they had, I would have seen them by now. And I haven't.
Can anyone here provide the kind of solid few-paragraph explanation I'm looking for, of something of value in Scientology? I'm asking for the sort of thing that, in physics, would take me an hour or so of hard thought; so I can understand if nobody has the time to spare for this. But it would be a worthwhile investment of time, since articulating something one believes is important is always useful, for future re-use, and to solidify one's own understanding.
Ok, here we go. By the way, I also studied Physics up to Quantum Mechanics, and what most interest me, when getting into Scn. was the apparent scientificity behind it. So, I´ll give it a try to what you are asking for.
Scientology is based on axioms, whereby the main axiom states that life is basically a static, meaning no mass, no energy, no space and time, but being able to postulate AND perceive. The remainder axioms are basically a sequence of explanation, on how the physical universe was created by consideration. The main part of the axiomatic construct, which is used later on in auditing, are the four conditions of existence, from which as-isness is the most important one for the process. As stated in the axioms, a condition cannot vanished if not EXACTLY viewed as it is (hence, AS-IS), this is called the EXACT CONSIDERATION, in other words, an exact copy, duplication of a past trauma-experience, must be made, in order for the condition to vanish, including the non-material aspects of it, CONSIDERATION and emotion. This is the core of the axiomatic structure in use in auditing, and part of the Class VIII auditing course.
While in Scientology, it is dealt with spirit, and mind, in Dianetics, (from greek, through the mind - dia-nous) what is dealt with is with how the mind affects the body. It is postulated that all source of psychosomatic illness underlies in the engram, a record of traumatic experience, containing, physical pain or painful emotion. Watching this traumatic experiences, and finding the postulates (negative decissions of the moment, that still affect us unknowingly today) is stated should raise IQ, and bring back one´s goals. A person without engrams is postulated as Clear.
Hope this little resume, was more clear. Is that what you wanted? It is not so, as I was writing it, that I agree fully with it, or even believe now it is true (Before i even believed it had been tested stringently by the founder
). None of this was never scientifically proven, nor passed through any empiric consistent evidence. I believe though, that the part of as-isness is interesting and helpful. Also part of Dianetics might be of help. With the postulate of a Clear state, I have strong doubts.
If this was not what you wanted (I didn´t read the complete thread), just say. These are basically the logical tenets and construct upon which Scientology and Dianetics are built. Wether these are true or hold empirical evidence is a completely different question and open to debate here.
Also we shouldn´t forget, that following Kuhn, and other philosopher´s of science, knowledge advances in paradigmatical form, till the anomalies, don´t allow any more the old theory to sustain, and a completely new theory arises, that is then proven against empiric evidence (such as happened with Einstein´s general relativity, that was proven more accurate than Newton´s mechanics on the solar eclipse 1917, or was it 1919?, i don´t remember). We have in Scientology the paradigmatic part, we don´t have the empirical proof AT ALL, such as would be expected from a social science, fallability, and all the other empirical proofs. I´m not talking at all about OT powers or so, but simpler things, like proving relief by the grades, etc... which I believe are helpful techniques.
I could divide the subject basically in 3 parts, as it was originally divided, and one in subparts. Ethics, mostly forgettable, as it is a means of control of the individual mainly to adjust to the group, Admin, also forgettable, as it can be found better and more humane in many business theories, specially advanced ones, and Tech, the therapy part, this I would subdivide basically in two: lower and upper therapy. The most valuable part of the subject is the lower therapy. Not considering the placebo effect, and other factors, as being part of a group, etc... and self-hipnosis, and so on, the therapy has workability, though not 100% as stated, and not in every case and for every person, up to the middle level, which is considered clear, from there on, I consider it is quite arbitrary, if not harmful to spiritual evolution. Constructs to justify unworkability, such as PTS (potential trouble source technology) don´t stand proof, and are just a justification by the founder for plain unworkability.
Another question, is if empirism and spirit really intermingle well or do not. You may find religious scientists, such as Planck, was it? "God doesn´t play dice", and other´s that are convinced materialists. How can you explain such mental dichotomy in some of the best scientific minds? Probably these two subjects belong into a different realm, and HAVE to be measured with DIFFERENT yardsticks.
What is "unique" to Scientology, and probably part of it´s marketing packaging is that it pretends to have unfolded spiritual aspects in a scientifical way. Much of the language is pretended scientific, such as "case", "tech", "factor", etc... though there is not the slightest consistent testing behind it. But looking at many psychologies, we find the same, little consistency in the assumptions and testing. That´s a general illness of the social "sciences", which brings us back to the topic, what is a science and what is not? Something that has been discussed very strongly by many people.
Great points you've made, and 
