How to Reason with a Scientologist

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

You cannot be speaking a language if you are making noises no one else understands.

In this sense language is fundamentally a social phenomenon.

Scientology is also fundamentally a social phenomenon.

What it means to do Scientology is to employ assumptions, terms, and definitions to reason in ways that other people who call themselves Scientologists recognize and respond to.

Many exes and Scientologists can spot another Scientologists a mile away when that Scientologist employs some of those terms and definitions, and certainly can spot the assumptions when Scientologists use them in their reasoning.
[For the sake of precision, in this thread I am not addressing auditing.]

Scientology contains many terms and definitions that are abstractions. Scientologists treat these abstractions as if they have concrete or materials existence. This is called reifying.
For example: A-R-C, the dynamics, even the Reactive Mind.

There is nothing wrong with this, per se, unless the person forgets that they are dealing with abstractions.
For example: a person believes he is PTS. The Scientologist is convinced that the abstract idea (PTSness) is real and has to be dealt with as the cause of his problems, thereby occluding the real concrete causes of his problems.

It is often hard to reason about anything with Scientologists because of the active assumptions they hold.
Examples: dismissing a reasoned argument by claiming that the universal used “is a generality” when it is supposed to be a generality; Scientologists cling to the assumption that Scientology works and if it didn’t work then it wasn’t correctly applied.

Another difficulty in reasoning with Scientologists stems from their emphasis on the meaning of words while ignoring other elements of language in understanding. Often they cannot understand the use of certain figures of speech and rhetoric. I have found that they often stumble over a metonymy and a synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.
Example: “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow.” or “France will not consent.” “Scientology is in trouble.”
Scientologists, not understanding this use of language, generally dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.”

A synecdoche is a figure in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number to represent an indefinite.
Examples: “The harbor was crowded with sails.” “The world condemns him.”
Scientologists often dismiss these as generalities too.

Both figures of rhetoric are founded on a contiguity of two objects of thought. Someone stuck on only looking at definitions of words will miss the meaning entirely.

Another way the emphasis on definition manifests itself in their reasoning is by their atomizing words in lieu of reasoning.

It is not uncommon on this message board to have a Scientologists whose poor reasoning has backed him into a corner to then start defending his view by atomizing words.
Example: saying “the word Scientology is a generality” even though they have used the word themselves throughout the conversation.

Another example: one argues that Scientology is responsible for the improved conditions, but when they are challenged with the point that other things may be responsible they may say “a person is responsible for his own conditions.

Simply put, they generally do not use words to facilitate understanding. Instead they atomize words and use slogans they call Scientology datums in order to shift direction from the point in question.

Scientologists generally do not reason in the normal sense.

When they present a claim about Scientology they do not present evidence to support that claim. Their evidence is usually just anecdotal statements.

If they do present support for their claims about Scientology the support is usually just Scientology datums.

What a Scientologists means by reasoning is simply arranging their Scientology stable datums in a particular sequence.

Since Scientologists don’t reason well I have found that the best way to reason with them (not that they understand it) is to use the Socratic method. I let them make the claim and then I deconstruct their claim with questions.

I do this by first isolating for myself the hidden assumptions implied in what they are saying. Usually they are unaware themselves of the assumptions they are using and what those assumptions imply; that is why they are still in the cult.

I then question them on exactly what they mean in such a way that the questions expose their hidden assumptions.

At this point they tend to get emotional and quit the argument. Very often they cannot answer the questions directly even if the question only requires a yes or no answer. Instead they will rant about other things and believe they have answered the question.
But don’t let them off the hook. Just keep asking them the question.

The Achilles’ heel in Scientologists’ reasoning is their own use of unexamined premises or assumptions Their reasoning is generally just a rearrangement of those assumption and premises.

For example: a Scientologists might believe that “it is self-evident that life is basically a static, and a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time.” You may want to ask them-- how can something that has no mass, no motion, no location in space or in time, be evident?

I don’t expect them to ever see the light. But they will have something to think about. And never forget the real audience are the lurkers.

I don’t care what a person believes; Scientologists can believe whatever they like.
That’s why I never discuss the OT levels as that is the belief of the religion.

What I am going after is their moral complacency with the crimes of Scientology. And I don’t just mean the material and social crimes of the Church of Scientology. I mean the debilitating effects that I believe Scientology reasoning does to a person.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Great analysis and discussion!

Well and accurately said, TAJ!

EP

 

[Student of Trinity]

Is there really any point in trying to argue? Scientology poses as a rational philosophical system, with its axioms and its 'data series' and all that. But it really seems to be all bogus, cargo cult rationality.

Cargo cults developed after WW2 among the traditional societies of some Pacific islands, on which airstrips and supply depots had been established during the war. When the islanders lost these sources of industrial products after the war, some of them tried to bring the cargo back by imitating the structures and activities they had seen. This went as far as going through the motions of flight direction at imitation airbases, parading with bamboo models of rifles, and even building straw replicas of airplanes. This may sound like an urban legend, but it really occurred, was studied by anthropologists, and is well verified. You can find a bunch about it with Google.

Hubbard's axioms, for instance, are definitely cargo cult axiomatics: superficially patterned after what axioms may seem to be, to people who don't know any better, but ludicrously lacking in what actually matters. So arguing with Scientologists who think they are in Scientology for its rational arguments would seem to be like confronting cargo cultists drilling with their bamboo rifles, and trying to discuss marksmanship. They'll have no clue at all what you're getting at, and will likely resent you for interrupting their ritual.

 

[Panda Termint]

TAJ, that is an excellent post.

 

[Div6]

You cannot be speaking a language if you are making noises no one else understands.

In this sense language is fundamentally a social phenomenon.

Scientology is also fundamentally a social phenomenon.

What it means to do Scientology is to employ assumptions, terms, and definitions to reason in ways that other people who call themselves Scientologists recognize and respond to.

Many exes and Scientologists can spot another Scientologists a mile away when that Scientologist employs some of those terms and definitions, and certainly can spot the assumptions when Scientologists use them in their reasoning.
[For the sake of precision, in this thread I am not addressing auditing.]

Scientology contains many terms and definitions that are abstractions. Scientologists treat these abstractions as if they have concrete or materials existence. This is called reifying.
For example: A-R-C, the dynamics, even the Reactive Mind.

There is nothing wrong with this, per se, unless the person forgets that they are dealing with abstractions.
For example: a person believes he is PTS. The Scientologist is convinced that the abstract idea (PTSness) is real and has to be dealt with as the cause of his problems, thereby occluding the real concrete causes of his problems.

It is often hard to reason about anything with Scientologists because of the active assumptions they hold.
Examples: dismissing a reasoned argument by claiming that the universal used “is a generality” when it is supposed to be a generality; Scientologists cling to the assumption that Scientology works and if it didn’t work then it wasn’t correctly applied.

Another difficulty in reasoning with Scientologists stems from their emphasis on the meaning of words while ignoring other elements of language in understanding. Often they cannot understand the use of certain figures of speech and rhetoric. I have found that they often stumble over a metonymy and a synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.
Example: “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow.” or “France will not consent.” “Scientology is in trouble.”
Scientologists, not understanding this use of language, generally dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.”

A synecdoche is a figure in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number to represent an indefinite.
Examples: “The harbor was crowded with sails.” “The world condemns him.”
Scientologists often dismiss these as generalities too.

Both figures of rhetoric are founded on a contiguity of two objects of thought. Someone stuck on only looking at definitions of words will miss the meaning entirely.

Another way the emphasis on definition manifests itself in their reasoning is by their atomizing words in lieu of reasoning.

It is not uncommon on this message board to have a Scientologists whose poor reasoning has backed him into a corner to then start defending his view by atomizing words.
Example: saying “the word Scientology is a generality” even though they have used the word themselves throughout the conversation.

Another example: one argues that Scientology is responsible for the improved conditions, but when they are challenged with the point that other things may be responsible they may say “a person is responsible for his own conditions.

Simply put, they generally do not use words to facilitate understanding. Instead they atomize words and use slogans they call Scientology datums in order to shift direction from the point in question.

Scientologists generally do not reason in the normal sense.

When they present a claim about Scientology they do not present evidence to support that claim. Their evidence is usually just anecdotal statements.

If they do present support for their claims about Scientology the support is usually just Scientology datums.

What a Scientologists means by reasoning is simply arranging their Scientology stable datums in a particular sequence.

Since Scientologists don’t reason well I have found that the best way to reason with them (not that they understand it) is to use the Socratic method. I let them make the claim and then I deconstruct their claim with questions.

I do this by first isolating for myself the hidden assumptions implied in what they are saying. Usually they are unaware themselves of the assumptions they are using and what those assumptions imply; that is why they are still in the cult.

I then question them on exactly what they mean in such a way that the questions expose their hidden assumptions.

At this point they tend to get emotional and quit the argument. Very often they cannot answer the questions directly even if the question only requires a yes or no answer. Instead they will rant about other things and believe they have answered the question.
But don’t let them off the hook. Just keep asking them the question.

The Achilles’ heel in Scientologists’ reasoning is their own use of unexamined premises or assumptions Their reasoning is generally just a rearrangement of those assumption and premises.

For example: a Scientologists might believe that “it is self-evident that life is basically a static, and a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time.” You may want to ask them-- how can something that has no mass, no motion, no location in space or in time, be evident?

I don’t expect them to ever see the light. But they will have something to think about. And never forget the real audience are the lurkers.

I don’t care what a person believes; Scientologists can believe whatever they like.
That’s why I never discuss the OT levels as that is the belief of the religion.

What I am going after is their moral complacency with the crimes of Scientology. And I don’t just mean the material and social crimes of the Church of Scientology. I mean the debilitating effects that I believe Scientology reasoning does to a person.

The Anabaptist Jacques

This is well said. Going to the heart of the matter, I believe is the indoctrination that occurs in to Scientology "ethics".

They define Ethics as "Reason, and contemplation of optimum survival", and the utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" and then inject DOINGNESSes as a substitute for actual consideration and self-determined thought.

Conditions Formula's, O\W writeups, Repair of Past Ethics, Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics, etc. This all MIGHT be OK if kept to a self-determined basis. But it is applied in a group setting, and tilted towards the 'group' being the 'greatest good'.

This is the bypass circuit of reason that is installed early on.
The reward is "the gains".

 

[Lurker5]

LOL

In my opinion, no can do - impossible. There is no 'reasoning' with a scn'ist - there just is not. Like with an addict, only when the person is ready, for whatever reason, disenchantment, hitting bottom, can't take anymore, death is near, will the mind open to new information - and reasoning. Only when the person is ready, will the mind 'crack' from the pressure of the scn brainwashing mechanism, and open up - basically out of instinctual self preservation.

THEN, I would defer to those who have gotten out, as they would best know how to reach and confer with a scn'ist on the 'ledge' about to leap - to new life and growth and beingness. It must be a very scarey propositon to the uninitiated . . .

They know not what they do. All we can do is wait for the cracks to appear, then those best qualified can get a foot in the door, and HELP with the transition.

As Mr Nobody says in his sig line (I think it is his sig) -The best things in life are free. Yes , ugh huh

 

[Alanzo]

Well done, TAJ.

You have just restimulated the hell out of me. It used to be all in the past. But now it's all back up in my face again!

Thanks a lot!

 

[Dark Phoenix]

What a Scientologists means by reasoning is simply arranging their Scientology stable datums in a particular sequence.

Excellent post, TAJ.

 

[Smilla]

You cannot be speaking a language if you are making noises no one else understands.

In this sense language is fundamentally a social phenomenon.

Scientology is also fundamentally a social phenomenon.

What it means to do Scientology is to employ assumptions, terms, and definitions to reason in ways that other people who call themselves Scientologists recognize and respond to.

Many exes and Scientologists can spot another Scientologists a mile away when that Scientologist employs some of those terms and definitions, and certainly can spot the assumptions when Scientologists use them in their reasoning.
[For the sake of precision, in this thread I am not addressing auditing.]

Scientology contains many terms and definitions that are abstractions. Scientologists treat these abstractions as if they have concrete or materials existence. This is called reifying.
For example: A-R-C, the dynamics, even the Reactive Mind.

There is nothing wrong with this, per se, unless the person forgets that they are dealing with abstractions.
For example: a person believes he is PTS. The Scientologist is convinced that the abstract idea (PTSness) is real and has to be dealt with as the cause of his problems, thereby occluding the real concrete causes of his problems.

It is often hard to reason about anything with Scientologists because of the active assumptions they hold.
Examples: dismissing a reasoned argument by claiming that the universal used “is a generality” when it is supposed to be a generality; Scientologists cling to the assumption that Scientology works and if it didn’t work then it wasn’t correctly applied.

Another difficulty in reasoning with Scientologists stems from their emphasis on the meaning of words while ignoring other elements of language in understanding. Often they cannot understand the use of certain figures of speech and rhetoric. I have found that they often stumble over a metonymy and a synecdoche.

A metonymy is a figure of speech in which the name of one object is put for some other object, the two being so closely related that the mention of one naturally suggests the other.
Example: “Man shall live by the sweat of his brow.” or “France will not consent.” “Scientology is in trouble.”
Scientologists, not understanding this use of language, generally dismiss a metonymy as “a generality.”

A synecdoche is a figure in which the name of a part is used to represent the whole, or the name of the whole is used to represent a part, or a definite number to represent an indefinite.
Examples: “The harbor was crowded with sails.” “The world condemns him.”
Scientologists often dismiss these as generalities too.

Both figures of rhetoric are founded on a contiguity of two objects of thought. Someone stuck on only looking at definitions of words will miss the meaning entirely.

Another way the emphasis on definition manifests itself in their reasoning is by their atomizing words in lieu of reasoning.

It is not uncommon on this message board to have a Scientologists whose poor reasoning has backed him into a corner to then start defending his view by atomizing words.
Example: saying “the word Scientology is a generality” even though they have used the word themselves throughout the conversation.

Another example: one argues that Scientology is responsible for the improved conditions, but when they are challenged with the point that other things may be responsible they may say “a person is responsible for his own conditions.

Simply put, they generally do not use words to facilitate understanding. Instead they atomize words and use slogans they call Scientology datums in order to shift direction from the point in question.

Scientologists generally do not reason in the normal sense.

When they present a claim about Scientology they do not present evidence to support that claim. Their evidence is usually just anecdotal statements.

If they do present support for their claims about Scientology the support is usually just Scientology datums.

What a Scientologists means by reasoning is simply arranging their Scientology stable datums in a particular sequence.

Since Scientologists don’t reason well I have found that the best way to reason with them (not that they understand it) is to use the Socratic method. I let them make the claim and then I deconstruct their claim with questions.

I do this by first isolating for myself the hidden assumptions implied in what they are saying. Usually they are unaware themselves of the assumptions they are using and what those assumptions imply; that is why they are still in the cult.

I then question them on exactly what they mean in such a way that the questions expose their hidden assumptions.

At this point they tend to get emotional and quit the argument. Very often they cannot answer the questions directly even if the question only requires a yes or no answer. Instead they will rant about other things and believe they have answered the question.
But don’t let them off the hook. Just keep asking them the question.

The Achilles’ heel in Scientologists’ reasoning is their own use of unexamined premises or assumptions Their reasoning is generally just a rearrangement of those assumption and premises.

For example: a Scientologists might believe that “it is self-evident that life is basically a static, and a Life Static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time.” You may want to ask them-- how can something that has no mass, no motion, no location in space or in time, be evident?

I don’t expect them to ever see the light. But they will have something to think about. And never forget the real audience are the lurkers.

I don’t care what a person believes; Scientologists can believe whatever they like.
That’s why I never discuss the OT levels as that is the belief of the religion.

What I am going after is their moral complacency with the crimes of Scientology. And I don’t just mean the material and social crimes of the Church of Scientology. I mean the debilitating effects that I believe Scientology reasoning does to a person.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Thanks very much for your great post

 

[uniquemand]

I think the easiest way to reason with scientologists is to listen to what they are trying to say. Instead of trying to tell them they are a cultist, or they are using poor logic, just listen. Like anyone else, they can be reasoned with, but they will have blinders on (they put them on) regarding Scientology. Until they decide there is something wrong on the inside of the world they're constructing and joining, pointing out that there's a problem will not be received well. So I don't.

 

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

This is well said. Going to the heart of the matter, I believe is the indoctrination that occurs in to Scientology "ethics".

They define Ethics as "Reason, and contemplation of optimum survival", and the utilitarian "greatest good for the greatest number" and then inject DOINGNESSes as a substitute for actual consideration and self-determined thought.

Conditions Formula's, O\W writeups, Repair of Past Ethics, Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics, etc. This all MIGHT be OK if kept to a self-determined basis. But it is applied in a group setting, and tilted towards the 'group' being the 'greatest good'.

This is the bypass circuit of reason that is installed early on.
The reward is "the gains".

Exactly.

My posts dealling with the ethics will be ready in a few days.

The Anabaptist Jacques

 

[ThisFenceHurts]

When a Scientologist defends disconnection, ask them to imagine that their father, mother, brother, sister, best friend, whatever, has just been declared and ask them how they would feel.

When a Scientologist callouslessly dismisses the poor or ill, ask them to imagine that they, or better yet, their children or parents, became ill and how they would feel if someone did not offer help, but instead offered the "You are responsible for your own condition" line.

This only works some of the time, but I think the experience helps you to locate which Scientologists have not yet totally left the building mentally. I believe it is vital to emphasize empathy and other valuable human emotions in order to bring back reason. This may sound counter-intuitive, but my opinion of a well-functioning human being is a healthy balance of emotion and reason.

The real hidden trick is that Scientologists are convinced to THINK they are focused on their own spiritual development, when their attention, in fact, is being focused on a false self that has been subtly substituted by involvement with Scientology. The true self is attacked as irrational and undesirable, while the false self is praised as rational and desirable. Love, empathy, charity, general care and feeling for others is attacked. Ego, control, status, exteriorization (from feelings!) and elitism are held up to be rational and desirable.

Putting people back in touch with their ACTUAL self is the only way I see to get the person back.

 

[MrNobody]

Apart from the intellectual part of this discussion, to which I'm probably too simple-minded to contribute to, there's the practical component, to which I may be able to add a word or two.

Reasoning with a scientologist: I don't think that'll work. Although I haven't had any conversations with a scientologist that would be worth to mention yet, I've spent hundreds of hours in discussions with members of other cults or cult-like groups.

The nearly identical parts or patterns in all these discussions were:
No matter what the original topic of the discussion was, as soon as they saw an opportunity, they tried to turn the discussion into one about a certain part of their beliefs, their scripture, or whatnot. If I offered them a coffee, they tried to explain in detail what their $deity thought about the habit of drinking coffee, if there was anything in their scripture that could be bent and re-re-reinterpreted so that it could be applied to coffee.

Once I've spent as much as 12 or more hours in a non-stop-discussion with a very highly trained lecturer and disseminator. The end result: He broke down crying and whimpered: "... And I STILL believe! You CAN'T take that away from me!". Huh? That never was my intention, not at all. All I wanted was him to accept or at least SEE that there are valid points of view outside his cultish mindset. It didn't work.

It never works. Whatever you say or do, they see it through their cultish mindset and try to find out what would be the relevant part of their teachings or scripture to apply to your words. And they WILL find something. Always.

Oh well, reasoning seems to be more or less part of my nature, since I still try it every now and then, but I do know it doesn't work.

Asking questions might work better, I thought, and sometimes it does, but mostly your questions are twisted, turned, and re-interpreted until they fit into their pre-manufactured mindset and can be answered with drilled replies. When they have no way to do that, they just ignore your question, and the topic is changed to something more convenient for them - something they HAVE answers for.

So all this reasoning and questioning seems pointless - but is it? Really?

I don't think so. I was amazed when one day a friend and his wife, both tied-up firmly in a cult-like group, visited me and, as usual, quickly turned the conversation into a dissemination session. I already knew the drill - they would make the usual statements, I would ask the usual questions, they would give the usual answers, I would point out flaws in their answers. Boring.

But this one day, something unusual happened: My friend's wife came up with a NEW answer. An answer she had found from her own research. She could even show valid sources to support her position. NEW sources, that I couldn't wipe out as easily as usual. I had to research myself, to find out how to counter the new aspects she had brought up. These new aspects were no just to derail as usual, they were on topic.

Today, a few years later, they are still in their cult, but they try to think for themselves occasionally, which they haven't done before. They slowly are developing some critical thinking skills. The seed finally has been planted, and, if given the opportunity, I water and fertilize it. One day the flower will bloom.

So, to rephrase the statement I made in the beginning of this post:

I don't think that'll work that fast. It is patience, that lets the flowers bloom.