AussieCase
Patron
I was listening to a youtube talk by Steve Wiseman. I came across this talk on Caroline Letkeman's site. Wiseman is a UBC psychiatrist who has studied the early relationship between Hubbard and psychiatry.
One thing that Wisemen mentions but doesn't go into is the idea that Hubbard was forced to classify Scientology as a religion two years after its inception. I suspect the inception of Scientology was tied to the publication of Science of Survival.
I am interested in this reclassification. We have all heard the phrase, "applied religious philosophy," but what does it mean? How did we go from the science of the mind to an applied religious philosophy? Why two years after Scientology was formed?
I am asking a question, and I wondering if anyone can point me in an interesting direction or share some insights into this.
I am aware of some an early published critique, and a published study indicating the ineffectiveness of Dianetics. These are mentioned in a blog post.
Wiseman goes on to say that he suspects this reclassification must have been a blow to the ego of Hubbard, a self-styled scientist--who had trouble with high school calculus.
From http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?224-Dianetics-was-known-to-be-bogus :
One thing that Wisemen mentions but doesn't go into is the idea that Hubbard was forced to classify Scientology as a religion two years after its inception. I suspect the inception of Scientology was tied to the publication of Science of Survival.
I am interested in this reclassification. We have all heard the phrase, "applied religious philosophy," but what does it mean? How did we go from the science of the mind to an applied religious philosophy? Why two years after Scientology was formed?
I am asking a question, and I wondering if anyone can point me in an interesting direction or share some insights into this.
I am aware of some an early published critique, and a published study indicating the ineffectiveness of Dianetics. These are mentioned in a blog post.
Wiseman goes on to say that he suspects this reclassification must have been a blow to the ego of Hubbard, a self-styled scientist--who had trouble with high school calculus.
From http://www.forum.exscn.net/entry.php?224-Dianetics-was-known-to-be-bogus :
This is a book review published Dec 1, 1950 in the American Journal of Psychiatry volume 107 pages 477-478, by Robert E. Peck.
A few **fun** highlights:
1) The book was released in May along with a corresponding article in Astounding Science Fiction.
2) The project is considered unacceptable by scientific standards.
3) Testimonials are not proof.
4) The authors claims for exhaustive tests for his own findings seem to reside in his own fantasy.
5) The author did not explain that a preliminary report had been submitted to the American Journal of Psychiatry and it had been rejected.
6) The text provides evidence which may indicate author's own systematized paranoid delusions.
...
In 1953 a PhD thesis, by Harvey Jay Fischer was published at NYU which presented the results of a study of Dianetic auditing (therapy). The study used auditors trained and certified by one of the existing Hubbard Research Foundations and found no evidence of systematic influence either favourably or adversely upon intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, or the degree of interpersonal conflicts.