What's new

Is every statement made by L. Ron Hubbard false?

kate8024

-deleted-
What the fuck are you trying to prove? Post it. This proof is on you. Go.

I'm trying to prove only that not every single statement made by L. Ron Hubbard can be shown to be a lie or false. Many can, some cannot. I made this assertion based on yours that everything he said is a lie or false.

You want a statement that can be considered true? I believe this one is true.

Statement: "According to nuclear physics, matter is composed of energy such as electrons and protons."
Source: Self Analysis (2007) page 33
Dependencies: None within the works of L. Ron Hubbard but many within in the field of atomic physics such as the existence of atoms and that atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles including but not limited to the electron and proton.
True, false, or opinion: True, assuming atoms are a component of matter and have electrons and protons as components.

One must also keep in mind the context that this is in reference to nuclear physics as it was understood in 1951. Today we would probably say this is a simplistic description of matter, but it is still valid at the atomic level.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
In Scientology - a debate requires two way comm but remember, no entheta - and entheta is "anything that exposes our crimes". Entheta is not allowed in Scientology. Reason is subjective - Scientological "reason" is not what most people consider "reason". Most people believe that they need to take care of themselves first, their family next, their group would come after those two dynamics are handled. If the first two are not doing well - there is not much left for the group.

Scientological reason is that you should forsake your first, second and strictly live on the third - only the third has only one man who benefits from all of this. This is insane but Scientology calls it reason. It is the opposite - that is Scientology!!

So yes, a debate requires two way communication and here is how it goes in Scientology:

A Scientological debate between a PC and a REGG using Scientological "reason":


PC - heh, I think I got ripped off. I thought I was going to 'get rid of my reactive mind' and I spent $350,000 and 10 years of my life to come to the realization that "I mocked up and continue to mock up my reactive mind but now I can control it". I was told I was "clear" but I still feel like shit. I don't have any special abilities and my IQ is worse as well as my aptitude and personality test results. I am broke and divorced and have no family left - I had to disconnect from them to go "clear". I am pissed.

Regg - well, you are only clear on your first dynamic. You have 7 other dynamics.

PC - but that is not what I was told - I was told I would get rid of my reactive mind and I still have it - it sucks. I feel like crap. I don't have any money to do any more of this shit and by the way - what exactly is the 8th dynamic in Scientology - who is the supreme being in Scientology?

Regg - do you have any credit cards you can put some more bridge on?

PC - did you not hear me? I feel like shit. I am bankrupt and have nothing. Who is the 8th dynamic - supreme being? Answer me you stupid idiot.

Regg - I am afraid that I cannot listen to your entheta and am going to write up a KR on you. You will be issued a non-enturb order. If we hear anything more out of you other than how much money you have to give us to get out of your lower condition, you will get declared and your spiritual destiny is fucked.

End of Scientological debate!

Ouch ... $350,000. That is so awful.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
A debate requires two way communication. Do you agree with or disagree with my assertion that "Man's greatest weapon is his reason. Lacking the teeth, the armor-plated hide, the claws of so many other life forms, Man has relied upon his ability to reason in order to further himself in his survival." is an opinion and not able to be evaluated to true or false? If you disagree with that please specify that you believe it is true or false and why.

How do you define man? There were many species of man.

The overall conclusion would be that, although Neanderthals did have the ability to speak, they were capable of articulating only a smaller number of phonemes. Jared Diamond described this limitation using the following example: imagine how many words you could say if the only sounds you were able to make were a, u, c, p. Imagine trying to say "Trinity College is a fine place to work." All you could say were something like "Capupa Cappap up a cap capupap."

This means that in order to transmit certain information much longer propositions are required.
(Apes like the chimpanzee also have the same type of problem. They are able to understand language and they can even be taught how to use the sign language, but they cannot actually speak due to their improper larynx. It is also interesting to remark that the shape of our larynx, a feature that enables us to speak, also has disadvantages: we can choke with food.)

Thus, it seems that the ultimate reason behind Neanderthals extinction was not due to their mental capacities but to the shape of their larynx.

Neanderthals Were Too Smart to Survive

This article argues that it was not the ability to reason but to communicate that ensured the survival of homo sapiens as opposed to the smarter Neanderthal.
[h=1][/h]
 

Anonycat

Crusader
I'm trying to prove only that not every single statement made by L. Ron Hubbard can be shown to be a lie or false. Many can, some cannot. I made this assertion based on yours that everything he said is a lie or false.

You want a statement that can be considered true? I believe this one is true.

Statement: "According to nuclear physics, matter is composed of energy such as electrons and protons."

Source: Self Analysis (2007) page 33
Dependencies: None within the works of L. Ron Hubbard but many within in the field of atomic physics such as the existence of atoms and that atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles including but not limited to the electron and proton.
True, false, or opinion: True, assuming atoms are a component of matter and have electrons and protons as components.

One must also keep in mind the context that this is in reference to nuclear physics as it was understood in 1951. Today we would probably say this is a simplistic description of matter, but it is still valid at the atomic level.

According to nuclear physics? Ron knew nothing of that. And he was not a PhD, wake up.
 

ClearedSP

Patron with Honors
A debate requires two way communication.

Right. Like for starters, you need someone who asserts that everything LRH said was untrue, or else you're just launching a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man]straw man[/URL] argument. The guy has millions of words on record, of course many statements will be true. Who is going to dispute it when he starts off his lecture by saying it's the 21st of May?

So if you want good two way communication, you might start off by addressing whoever it is here that asserts what you claim.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Whether Hubbard's statements are proven within this forum to be true, false, or bits of both, does his self-proclaimed status of 'mankind's best friend' have any merit whatsoever given the fact --- as agreed to by all who have been or are currently associated with Co$ -- that hubbard's statements must be purchased?

I would say that him proclaiming a statement like that is non-verifiable opinion but that it would be reasonable to be of the opinion that he is not mankinds best friend. I personally do not consider that title to apply to him. While his statements needing to be purchased is part of what leads me to this opinion, there are many statements which help mankind which much be purchased which were not written by L. Ron Hubbard, so if he is wrong for requiring this he is not alone in that boat.
 

Purple Rain

Crusader
Let me ask you a question Kate. Is something really true if it is only added to enhance the credibility of a lie? How true is it? And is something that is even broadly acknowledged as true important enough to try and pick apart the fabric of the lie for value? Why not just go somewhere else where the truth is placed in the context of truth, or at least something harmless, instead of picking through a lie trying to find possible truths. History of man is a lie. Who cares if something is accidentally true, or deliberately inserted to make the author sound like an authority?
 

kate8024

-deleted-
Right. Like for starters, you need someone who asserts that everything LRH said was untrue, or else you're just launching a straw man argument. The guy has millions of words on record, of course many statements will be true. Who is going to dispute it when he starts off his lecture by saying it's the 21st of May?

So if you want good two way communication, you might start off by addressing whoever it is here that asserts what you claim.

Thats why this thread was started, because someone asserted that everything he said was untrue and request a new thread in which to debate the idea:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...eens-criminals&p=822958&viewfull=1#post822958

My point is your point, that it is impossible to prove everything he said as being untrue.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Some have stated that every statement made by L. Ron Hubbard is false. This thread is about doing a proper dependency evaluation on statements made by Hubbard to determine if this is, in fact, the case.

No, of course *every* statement made by L Ron Hubbard is not false. However, given the number of lies he has told, it is safe to assume from the start that every statement is false and work back from there. A bit like parsing a faulty computer programme, really. In Scientology's case, however, the programme is so riddled with errors from beginning to end that it causes far more harm than it claims to prevent, in which case, it doesn't actually matter what statements are true because their functioning is corrupted by subsequent false statements. On other hand, if the Scientology programme is designed to make money, then it has been hugely successful but, as people learn that there is no such thing as Engrams or Clear, its ability to function becomes less and less efficient.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
According to nuclear physics? Ron knew nothing of that. And he was not a PhD, wake up.

I did not assert that he knew anything about nuclear physics or was a PhD, I asserted only that the statement "According to nuclear physics, matter is composed of energy such as electrons and protons" was written in a book with L. Ron Hubbard listed as the author and that it is a true statement within the context of a common 1951 understanding of nuclear physics.

You are reading things into what I say. Saying (or even proving) that he did not have a PhD does not disprove his statement.
 

Anonycat

Crusader
No, of course *every* statement made by L Ron Hubbard is not false. However, given the number of lies he has told, it is safe to assume from the start that every statement is false and work back from there. A bit like parsing a faulty computer programme, really. In Scientology's case, however, the programme is so riddled with errors from beginning to end that it causes far more harm than it claims to prevent, in which case, it doesn't actually matter what statements are true because their functioning is corrupted by subsequent false statements. On other hand, if the Scientology programme is designed to make money, then it has been hugely successful but, as people learn that there is no such thing as Engrams or Clear, its ability to function becomes less and less efficient.

Right, like Cleared SP said:
Who is going to dispute it when he starts off his lecture by saying it's the 21st of May?
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Statement: "According to nuclear physics, matter is composed of energy such as electrons and protons."
Source: Self Analysis (2007) page 33
Dependencies: None within the works of L. Ron Hubbard but many within in the field of atomic physics such as the existence of atoms and that atoms are composed of sub-atomic particles including but not limited to the electron and proton.
True, false, or opinion: True, assuming atoms are a component of matter and have electrons and protons as components.

This statement is false or, at best, a half-truth and, of course, L Ron Hubbard specialised in half-truths. The fact is, matter is made of atoms, and atoms are made of protons and electrons. Also, it is false to assert that protons and electrons are "energy" because, as we all learned in high school, "energy" is a quality not a substance. In the statement cited, L Ron Hubbard only shows his ignorance of nuclear physics.

Next.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
No, of course *every* statement made by L Ron Hubbard is not false. However, given the number of lies he has told, it is safe to assume from the start that every statement is false and work back from there. A bit like parsing a faulty computer programme, really. In Scientology's case, however, the programme is so riddled with errors from beginning to end that it causes far more harm than it claims to prevent, in which case, it doesn't actually matter what statements are true because their functioning is corrupted by subsequent false statements. On other hand, if the Scientology programme is designed to make money, then it has been hugely successful but, as people learn that there is no such thing as Engrams or Clear, its ability to function becomes less and less efficient.

Sure it is safe to say anything he says is more likely to be lie than not and needs to have an higher than normal amount of supporting evidence before it is believed. I'm not trying to debate whether or not Scientology has a net negative or positive effect on humanity, but I do believe that for people who understand that something isn't true just because Hubbard says so and are willing to put in the effort to conduct their own tests to determine the validity of his statements they have the potential to have a net positive outcome, even if that positive outcome is only a better academic understanding of Scientology.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
This statement is false or, at best, a half-truth and, of course, L Ron Hubbard specialised in half-truths. The fact is, matter is made of atoms, and atoms are made of protons and electrons. Also, it is false to assert that protons and electrons are "energy" because, as we all learned in high school, "energy" is a quality not a substance. In the statement cited, L Ron Hubbard only shows his ignorance of nuclear physics.

Next.

You are incorrect, from Wikipedia: By mass–energy equivalence, the electron volt is also a unit of mass. It is common in particle physics, where mass and energy are often interchanged, to express mass in units of eV/c[SUP]2
[/SUP]
Protons are 938.272046(21) MeV/c[SUP]2[/SUP]
and Electrons are 0.510998928(11) MeV/c[SUP]2[/SUP]

therefore I would say it is not incorrect to say that electrons and protons are not composed of energy.

And regarding your argument that matter is not composed of protons and electrons because "The fact is, matter is made of atoms, and atoms are made of protons and electrons." is like saying "I am not made of atoms necause I am made of organs and my organs are made of cells and those are made of protiens and those are made of compounds and those are made of atoms."
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
Sure it is safe to say anything he says is more likely to be lie than not and needs to have an higher than normal amount of supporting evidence before it is believed. I'm not trying to debate whether or not Scientology has a net negative or positive effect on humanity, but I do believe that for people who understand that something isn't true just because Hubbard says so and are willing to put in the effort to conduct their own tests to determine the validity of his statements they have the potential to have a net positive outcome, even if that positive outcome is only a better academic understanding of Scientology.

The simple fact is that most wogs already have a better understanding of Scientology than any Scientologist and, what's more, that wog understanding can be summed up in one word: AVOID. While there are a few odd balls like me who are fascinated by the workings of the Scientology scam, for 99.9% of wogs, the effort involved in deriving an academic understanding of Scientology is a complete waste of time. Far better to have the attitude that L Ron Hubbard told so many lies its safest to assume everything he said is a lie. While that may not hold up in learned discussion, it is a "workable" solution towards avoiding any harm Scientology might visit upon the inquisitive.
 

Infinite

Troublesome Internet Fringe Dweller
You are incorrect, from Wikipedia: By mass–energy equivalence, the electron volt is also a unit of mass. It is common in particle physics, where mass and energy are often interchanged, to express mass in units of eV/c[SUP]2
[/SUP]
Protons are 938.272046(21) MeV/c[SUP]2[/SUP]
and Electrons are 0.510998928(11) MeV/c[SUP]2[/SUP]

therefore I would say it is not incorrect to say that electrons and protons are not composed of energy.

That's just a silly distraction from what L Ron Hubbard actually said and a false extrapolation based on a misunderstanding of the material you cite . . . see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter
 

Anonycat

Crusader
You are incorrect, from Wikipedia: By mass–energy equivalence, the electron volt is also a unit of mass. It is common in particle physics, where mass and energy are often interchanged, to express mass in units of eV/c[SUP]2
[/SUP]
Protons are 938.272046(21) MeV/c[SUP]2[/SUP]
and Electrons are 0.510998928(11) MeV/c[SUP]2[/SUP]

therefore I would say it is not incorrect to say that electrons and protons are not composed of energy.

And regarding your argument that matter is not composed of protons and electrons because "The fact is, matter is made of atoms, and atoms are made of protons and electrons." is like saying "I am not made of atoms necause I am made of organs and my organs are made of cells and those are made of protiens and those are made of compounds and those are made of atoms."

ZOMG give me the the Wiki page for Plancks. You still have not provided anything.
 

kate8024

-deleted-
The simple fact is that most wogs already have a better understanding of Scientology than any Scientologist and, what's more, that wog understanding can me summed up in one word: AVOID. While there are a few odd balls like me who are fascinated by the workings of the Scientology scam, for 99.9% of wogs, the effort involved in deriving an academic understanding of Scientology is a complete waste of time. Far better to have the attitude that L Ron Hubbard told so many lies its safest to assume everything he said is a lie. While that may not hold up in learned discussion, it is a "workable" solution towards avoiding any harm Scientology might visit upon the inquisitive.

That might be true if we were in a place that people who are blindly interested in Scientology and believe whatever they read tended to visit to find out about Scientology - but this is a forum is primarily made up of people who either already understand the subject or have an academic interest in it. Whether or not an academic understand of Scientology is of value to any individual is up to that individual to determine.
 
Top