What's new

resistance to something new

Hubbard famously (or infamously) stole the study technology from a couple who were at Saint Hill (I couldn't find their names for some reason) and in it is a simple but powerful concept - one of the first barriers to learning is believing you know about it already.

I have made several threads & posts here that were attacked for reasons that mystified me. It was suggested to me that many of the denizens of ESMB are disabused of anything smacking of the spiritual side because of the abuse they received at the hands of Scientology. A sort of PTSD if you will. While that may be true, I think many of the people here have an interest in the spiritual side of life, or did so when they were younger.

Why then are they so unwilling to look further into that aspect of life? Is it the above mentioned barrier of study - they think they know all about it? That it is a lie? Not to be trusted? Full of charlatans? New age hog wash?

I posted a thread about Rupert Sheldrake for instance who one one hand is well respected and on the other subject to derision and debunking. It seemed to set off a fire storm when I tried to defend him and ask some to at least look at his work before writing him off.

Why, would the intelligent posters here be so vehement?

I recently watched a video by Tom Wilson in which he goes into the resistance by many to examine new or different ideas that challenge their beliefs. He describes the barrier to learning similar to the above, in his discussion of the crisis of belief. See the portion of the video that starts at 32:01 Certainty in belief systems in science, he says, gives you trouble. In the words of Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

He goes into theories found in a book called: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert A. Burton and Tom brings up the point that when confronted with rational evidence, that contradicts our feelings of certainty, the feeling wins out almost every time. He points out Burton argues that there is a physiological basis for the feeling that is so powerful it makes rational beliefs seem wrong or irrelevant.

Burton traces it's origins to something I had not considered - the limbic system. Burton describes experiments where the temporal lobe associated with the limbic system is stimulated, the person experiences certainty. A sense of knowing. Of deja vu. Familiarity in a strange environment.

Could that be happening here on ESMB? My posts are triggering your limbic systems and in response, you feel certain in your disbelief of what I am suggesting?

I hope not.

Mimsey
Tom Wilson has a PhD in plant physiology but has worked in the semiconductor industry for the last 20 years. He was born and raised in Canada but now resides in the UK.
[video=youtube;KYo5AVbgwkc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYo5AVbgwkc[/video]

https://www.amazon.com/Being-Certain-Believing-Right-Youre/dp/031254152X

41uzxB1KrFL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
 

WildKat

Gold Meritorious Patron
Here's some possibilities:

1)Most of us regulars are old...over 60 at least, I think that's old. Old dog...new tricks...don't do em.
2)We don't feel like studying and watching long videos.
3)We're just not interested in that subject.
4)We don't want to learn some new made-up terms to understand a new subject
5)Maybe we do feel like we already know it all...at least the important stuff.

For myself, I will spend the time to read and learn about subjects that really interest me. I'm less likely to watch long videos, however. I want it in writing where I can scan it quickly.

Hope that helps.
 

Hypatia

Pagan
Mimsey, I think it may be because the demographic here has shifted. It seems to me that most members of the board are hardliners who don't want to see anything they think is similar to Scientology, even a little bit. Sadly, attacks here are neither unknown or uncommon.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Hubbard famously (or infamously) stole the study technology from a couple who were at Saint Hill (I couldn't find their names for some reason) and in it is a simple but powerful concept - one of the first barriers to learning is believing you know about it already.

I have made several threads & posts here that were attacked for reasons that mystified me. It was suggested to me that many of the denizens of ESMB are disabused of anything smacking of the spiritual side because of the abuse they received at the hands of Scientology. A sort of PTSD if you will. While that may be true, I think many of the people here have an interest in the spiritual side of life, or did so when they were younger.

Why then are they so unwilling to look further into that aspect of life? Is it the above mentioned barrier of study - they think they know all about it? That it is a lie? Not to be trusted? Full of charlatans? New age hog wash?

I posted a thread about Rupert Sheldrake for instance who one one hand is well respected and on the other subject to derision and debunking. It seemed to set off a fire storm when I tried to defend him and ask some to at least look at his work before writing him off.

Why, would the intelligent posters here be so vehement?

I recently watched a video by Tom Wilson in which he goes into the resistance by many to examine new or different ideas that challenge their beliefs. He describes the barrier to learning similar to the above, in his discussion of the crisis of belief. See the portion of the video that starts at 32:01 Certainty in belief systems in science, he says, gives you trouble. In the words of Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

He goes into theories found in a book called: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert A. Burton and Tom brings up the point that when confronted with rational evidence, that contradicts our feelings of certainty, the feeling wins out almost every time. He points out Burton argues that there is a physiological basis for the feeling that is so powerful it makes rational beliefs seem wrong or irrelevant.

Burton traces it's origins to something I had not considered - the limbic system. Burton describes experiments where the temporal lobe associated with the limbic system is stimulated, the person experiences certainty. A sense of knowing. Of deja vu. Familiarity in a strange environment.

Could that be happening here on ESMB? My posts are triggering your limbic systems and in response, you feel certain in your disbelief of what I am suggesting?

I hope not.

Mimsey
Your argument is known as the Galileo Gambit, or the Galileo Fallacy.

Rational Wiki: Galileo gambit

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy; users of the fallacy are Galileo wannabes) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day (though some alternative medicine proponents use Ignaz Semmelweis instead of Galileo). People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don't understand.

The fallacy is an appeal to the minority, an appeal to authority, and a conditional fallacy.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

In reality, taking up the mantle of Galileo requires not just that you are scorned by the establishment but also that you are correct[2]—that is, that the evidence supports your position. There is no necessary link between being perceived as wrong and actually being correct; if people perceive you to be wrong, there's a fair chance that you are wrong. However, the selective reporting of cases where people who were persecuted or ostracized for beliefs and ideas that later turned out to be valid has instilled a confidence in woo promoters and pseudoscientists that is difficult to shake. They forget the part where they have to prove themselves right in order to be like Galileo.


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

EDITED TO ADD:

Your OP also demonstrates Bulverism.

Rational Wiki: Bulverism

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bulverism

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Bulverism the logical fallacy of assuming without discussion that a person is wrong and then distracting his or her attention from this (the only real issue) by explaining how that person became so silly, usually associating it to a psychological condition. The fallacy deals with secondary questions about ideas rather than the primary one, thus avoiding the basic question or evading the issues raised by trains of reasoning. It is essentially dodging your opponent's argument by treating them like a psychiatry patient who needs your evaluation to explain why they came up with such a ridiculous argument in the first place.


The fallacy was coined by C.S. Lewis in his essay, First and Second things.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 
Last edited:

pineapple

Silver Meritorious Patron
Hubbard famously (or infamously) stole the study technology from a couple who were at Saint Hill (I couldn't find their names for some reason) and in it is a simple but powerful concept - one of the first barriers to learning is believing you know about it already.

Charles and Ava Berner. After scn Charles started Abilitism. He later took a trip to India and, based on that, came up with something called the Enlightenment Intensive.

http://tonyortega.org/2015/03/17/mo...-used-the-r2-45-method-to-intimidate-enemies/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_Intensive
 

HelluvaHoax!

Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on
.

--snipped--

Hubbard famously (or infamously) stole the study technology from a couple who were at Saint Hill (I couldn't find their names for some reason) and in it is a simple but powerful concept - one of the first barriers to learning is believing you know about it already.

I have made several threads & posts here that were attacked for reasons that mystified me. It was suggested to me that many of the denizens of ESMB are disabused of anything smacking of the spiritual side because of the abuse they received at the hands of Scientology. A sort of PTSD if you will. While that may be true, I think many of the people here have an interest in the spiritual side of life, or did so when they were younger.

Why then are they so unwilling to look further into that aspect of life? Is it the above mentioned barrier of study - they think they know all about it? That it is a lie? Not to be trusted? Full of charlatans? New age hog wash?

I posted a thread about Rupert Sheldrake for instance who one one hand is well respected and on the other subject to derision and debunking. It seemed to set off a fire storm when I tried to defend him and ask some to at least look at his work before writing him off.

Why, would the intelligent posters here be so vehement?

I recently watched a video by Tom Wilson in which he goes into the resistance by many to examine new or different ideas that challenge their beliefs. He describes the barrier to learning similar to the above, in his discussion of the crisis of belief. See the portion of the video that starts at 32:01 Certainty in belief systems in science, he says, gives you trouble. In the words of Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

He goes into theories found in a book called: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert A. Burton and Tom brings up the point that when confronted with rational evidence, that contradicts our feelings of certainty, the feeling wins out almost every time. He points out Burton argues that there is a physiological basis for the feeling that is so powerful it makes rational beliefs seem wrong or irrelevant.

Burton traces it's origins to something I had not considered - the limbic system. Burton describes experiments where the temporal lobe associated with the limbic system is stimulated, the person experiences certainty. A sense of knowing. Of deja vu. Familiarity in a strange environment.

Could that be happening here on ESMB? My posts are triggering your limbic systems and in response, you feel certain in your disbelief of what I am suggesting?

I hope not.

.


Hubbard famously (or infamously) stole the study technology from a couple who were at Saint Hill (I couldn't find their names for some reason) and in it is a simple but powerful concept - one of the first barriers to learning is believing you know about it already.

ANSWER: It was Ava & Charles Berner who researched and presented the study tech to Hubbard. To keep his exchange totally in, Ron hatted them on the CODE OF HONOR and personally consulted with them until they were able to apply #5 ("Never need praise, approval or sympathy") and #13 ("Don't desire to be liked or admired"). This accounts for the fact that they refused to be given credit for the study tech, leaving LRH with no other choice than to claim authorship.


Could that be happening here on ESMB? My posts are triggering your limbic systems and in response, you feel certain in your disbelief of what I am suggesting?

ANSWER: Yes that is exactly what happened in my case. Your suggestions apparently restimulated my Limbic Operational Levity[SUP]1[/SUP] system, making it extremely difficult for me to agree.





[SUP]1[/SUP] Limbic Operational Levity - 1. abbr. LOL (i.e. I logged on, I disbelieved, I laughed out loud)
 
.
.
ANSWER: It was Ava & Charles Berner who researched and presented the study tech to Hubbard. To keep his exchange totally in, Ron hatted them on the CODE OF HONOR and personally consulted with them until they were able to apply #5 ("Never need praise, approval or sympathy") and #13 ("Don't desire to be liked or admired"). This accounts for the fact that they refused to be given credit for the study tech, leaving LRH with no other choice than to claim authorship.
ANSWER: Yes that is exactly what happened in my case. Your suggestions apparently restimulated my Limbic Operational Levity[SUP]1[/SUP] system, making it extremely difficult for me to agree.
[SUP]1[/SUP] Limbic Operational Levity - 1. abbr. LOL (i.e. I logged on, I disbelieved, I laughed out loud)

Phew! What a blow down. I feel so much better. They don't call you Billy Blowdown for nothing. Mimsey
 

Hypatia

Pagan
Your argument is known as the Galileo Gambit, or the Galileo Fallacy.

Rational Wiki: Galileo gambit

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy; users of the fallacy are Galileo wannabes) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day (though some alternative medicine proponents use Ignaz Semmelweis instead of Galileo). People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don't understand.

The fallacy is an appeal to the minority, an appeal to authority, and a conditional fallacy.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

In reality, taking up the mantle of Galileo requires not just that you are scorned by the establishment but also that you are correct[2]—that is, that the evidence supports your position. There is no necessary link between being perceived as wrong and actually being correct; if people perceive you to be wrong, there's a fair chance that you are wrong. However, the selective reporting of cases where people who were persecuted or ostracized for beliefs and ideas that later turned out to be valid has instilled a confidence in woo promoters and pseudoscientists that is difficult to shake. They forget the part where they have to prove themselves right in order to be like Galileo.


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Maybe Mims is just wondering why replies to some of the new threads are so angry.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
COMMENTED ABOVE EDITED TO ADD:

Your OP also demonstrates Bulverism.

Rational Wiki: Bulverism

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bulverism

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Bulverism the logical fallacy of assuming without discussion that a person is wrong and then distracting his or her attention from this (the only real issue) by explaining how that person became so silly, usually associating it to a psychological condition. The fallacy deals with secondary questions about ideas rather than the primary one, thus avoiding the basic question or evading the issues raised by trains of reasoning. It is essentially dodging your opponent's argument by treating them like a psychiatry patient who needs your evaluation to explain why they came up with such a ridiculous argument in the first place.

The fallacy was coined by C.S. Lewis in his essay, First and Second things.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 
Your argument is known as the Galileo Gambit, or the Galileo Fallacy.

Rational Wiki: Galileo gambit

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy; users of the fallacy are Galileo wannabes) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. It refers to Galileo Galilei's famous persecution at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church for his defence of heliocentrism in the face of the orthodox Biblical literalism of the day (though some alternative medicine proponents use Ignaz Semmelweis instead of Galileo). People use this argument repeatedly in response to serious criticisms that more often than not they just don't understand.

The fallacy is an appeal to the minority, an appeal to authority, and a conditional fallacy.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

In reality, taking up the mantle of Galileo requires not just that you are scorned by the establishment but also that you are correct[2]—that is, that the evidence supports your position. There is no necessary link between being perceived as wrong and actually being correct; if people perceive you to be wrong, there's a fair chance that you are wrong. However, the selective reporting of cases where people who were persecuted or ostracized for beliefs and ideas that later turned out to be valid has instilled a confidence in woo promoters and pseudoscientists that is difficult to shake. They forget the part where they have to prove themselves right in order to be like Galileo.


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
So Galileo was a pseudo scientist and his research was correctly debunked by the Catholic church? I wasn't aware of that. Thankfully we live on a flat earth and such notions have been disproved.

I wasn't saying what I wrote about was correct if it was attacked, I was saying there's something there worthwhile to look at. Personally - I think, despite all science has done for us, it is very dogmatic and closed minded, and resistive to new ideas, especially if they differ from the accepted cherished beliefs, such as dark matter, big bang on and on.

I also think it is a fad to debunk everything that doesn't conform to what the debunker believes, whether there is any semblance of truth in his debunking or not. The internet has given these individuals a forum they wouldn't have had otherwise.

In fact - I will go out on a limb and state I think looking for life on Mars is fraught with danger to science as we know it. This is because Mars lacks the magnetosphere the earth has to protect the planet's surface from radiation, which would mutate life, as we know it, out of existence. However, if it did harbor life, then, Huston, if it doesn't have such a magnetosphere, how did life evolve there?

That could be a big problem for current belief in the evolution of the solar system.

Mimsey
 

Enthetan

Master of Disaster
Here's some possibilities:

1)Most of us regulars are old...over 60 at least, I think that's old. Old dog...new tricks...don't do em.
2)We don't feel like studying and watching long videos.
3)We're just not interested in that subject.
4)We don't want to learn some new made-up terms to understand a new subject
5)Maybe we do feel like we already know it all...at least the important stuff.

For myself, I will spend the time to read and learn about subjects that really interest me. I'm less likely to watch long videos, however. I want it in writing where I can scan it quickly.

Hope that helps.

Same here, especially the last part. I will not watch long videos unless I am certain that the video contains information that I will find important. I would MUCH rather have written text. I read much faster than someone can talk.
 
COMMENTED ABOVE EDITED TO ADD:

Your OP also demonstrates Bulverism.

Rational Wiki: Bulverism

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bulverism

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Bulverism the logical fallacy of assuming without discussion that a person is wrong and then distracting his or her attention from this (the only real issue) by explaining how that person became so silly, usually associating it to a psychological condition. The fallacy deals with secondary questions about ideas rather than the primary one, thus avoiding the basic question or evading the issues raised by trains of reasoning. It is essentially dodging your opponent's argument by treating them like a psychiatry patient who needs your evaluation to explain why they came up with such a ridiculous argument in the first place.

The fallacy was coined by C.S. Lewis in his essay, First and Second things.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
What about it's cousin - bullshiterism?

Mimsey
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Maybe Mims is just wondering why replies to some of the new threads are so angry.
I'm not sure "so angry" would be a correct characterization. Impatient may be. I"ll talk about what may be going on -- at least with myself.

In another thread I mentioned that the closing credits of Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath thank "Anonymous -- Why We Protest" (i.e., the website and blog) as a group that spoke out, among many others, before Leah and producers did. Somebody asked why ESMB wasn't also thanked. I don't know. I didn't speculate there. I will here.

It may be that Leah and the producers were and are unaware of ESMB.

It may or may not be that ESMB is correctly perceived as a place where woo, where pseudo-scientific bullshit, were non-falsifiable nonsense, is not only tolerated but promoted. And not only tolerated and promoted, but promoted to people who, in the case of new members, are the vulnerable recent victims of woo, pseudo-scientific bullshit, and non-falsifiable nonsense.

It may be that while ESMB is an excellent place for recent (and indeed not recent) refugees from the COS to decompress, communicate, get support, be nurtured, find friends, etc. -- indeed, I regularly recommend it to people -- I'm not sure it is an excellent place to expose the COS, particularly recently. (In my personal experience the threads I post on such topics don't seem to garner that much interest.) Perhaps more on point to this particular thread, ESMB may not be that great of place to rid oneself of, yes, you guessed it, the woo, pseudo-scientific bullshit, and non-falsifiable nonsense that one learned in the COS.

So, yeah, personally, I get impatient. I do not maintain ARC. I am not real high on the Tone Scale.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure "so angry" would be a correct characterization. Impatient may be. I"ll talk about what may be going on -- at least with myself.

In another thread I mentioned that the closing credits of Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath thank "Anonymous -- Why We Protest" (i.e., the website and blog") as a group that spoke out, among many others, before Leah and producers did. Somebody asked why ESMB wasn't also thanked. I don't know. I didn't speculate there. I will here.

It may be that Leah and the producers were and are unaware of ESMB.

It may or may not be that ESMB is correctly perceived as a place where woo, where pseudo-scientific bullshit, were non-falsifiable nonsense, is not only tolerated but promoted. And not only tolerated and promoted, but promoted to people who, in the case of new members, are the vulnerable recent victims of woo, pseudo-scientific bullshit, and non-falsifiable nonsense.
It may be that while ESMB is an excellent place for recent (and indeed not recent) refugees from the COS to decompress, communicate, get support, be nurtured, find friends, etc. -- indeed, I regularly recommend it to people -- I'm not sure it is an excellent place to expose the COS, particularly recently. (In my personal experience the threads I post on such topics don't seem to garner that much interest.) Perhaps more on point to this particular thread, ESMB may not be that great of place to rid oneself of, yes, you guessed it, the woo, pseudo-scientific bullshit, and non-falsifiable nonsense that one learned in the COS.

So, yeah, personally, I get impatient. I do not maintain ARC. I am not real high on the Tone Scale.
I thought it was the opposite - it had a reputation as antagonistic and caustic to anyone posting anything not opposed to the flaming of Hubbard & Miscavage. Oh and it is the high pulpit of the ASC per Marty Rathbun.

Mimsey-
 
The magnetosphere is necessary to protect life in the open air. If the Earth lost its magnetosphere, life on land would be damaged. Life in the deep ocean, however, would not notice, as the water would serve as a radiation shield. There is life in the deep oceans which gets energy from metabolizing gases from volcanic vents.

Similarly, on Mars, there could be life deep in the sand.
Life in the sand - please forgive me - I couldn't resist ...

Sheeanaandworm.JPG


af4fd5875fa4dde14c78630051b30a6a.jpg
 
Um, what? "So Galileo was a pseudo scientist and his research was correctly debunked by the Catholic church? I wasn't aware of that. Thankfully we live on a flat earth and such notions have been disproved."
Did you even read the above quotation from Rational Wiki: Galileo gambit? ]


Yes - but the whole idea seemed ripe for a jab. Yes I read it, and disagreed I was using that fallacy, though I am guilty of doing something similar. Mimsey
 

Free Being Me

Crusader
Hubbard famously (or infamously) stole the study technology from a couple who were at Saint Hill (I couldn't find their names for some reason) and in it is a simple but powerful concept - one of the first barriers to learning is believing you know about it already.

I have made several threads & posts here that were attacked for reasons that mystified me. It was suggested to me that many of the denizens of ESMB are disabused of anything smacking of the spiritual side because of the abuse they received at the hands of Scientology. A sort of PTSD if you will. While that may be true, I think many of the people here have an interest in the spiritual side of life, or did so when they were younger.

Why then are they so unwilling to look further into that aspect of life? Is it the above mentioned barrier of study - they think they know all about it? That it is a lie? Not to be trusted? Full of charlatans? New age hog wash?

I posted a thread about Rupert Sheldrake for instance who one one hand is well respected and on the other subject to derision and debunking. It seemed to set off a fire storm when I tried to defend him and ask some to at least look at his work before writing him off.

Why, would the intelligent posters here be so vehement?

I recently watched a video by Tom Wilson in which he goes into the resistance by many to examine new or different ideas that challenge their beliefs. He describes the barrier to learning similar to the above, in his discussion of the crisis of belief. See the portion of the video that starts at 32:01 Certainty in belief systems in science, he says, gives you trouble. In the words of Mark Twain: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

He goes into theories found in a book called: On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not, by Robert A. Burton and Tom brings up the point that when confronted with rational evidence, that contradicts our feelings of certainty, the feeling wins out almost every time. He points out Burton argues that there is a physiological basis for the feeling that is so powerful it makes rational beliefs seem wrong or irrelevant.

Burton traces it's origins to something I had not considered - the limbic system. Burton describes experiments where the temporal lobe associated with the limbic system is stimulated, the person experiences certainty. A sense of knowing. Of deja vu. Familiarity in a strange environment.

Could that be happening here on ESMB? My posts are triggering your limbic systems and in response, you feel certain in your disbelief of what I am suggesting?

I hope not.

Mimsey

>snip<

In other words, it isn't that you Mimsey and Rupert Sheldrake are wrong, it's that those disagreeing with you (and Sheldrake) are suffering from a mental illness, lack of reasoning skills and a spiritual deficiency.

:blink:

Mimsey, learn what fallacies are please.
 
Top