The New Paradigm

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
There is NO new paradigm.

It ain't gonna happen.

I won't let one gonna happen!

Let me become a thought-stopper here. :yes:

Noone can make anyone see what they want to see.

Scientology has exceeded what it wanted to have. It will never recover.
 

Meccaanon

Patron
This (to my way of thinking) renders down to the "what is Scientology" question. Is it a science?

It is most certainly not. Science is a process whereby errors in a system are filtered in a systematic way. You never say in science "I accept this to that to be 100% true." You create suppositions and find ways to test them, the testing must allow one to verify or falsify the supposition. If this is not done for each possible question in a subject than you are simply not doing science.

For example, Hubbard makes many assertions which he calls axioms and according to Scientology cannon. "Axioms are truths which are proven by all of life and which represent the most succinct distillation of wisdom regarding the nature of the human spirit."

None of these "axioms" however are even slightly scientific. They are a mass of opinion presented as fact. i.e. "AXIOM 48. LIFE IS A GAME WHEREN THETA AS THE STATIC SOLVES THE PROBLEMS OF THETA AS MEST." This may be all well and good but it's meaningless as testable hypothesis.

Scientology is simply a world-view as directed by Hubbard. Science does not exist in Scientology because verification is whatever said it is and falsification is not allowed. This does not mean that everything in Scientology is false (science does not work in absolutes.) Simply that as a set of suppositions about how the mind works, Scientology has never been tested in a systematic way and unless and until it is, it's not a paradigm or a science, or much of anything.
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
This (to my way of thinking) renders down to the "what is Scientology" question. Is it a science?

It is most certainly not. Science is a process whereby errors in a system are filtered in a systematic way. You never say in science "I accept this to that to be 100% true." You create suppositions and find ways to test them, the testing must allow one to verify or falsify the supposition. If this is not done for each possible question in a subject than you are simply not doing science.

For example, Hubbard makes many assertions which he calls axioms and according to Scientology cannon. "Axioms are truths which are proven by all of life and which represent the most succinct distillation of wisdom regarding the nature of the human spirit."

None of these "axioms" however are even slightly scientific. They are a mass of opinion presented as fact. i.e. "AXIOM 48. LIFE IS A GAME WHEREN THETA AS THE STATIC SOLVES THE PROBLEMS OF THETA AS MEST." This may be all well and good but it's meaningless as testable hypothesis.

Scientology is simply a world-view as directed by Hubbard. Science does not exist in Scientology because verification is whatever said it is and falsification is not allowed. This does not mean that everything in Scientology is false (science does not work in absolutes.) Simply that as a set of suppositions about how the mind works, Scientology has never been tested in a systematic way and unless and until it is, it's not a paradigm or a science, or much of anything.

Whatever Hubbard said is a bogus. Big time!
He just liked to speak. And his liking of speaking got adherents. Like us.
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
Look! *I* am the one who terminated this thread! :dancer:

:coolwink:

Meccaanon, I apologise for having taken your well-thought-of statement so lightly (not seriously). It happens to me sometimes :blush:
 

lexmark

Patron with Honors
New Paradigm

There is NO new paradigm.

It ain't gonna happen.

I won't let one gonna happen!

Let me become a thought-stopper here. :yes:

Noone can make anyone see what they want to see.

Scientology has exceeded what it wanted to have. It will never recover.

Catch a wake up!!!!

This is not about Scientology none whatsoever. This is about the latest scientific discoveries.

It makes Scientology obsolete.

There may be a battle between the materialist scientist and the Idealist scientist. The materialist would probably like to maintain their current status but the old always gives way to the new.

Here's to the "New World View" and a better one than what we have had. It is also an evolving one.
 

lexmark

Patron with Honors
New Paradigm

There seems to be some confusion about what I have posted is not a science, referring to the amount of research and experimentation that science undergoes. The postings I have made and the scientific research is based on over a hundred years of research by many scientists including Einstein. Some of the quotes I have pasted were written by current scientists and have based their writings on their own research plus that of the older scientists no longer with us. I am not a scientist but I study science. I was in Scientology for 22 years and worked with LRH on the ship.

None of what I have written is based on Scientology - it is based on pure science.

Travers
 

VaD

Gold Meritorious Patron
There seems to be some confusion about what I have posted is not a science, referring to the amount of research and experimentation that science undergoes. The postings I have made and the scientific research is based on over a hundred years of research by many scientists including Einstein. Some of the quotes I have pasted were written by current scientists and have based their writings on their own research plus that of the older scientists no longer with us. I am not a scientist but I study science. I was in Scientology for 22 years and worked with LRH on the ship.

None of what I have written is based on Scientology - it is based on pure science.

Travers


I believe that NOBODY here cares about a scientific research of humans being spirtual.

We ARE spiritual (whatever science says today or tomorrow).

Who cares for "further research" into human soull? - Me? You? Scientists?

Will it make a difference? - No, It won't!

I KNOW i'm spiritual - whether science proves it or tells that i'm "not".

being spiritual is ain't nobody's business.
:yes:

P.S. Lexmark, please don't get upset with answers to you here. Life is just a flow. It's what you experience (rather than what you think about this flow).
Take it as it is.! :yes:
 

lexmark

Patron with Honors
It's an EX Scientologists Message Board, for gawds sakes!

If you want to go into another one, here is the good one (to start with):
http://www.acnlp.no/textsider/The Game of games.pdf

From some of the posts I have read here it is evident that many on this website know nothing about Scientology, maybe did a com course or read a book or did nothing at all but are on the band wagon with real ex scientologists.

The real message of Scientology was about spirituality but there is a lot of missing data. My posts amplify the message of spirituality.
 

Pepin

Patron with Honors
From some of the posts I have read here it is evident that many on this website know nothing about Scientology, maybe did a com course or read a book or did nothing at all but are on the band wagon with real ex scientologists.

The real message of Scientology was about spirituality but there is a lot of missing data. My posts amplify the message of spirituality.

Moreover, there appear to be many who are against spirituality. They push the song of bodies ~ Be like me..asleep in a coma living the lie.

How far down the tone scale was "needing bodies" ?
 
Catch a wake up!!!!

This is not about Scientology none whatsoever. This is about the latest scientific discoveries.

It makes Scientology obsolete.

There may be a battle between the materialist scientist and the Idealist scientist. The materialist would probably like to maintain their current status but the old always gives way to the new.

Here's to the "New World View" and a better one than what we have had. It is also an evolving one.

Truth and honesty made Scientology obsolete.

There is no such thing as a materialist science or an idealist science any more than there is Marxist science and capitalist science.

It seems very obvious that you do not understand what science is.

It is not opinion. Science is the aggregate accepted judgments of those who do science.

A scientific paradigm is the conceptual framework that delineates and qualifies the explanations and further investigation in science.

A paradigm is not simply a hypothesis.

And a paradigm is not a conclusion based on a study. You have yet to use this word correctly.

A scientific fact is one that has been measured by some means. A hypothesis is not a fact. A theory is an hypothesis that has shown a sufficient number of correlating scientific facts of predictive capability to support the original hypothesis.

You are claiming that a hypothesis, with no supporting facts, is in fact a current scientific paradigm, which it is not.

You have also claimed that science turned to a materialistic paradigm about 400 years ago. It did not.

Materialism came about around the begging of the early 19th century with such figures as Laplace.

And even then it wasn't a paradigm for all of science.

You have been claiming that something that wasn't, was, and something that isn't, is. How scientific is that?

Seriously, study the history of science. The assumptions you are making are not based on facts.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

uniquemand

Unbeliever
Moreover, there appear to be many who are against spirituality. They push the song of bodies ~ Be like me..asleep in a coma living the lie.

How far down the tone scale was "needing bodies" ?

I haven't been able to find any research where the tone scale, other than it's parallels with the stages of grief, has been looked into at all, nevermind such supposed "tones" as "needing bodies".

The most useful thing I've ever seen done with the tone scale is the alignment of it with other scales in scientology, vis-a-vis Konchok Penday's Universal Consciousness Practice.

Nobody here is against spirituality. I, personally, am against badly presented claims that spirituality is science, or that science is spirituality. They are not the same. Science is a method, along with the presently accepted conclusions and facts derived from applying that method. Spirituality is not a method, it's an aspect of consciousness. The science of spirituality might be interesting, however, I haven't seen much of value done, because spirituality defies quantification, or has, for the most part, to date.

http://net-prophet.net/ucp/chart.htm
 
I haven't been able to find any research where the tone scale, other than it's parallels with the stages of grief, has been looked into at all, nevermind such supposed "tones" as "needing bodies".

Depends on that for which you are looking. There is a guy named David Hawkings, a psychologist, who has adapted the tone scale for his own purposes and written extensively on his adaptations. He evidently has had some sort of past association with scientology, or perhaps a near offshoot, although he doesn't discuss it.


Mark A. Baker
 
Top