Just for the benefit of any newbies to this subject that may be lurking on this thread, Hubbard actually published a book as a Nuclear Physicist! (I believe it was originally published in Dec of 1957)
I'm wondering if someone is so bold as to publish a book as a nuclear physicist when it's a complete lie - is there anything that they wouldn't lie about?
Here's the front cover along with part of the inside of the dust jacket:
"having reviewed the damage being done in our society with nuclear physics and psychiatry by persons calling themselves "Doctor" do hereby resign in protest my university degree as a Doctor of philosophy (Ph. D.), anticipating an early public outcry against anyone called Doctor; and although not in any way connected with the bombs of "psychiatric treatment" or treatment of the sick, and interested only and always in philosophy and the total freedom of the human spirit I wish no association of any kind with these persons and do so publicly declare, and request my friends and the public not to refer to me in any way with this title."
My dear Commander BS, I was directly addressing the original post of this thread, the rails haven't even gotten rusted yet on this, this, this coo-coo-choo-choo-route-de-toot-de-woo .
I love trains, especially the older 4-4-2 steam machines, always wanted to ride on one, hm, maybe one day on Venus, I can do some sort of 'track-back' and smack ol' Hubbard's 'Big Ignorant Thetan' right where it counts! (Though in doing so I may alter the time/space-continuum and then I wouldn't exist to carry out the deed).... Paradox's suxor *sad*
The reason that Hubbard's fake science training is important is that it affects how one should estimate the ultimate potential of Scientology. What has actually been demonstrated is, at least arguably, something; but it is far short of what has been promised. Should one believe that the promises are potentially realizable, or conclude that Scientology dead-ends at the auditing buzz?
I mean, suppose I write to the US president to say that humans can potentially fly, unaided by any machinery, just by a combination of mild muscular effort and meditation. So far I can demonstrate little hops from the lotus position. I'm a nobody, with no relevant credentials. Only an idiot would give me money to develop psychic flight.
Then suppose on the other hand that Albert Einstein writes to the president, to say that enormously powerful bombs could be made by smashing lumps of certain radioactive metals together. So far nothing but radioactivity has been demonstrated. But Einstein is Einstein. President Roosevelt authorizes the Manhattan project.
By pretending to be a nuclear physicist, Hubbard falsely claimed that kind of credential.
Insofar as Hubbard actually demonstrated anything, whatever he actually demonstrated is real regardless of his academic credentials. But insofar as he promised one day to do more than what he had so far demonstrated, his academic credentials are important in judging whether or not he might be able to deliver. His track record is not that he's a nuclear physicist. It's even worse than merely not being a physicist. Hubbard's track record is that he falsely claimed to be a nuclear physicist. So he's a guy making huge unsupported claims, with a track record of brazen lying. If auditing gave you a buzz, it gave you a buzz; but don't give Hubbard money in hopes that your buzz was the tip of an iceberg called Clear and OT.
At the risk of supporting your derailment, the Leafs blowing a big game hardly requires OT powers. You'd have a more compelling argument if they had won that game.
Are you Clear? And OT?
If yes, would you be willing to publicly demonstrate the stated abilities of a Clear and OT?(with the resultant video posted on ESMB)
and as i have noted several times pitsy, on the grade chart i'm an arc straightrazor release
back in the day "you're as OT as you want to be" was watchword and there's plenty of the nuts and bolts of it in the nonclassified lower level materials
I made up the concept of "criticism by slogan".
You start with the statement that no clears or OTs have been made. I consider
that a valid point of view. Clears may have been made, but I still prefer Mayo's
concept that one gets clearer. Below a definition of OT.
This is hyperbolic. Such abilities have never been stably obtained in recent times.
I have surveyed for this and most have been achieved sporadically and usually
not repeatably. I suspect not limited to those involved with Scn.
However doing the various scn,Dn processes can give one gains. Many have
attested to that. Others say they got no gain. Those interested can explore the possibilities.
"A thetan who is completely rehabilitated and can do everything a thetan should do, such as move [matter, energy, space, and time (MEST)] and control others from a distance, or create his own universe; a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence".
This is a fallacious argument called 'moving the goalposts.' A little history:
1) In the 1950's Hubbard claimed that anyone who went 'clear' could remember anything.
2) He presented a 'clear' in a big auditorium. They couldn't remember the colour of
a man's tie when he turned around. They couldn't remember things they learnt in school.
Many people left the auditorium. Some people, for reasons unknown, stayed in the auditorium.
They apologised. They made excuses. As anyone reading this thread can see, people are still making excuses.
There have never been any clears. To say that people get more clear is taking the same alleged state, and redefining it so that its meaning is grey. It cannot be tested. If someone does not have a rigorous definition of a clear, then no one can test clears. So people can continue to believe they still exist, but they don't know what they are talking about, because they don't have a working definition.
The difference between science and pseudoscience is the repeatability of results. If someone in one lab performs a single experiment that demonstrates cold fusion and no one else can replicate it, people start looking for explainations of where the original experimenter may have made errors. Then they test that.
You have not presented a testable working defintion of a clear and you indicated that you have 'surveyed' the field of clears. This indicates you have not made any effort to remove your own subjective prejudice from your observations. This is why you are probably kidding yourself.
If someone makes a scientific claim, personal testimony becomes irrelevant. An effect can either be demonstrated or it cannot.
You say that a thetan who is completely rehabilitated should be able to move matter. Later, you imply moving objects without mechanical means. This is clearly telekenesis? Do you claim to have witnessed such occurances, or performed them yourself?
You say a thetan who is completely rehabilitated can move energy. What do you mean by this?
You say that a thetan who is completely rehabilitated can move space. What do you mean by this?
You say a thetan who is completely rehabilitated can move time. What do you mean by this?
What are some of the ways you can demonstrate that a thetan who is completely rehabilitated can control others from a distance?
What is meant by creating your own universe?
there is science to dianetics but it's a soft science rather than a hard science like metalugy
from square one, dmsmh was published and people bought the book and independently got results with the techniques...
but it doesn't produce absolutely repeatable result with every person all the time
and few can get the kind of result which i've been getting with boston's big league teams so far this century
but i can...