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 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.
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.
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.
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.
If someone makes a scientific claim, personal testimony becomes irrelevant. An effect can either be demonstrated or it cannot.
"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".[7]
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?
.
&
