Update on Hubbard's physics education

Rene Descartes

Gold Meritorious Patron
Number of Homo Novi created = 0

this despite HUbbard's claim to the contrary albeit a nebulous claim which one might claim was not a claim.

Rd00
 

Student of Trinity

Silver Meritorious Patron
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.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
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 for someone 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:



aar-1967-cvr.jpg
 
Last edited:

petal

Patron Meritorious
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:



aar-1967-cvr.jpg

I just put "Royal Empire Society hall, London" in google and nothing came up?!
petal
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
I just put "Royal Empire Society hall, London" in google and nothing came up?!
petal


There are some references to it in Google.

Search it like this: "royal empire society hall" london

(leave the quotation marks where they are)
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Here's some additional info with regards Hubbard's "education" from Xenu.net
http://www.xenu.net/archive/oca/radiation.html

Here's a small excerpt: (I turned Hubbard's words green)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The book [All About Radiation] is quintessential Hubbard. Or rather, Dr. Hubbard, "A Nuclear Physicist", as he is described in editions of All About Radiation published before the 1980s. Although he dropped out of his university degree course in the 1930s, he did indeed have a Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph. D). Unfortunately for his subsequent credibility, this was conferred in 1953 by Dr. Joseph Hough, a Los Angeles chiropodist who conferred "degrees" in the name of "the University of Sequoia" to anyone who paid a small fee. Hubbard had acquired his "degree" to impress his British hosts and telegraphed his man in LA with instructions to pay the necessary fee:

"27 FEB 53

PLEASE INFORM DR HOUGH PHD VERY ACCEPTABLE. PRIVATELY TO YOU. FOR GOSH SAKES EXPEDITE. WORK HERE UTTERLY DEPENDENT ON IT. CABLE REPLY. RON"


[Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah, chapter 12]
In 1965 it emerged that his degree was bogus. For a time, he insisted that it was not: "I was a Ph.D., Sequoia's [sic] University and therefore a perfectly valid doctor under the laws of the State of California," he wrote in HCO Policy Letter 14 Feb. 1966. But only three weeks later, he publicly renounced his Ph. D in The Times of 8 March 1966, declaring that:
"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."


 
Last edited:
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 :p.
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*

:cheers: & :bong:

right...

this is a new thread...

it's rails are well worn though. roasted ron is always on the menu at bistro esmb and served fresh daily

as it should be...

very therapeutic stuff for those long intimidated by the CoS whitewash; very refreshing after enforced sycophancy...

is it "derailment" if i chime with counterpoint?

was ron a fizzicist?

hell yes!!!

read mission earth; he gets spacecraft from heller's planet 22 light years away in a few days. none of these phd physicists building bombs and colliders can do that. you can't learn to do that at cal tech...

but then the question gets to how SOT poses it...
 
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.

SOT says his "false science training" is pertinent because...

well, i don't want SOT to say i'm putting words in his mouth but just to say "ok maybe auditing gives you a buzz..."

and i'm saying the lrh/csi materials rock if you make 'em rock and i DO!!!

now then...
 
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.

as it happens there was a point where i aimed to "make a compelling argument" (using your words). i phrased it, addressing the conference finals against pittsburgh as "THIS... is my prestige series"

that was speaking to myself. i didn't post that in dialogue i was having with This Is Not OK on this board as the playoffs unfolded. the penguins had home ice advantage, a high octane offense which stormed into the series pouring goals into the net and were favored by the bookies. the bruins swept with rask pitching bookend shutouts and allowing a single goal in each of the contests in the middle. i don't know how many nhl goalies have allowed two goals or less in a best-of-seven but it's gotta be a very short list

you can tell me you just don't see my hammer but you can't say that one didn't get nailed to the wall...

it was a symphonic postseason run by the bruins; four distinct movements and a strong prologue and historic context...

i was in san francisco when the two bombs went off at the marathon followed by the whole town in lockdown as the cops fought a running gun battle in the street with the alleged perps. i'd'a got back quicker if i coulda but i got back, hopped in the hack and ran a simple dianetic assist on the home of the bean and the cod. pick 'em up and lay 'em down; they get in and give the destination and i pull from the curb sayin' "where were you when the bombs went off?" then 2WC. i wrote it up on the thread it prompted on the computer at the hyde park library. then the playoffs began...

that's prologue and context...

the stanley cup playoffs are a symphony in four movements; toronto is overture, gotham is pastorale, pitssburgh is VENGEANCE!!! and the windy city is Requiem...

and now the months have let the dust settle i thought i might flesh out what i wrote as it happened with some thoughts and scenes i mentioned not as it happened...

referring, of course, to some of the materials
 
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
 

10oriocookies

Patron with Honors
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

Definitely lots of nuts. They bolted out the door and made their own ot levels after not liking the church. Its not scientology now, it schmyontology.
 

shrimpology?

the clams aren't going to like that!

just by the way...

TINOK and i had an ongoing dialogue through the hockey playoffs on "the one thing scientologists have in common with independent scientologists" beginning on page 37. this is now a closed thread
 
the playoff run was a truly beautiful thing in very deep detail. i like getting fancy detail work; i thought i hit the wah-wah pedal pretty in the world series this year...

game three ended with a runner from third awarded home plate on an interference call. the WS has been played for 110 years and that's the first WS game to end on an interference call. so, just to show, it's no mere fluke game four ended with uehara picking a redbird runner off first. the WS has been played for 110 years and that's the first game to end with a pickoff...

detail...

some very, very nice detail work in that bruin playoff run...
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
I made up the concept of "criticism by slogan".:coolwink:

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?
 

everfree

Patron Meritorious
As I noted recently about this subject in this thread: http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?34295-Hubbard-The-Nuclear-Physicist

Hubbard and CofS misrepresented Hubbard as a Nuclear Physicist (and as noted in this thread, a ph.d that was actually bought from an unaccredited diploma mill called Sequoia University). The reason it is a misrepresentation is that he clearly didn't understand the most basic principle of the basic theory of nuclear physics - the speed of light being a constant IN A VACUUM. Not traveling through different media like a prism, in a vacuum.

Since I knew this basic fact by age 12, I feel like I have a more valid claim of the title Nuclear Physicist than he does - which makes my claim still zero. I am not a nuclear physicist. Unlike Hubbard, I admit it and don't try to get other people to buy things from me on that basis.

Having to start my life over after CofS alone in my 30s with a wife and two kids to to support because all of your friends disconnect from you if you ever leave CofS or even say that Hubbard was anything less than the savior of the universe, it would have been great to put nuclear physicist on my resume instead of my CofS staff involvement. It gets you more jobs. I was actually laughed at in a job interview ("Hey, you worked for Scientology? Do you know Tom Cruise? haha!) But I refrained from falsely representing myself as a physicist. Nor did I pad my resume with a fake doctorate. That is because it is dishonest to misrepresent yourself in order to get other people to give you money.
 
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...
 

10oriocookies

Patron with Honors
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...

i can get results with a gun to peoples heads, but that doesnt make it workable. Shit is shit in my book. Sugar coating shit doesnt make it taste any better no matter the results you get from selling people on eating it.
 
Top