What's new

The “Reactive Mind”

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
No.

But thanks!

Great photo of an odd fellow whose reputation both for better and for worse is much like Hubbard's

I wonder what Hubbard might have produced had he studied with a pupil of Gurdjieff rather than Crowley

There is a quote from Gurdjieff a virtual perfect paraphrase of Hubbard's comment on ball bearings
Some of his quotes are at these links:
https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/george_gurdjieff

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/G._I._Gurdjieff

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/214546.G_I_Gurdjieff
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
So, you don't understand "science", then. There is (should be) nothing in science about faith. Either something is proven and independently verified or it isn't science.

Your stories and other people's anecdotes ARE NOT SCIENCE because they:
  • Aren't provable, and
  • Are not independently verifiable.
I have no problem with you having faith in Hubbard and his "tech". I have no problem with you having faith in your beliefs. I do have a problem when you mis-characterize your anecdotes, your faith and your beliefs as "science". It isn't and what Hubbard claimed isn't science either.

At least Hubbard knew that it wasn't science. He gave an entire lecture on how horrible and suppressive it was to "demand proof" (horrors!). Science is the enemy of Scientology and Hubbard was well aware of that.
Bill, it is science because I'm reporting my own independent verification of the benefit of the Body Comm Process and the experience of exteriorization

However it's not hard science because one cannot produce 100% replicability

But, coming up next...

I'll again repeat the cancer research I did after my pal's death, which did lead to an hypothesis then to a theory then to a prediction and an outline of a research program.

The theory as I have already more than once stated has been verified and the prediction fulfilled and countless lives are being spared daily by a new blood test which makes early detection easier.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Bill, it is science because I'm reporting my own independent verification of the benefit of the Body Comm Process and the experience of exteriorization

However it's not hard science because one cannot produce 100% replicability

Your "own independent verification of the benefit of the Body Comm Process and the experience of exteriorization" is NOT science.:no:

Those two things could absolutely be researched utilizing the scientific method, but to use your own personal experience as you did and concluding ANYTHING based upon it would be pseudoscience.

I could explain why, but if you don't know why by now I doubt you'd except the truth, so it would be pointless.
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Bill, it is science because I'm reporting my own independent verification of the benefit of the Body Comm Process and the experience of exteriorization

However it's not hard science because one cannot produce 100% replicability

But, coming up next...

I'll again repeat the cancer research I did after my pal's death, which did lead to an hypothesis then to a theory then to a prediction and an outline of a research program.

The theory as I have already more than once stated has been verified and the prediction fulfilled and countless lives are being spared daily by a new blood test which makes early detection easier.
Your own independent verification? That's the very antithesis of science matey.

The scientific method relies on two criteria:

[1] Peer review.
[2] The reproducibility of results

Cancer research? How do you qualify to do Cancer research? You must take us all for fucking idiots like your hero L. Ron Hubbard did. Give me a break.
 

strativarius

Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband
Well that's good to hear Pitsy!

Now Newton can't discover gravity by getting hit by a falling apple...
There's no evidence that the apple landed on Newton's head.

In 1726, Newton shared the apple anecdote with William Stukeley, who included it in a biography, “Memoirs of Sir Isaac Newton’s Life,” published in 1752. According to Stukeley, “After dinner, the weather being warm, we went into the garden, & drank thea under the shade of some apple trees… he told me, he was just in the same situation, as when formerly, the notion of gravitation came into his mind…. occasion’d by the fall of an apple, as he sat in a contemplative mood.”
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Your own independent verification? That's the very antithesis of science matey.

The scientific method relies on two criteria:

[1] Peer review.
[2] The reproducibility of results

Cancer research? How do you qualify to do Cancer research? You must take us all for fucking idiots like your hero L. Ron Hubbard did. Give me a break.
Yes.

I am reporting reproduction of results

And if you are not my peers who is?

No one is barred from doing research but I do have most impeccable qualification for what i did


CANCER KILLED MY PAL!!!

YOU KILL MY PAL AND I TAKE A DAMN BIG CHUNK OUT OF YOUR HINDQUARTERS
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Well that's good to hear Pitsy!

Now Newton can't discover gravity by getting hit by a falling apple...
An observation, such as a falling apple, can be the beginning of research when he formed a hypothesis.

Do you think after watching the apple fall that that was the conclusion?

The apple fell and he scurried off into his study and wrote Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica?
 

Bill

Gold Meritorious Patron
Bill, it is science because I'm reporting my own independent verification of the benefit of the Body Comm Process and the experience of exteriorization
That isn't how science is done. You are telling an anecdote where you claim you are "verifying" an anecdote. Nope. Not science. Not even close.

From observation (anecdotes, if you will) one can form an hypothesis.
From an hypothesis, one can develop scientific tests that seek to prove and disprove the hypothesis.
One carefully designs the tests so that anyone can execute them and the tests remove any preconceptions as to the possible results.
One runs the tests again and again.
Careful research notes are kept.
Results are analyzed and new tests developed. Possibly the hypothesis is revised or even discarded.
If the tests appear to prove the hypothesis, the results are carefully published and others invited to independently run tests and verify or debunk the results.
And so on... It is much more complex.

You are stuck at step number one and think you've "done science". Nope.
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
It has been destroyed repeatedly Pitsy.

And men and women of good will still produce good results with even Book One auditing
It sounds from your response that you are responding to an essay you didn't even read. Terra Cognita didn't deny that people had wins or gains in session.

But DMSMH and the claims within it, and the "research" it's based upon are fraudulent. The State of Clear as described in DMSMH has never been achieved. The assertion by Hubbard that hundreds were Cleared during his "research" was just another lie. The public demonstration later of the "world's first Clear" (Sonia Bianca) in early 1950 was exposed as fraudulent as well. It took another 16 years for LRH to announce once again "the world's first Clear" (John McMaster), and that didn't end up so well either.

Your response to the essay is a logical fallacy, a classic strawman argument.
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
<sigh> Again with this crap. Men and women of good will produce good results with fricking voodoo sticks. It doesn't validate, in any way, Dianetics.
^^^^^ This is true! :thumbsup:

In a recent study researcher's got good results when performing fake knee surgeries on patients with torn knee cartilage.
That doesn't mean they're going to open up a clinic and continue doing these sham surgeries, charging people thousands of dollars.
Although if Hubbard were still around he might just do that. It would be a new "religious healing technology".
And Clay Pigeon will be right there staunchly defending him, posting success stories which "prove" that the procedure is effective.

Fake Knee Surgery as Good as Real Procedure, Study Finds
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-knee-surgery-as-good-as-real-procedure-study-finds-1388009383
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Well, yes, in fact I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the good results produced by the first readers of DMSMH were "placebo effect" produced at least as much if not more from expectations raised by Hubbard's promises than the actual tech

And I checked out the essay. It contains nothing I didn't read when I researched Hubbard before I even took the HAS Course
 

Clay Pigeon

Gold Meritorious Patron

EXCELLENT!!!

Thank you...

My cancer research is a variation.

A couple months after my friend skipped out to the void I recalled a moment which occurred the preceding August which contained an interesting anomaly. Thus a question: "what does this mean?". The research I then did was to consult my large and painfully acquired database and derived the hypothesis "that means I subliminally (superliminally?) perceived the beginning of my friend's cancer. From this I derived a second hypothesis:

"IF:
I can perceive the early beginning of his cancer in some unknown way ...

THEN:
Science can also detect it"

The next question is "How?"

I figured the best place to look would be the blood and worked out the obvious tactic for looking

That was in 2006.

In 2007 I managed to open a tenuous comm line for transferring my research.

In 2010 Massachusetts General Hospital announced the discovery of the predicted early warning blood test.
 

Type4_PTS

Diamond Invictus SP
Well, yes, in fact I have no doubt whatsoever that many of the good results produced by the first readers of DMSMH were "placebo effect" produced at least as much if not more from expectations raised by Hubbard's promises than the actual tech

And I checked out the essay. It contains nothing I didn't read when I researched Hubbard before I even took the HAS Course
No doubt that many people get results as a result of the placebo effect. As far as the actual tech, abreaction therapy was developed by the psych's back in the 1800's, and some may be helped by it as well.

But the claims that Hubbard makes for it are fraudulent and absurd. :faceslap:
Not a single individual was "Cleared" in the way Hubbard describes, nor got the promised abilities listed in the book.
And this is never acknowledged despite the book being revised in subsequent editions.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
No doubt that many people get results as a result of the placebo effect. As far as the actual tech, abreaction therapy was developed by the psych's back in the 1800's, and some may be helped by it as well.

But the claims that Hubbard makes for it are fraudulent and absurd. :faceslap:
Not a single individual was "Cleared" in the way Hubbard describes, nor got the promised abilities listed in the book.
And this is never acknowledged despite the book being revised in subsequent editions.

I agree with that except I would replace the term "placebo effect" with "dopamine effect".
 
Top