Jim Logan
And yet, when you talked about infinity-valued logic, you seemed to shift into a different animal entirely by explaining "a gradient scale of rightness and wrongness." What happened to premises and conclusions and the rigorous discipline of examining statements and preserving truth throughout the reasoning process with infinity-valued logic?
How does infinity valued logic actually work to examine arguments for their veracity, for instance, like regular logic does?
I think that the discipline of logic is very important to learn and apply in one's life. And I also think that Hubbard intentionally obscured the use of logic in Scientology because he knew that his ideas would never stand up to disciplined scrutiny.
So my point is that this "infinity-valued logic" that Hubbard went on about was a decoy. It isn't logic at all. And by that I mean that "infinity valued logic", as described by Hubbard, will not train people to examine facts and ideas, and to test statements, arguments and beliefs like real logic does.
What do you think of that?
I'll try and cover the above but if I miss something then we'll pick it up in subsequent posts.
First, the scale is a device to envision what one does when one is evaluating a fact or action and such like. Logic is defined, not obscured, in Scientology as 'a gradient association of facts' and does include that the facts are being evaluated relative to a premise, an assumption, an action to be taken, a principle, such as 'man is basically good' and so on.
"Infinity valued logic" is a method of evaluation of a premise which is the fundamental issue in question if one is evaluating a premise. Logic is merely the system of evaluation of data. It includes, intrinsically, premises, assumptions, questions et al. If you did not get that in your training and study of Scientology then that's illogical.
I suggest you go back and find the early instances of the use of this term in Scientology materials (the Tech Vols for instance) and also, for a full understanding read Korzybki's work, Science and Sanity. Any logic system includes premises, data, and all of it. This is just one of those systems/methods. The testing of premise, axioms, data, in Scientology is exhorted, urged, cajoled, pleaded, yelled and all manner of 'do it' as if you don't you will not gain either subjective nor objective reality on any of it. It is an utter fallacy that this subject is to be dogmatically studied or taught. If you missed that as a student then don't blame the subject as it was told to you repeatedly by Ron to do just that.
As to the idea that any of this is hidden in Scientology or there are 'decoy' logics, and that if you applied scientific method of which logic is a part, to the work it would not hold up all I can say is, do exactly that and see if it holds up. That will entail, as a protocol, the exact premise or issue to be examined and then a replication of the exact methods used in the work. Have you done this? If so, then please refer me to the study/experience. Jim