What's new

From Miss X - About Annie Broeker

Tanstaafl

Crusader
I can see what you are saying here, Paul. I learned a lot of things listening to those tapes, too.

But what I didn't learn, nor did I learn on the Data Series Course, is how to examine and test statements, beliefs and arguments for their veracity.

That is a skill that Hubbard never taught, while calling what he did teach "logic".

I think this is the bone of contention - the definition of logic. Hubbard is talking about a process used to make decisions, not a process to validate assertions, or otherwise.

A quote from the ref' I mentioned:

"The process of logic consists of:
1. Finding out what one is trying to solve.
2. Formulating the question for solution.
3. Obtaining or recalling the data for the question and solution.
4. Evaluating the data to be used in the solution.
5. Comparing data with data, new conclusions with old conclusions.
6. Evolving a new answer or confirming an old one or deciding there is no immediate answer. All answers in terms of relative rightness or wrongness.
7. Action or conclusion."

It now seems to me that it is a major outpoint for The Student Hat to omit a section on basic logic, i.e., how to evaluate relative truths.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
As an example, tetralemmic logic, or four valued logic, has the same kind of premise, statement, conclusion discipline in examining arguments and information, but it allows for 4 possible conclusions.

I don't see where the "premise, statement, conclusion" discipline exists in Hubbard's rendition of infinity valued logic.

Can anyone show me?

Nor does the above discipline exist in the Data Series.
 

Tanstaafl

Crusader
As an example, tetralemmic logic, or four valued logic, has the same kind of premise, statement, conclusion discipline in examining arguments and information, but it allows for 4 possible conclusions.

I don't see where the "premise, statement, conclusion" discipline exists in Hubbard's rendition of infinity valued logic.

Can anyone show me?

I fail to see the value in tetralemmic logic. Have you got a good result with it on anything? I do think it may be good to act as a kind of Zen koan to contemplate. I felt stuff "shifting" when I did this.
 

Jim Logan

Patron
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
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
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

'Scientology' (and Dianetics before it) has been doing this for 50 years and, not just one, but *numerous* of the predicted results have failed to pan out. In science, a single failure of a prediction is enough to refute the 'theory', but, of course, Scientology is neither science nor logic, both of which abhor 'stable data'.

Zinj
 

Jim Logan

Patron
Jim Logan

I can see what you are saying here, Paul. I learned a lot of things listening to those tapes, too.

But what I didn't learn, nor did I learn on the Data Series Course, is how to examine and test statements, beliefs and arguments for their veracity.

That is a skill that Hubbard never taught, while calling what he did teach "logic".

That is precisely what is detailed in the Data Series and the Logics. The ability to test these things for their validity, 'veracity', relative importance, contradiction, omissions, addeds, differences, similiarities, 'identities' and so on. If you didn't learn how to do precisely what you are saying you should have on the DSEC then that is a contrary fact. Jim
 

Jim Logan

Patron
Jim Logan

'Scientology' (and Dianetics before it) has been doing this for 50 years and, not just one, but *numerous* of the predicted results have failed to pan out. In science, a single failure of a prediction is enough to refute the 'theory', but, of course, Scientology is neither science nor logic, both of which abhor 'stable data'.

Zinj

Hmmm, take one single example in the research line, say, Book One engram running methods and then walk up the exact path of testing, refinement, testing, shift, testing, refinement and then look at New Era Dianetics engram running and you see the use of scientific method to arrive at NED. Or the 'one shot clear', tested, not replicable in all cases and tossed.

Science abhors stable data like, Newtons three laws, Ohm's law, Plank's constant, Maxwell's equations, the Pythagorean theorem. That's silly and not logical. Jim
 
Last edited:

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
Hmmm, take one single example in the research line, say, Book One engram running methods and then walk up the exact path of testing, refinement, testing, shift, testing, refinement and then look at New Era Dianetics engram running and you see the use of scientific method to arrive at NED.

Science abhors stable data like, Newtons three laws, Ohm's law, Plank's constant, Maxwell's equations, the Pythagorean theorem. That's silly and not logical. Jim

Those you mention are not 'stable data', in the Hubbardian sense. They are 'theories' (in the scientific sense, and, it doesn't get better than a 'theory' in science) and, a *single* failure of those laws would mean the failure of the theory.

The only 'scientific' testing of Hubbardian 'theory' I can even think of is the 'engram' theory, which failed. Throw in the predictions for the 'state of Clear' and 'OT' and you have the kind of consistency so sadly lacking in Scientology otherwise; whether theory or practice.

Zinj
 

Jim Logan

Patron
Jim Logan

Those you mention are not 'stable data', in the Hubbardian sense.
Zinj

They are precisely stable data in the Scientology sense. You have a limited definition for 'stable data'. Have you studied the Problems Intensive material, The 'Itsa' material? I predict you have not fully defined this term as used in Scientology. A stable datum is not by definition, absolutely right. It's a datum. Ultimate truth is a Static. Jim
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
They are precisely stable data in the Scientology sense. You have a limited definition for 'stable data'. Have you studied the Problems Intensive material, The 'Itsa' material? I predict you have not fully defined this term as used in Scientology. A stable datum is not by definition, absolutely right. It's a datum. Ultimate truth is a Static. Jim

As should be obvious by now, I'm not a Scientologist and my understanding of it is certainly that of an interested outsider, not an adherent.

But, you've hit the core element of science by pointing out the difference to 'stable data'. A scientific theory *must* be absolutely correct or it ceases to be a theory. A scientific 'law' must be absolutely correct or it ceases to be a law.

A 'stable datum', on the other hand, is so 'valuable' that it's cozeyed and propped up by rationalization long after it's been shown to be incorrect. Which is at least *one* reason Scientology isn't science (or logical) in the non-scientological sense.

Zinj
 

Jim Logan

Patron
Jim Logan

They are 'theories' (in the scientific sense, and, it doesn't get better than a 'theory' in science) and, a *single* failure of those laws would mean the failure of the theory.


Zinj

'Theory' in the scientific sense is, succintly, a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A single failure of the explanation to account for a germane phenomenon, means the theory needs more work. Same in Scientology. But there comes a point were the theory is workable and produces results. Like the use of Ohm's law. It worked before e=mc2. It works despite the Uncertainty Principle. But then I dare say you have some stable data, a theory, that precludes inspection despite failure. Hard to look at one's self and pet theories sometimes. Jim
 

Zinjifar

Silver Meritorious Sponsor
'Theory' in the scientific sense is, succintly, a well substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A single failure of the explanation to account for a germane phenomenon, means the theory needs more work. Same in Scientology. But there comes a point were the theory is workable and produces results. Like the use of Ohm's law. It worked before e=mc2. It works despite the Uncertainty Principle. But then I dare say you have some stable data, a theory, that precludes inspection despite failure. Hard to look at one's self and pet theories sometimes. Jim

Obviously we're dealing with different definitions of 'theory' and 'law' here. Newton's '3 laws' and all of his theories barely survived the meeting with relativity, which, for a time seemed to spell the end of science (as it was known.) They (and science itself) did survive because they were hobbled by clearly stated limitations such as 'except here and here and here'. And, it's a good thing they got those reconsiderations, because, otherwise, quantum theory would have been an even greater shock. Conservation of mass and energy is itself teetering on a brink, but, still survives. So far. If and when it falls, it will probably also receive a 'within these parameters' limitation and science will march on. With hinky but absolute theories that could bite the dust any day...

Zinj
 

olska

Silver Meritorious Patron
One accepted and highly touted "stable datum" or "assumption" of the "applied philosophy" of scientology is so easy to disprove it is outright ridiculous, and that is the "theory" of the "ARC triangle."

The idea of "ARC" is that communication is the "universal solvent" and that an increase in communication will result in an increase in affinity and an increase in "reality" (otherwise known as "agreement.")

It is not at all difficult to find examples, or incidents, in which as people communicated more and more, they found they "agreed" less and less and their initial "affinity" (or attraction) for one another decreased. Brief sexual encounters predicated on an initial "attraction" which leads to association and communication and eventually to a realization of "omg why did I agree to go out with this loser" is a perfect, and very well known, example of how the theory of ARC is flawed and does not hold up in real-life tests.

Other examples can be found in business associations predicated on initial "attractions" which turned into nightmares after sufficient "communications cycles" had transpired.

Logically disproving assumptions (theories, tenants, principles, etc.) upon which the "applied" part of scientology is based is easy.

Getting people to see how they've been indoctrinated and made into "believers" who are completely convinced their faulty logic and flawed assumptions are "right" is what's difficult. Trying to use LOGIC or REASON in conversations with a "true believer" scientologist is like being thrown into a mental blender -- spin, spin, spin.
 

Jim Logan

Patron
Jim Logan

As should be obvious by now, I'm not a Scientologist and my understanding of it is certainly that of an interested outsider, not an adherent.

But, you've hit the core element of science by pointing out the difference to 'stable data'. A scientific theory *must* be absolutely correct or it ceases to be a theory. A scientific 'law' must be absolutely correct or it ceases to be a law.

A 'stable datum', on the other hand, is so 'valuable' that it's cozeyed and propped up by rationalization long after it's been shown to be incorrect. Which is at least *one* reason Scientology isn't science (or logical) in the non-scientological sense.

Zinj

Well Zinj, in the absence of a full study of the subject, and I don't mean to imply adherence, then it would make an informed discussion pretty tough.

I think we have some quibble forming up on the use of 'theory' as a term and it's implications that may be distinctions without differences. It is not correct that a scientific theory must be absolutely correct or it ceases to be a theory with workability. It is a validated, working explanation that if new data is discovered can change. Stable data are the same. In fact, in Grade IV of Scientology, that is what one is seeking.

Again, no sense in arguing with you on a subject you are admittedly uninformed about. It would be unseemly. Jim
 

Jim Logan

Patron
Jim Logan

Obviously we're dealing with different definitions of 'theory' and 'law' here. Newton's '3 laws' and all of his theories barely survived the meeting with relativity, which, for a time seemed to spell the end of science (as it was known.) They (and science itself) did survive because they were hobbled by clearly stated limitations such as 'except here and here and here'. And, it's a good thing they got those reconsiderations, because, otherwise, quantum theory would have been an even greater shock. Conservation of mass and energy is itself teetering on a brink, but, still survives. So far. If and when it falls, it will probably also receive a 'within these parameters' limitation and science will march on. With hinky but absolute theories that could bite the dust any day...

Zinj

The above is much more informed and I'm with you all the way on it. Nice post. Jim
 

Jim Logan

Patron
Jim Logan

One accepted and highly touted "stable datum" or "assumption" of the "applied philosophy" of scientology is so easy to disprove it is outright ridiculous, and that is the "theory" of the "ARC triangle."

The idea of "ARC" is that communication is the "universal solvent" and that an increase in communication will result in an increase in affinity and an increase in "reality" (otherwise known as "agreement.")

The above is uninformed as to the 'idea of 'ARC' is...
You have not duplicated the Axioms on ARC and have not duplicated the terms. That precludes a sensible response.
 

Leon

Gold Meritorious Patron
Quote: Brief sexual encounters predicated on an initial "attraction" which leads to association and communication and eventually to a realization of "omg why did I agree to go out with this loser" is a perfect, and very well known, example of how the theory of ARC is flawed and does not hold up in real-life tests.

My answer: Quite the opposite - this liaison was predicated on a dubbed-in false reality of who and what the other person was. Communication improved that reality and they discovered that their supposedly high level of ARC was hallucinatory. The ARC theory holds good.

re Logic: It is the ability to correctly identify and associate exact Causes and exact Effects. Past, present and future.

Stable datums and premises are no more than a statement of the start-point of the concatenation that one is choosing to examine.


Thanks for coming onto the board Jim, you're a breath of fresh air.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Terril,
I am assuming from your posts and your identity that 'the destruction of Scientology' is not your aim. Frankly, it's an idea and there isn't any vague chance of 'destroying' it. Any CofS, at any level, if it substantially departs from the principles and tenets, as written or spoken by LRH, is not 'coterminal' with Scientology. That's clearly enunciated in the Articles of Incorporation of CST. For instance, as an analogy, one could get rid of a car, but the idea of transportation ain't gonna go. So, 'destroying Scientology' is a fallacy. The cat is way out of the bag and the bag is gone. What remains is the effective use of the subject to achieve its aims. If any individual, or group for that matter, departs from the axioms, disciplines, the workable methods and they are either 'official' or not, then there is a case for fraud. But it is a fraud on the subject and the trust assigned. If one is out to nudge this back to its basics then one will succeed. That requires clean hands and a pro-survival intention. It is a 'hairline' route that an ethical person or persons will be able to see and execute. Of course the vagaries of the the courts and lawyers and precedent construction and the ability to present a persuasive and supported argument all come into play. The GO failed and got nailed. Why? If evaluated from the perspective of departure from the tenets then it makes sense and I say that to you because you have presumably had gains using the tenets so are aware of the profound force and power of them. I think it is safe to say that a person with an EPurp on Scientology isn't going to 'straighten it out'. No matter on which 'side' that person operates.

What to do about departures from the ideal scene is quite a subject so we'll have to continue in later posts. Jim

Its late, but more later. I do indeed promote scn, and consider that COS under present management reverses most of it. Easily seen re First, Senior and Service PLs.
 
Top