ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



Featured From Miss X - About Annie Broeker

Discussion in 'Stories From Inside Scientology' started by Lulu Belle, Nov 5, 2007.

  1. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    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.
     
  2. Alanzo

    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.
     
  3. Tanstaafl

    Tanstaafl Crusader

    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.
     
  4. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    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
     
  5. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    '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
     
  6. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    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
     
  7. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    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: Nov 25, 2007
  8. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    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
     
  9. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    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
     
  10. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    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
     
  11. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    '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
     
  12. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    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
     
  13. olska

    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.
     
  14. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    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
     
  15. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

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

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    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.
     
  17. olska

    olska Silver Meritorious Patron

    ... and there you have it.
     
  18. Jim Logan

    Jim Logan Patron

    Jim Logan

    Not really. But let's let it go, as Lionheart would say.
     
  19. Leon

    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.
     
  20. Terril park

    Terril park Sponsor

    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.