Scientology, Ron Hubbard and Hypnosis

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by mockingbird, Apr 24, 2019.

View Users: View Users
  1. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    Okay. If you just insult people who disagree with you then use the insult as proof they are wrong that is very poor critical thinking. It is a pile of logical fallacies in place of thinking.

    You might as well not even engage a person like myself at all if that is your line of reasoning.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • Love Love x 1
    • List
  2. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    If OT powers are genuine please explain which ones and how they are genuine.
     
  3. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Ahem...

    CCH's were one of my favorite processes to run, never had anything but excellent results with them

    Nor did I ever hear of anything remotely like what the Anderson Report says happens "frequently".

    Did you ever see such result from CCH's?

    Can you find any of the long-serving members of this board who can corroborate this utterly vile calumney?

    I am not eager to issue such vulgar statements and usually do not

    Such OBSCENITIES as "The Anderson Report" are well worthy of obscenity in return.
     
  4. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    We have a lot to take on here. Obviously if you want further clarification on the Anderson Report you can pursue it. The numerous experts on psychology and psychiatry who were consulted seem to have reached a consensus. Other cult experts have reached similar conclusions.as have experts in hypnosis and cults.

    if you had nothing but excellent results where are ALL the people you audited ? How many are there ? How many are still Scientologists ? How many are still of the opinion they have been helped by Scientology ? What evidence is there that one hundred percent were helped and never harmed ?

    I understand you claim certain things but do you have evidence to support your claim ?

    To be honest I don't think I got a lot out of those particular processes. I got some student auditing but not much on those.

    I have to say I mostly got my "peak experiences" from indoctrination and a bit from Dianetics book one auditing.

    The thing about other people using vulgar statements or ad hominem attacks or similar fallacies like the genetic fallacy is they prompt responses that are also of poor quality regarding critical thinking and a string of tu quoque responses follow that leave both sides using extremely poor critical thinking. This was the point of much of what I have written on critical thinking including The Easiest Person to Fool thread.

    If we don't engage the claims of people and resort to tone policing, the genetic fallacy and other fallacies that we may protect our feelings and cherished beliefs but are using extremely poor critical thinking.

    Scientology has a few dozen fallacies that Hubbard used over and over and over again. He set up Scientologists to think in these fallacies and use his phrases as thought stopping cliches. Robert Jay Lifton gave us a superb description of how these function.

    Scientology sets people up to permanently use these fallacies to reason poorly, to not consider everything against Scientology and to embrace claims for Scientology.

    I pointed out several of these in PISSED! IT'S NOT YOUR FAULT !

    No one is immune to cognitive biases or free from using fallacies in both their thinking and arguments but one can certainly try to understand them and to reduce them or to be willing to consider that they use them and need to recalibrate their arguments to be free or freer of fallacies.

    Here is a quote on some of the fallacies Scientology is packed with "the following logical fallacies regarding study tech or Scientology in general or parts of it : Personal incredulity , black and white thinking , magical thinking , the Texas sharpshooter fallacy ( aka apophenia ) , Ad Hominem , no true Scotsman ( Scientologist ) , Appeal to authority ( their own or Hubbard ) , begging the question , genetic , burden of proof , ambiguity , bandwagon , anecdotal and of course tu quoque ."



     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  5. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    "the consensus of psychiatrists"????

    I'll be back to you on that one when I have more time on the computer
     
  6. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    Here is a terrific 25 minute video on hypnosis.


     
  7. mockingbird

    mockingbird Silver Meritorious Patron

    I am going to post a few excerpts from Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. I think that they apply to dealing with claims for Scientology as so many have similar qualities, qualities that are common to pseudoscience.

    "Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”
    Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.


    Arguments from authority carry little weight — “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts.


    Spin more than one hypothesis. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among “multiple working hypotheses,” has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.


    Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. It’s only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge. Ask yourself why you like the idea. Compare it fairly with the alternatives. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. If you don’t, others will.


    Quantify. If whatever it is you’re explaining has some measure, some numerical quantity attached to it, you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses. What is vague and qualitative is open to many explanations. Of course there are truths to be sought in the many qualitative issues we are obliged to confront, but finding them is more challenging.
    If there’s a chain of argument, every link in the chain must work (including the premise) — not just most of them.


    Occam’s Razor. This convenient rule-of-thumb urges us when faced with two hypotheses that explain the data equally well to choose the simpler.


    Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron, say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result. "

    Sagan went on to say:

    "In addition to teaching us what to do when evaluating a claim to knowledge, any good baloney detection kit must also teach us what not to do. It helps us recognize the most common and perilous fallacies of logic and rhetoric. Many good examples can be found in religion and politics, because their practitioners are so often obliged to justify two contradictory propositions."


    He also spotted several errors we tend to make that he discouraged and listed.


    "ad hominem — Latin for “to the man,” attacking the arguer and not the argument (e.g., The Reverend Dr. Smith is a known Biblical fundamentalist, so her objections to evolution need not be taken seriously)


    argument from authority (e.g., President Richard Nixon should be re-elected because he has a secret plan to end the war in Southeast Asia — but because it was secret, there was no way for the electorate to evaluate it on its merits; the argument amounted to trusting him because he was President: a mistake, as it turned out)


    argument from adverse consequences (e.g., A God meting out punishment and reward must exist, because if He didn’t, society would be much more lawless and dangerous — perhaps even ungovernable. Or: The defendant in a widely publicized murder trial must be found guilty; otherwise, it will be an encouragement for other men to murder their wives)


    appeal to ignorance — the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist — and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we’re still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.


    special pleading, often to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble (e.g., How can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead: you don’t understand the subtle Doctrine of Free Will. Or: How can there be an equally godlike Father, Son, and Holy Ghost in the same Person? Special plead: You don’t understand the Divine Mystery of the Trinity. Or: How could God permit the followers of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — each in their own way enjoined to heroic measures of loving kindness and compassion — to have perpetrated so much cruelty for so long? Special plead: You don’t understand Free Will again. And anyway, God moves in mysterious ways.)


    begging the question, also called assuming the answer (e.g., We must institute the death penalty to discourage violent crime. But does the violent crime rate in fact fall when the death penalty is imposed? Or: The stock market fell yesterday because of a technical adjustment and profit-taking by investors — but is there any independent evidence for the causal role of “adjustment” and profit-taking; have we learned anything at all from this purported explanation?)


    observational selection, also called the enumeration of favorable circumstances, or as the philosopher Francis Bacon described it, counting the hits and forgetting the misses (e.g., A state boasts of the Presidents it has produced, but is silent on its serial killers)


    statistics of small numbers — a close relative of observational selection (e.g., “They say 1 out of every 5 people is Chinese. How is this possible? I know hundreds of people, and none of them is Chinese. Yours truly.” Or: “I’ve thrown three sevens in a row. Tonight I can’t lose.”)

    misunderstanding of the nature of statistics (e.g., President Dwight Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence);


    inconsistency (e.g., Prudently plan for the worst of which a potential military adversary is capable, but thriftily ignore scientific projections on environmental dangers because they’re not “proved.” Or: Attribute the declining life expectancy in the former Soviet Union to the failures of communism many years ago, but never attribute the high infant mortality rate in the United States (now highest of the major industrial nations) to the failures of capitalism. Or: Consider it reasonable for the Universe to continue to exist forever into the future, but judge absurd the possibility that it has infinite duration into the past);


    non sequitur — Latin for “It doesn’t follow” (e.g., Our nation will prevail because God is great. But nearly every nation pretends this to be true; the German formulation was “Gott mit uns”). Often those falling into the non sequitur fallacy have simply failed to recognize alternative possibilities;




    post hoc, ergo propter hoc — Latin for “It happened after, so it was caused by” (e.g., Jaime Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila: “I know of … a 26-year-old who looks 60 because she takes [contraceptive] pills.” Or: Before women got the vote, there were no nuclear weapons)
    meaningless question (e.g., What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? But if there is such a thing as an irresistible force there can be no immovable objects, and vice versa)


    excluded middle, or false dichotomy — considering only the two extremes in a continuum of intermediate possibilities (e.g., “Sure, take his side; my husband’s perfect; I’m always wrong.” Or: “Either you love your country or you hate it.” Or: “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem”)


    short-term vs. long-term — a subset of the excluded middle, but so important I’ve pulled it out for special attention (e.g., We can’t afford programs to feed malnourished children and educate pre-school kids. We need to urgently deal with crime on the streets. Or: Why explore space or pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?);


    slippery slope, related to excluded middle (e.g., If we allow abortion in the first weeks of pregnancy, it will be impossible to prevent the killing of a full-term infant. Or, conversely: If the state prohibits abortion even in the ninth month, it will soon be telling us what to do with our bodies around the time of conception);


    confusion of correlation and causation (e.g., A survey shows that more college graduates are homosexual than those with lesser education; therefore education makes people gay. Or: Andean earthquakes are correlated with closest approaches of the planet Uranus; therefore — despite the absence of any such correlation for the nearer, more massive planet Jupiter — the latter causes the former)


    straw man — caricaturing a position to make it easier to attack (e.g., Scientists suppose that living things simply fell together by chance — a formulation that willfully ignores the central Darwinian insight, that Nature ratchets up by saving what works and discarding what doesn’t. Or — this is also a short-term/long-term fallacy — environmentalists care more for snail darters and spotted owls than they do for people)

    suppressed evidence, or half-truths (e.g., An amazingly accurate and widely quoted “prophecy” of the assassination attempt on President Reagan is shown on television; but — an important detail — was it recorded before or after the event? Or: These government abuses demand revolution, even if you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Yes, but is this likely to be a revolution in which far more people are killed than under the previous regime? What does the experience of other revolutions suggest? Are all revolutions against oppressive regimes desirable and in the interests of the people?)


    weasel words (e.g., The separation of powers of the U.S. Constitution specifies that the United States may not conduct a war without a declaration by Congress. On the other hand, Presidents are given control of foreign policy and the conduct of wars, which are potentially powerful tools for getting themselves re-elected. Presidents of either political party may therefore be tempted to arrange wars while waving the flag and calling the wars something else — “police actions,” “armed incursions,” “protective reaction strikes,” “pacification,” “safeguarding American interests,” and a wide variety of “operations,” such as “Operation Just Cause.” Euphemisms for war are one of a broad class of reinventions of language for political purposes. Talleyrand said, “An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public”

    Sagan went on to say "Like all tools, the baloney detection kit can be misused, applied out of context, or even employed as a rote alternative to thinking. But applied judiciously, it can make all the difference in the world — not least in evaluating our own arguments before we present them to others." All quotes from the book The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan.

    I think in looking at Scientology these ideas are all extremely relevant and useful. In looking at other subjects they are useful too and we can apply them as well.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
  8. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    The logic of it is fairly simple Bill, Christianity has been here for a very long time and so to has it's "null hypothesis".

    We cannot "prove" scientifically the christhood of the babe of bethlehem but christianity is still here

    Thus:

    No "null hypothesis" has any bearing on those who take an active and effective interest in auditing
     
  9. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    I was correct, you don't understand the scientific method. That's okay, a lot of people don't.
     
  10. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Correct by definition within your chosen terms.

    There's a big bright beautiful and Divine cosmos outside of your chosen terms...

    Some of those fluent in scientific thought and method recognize this

    Some don't
     
  11. EZ Linus

    EZ Linus Cleared Tomato

    Mockingbird,

    I have been reading all your posts and am glad you have been posting all the information you have. Keep it coming.

    ...especially in regard to the CCHs. I think those are a key part of the hypnotic processing, along with TRs as auditor training. Having CCHs run ON you for hours on in--there's something to be said about that being "mind numbing." After a five hour day of that, how can't one be in a trance state?
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    • List