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

The “Reactive Mind”

Discussion in 'Mike Rinders Blog' started by RSS Feed, Aug 1, 2018.

  1. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    Some of his quotes are at these links:
    Clay Pigeon likes this.
  2. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon 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

    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.
  3. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

  4. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    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.
    FoTi likes this.
  5. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    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.
  6. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    Well that's good to hear Pitsy!

    Now Newton can't discover gravity by getting hit by a falling apple...
  7. strativarius

    strativarius Inveterate gnashnab & snoutband

    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.”
  8. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron


    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


  9. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    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?
  10. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    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: Aug 4, 2018
  11. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

    Last edited: Aug 5, 2018
    Clay Pigeon likes this.
  12. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

  13. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron

    It has been destroyed repeatedly Pitsy.

    And men and women of good will still produce good results with even Book One auditing
  14. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    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: Aug 5, 2018
    strativarius likes this.
  15. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    <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.
  16. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    ^^^^^ 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
  17. Clay Pigeon

    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
  18. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Gold Meritorious Patron


    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:

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

    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.
  19. Type4_PTS

    Type4_PTS Diamond Invictus SP

    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.
    FoTi and programmer_guy like this.
  20. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist

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