Talk:Dianetics/Archive 8

Arguments against the characterization of Dianetics as a pseudoscience
I agree there are some voices that claim Dianetics is a pseudoscience.

But we also must agree that Wiki should appeal to reason and fairly reflect the result of that process in accordance with Wiki policies and guidelines.

I submit that Dianetics uses the scientific methods of Francis Bacon, [as represented in Novum Organum]. Some people have represented Francis Bacon as the Father of Modern Science. The methods of Bacon is cited in Evolution of a Science Such methods are written about by L. Ron Hubbard and presented as his record of personal researches into the nature of the spirit and Life, by the Dianetic publishers of his materials that are cited on Wiki. These are valid publishers of such materials. They have sold tens of millions of copies and reached tens of millions of people that have at least that level of interest in the subject. I believe Wiki should be responsive to what these people might expect to be informed about on an encylclopedic website like Wikipedia.

Wikipedia does not require peer-review in all cases for presentations of scientific theories. Not even for academic articles.

Eight precepts, a majority of which a theory might meet to be called Scientific have been presented without citation. I have submitted discussions and citations that demonstrate Dianetics meets these criteria.

Four Daubert criteria to meet legal criteria in the USA have been presented in the article. They do not require peer-review by another science in all cases. Dianetics meets these criteria.

Four voices disputing the science of Dianetics have been presented; Fischer, Fox, Carroll, and Davis. I have presented citations or refuting discussions for each. [Fischer was a student not a scientist, Fox was a study of one, Carroll had the information available he could not envision existing, Davis argued Hubbard had something apriori in mind with the idea of axioms instead of nothing and testing as the citations prove.]

Editors here have presented PR to tie all this, and extensive material from the ID page, together into an emotional appeal for pseudoscience treatement here. I would like show the reason of the actual situation that should be shown on Wiki. Spirit of Man 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Test Results for Dianetics in 1950 are cited and appear in the Introduction to Science of Survival, Bridge Publications. These results are in response to the APA Resolution of 8 Sept 1950, noting a claim that Dianetics is safe in the hands of people new to Dianetics and the results are not for professional level Dianetics use, but the use by students with no previous knowledge of Dianetics and one month exposure to the subject before the final test battery. Three primary named claims are also addressed by the study. Spirit of Man 03:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What science is expert on the mind? None, so there is no branch of science to test the claims of Dianetics. There's no authority. Hubbard's use of scientific method is challenged because he does not present his findings or research, whatever you call it, he does not present them in scientifically acceptable ways.Terryeo 13:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is like saying "There's no way to determine that a $3 bill is counterfeit; there's no such thing as a genuine $3 bill, and therefore there's nothing to compare a $3 bill to to see if it's counterfeit." -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For some time the article contained the review of Dianetics by Hayakawa, a professor at the University of Chicago representing symantics and psychology, that accused all science fiction writers of misusing "analogy". Of course, in his review he accuses Hubbard of likening the human mind to a computer. You use the analogy of a $3 dollar bill in much the same way he accuses Hubbard of misusing analogy. Haykawa said Hubbard believe his "analogy" and then made his generalizations from that, instead of investigating and familiarizing himself with the human mind. Hayakawa had done no tests and had not even observed a Dianetic session. I think your analogy is much like Hayakawa's review, it is not based on your tests, your personal understanding or familiarization or even a careful reading of the subject. Hayakawa claimed, for psychology and symantics, and any mental study, that there were NO results possible in mental science because of the Placebo effect. Dianetics has produced about 50,000 Clears, if you knew what that ment [second chapter of DMSMH] you would have to concede that it takes a considerable amount of technology and work to do that. I have cited a study from 1950 requested by the APA and credited and certified by psychologists. It is just one study that produced the results stated in the study. The study didn't have the information of 50,000 Clears to back them up in 1950. Spirit of Man 17:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Arguments for the characterization of Dianetics as a pseudoscience
Dianetics presents itself as a science, repeatedly. The claims of Dianetics have never been proven scientifically, and earlier studies have been negative. Dianetics is not recognized by the scientific community. It was never published in any peer-reviewed scientific paper. How long do we need to go thru all this again? This was discussed at lenght before, please read previous discussion and archives. Dianetics: pesudoscientific. Raymond Hill 13:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You might understand Raymond. The arguements against Dianetics being "developed along scientific lines" are weak. Likewise there has been some pretty good evidence accumulated over 55 years that Dianetics works.  I don't believe you can lay the subject to rest by wishing it were so. Terryeo 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The APA Resolution of 8 Sept 1950 recognizes Dianetics and says its claims will be tested. One APA claim disputes the safety with minimal training. My cited study proves this scientifically and three other major claims. Only two studies were presented in the article. One by a student that didn't use intensive procedure, and produced a known result that does not dispute my citation with intensive procedures and used safely by students. The Fox study was a study of one, with HDRF not allowing earlier than this life engrams per other citations in the article. Do you agree peer-review is not required by Wikipedia? No other science addresses the human spirit in a scientific manner. Do you agree the APA Resolution recognizes Dianetics and calls for testing by its members? Spirit of Man 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Spirit of Man: "The APA Resolution of 8 Sept 1950 recognizes Dianetics"... No, it doesn't. "and says its claims will be tested"... No, it doesn't. Read carefully. Raymond Hill 13:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ray what is your definition of "recognizes"? " Here is an excerpt from the Times article cited in our Dianetics article, "While suspending judgment concerning the eventual validity of the claims made by the author of 'Dianetics,' the association calls attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations. In the public interest, the association, in the absence of such evidence, recommends to its members that the use of the techniques peculiar to Dianetics be limited to scientific investigations designed to test the validity of its claims." Please read carefully and discuss your claims here. Spirit of Man 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Neurophilosophy, Cognitive neuroscience, Neuropsychology, and Clinical neuropsychology could probably serve as the opposing science that Terryeo feels is necessary. Tenebrous 22:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "neuro-" is a term which means "nerves" or "about nerves" and those are physical body things.  Dianetics does not address the physical body. Dianetics address what a person thinks.  Their thought. Your 4 examples could as well be biology and physics and astronomy and archeology for all the relation they have to Dianetics. Terryeo 14:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You didn't actually read any of them, did you? Well. It becomes clear what your argument is, at any rate. There is no "science of the mind" because you refuse to accept that there might be one, and define "science of the mind" in some weird way of your own. Psychology and Neurology, these things don't count, perhaps because they indicate that the separation you insist on between the physical brain and the mind is extremely misleading if not actually false. This is not a bad thing in itself. But then you try and insist that we share the same view? I think not. Occam's Razor: Hubbard was the first and only scientist to investigate the human mind, OR a science of the mind exists. Tenebrous 23:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I read the "neuro-" which means "nerves" and "about nerves" and knew then that those subjects addressed some element of the human body. Dianetics does not address an element of the human body. Those are perfectly good arguements and I have no difficulty with them, but they are not about the subject which Dianetics is about.  I don't insist you share any view, you are free to have any view, as am I.  Dianetics is about thought.  By all means, let us talk about this.  I can only state the difference.  Dianetics means "mind" in the way of the thought you think when you think, "gee, I wish I had purchased the red silk scarf", the thought itself.  Dianetics is about the thought you had, and perhaps the feeling that went with the thought.  And that's as far as it goes.  Freedom of thought is an unstated right of man, freedom of POV is encouraged on Wikipedia.  Perhaps I am not understanding what you mean to tell me? Terryeo 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you agree these subjects do not define or address the human spirit as the primary emphasis of the science, in any way? They are not opposing science. Do you agree these subjects do not address and do not oppose the four claims proven in the Science of Survival study I cited? Spirit of Man 01:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with your argument is that there is no human "spirit" as any neuroscientist sees it. We also have no reason to believe that a "spirit" ever needs to enter into our explaination of how humans think. Yes, we don't know everything about how the mind works, but attributing it to a spirit influence is invoking the "god of the gaps" argument, which is logically flawed. And adding a spirit explaination because you feel like it violates the Occam's Razor principle of science: explain phenomena with as simple an theory as necessary to fully explain the phenomena. For example, it would not be good science to say the color of a car affects its speed without a good reason. To say there exists a spirit influence on human thought requires real, scientific data. --Davidstrauss 23:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised (well, no I'm not) that Terryeo advances the exact same arguments that were already raised and already refuted; namely "What science is expert on the mind? None, so there is no branch of science to test the claims of Dianetics. There's no authority." This argument is refuted in two ways: first of all, Terryeo is trying to define 'pseudoscience' as "that which is in opposition to the body of knowledge called 'science'". However, while people might use "science" to refer by synecdoche to a body of knowledge, what science actually is is the process by which that body of knowledge was accumulated. There are plenty of topics on which you will probably never see "science" announcing any "expert" conclusions because they aren't matters on which the scientific method can shed any light; the nature of the afterlife springs to mind. Does this mean that nothing which does claim to present knowledge on those matters can be pseudoscience? Completely wrong; if it tries to claim the authority of science and tries to drape itself in scientific trappings while not meeting the requirements to be real science, it's pseudoscience.

Secondly, the idea that there is no science of the mind was, again, already raised and already refuted. We know, for instance, that when presented with appropriately leading questions, the mind can manufacture and come to believe in "memories" that never actually happened (very relevant to all those things people have "remembered" because of Dianetic auditing...) We know this because studies have been done where the experimenters have presented subjects with "memories" that were false (asking "when in the film did the ambulance arrive", for instance, when no ambulance was present in the film at any time.)  The subjects, when presented with such suggestions, responded at statistically significant levels as if they actually remembered such things happening, which of course could not be. Thus, the hypothesis that leading questions can induce false memories was confirmed. By comparison, Hubbard declares that a Clear would have "a near perfect memory". It's never indicated how he came to this hypothesis, but disregarding that, such a hypothesis could be confirmed by careful scientific tests with control groups. What Hubbard does instead is to present Sonya Bianca as the first "Clear" and demonstrate her "near perfect memory"... which did not allow her to remember a basic formula from the subject she was majoring in, or the color of Hubbard's tie when his back was turned. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I say there is no Science (except Dianetics if it is a science) which is a "science of human thought". I am not saying those experiments have not been done.  But I am saying there is no recognized science which has codified human thought, no science which presents itself as being an authority about human thought (except Dianetics if it is a science).  Feldspar's example about false memories isn't wrong, but that was not done by a "science" which presents itself as an authority about human thought. If there were such a science, it would then be easy to present the findings of such a science against Dianetics, unfortunately there is not such a science.Terryeo 14:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And for the third time, Terryeo absolutely fails to address the fact that all his attempts to reclassify Dianetics as a "science of the mind", a "science of human thought", as some kind of "science" that has no counterpart in actual science, is entirely irrelevant. There does not need to be any field of real science presenting itself as expert in a field in order to determine that something else presenting itself as expert in that same field is pseudoscience; all that needs to be established is that the "something else" is trying to imitate the trappings of science (the "Modern Science of Mental Health", anyone?) while not meeting the criteria to be actual science.  Terryeo's argument is like saying "you can't ever call a $3 bill a counterfeit, because you can't compare it to a real $3 bill to see if it's any different." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dianetics was presented as a "Science of the Mind". I am not presenting a reclassification.  I am attempting to communicate what "mind" is meant.  The "mind" that is meant is "thought".  A person thinks, "yum, that was a good sandwich" and that is a thought.  Dianetics addresses that.  A person thinks, "What a beautiful sunset" and Dianetics adddress that.  The thought is addressed and if there is an emotion as part of it, well, Dianetics addresses that too.  Not "Brain" and not "Nervous System".  I have to say this again and again because "MIND" means "Mind independent from brain".  Mind is composed of thought (for Dianetics purposes).  Dianetics talks about thoughts as "mental image pictures" rather than thoughts being expressed as "neurons firing within the brain".  It is a different point of view.  But I seem to have to repeatedly say it.  Probably because almost any western dictionary first defines "mind" as being a brain thing. Dianetics did not go that far.  Dianetics stopped before it got as far as the brain.  Dianetics deals with thought.  That's it, it is often too simple for people to get. As for your $3 bill example, a counterfeit is "To make a copy of"  and therefore a $3 bill can not be a counterfeit because it has not copied anything.Terryeo 21:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "As for your $3 bill example, a counterfeit is "To make a copy of" and therefore a $3 bill can not be a counterfeit because it has not copied anything."  Well, once again Terryeo demonstrates that if the truth isn't convenient to him, he'll only tell the parts of it he likes.  From the very same link that Terryeo gave for the definition of counterfeit:
 * 1. To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud; forge: counterfeits money.
 * 2. To make a pretense of; feign: counterfeited interest in the story.
 * "a $3 bill can not be a counterfeit because it has not copied anything." Has it made a pretense of something?  Has it feigned something?  It's feigning to be legal tender, which it is not; ergo, it is counterfeit.  Does Dianetics makes a pretense to be a science?  Does it feign to be "an organized science of thought built on definite axioms (statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences)"?  Yes it does.  This argument of Terryeo's that until there is a true "science of thought" Dianetics can never be ascertained not to be one is complete nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The choice of counterfeiting a $3 bill is an interesting illistration. If a person made a piece of paper like that, would that be against the law?  Probably not.  But if they attempted to pass it as legal tender (feigned to be legal tender) then that would be commiting a crime.  Its true, I have pointed out that when it comes to thoughts such as "gee what a pretty sunset" and "I think I'll turn the television channel", well, there is no scientific disipline that says it is expert in the area.  In this area Dianetics is as good as it gets about "Science of Thought". Terryeo 14:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As we've already established and as you keep pretending you haven't heard, even if it were true that 'Dianetics is as good as it gets about "Science of Thought"', that still doesn't make a shit's worth of difference, because Dianetics is not a science. It makes pretensions of being a science, and that along with the fact that it is not a science makes it a pseudoscience, but you keep trying to go off on this irrelevant tangent about "there is no scientific discipline that says it is expert in the area" as if one was needed.  How many times now have you tried to drag this red herring across the trial?  Six now, or is it seven?  There is no scientific discipline that says it is expert in "the sound of one hand clapping"; does that make Zen Buddhism a "Science of One Hand Clapping"?  Even if, for the sake of argument, we say Zen Buddhism is "as good as it gets about 'Science of One Hand Clapping'", "as good as it gets" is not "as good as". -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Comments

 * Discussion, good. Let's try and resolve this permanently, shall we? Arguments for, arguments against, and then a poll to determine whether a consensus exists sometime next week. Tenebrous 03:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Let us leave the question alone, as large scientific organizations do. Hubbard uses the phrase, "along scientific lines".  A hard science which lends itself to repeated measurement is a different kettle of fish.  "the mind" as Hubbard presents it, is more etheral, it does not lend itself to being measured twice.  A person makes a decision and their mind changes.  The common dictionary term, "engram" says a human's brain is slightly changed by perceiving.  This is an area that does not lend itself well to scientific methods in the normal sense, as hard science does.  You measure something, you set up the same situation, you measure the same thing again and again, and you change on element of the situation and measure again.  A human mind does not lend itself to the scientific method.  Even if we could exactly know what every cell in the human brain did, every instant, it is doubtful that normal scientific methods could be applied becuase the changes are complex. I don't think we need to raise or treat the question, "science or pseudoscience", after all, no large scientific organization classifies Dianetics as Science or Pseudoscience, does it? Terryeo 13:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I am addressing "pseudoscience" because the article misrepresents the facts and deletes citations from reputable publishers with fact checking and substitutes personal research and hearsay. It short it is a lie and not per WP:V and WP:RS. I am addressing the science available, in terms of address to the human spirit and the human mind. Science addresses things that are observable, measurable, quantifiable and significant. I believe the eight points required of a science that is presented, fairly present that issue of what is required of a science. It may not apply to any mental study on the planet outside of Dianetics. The hearsay or PR wrapped around those eight precepts and used to support the deletions and unsavory treatment of valid Wiki citations is the real point. They do not fairly support what they claim. Dianetics presents the view that the mind is directly observable by the owner of that mind. He can see when recordings of pain are present and when they are gone or not present. These pictures are also measureable as electrical resistance when the mind does something to the body. Dianetics has demonstrated specific electrical phenomenon when the spirit leaves or enters the body. The mind is observable, measurable, quantifiable and significant. To my knowlege no other mental study can quantify specific repeatable thoughts, words, pictures, sensations, and spiritual phenomenon that have been shown to exist for a long time in Dianetics. [See the four basic books describing the e-meter] Spirit of Man 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Spirit of Man is right about that. Any negative tibit gets included while any positive study gets deleted by several editors. Terryeo 14:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't mean equal representation of every side. --Davidstrauss 23:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Would mind giving us some examples that make what you are proposing more clear? Spirit of Man 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're suggesting that nothing which attempts to describe the human brain or mind should be considered science then you've got a serious disconnect from reality. And, despite what you believe, the burden of proof is on the proponents of a theory. Tenebrous 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tenebrous has a point, but only 1/2 a point. Dianetics does not address the human brain. Nadda, not at all.  It does address the human mind.  If a question like, "what did you have for breakfast" addresses the human mind, then Dianetics address the human mind. Dianetics goes further and says questions like that do not address the human brain. heh. Thought (human mind) could be a field of science, but isn't.  What is the name of the field of science which is expert about what people think? There isn't one, therefore no field of science is qualified to state that Dianetics is "pseudoscience" even though a few medical practitioners publicize thier opinions.Terryeo 15:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Once again, Terryeo is still trying to push a fallacious argument which has already been debunked. Terryeo claims that nothing which claims to be knowledge of a particular subject can be "pseudoscience" unless "science" itself claims to have knowledge of that subject which conflicts with that of the pseudoscience.  However, as has been explained to Terryeo twice before, "science" is the process, not the result, and that which tries to take on the appearance of science while not adhering to that process is pseudoscience.  Does Terryeo think that if Clarence J. Crackpot called a conference tomorrow and announced "I have determined through the utterly scientific method of spinning test tubes on a Ouija board that God can create a rock so heavy he can't lift it!'" that "no field of science would be qualified" to call that pseudoscience, because no field of science is making "expert" pronouncements on the God-and-heavy-rock question?  This is the third time around for this ridiculous argument of Terryeo's; let's hope it's the last. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Whew, Feldspar, whew. You're close, but that isn't what I attempted to communicate.  I'm perfectly aware that Science is first a process and then, secondly, that the process of science which results in scientific "discoveries" is itself a part of a larger process which tests, applies, measures, codifies, limits and applies those "discoveries" into larger and into other areanas.  The problem I point out is that Chemistry (an example) can discover something,  molecular chemistry can make further science of that and biology and molecular biology too because they are closely aligned fields of study.  Dianetics field of study is thought.  The problem is, there is no associated field which can check on the findings.  This isn't just bunk, but is what people often get confused about because Psychiatry is thought (by many people) to be about human thought.  After all, Psychology's root word, "psyche" meant "spirit" in the Greek.  Feldspar's use of "Ridiculous arguement" and "terryeo is trying to push a dubunked arguement" fails to recognize the simplicity of the difficulty I address.  Yes, Dianetics does not attempt to follow and fulfill science rigerously.  No, Dianetics does not have an allied field which is qualified to "test out" the results that Dianetics produces.  It is a two sided difficulty.Terryeo 14:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no difficulty, two sided or otherwise. "Dianetics does not attempt to follow and fulfill science rigerously."  Yet it still attempts to pitch itself as the "Modern Science of Mental Health".  Ergo, pseudoscience.  All the blather about "there is no associated field which can check on the findings" is a smokescreen; the 'findings' are irrelevant because the process used to do the 'finding' is not science. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have supported the science claimed in DMSMH with citations and test results and Charts of results. I have debunked the claims in the article to pseudoscience, such as Carroll's "can't envision what tests and results might look like". I showed the Wechsler Form B test and before and after results. Carroll is simply trying to sell, pitch a controversial book that only sells if he makes something controversial enough somehow. He quotes "Fads" and about the 10 paragraph is "pseudoscience". His dictionary entry is not "Wiley's dictionary" it is his "personal research". I have shown the eight precepts required of a theory or science apply and debunked what was lifted from the ID article. You can certainly have your own beliefs, but you are asserting something here as an editor. Where do we disagree? You say without citation it is "not science". Why do you believe this? Spirit of Man 18:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A much better example would be Time Cube (see alse Gene Ray). I think that most people would agree that it's unfair that Gene got to speak at MIT, and Hubbard didn't. ^_^ Tenebrous 23:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, an excellent presentation! heh. lol. Terryeo 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a non-issue. Dianetics is very clearly pseudoscience, and many many people have said it over the years.  I believe Martin Gardner described it as psuedoscience in a book in the 50's.  If we want a quote, I bet it would be easy to find one, but I don't know that a specific quote is neccessary.  The article already makes it clear that the scientific community considers it pseudoscience.   Friday (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good, Friday, get your cite (from an individual) and put it in the article. Part of this arguement revovles around the general statement, "all sciences state that Dianetics is pseudoscience" which is utterly false.  A few individuals here and there have said, "Dianetics is pseudoscience" but no organized, official body of science has declared "Dianetics is pseudoscience".  It is 'not OK for the article to state "Dianetics is widely regarded as pseudoscience" when the source of that statement is a handful (or even 1000) individuals.  What official body of science has stated, "Dianetics is pseudoscience?" Nadda, none.  Therefore we have some individuals who's opinions can be included but they should be cited as individual opinions. Terryeo 14:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why do you say, "clearly pseudoscience"? I concede many people have "said" it, including Martin Gardener. I would like to present the case here that it meets the requirements of science. In the article is a statement by Carroll to the effect that he can not imagine what "test results" might look like for Dianetic claims. I present a citation with charts of IQ gain from before and after tests of IQ gain. Do you agree before and after IQ tests that show 10 plus points of IQ gain for a group of 88 students in one month should be deleted, repeatedly and Carroll's statement should be the only view that is allowed to be presented to you to inspect? Spirit of Man 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to use study results (whether conducted by scientists, or by Scientologists, as long as the source is cited) as sources in the article. I'm not going to debate with you. The mainstream opinion of Dianetics as pseudoscience is well-documented.  Friday (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Two points here. One is that on this article and subarticles it has been summarily deleted without discussion repeatedly. So has the publisher which has fact checking capability which is the Wiki criteria. You assume the critics here that claim "pseudoscience" are being as fair as you. That is not the case. When I place the study next to the Carroll statement so a reader can see the truth, the study is deleted. Your statement that I am welcome to use it, is NOT factual. That is my first point, that has not been allowed here...on the whole subject. If you check the mediation page you see that ChrisO and the calling parties represent just this view - total deletion of the subject. You say the mainstream opinion of Dianetics is "well-documented". Where? Not in the article. Pub-Med connects to a student paper and a study of one, Skeptic Dictionary, Gardner's book... DMSMH has sold over 20 million copies. Does the choice of these 20 million people amount to "documented"? 50,000 Clears are documented, do they count in your "well documented" citation? Spirit of Man 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Those IQ gain results aren't useful proof of anything without a control group which also takes the IQ tests but doesn't have the Dianetic auditing. Isolating the cause of an observed change is basic to science methodology, and ignoring that obvious step is (to me) a mark of a pseudoscience. AndroidCat 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AndriodCat, I hear what you are saying. I took three IQ tests in High School a year apart. They agreed within one point of the average. I understand this to be true in general. I understand the psychological and psychometric community are of this same belief and have established without doubt that IQs do not change at all, let alone the way you suggest. My citation lists the names of three licensed psychologists of the day, also psychometrists that established the criteria and certified the results. The APA Resolution of 8 Sept 50 cited in this article essentially calls for verification of claims and says such testing will done. Since the claims requested, and the testing to be done by APA members were verified by licensed psychologists and the control you call for was not specified or imagined to be needed at that time, what is the basis for your claim of "pseudoscience" here? Spirit of Man 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've taken over 60 different IQ and other "g" tests, of a great variety, over the course of my life, and have done a bit of study into IQ, g, and their surrounding debates on controversies.
 * They agreed within one point of the average. I understand this to be true in general.
 * Not true, a range of 5-15 points is possible not only between different tests, but even within the same test. 15-30 points would be much more unusual, but that also depends on the quality of the tests and managing outside factors.
 * I understand your range of 5-15 points is your personal research. Do you feel this would apply to an average value of 88 people all taking the same test with different forms such as the Wecsler Form B used in World War II to screen military people, with before and after tests, in the same frame? Spirit of Man 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, not entirely my work... :-) . See: "Mismeasure of Man", by Gould. His sample sizes were in the hundreds of thousands, and he quite readily shows why the early Wechsler work was a useless piece of tripe (which is why they've totally changed their work). Taking the same kind of poorly devised test, and showing drastic changes, after acclimating to any biases inherent in the test, would (and often has) shown improvement. For example, for a long time, most people from eastern europe tested quite low upon arrival when immigrating into the united states. After some time adjusting to american culture, they better understood questions that involved linguistics and cultural norms... there is such a massive number of factors involved that people often get caught up in bad claims. Ronabop 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand the psychological and psychometric community are of this same belief and have established without doubt that IQs do not change at all...
 * Again, not true. The belief is that the possible changes aren't *drastic* enough that a person's inate intelligence cannot be *significantly* altered over a short time span (say, a year or less)... however, there is a big difference between a person's latent intellectual abilities and their actual test results.
 * I can accept your view, "...a person's inate intelligence cannot be *significantly* altered over a short time span (say, a year or less)...". Spirit of Man 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This confusion is also a misconception of the measurements of IQ and g... while a person's inante ability to think doesn't change that much, how the test results come out *can* (and do) change. For example, stress, depression, diet, sleep habits, study habits, mindset, test-taking skills, etc. can all change the scores.
 * I have a question for you at this point. You say "inate ability to think" doesn't change. How would you test that statement? Meaning how was it tested in psychology or somewheres, how did you come to believe that statement? [This applies to your refutation above, of my statement "that IQs do not change at all"] Spirit of Man 18:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good question, as it gets to the heart of misconceptions about what is being measured, versus *how* something is being measured. Measuring an ability to think, outside of cultural norms (such as language concepts about how one counts, or what is an important portion of text in a phrase, or math questions involving something like a "train", "wookie", "plane", "frzoggle" etc.) requires not just one test, but quite a few, in many conditions. Over time, whole testing systems that avoid culture and language have been developed for this reason. The first warning sign that an IQ test is a pretty dodgy one is if it requires a language (*any* human language) to take. Then, if it requires pictures, are the pictures of anything real? (They used to give an IQ test with somebody at a bowling alley, asking people to draw 'what was missing, i.e., the ball. People who had never seen bowling in their life had no idea how to answer.) If the test only happens once, that's only one data point for that person... it doesn't measure their highest, or lowest, it just measures them for the set of conditions that they had at one time. So, to answer your question about measuing their inate ability, tests would have to be conducted over a time period, under a variety of conditions, with a variety of tests. Their peak scores, over a lifetime, would be their peak scoring abilities. Ronabop 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll give you an example: Ike (IQ = Ike, get it?) takes an IQ test on a gloomy morning after a sleepless night (due to excessive drinking). He's hungover, he doesn't like taking tests (hasn't taken one in years), his wife left him last month, his diet has been crappy junk food and diet sodas, he doesn't read or play games or do anything mentally stimulating for fun, as he can barely get himself out of bed in the morning to watch TV all day. His score comes back as 90. Ike decides to get his life together, quits drinking, starts eating well, turns off his TV, starts reading and writing and playing chess early at night with a cute girl he met (while filling out all kinds of "meet your mate" dating tests and "what do you want to do with your life" quizzes), and the night before the test, sleeps better than he has slept in years. He wakes up, goes for a light jog in a beautiful sunrise, has a fruit and granola breakfast, and heads off to the testing center.... and scores a 100. Now, did the test show Ike actually got any smarter? The general answer would be no. Why not? Because he didn't take the same test under optimal conditions to start with. If the maker of the granola he had for breakfast said "our granola increases IQ by 10 points!" is it science? No, because that doesn't take into account numerous other possibilities... maybe intense test/quiz taking made him more comfortable taking tests. So if the dating quiz company said 'Increases IQ points when you eat well!' is it science? Sadly, still no, there wasn't enough people involved, in a wide enough range of conditions (gloomy days, sunny days, with or without exercise, with or without chess playing, with or without a romantic partner, with or without good sleep), to really limit down, or figure out, what was actually affecting Ike's results. Ronabop 06:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You said, "Now, did the test show Ike actually got any smarter? The general answer would be no. Why not?" The answer is based on the idea that his smartness is fixed, and is NOT based on the test result.
 * Bingo (sort of). IQ tests can't actually test inate or intelligence ability, or "g". Never have, likely never will. The inventors of them (especially Binet) noted that this was impossible from the very beginning. However, they *can* test if somebody was really good at spatial math on, oh, last Tuesday. In order to get their maximum results on all tests, a person would have to be tested for most of their lives, and the "maximum score" would be their "maximum achived intelligence score" on all the tests... their fixed maximum achievements at death. Which *still* wouldn't indicate their maximum possible scores. Ronabop 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So there are no tests that validate "inate or intelligence ability, or "g"."? Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So it must not have been based on the earlier test result either. So my question is, in this or your system of thought, how is this inate "intelligence" defined and how is it "measured" to support the underlying idea? Also, how is it normed to get values for people taking tests? At least one psychologist claims "intelligence" is what an IQ test measures, so I assume you are not going that route here.
 * Measuring inate intelligence for one person is like measuring "the fastest that one person can run". Unless you test every run they ever take, you will never know. As for how it's normed, well, that's a matter of "the fastest Jane Doe ran when she was tested in a specific time frame". As far as psychologists thinking the IQ tests actually measure "intelligence", no Phd psychologist who has had a Phd in the last 20 years would be able to get a Phd believing in such poppycock. IQ tests *try* to measure "g", but actually measuring something as nebulous as intelligence? People would get laughed out of conferences for stating such things. Ronabop 09:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So the highest test result is taken as the actual? So did say that Phd's in the last 20 years would laugh at the idea of "any test" actually measuring intelligence? What evidence do they present for being a science that has a testable view regarding "intelligence"? Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, that point you make about there being no control group is valid, and a realistic arguement. But the "scientific group" which normally runs studies of this sort of thing, psychiatry (the APA) refuses and had refused since the inception of Dianetics, to recognize Dianetics and its practices.  By now it is pretty clear, they aren't going to make such a study.  Dianetics says they are afraid of the results, and their statement is based on results which they have (its pretty common to take an IQ test after some processing) but don't publish.  Probably the bottom line has to do with the Church of Scientology.  They don't attempt to do anything other than what they seem to be succeeding at, which is doing it.Terryeo 15:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't it moot because CoS has removed that study (flawed or not) from Science of Survival? If CoS doesn't publish anything for review, then they shouldn't mind being called a pseudoscience. You can't have both havingness and eatingness of your cake... AndroidCat 02:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the CoS cares whether you personally say "pseudoscience" and believe it wholely or not. In this section I am calling for discussion of the issue because as an issue is being used unfairly to weight the discussion heavily in favor of deleting most all actual citations that validly support the subject. This drives the presentation of the article towards only controversial things that could be falsely included with no balancing citations. Wiki guidelines do not support this bias to unfaily present the valid issues. One citation, like from Carroll says what he says. Fine! WP:RS says I should find a true citation and present the truth. I present a citation that says what it says. But many editors have institutionalized this "pseudoscience only" presentation and summarily deleted the citation with better credentials. I think both sides should be presented fairly. I'm not trying to say only my citations should stand. I'm saying both citations should be available to the reader so he can make up his own mind with both sets of data where there is a known conflict. Do you agree with this approach? I think that is what is intended by Wikipedia. I may not have expressed it well enough. Spirit of Man 19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you said it clearly.Terryeo 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for CoS and "science" and the test results in the Intro to some editions of Science of Survival. DMSMH health sells well and provides a very readable introduction to what Dianetics was in 1950 and now. I first picked up the book in the science fiction section of a bookstore. It never even registered to me until half way though the book that it was represented as anything but science fiction. I realized, "this could actually work". So I talked with my wife and we reread it out loud to each other very carefully with the idea of trying it to see what happened. 35 years later, I don't think "Science" on the cover is a misrepresentation of what it contains or what a science is. Applying a "pseudoscience" lable to it here or in life is uncalled for. I think it deserves a defense here.

Since 1954 the CoS has sponsored Dianetics and it receives no funds from any government or research foundations. It is self-funded and represents itself only as addressing the spirit. In about 1970 all books published started having this statement placed on the inside of the front cover or copyright page. Sometime in the early 80s Dianetics which addresses painful things was placed at a later point in the CoS approach to spiritual gain called the bridge. That time frame was when the study was removed from Science of Survival. All of the text of DMSMH and Science of Survival is workable and still used in Scientology.


 * I don't think the real issue here is "Science" or "pseudoscience", it is whether the subject as represented by the written materials of L. Ron Hubbard are presented at all. In mediation, one calling party says it should not be represented. In Discussion one calling party says they shouldn't allow enough to be presented where a person might actually want to try it. I believe the scope of the subject is being systematically reduced and misrepresented in violation of Wiki policy, and this "pseudoscience" issue is just a symptom of that intention. Spirit of Man 19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Very perceptive and well stated, ty.Terryeo 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not just a control group, there were a whole range of problems. The sample size was too small (what if it only affects some people, and their tests got lucky in finding such a group?), the test conditions weren't repeated enough times over several years (what if a large scale event, such as national elections, or seasonal weather, caused changes?), it's not obvious what actually caused the changes, it's not clear which factors caused which changes, or how much exposure to various factors caused the changes, there was only one (one!) type of IQ test used, so maybe other tests would show no change in IQ scores, or decreased IQ scores, etc...Let me illustrate how real science (not pseudo science) would be done on the matter:
 * If I was to design such a test as a serious scientific endeavor, the first thing I'd do is use at least 5 different IQ tests. I'd make sure none of those scoring or administering the tests had any idea who was in which groups. I'd make sure that the people in the experiment would have no idea which group they were actually in, as well. I'd run the test in at least 15 countries, and five or more languages (both character and ideogram based). Of the test groups, I'd have one group division who simply tested twice, once at the beginning of the month, and once at the end, and another group division who tested 8 times in one month. I'd have another group division between those with no changes in their life, and another who got general diet, lifestyle, and personal counselling/coaching. I'd also divide between actual Dianetics practices (actual trained auditors), and a similar set of steps with a group using unrelated scripts (to see if the actual words used, or training, matter). I'd also divide into group which went through a one hour session a week, a group with one hour a day, a group that had two hours a day, and a group that had 4 hours a day. To cancel out weather and global incidents (Tsunamis, 9/11), I'd run it over several years, and I'd want at least 500 people in each group, to cancel out noise caused by someone in the group running over their dog, losing their house, etc. Once I had all the data, I would sort out what groups changed, and which ones didn't, and how much they changed. Then, after all that work, I would un-blind myself, so I could see which people were actually in which groups.
 * Your little Science Project seems to have quite a scope to it, quite some depth from the "scientific point of view" and seems to be quite thorough, but let's take a little looksy. Alright? it will take about four paragraghs here so have patience. What is the size of the test you propose as a minimum to qualify as "scientific"? See if this checks with what you ment to say; I will say back to you the basic groups that will multiply to give the total number of subgroups then multiply by 500 persons each to get the total number of people required to participate: each person is to take 5 tests, so we start with 1 taking 5 tests. 15 countries, 5 languages and they would need to be in each of those countries, 2 numbers of tests 2X and 8X, 4 rates 1 hr/w, 1 hr/d, 2 hr/d, 4 hr/d, and 4 exposures; no changes, trained auditor, different scripts, life counsellor, and finally 3 replications over a period of years. Multiplying those out we have: 1x15x5x2x4x4x3 = 7200 groups of 500 people or 3.6 million people for the tests for your little Science Project. Now a question, what study, even funded by governements, requires this number of participants to be considered "science". I anticipate the answer is "none"?
 * Okay, sorry for not explaining the math very well, I thought I had about 28K (IIRC) involved (language is not exclusive to country, for one point). As far as studies over 3.6 million people go, that's why we have "adverse effect" requirements. Yes, I think I designed a good test. Of course, according to CoS, there have been 20 million people exposed to the work, right? 50,000 clears? Of those we should be able to find at least, oh, 1,000,000 with IQ records before, and after, their studies. Even among 50,000 clears, we should be able to find 1% with early IQ studies. (500 is many more than 88) Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is true that 500 is more than 88. But one study in 1950, used 88 and that is important. My point is that 88 is a reasonable population. A study of one is not. To reply to questions above, I would expect that 500,000 before and after test results for IQ are currently available, if we could access those records. Most of the 50,000 Clears would have info available. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dianetic auditing is organized around the idea of an "intensive", that has to be given in one week to be effective. That is 12 1/2 hours. So the group that gets 4 hr/d is the only one that even qualifies as Intensive Dianetic Auditing. So how many people are expected to get an increase in IQ to start with? 3,1,1,5,15,500= 112,500 or 3% Spirit of Man 21:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the study. What if less works the same? Or more? Or if it's the perfect amount? Or none at all? (4x7 is 28 hours, not 12). Ronabop
 * 2x7 is 14, but practically speaking, people aren't available 7 days. 4 to 7 hr per day is about as high as people go. There is a metabolism chech and beyond those limits probably wouldn't work. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Before we go on, I would like to point out one idea from Dianetics: The Doctrine of the Evaluation of Importances. It goes like this. How do you sort out what is one important "drop" in a sea of data?

That's where science kicks in. 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is from Evolution of a Science. You have presented a test procedure that will give a sea of data. 5 IQ tests given before and after for half the people and 8X for half the people means your protocol would generate 1/2 x 5x2 + 1/2 x 5 x 8 = 25 or 25 x 3.6 million test results or 90 million test results.
 * It's just data. Nothing in terms of results yet.


 * Now what is important about this protocol? It fails to even address the group my citation addresses. The APA Resolution, 8 Sept 50 says their concern for safety when Dianetics is used by new people, new students. So my citation addresses students new to Dianetics. Sometimes it is not the forest or the trees, it is the one [APA] breathing down your neck. My citation shows Dianetics is safe in the hands of people new to Dianetics before they are trained professionals. Spirit of Man 00:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good catch. While I specified different groups who were new, and not new, to being auditors, I did not specify groups who were new, or not new, to dianetics. This is why so much bad "science" is rubbish, because they forget such things. (See why one test with 88 people is bad, yet?)
 * If all of those people tested the wrong things then, yes, but they didn't, to my knowledge. I agree larger numbers are better, but 88 is not bad. This study was not funded by the government or a foundation, it was self funded. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Real science isn't just about having control groups, it's about cancelling out (or compensating for) any and every possible bit of confusion and noise.
 * I don't think you have shown that your protocol would do that. Spirit of Man 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I'd need to have another 3-way group split, to evaluate between the exposed but not believers, the exposed believers, and those who had never heard of such things. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's look at a second important datum. You talked above about "innate intelligence" and I asked about where that came from. I understand it comes from Willhelm Wundt.
 * Wrong. (Jeebus, what are they teaching you?) Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wundt postulated the physiological basis of Intelligence. Where do you think it comes from in psychology? Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He is sometimes known as the Father of modern Psychology, and defined the modern subject. He believed intelligence was based on physiology, and defined psychology from that veiwpoint in 1879.
 * HAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha. Good One! (Pure physiological links to intelligence have been rejected by psychiatry and psychology since the 80's, once scholars determined that much of the past research was flawed) Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Where does it come from? Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That means "intelligence" is more or less fixed since that time and determined by a person's physiology in his system of thought.
 * If you're living 60 years ago, yes. Fortunately for me, I'm not. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the model you are talking about? Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a provable scientific principle to my knowledge and no attempt has been made to my knowledge to prove intelligence is in fact tied to physiology or the physiology of the individual brain.
 * You are severely misinformed. Many attempts were made. They failed. Science marches on. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. What do you feel was tested and proven? Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In Dianetics this is an example of another Doctrine from Evolution of a Science called The Introduction of an Arbitrary. You have assumed all the variables are as you stated, but you didn't state your starting assumption.
 * This is where Scientology (as a converse argument), has failed. It assumes that Psychology, and Psychiatry, is stuck in L.R.Hubbards generation... the silliness of eugenics, shock therapy, IQ tests as a viable measure of human ability. Science has marched on. Has the CoS? Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are psychological things. They were never a part of Scientology. Dianetics and Scientology have always been based on the "awareness of awareness unit" or spiritual being. As I said above, the science you mention has moved on to what? Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is more important than your protocol. Either your starting assumption is that "innate intelligence" is fixed by definition or it is based on the physiology of the brain which is fixed also.
 * Do you know what a false dilemma is? The false dilemma posed by Scientology is that either psychiatry is right, or Scientology is right... never accounting for the possibility that both are right, both are wrong, or both are partially right, and partially wrong. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have said that psychology has moved on. I can accept that. I have said that Scn is based on the Spiritual Being. How does this relate to your false dilemma idea? Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a definition of Intelligence in Dianetics that is not based on this arbitrary idea of physiology. It is based on the ability of the individual to perceive, pose and resolve problems. This ability is variable as you have clearly pointed out in your discussion. The variability of this ability, of intelligence, in Dianetics is not limited to Dianetic processing. I believe there are four or five factors or valid therapies mentioned in DMSMH. One of those would include the life factors you are concerned with. Education would be a Dianetic therapy. Changing one's environment would be another. In Evolution of a Science another one is mentioned called Necessity Level. In modern practice the environment or people in one's environment that suppress the individual would be a very specific concern in that therapy. Spirit of Man 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe dianetics only shows increases on those who audit four hours a day, but maybe having a life counselor one hour a day works just as well?


 * Both would be valid ways in Dianetics to increase IQ. My citation only applies to processing. I would expect your protocol to confirm both of these ideas to be true. Spirit of Man 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the study. What if less works the same? Or more? Or if it's the perfect amount? Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In Dianetics, studies were done that established Intensive Procedure. 12 1/5 hours minimum per week, and up to as much as the person wants per day. Good results are understood to occure in that band. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it has nothing to do with dianetics, but is more about the auditing ritual (with equal results between the "real" and "fake" dianetics?), and counselling won't show the same results?


 * The auditing ritual is therapeutic in itself. Training to be an auditor would fall under Education as a therapy. Modern auditor training basically makes a "synthetic clear" during auditing. Before and after tests of auditor training alone have and would show this. Auditor training 1950 style would not so dramatic. The ritual, as you call it, is also therapeutic as well. The preclear is basically treated as if he is at cause over everything and is invited to take full responsibility for his entire mind and all activities. The "ritual", from 1950 would not show much of this effect.
 * No disrespect meant, by the way. Brushning my teeth is ritual for me... a repeated action for the improvement of the self. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I ment this in context that this could be included in the study you are outlining. In Dianetics it is considered that half the available gain comes from auditing and half from the training and activity of auditing itself. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Today the processing ritual, the auditor training and the processing of the preclear are all Dianetics. All of those things apply collectively to my cited test study from 1950. I don't see how your protocol of "scripting" could actually be done. It would be violation of the Auditors Code. Spirit of Man 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you missed the point. Maybe the questions asked, or the responses given, aren't important? Maybe somebody untrained can just talk, and listen, for a session, and a person would feel better? Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand. This would be a neutral sort of activity with no training and no special topics taken up systematically. I think this is common in life, and gets results as people would normally understand. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe auditing for 2 hours a day produces better results than 4 hours of counselling, or vice versa?
 * The best approach has been found to be, to audit as intensively as possible. That is "as much as the preclear wants". Or maybe we should say can tolerate. This situation results in the preclear reaching a point where he can't access his case anymore for a while. Basically he feels so great he can not be audited because he can not put his attention on his case. Spirit of Man 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you'd suggest higher dosage grouping, maybe 16 hours a day, 112 hours a week? That's why we have the study. What if less works the same? Or more? Or if it's the perfect amount? Ronabop
 * 4 to 7 is about the limit. 5 days a week is about the practical limit. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why the one set of results are dismissed as pseudoscience are that they don't even begin to scratch at the surface of serious science. They're a tiny data point, with problems of observer bias, sample size, dosage, control, language bias, evaluation bias, and a whole host of gaffes. Ronabop 07:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the case for observer bias.


 * OMG. Were any participants, measuremeant takers, or professionals in any way, shape, or form, in the church? Did they know whose data sources were coming from where? Anybody with a vested interest in the results being right, or wrong, involved? Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The study used three licensed, professional psychometrists.


 * Minor credentials, but not beyond bias, by a long shot. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That seems like conjecture to me. Someone is just dising this study. What credentials would you use for your study? This study accepted the protocols of the psychometrists to satisfy the APA Resolution.

Being a Professional Engineer I know the licensing process.


 * Maybe not? Anybody can Ace a (one) test. memorize all possible questions and answers, and be totally ignorant of underlying theory. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume these people had some sort of professional criteria similar to mine. Specific revew of the curriculum actually taken, 8 years experience, 5 refs from other licensed professional that have observed your work, review of one's arrest record and credit histroy, ....

To dismiss that legal point of view by a statement from an editor here or from a a fanzine editor is not in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS.


 * I didn't like that citation either, FWIW. *shrug*. These articles are filled with observer bias. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with a sample size of 88 for a study of this nature in 1950?


 * Nothing s a problem, for 60 years ago. *Everything* is a problem, for today. In 1950, some "scientists" proved all black people, Italians, Poles, Russians, and Greeks, had low IQ measurements, more bastard children, and more "mental illness". Is CoS stuck in the past? Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, but they haven't even addressed this subject in the last 50 years. I merely conceived that back then it qualified as a science and was merely being talked down. That seems to be the case from the citations I can find. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the language bias? I see none.


 * What IQ test was used? Did it involve, oh, words? Pictures? Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with "dosage". 40 to 60 hours in one month after training is appropriate. What is the problem with control and evaluation bias? I see none. Spirit of Man 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the OD rate? When do people start to drop in performance? What is the minimu needed? This is why dosage counts. Ronabop 11:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 4 to 7 hours is OD rate. The minimum for standard Dianetics is 12 1/2 hours per week. I agree dosage counts, but the correct amounts were used in the study I cited. Spirit of Man 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One criteria of a theory or science represented in the article is that it must be "Useful". Hubbard uses the term "workable". To my knowledge there are five workable therapies in Dianetics that can be shown to increase IQ. Can you show me "one useful theory" in the "serious science" you represent here that has been demonstrated to produce a useful result, in terms of increasing intelligence? What is your definition of intelligence? Spirit of Man 01:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Terryeo: "based on results which they have but don't publish."... Thus, focusing on the issue at hand, no peer-reviewed publication in scientific papers is an important factor to characterize Dianetics as pseudoscientific. If they have results, there is no reason to not submit these results (along with detailed methodology and raw data) for publication. Raymond Hill 13:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you're right, Raymond, and I have no idea why they don't publish. This is just a ball park sort of guess, but probably 20 OCA before and after auditing are created in a typical day at a typical large Church complex (Flag, Florida) (L.A. Complex). They got 1000s of befores and afters.  I don't know why they don't publish. Except I have read a church policy which says to just keep producing, rather than to try and satisfy critics because critics can not be satisfied.Terryeo 13:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OCA is not recognized as a valid test outside scientology. Raymond Hill 15:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as we are agreed that Dianetics only causes changes to an individual's thoughts, and only that by thier own volition, then I have to ask, what test (recommened by your definition of "mainstream science") would measure a difference for better or worse, of Dianetics processing?Terryeo 19:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Poll
I began this section in the hopes of heading off further edit wars and conflicts by reaching a consensus after reasoning through the issues: "But we also must agree that Wiki should appeal to reason and fairly reflect the result of that process in accordance with Wiki policies and guidelines."

You have the power to delete all reason on this article. But the results of 50,000 Clears and test results I cited in the Introduction to Science of Survival remain. I have shown that Dianetics meets the eight precepts required of a theory or a science and no one has shown otherwise. What is the value of citing a book by Carroll that says these things DO NOT exist? What is the value of quoting an anuthor that says Dianetics is based on apriori conclusions when the subject does not in fact do this? If one deletes all opposing evidence then they can justify any conclusion. Is this the Wikipedia you aspire to work towards and invest your time it? Or is it to represent what is true and can be cited and is the result of reason? Spirit of Man 02:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call for a poll and didn't expect one to be asked for before efforts to consult reason worked things out or were exhausted. If reason is not allowed as a factor, why have a poll? If reason and reputable citations are not to be presented, why have Wikipedia? Spirit of Man 02:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I expect each of you that vote for "pseudoscience" to present a case for "pseudoscience" that is defensible. The one presented is not. It has not been defended as such. Spirit of Man 02:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have ignored the evidence and the explanations in favor of advancing the same flawed argument for several months now.
 * Please point out "the evidence" of your claim?Spirit of Man 21:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So we can go around in circles again? No. Read the archives, read the previous discussion. Tenebrous 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You have refered me to peer-review and WP:V and WP:RS that does not require it in all cases. If you have no arguement just say so to everyone. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The consensus you were after has been reached (imo it had clearly been reached before this section was started, but that's irrelevant). You didn't call for a poll, but you also didn't argue with it, and went along with the process.
 * You did not argue with using Reason as a reasonable approach. Why did you add "a poll", before that was tried by each of the signers? Spirit of Man 21:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * We've tried reasoning, arguing. This issue has been discussed for the last two months. In this case, the discussion was over two days before I added the poll, as evidenced by the edit history. The suggestion that everyone should have participated in the discussion is also silly; there's only two arguments, and they're the same arguments that have been kicked around for the last two months. If two months is too little time for your "reason" to win out, then how long will it take? Tenebrous 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In that time ChrisO and you have gone to mediation and now a Request for Comment. You have deleted a section on Goals and pronounced them POV in your opinion. Let me spell out the details...A citation primary to the nature of Dianetics, its goal, with primary citations from the writer of the subject, from the primary publisher of the subject that meets Wiki fact checking criteria, who are you delete it? That's right, you are Tenebrous only with no citations. But now you also have a poll, with no citations. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How you can justify denigrating the process because it didn't produce the results you wanted is totally beyond me.
 * It seems to me you and others profess to use or require others to use Wiki policy. I don't believe insisting that you do to, to be "denigrating". If ChrisO puts up a Carroll statement from a Carroll book that says Carroll can not envision charts of Dianetics results and they have been in existence for more than 50 of his 2003 book. Why should a citation citing Science of Survival be deleted? You seem to be stating the case for "denigration" when you or others delete citable facts that dispute a "claim" from a source that is trying to prove pseudoscience. Spirit of Man 21:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Carroll is not "proving" pseudoscience. The quote is being represented as opinion, not objective fact. He is a notable expert on pseudoscience. Science of Survival is not a valid study.
 * Now how is it you conceive you should make this judgement? Show me the Wiki policy for this? Bridge meets Wiki criteria as a reputable publisher. My citation is valid. I agree the study did not have the extensive controls Ronabop envisioned, but it did have what Carroll could not. It did have what the APA asked for and what three psychlogists certified. It meets far higher criteria than any of the opinions you [collectively] have cited. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * However, you're also completely off the wall here. The "process" I referred to was this poll. You didn't ask for the poll, but you didn't argue against having one, and you participated in the process of the poll.
 * I participated in the conduct of the section I started, a discussion appealing to reason. I have objected to the poll before that process was complete. It may that it will not complete. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that it's been shown that the consensus is against you, you suddenly object to the poll? Tenebrous 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The lack of fairness here is not new. Since last summer I have seen the same. Editors then simply said that no one practicing Dianetics would recognize the article. I think that is still true. Your poll and what it represents is NOT news. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * SpiritofMan, I invite you to take any of the steps in the Dispute Resolution process that you feel like taking (though I disapprove of taking advantage of Terryeo's User Conduct RfC to raise content issues).
 * Why do you think I need your permission or your leave to do so? Spirit of Man 21:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did I suggest that you needed my permission? The idea that you need anyone's permission to begin Dispute Resolution is silly to the point of non sequitur. That you can find some way to assign that belief to me is somewhat amusing, and also somewhat disturbing. Tenebrous 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In the mean time, abide by consensus, even if you don't agree with it. Tenebrous 04:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. Please confirm: Is the concensus to delete valid test data from Science of Survival and keep Carroll's statement that is obviously mistaken?
 * Waiting for an answer. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The first step in any conflict resolution is always discussion pages talk. Always, every time (except death threats or something really wierd). It is the agreements of editors which create these articles and it is the agreements of editors which conflict disputes works toward achieving.  We are better off if we resolve difficulties on these talk pages than if we involve a broader ranger of people and tie up their time and efforts. If possible.Terryeo 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the concensus to keep the Fischer article in your Science claims even though you know he was a student, not a scientist and this is a student paper, his tests were conducted violating "Intensive Procedure"? Ronabop thought 90 million tests were sufficient for "science", is it concensus to keep the Fox citation that is a study of one, to dispute a Dianetic study of 88 persons, if sample size is a criteria? Is the concensus to delete or revert established reputable publishers, Heritage and Bridge Publications with fact checking with a dozen Times bestsellers? It seems to me any of these would be insane, let alone all of them. Spirit of Man 21:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes; yes; yes, the "Intensive Procedure" is not a necessary factor.
 * "Intensive Procedure" is absolutely necessary. Today, as practiced today, Dianetics processes have more clearly defined session lenght and "intensive".  This is the result of many many procedures with many people over a period of time.  "intesive" today means more effications sessions, shorter sessions, more directed to a specific goal sessions and too, clearer end phononema.  But it has always been an "intensive procedure." A well rested, drug free, well fed preclear is needed.  Thoughts are confronted, you can't remember things when you are hungry, tired and stuffed full of drugs.Terryeo 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * How so? How do you know this? Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ronabop's proposed study is designed to give the precise effects of Dianetics on one aspect of the mind.
 * Why do you say this? He mentioned many aspects, and I mentioned 5 in my replies to him. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Other studies can provide useful indications without being exhaustive; the process is far more important. Hermitage may have been a reputable publisher of textbooks, but fact-checking is not the same thing as peer review. You can't fact-check original research. Bridge Pubs is not reputable; they don't publish scientific research. Tenebrous 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Bridge Pubs fulfils one of the elements of "reputable". It accurately publishes what the author intended be published.  Their publications are of uniformly good quality and widely distributed in many languages. It is certainly "Special Interest".  Isn't it our task as editors to take particular sources and combine them into an informative article? Terryeo 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Who was the APA addressing in their 8 Sept 50 Resolution? Dianetics and L. Ron Hubbard. This Dianetic study is not addressed to peer-review, as the APA said they were going to test. It was addressed to [by the APA] and responded to by Science of Survival written by L. Ron Hubbard. You seem to expect a medical peer-review of a study that addresses the Awareness of Awareness Unit, the human spirit. The medical community does not address that. The medical community may label certain illnesses as psychosomatic but where do they ever review any cures for such? Are there any medical peer-reviewed articles of such cures in existence? If there are none, then there are no peers. Am I right? and you are asking a "fools question", one with no answer. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It has been the practice on this article to delete without Discussion citations from Bridge Publications. Do you support Wiki policy of establishing reputable publishers by their fact checking capability or do you intend to keep with this non-Wiki deletion without good faith practice? Spirit of Man 21:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Well. Given the context, I'd say that deletion sounds pretty good. Tenebrous 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That is my point. It sounds so good to you, you violate Wiki policy to do it. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your name with four tildes (~), with a brief comment if you choose.

Agree, Dianetics should be characterized as a pseudoscience.
 * Tenebrous 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * AndroidCat 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ChrisO 01:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Krsont 13:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raymond Hill 14:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (intrinsically pseudoscientific, not because the poll says so)
 * Antaeus Feldspar 15:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Modemac 15:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Davidstrauss 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * wikipediatrix 04:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, Dianetics should not be characterized as a pseudoscience.
 * the subject "Dianetics" should be characterized. it is not NPOVTerryeo 13:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Object to the poll
 * Two reasons: 1) Polls are evil, 2) As with other articles on pseudoscience, any and all characterizations of the subject need to be attributed. There are plenty of ways to do this, including looking at the criteria set-out and looking at what the various scientific organizations have said about dianetics. We don't even need to find a quote that says "Dianetics is pseudoscience", just quotes that criticize dianetics so that a reasonable reader who read the criticism can see that the criticism corresponds to the criticisms of pseudoscience found on, for example, the Wikipedia article on the subject. To see what I mean by attribution, simply look at creation science or intelligent design. We can say that "scientists and medical professionals overwhelmingly consider dianetics to be a pseudoscience" to maintain NPOV. --ScienceApologist 15:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Polls are a bad idea in general. However, as stated previously, I believed that the consensus for this issue had already been reached, and this process was merely illustrating that. 2) The use of Intelligent Design as a template/good example was one of the things that started this war. I think, though, that what you advocate is pretty much what BT has in mind---if you have any objections to what he's outlined, I'd like to hear them. I'm not advocating that we do away with NPOV here. The policy says that with pseudoscience, we should set out clearly what is the minority (pseudoscientific) view and what is the majority view. That's what we're after. SpiritofMan, on the other hand, would like to remove all mention of pseudoscience. Most people seem to think that that would be a bad thing. Tenebrous 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I said no such thing. And incidently this about the fifth time I've said this same thing in the same context. I think both sides should be presented fairly. What has been done is delete most all citations of the written materials and test results of the subject and place conflict opinions in prominence. There was a consensus, and ChrisO rewrote the entire article and deleted the consensus and put in about a 100 citations from xenu.com and clambake.com and "skeptic.com". I wrote a page on DMSMH and Antaeus deleted it and put a quick-redirect to a rewrite by ChrisO.


 * Spirit of Man, why are you either incapable or unwilling to talk accurately about what happened? I did not "delete it"; I proposed an AfD discussion to suggest that it should be deleted, and I gave my arguments as to why it should be deleted (i.e., you wrote it to try and insert material on Dianetics, as opposed to DMSMH, that you couldn't get others to accept at Dianetics.)
 * That is your personal interpretation of why I wrote it. You have repeated this numerous times on Wiki for your own pleasure and self satisfaction and to promote your point of view. Please just state your words and don't put words in my mouth. Spirit of Man 01:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "I have written this article to correctly outline the concept and philosophy of the book where it was not in the Dianetics article itself." In other words, you wrote it to insert material on "the concept and philosophy of the book", namely DIANETICS, that you couldn't get others to accept at Dianetics.  I'm not saying it "for my own pleasure and self satisfaction and to promote my point of view" (ye gods, and you have the nerve to complain words are being put in your mouth??) I'm saying it because it's what you yourself said you were doing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nine other people agreed that your article should be made a redirect and the ninth (not myself, contrary to your claims) went ahead and made it a redirect. Not one person looked at your article and said "This article should be kept."  Why is it that you keep telling this anecdote as "Antaeus deleted it" instead of "Antaeus nominated it for deletion, and after ten editors agreed with Antaeus, with the only one opposing being me who wrote the article, one of them went ahead and made it a redirect"?
 * If I say "Antaeus nominated it for deletion and got it deleted, and misrepresents why I did it." would that be more accurate? Spirit of Man 01:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Except for the "misrepresents why you did it," yeah.... -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought one of the claimed benefits of Dianetics and Scientology was that you became a more ethical person; doesn't it ever raise questions in your mind that in the name of Dianetics, you find yourself repeatedly telling the same stories that you know are not the truth? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So far it hasn't come up. But I appreciate you taking the time to present it this way, covertly, instead of an overt "personal attack". "why are you either incapable or unwilling to talk accurately about what happened?", I guess you had in mind that the reader would stick his attention on these two choices only. Well, I think there are other possible choices. For example, you say, "to talk accurately about what happened?". Is this what you are doing when you repeatedly put words in my mouth and say what my intentions are? Spirit of Man 01:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, "talking accurately about what happened" is what I'm doing, since as we've seen, I'm going directly from what you stated your intentions were. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wrote a section on an example of procedure and ChrisO deletes and rewrites. I wrote a section on Goals with primary citations, and Tenebrous deletes as POV. I write a page on Dianetics Today and Wikipediatrix rewrites because it is too "glowing". Why the "dark" bias? I agree we need to set out the minority view, so far it has been; delete, delete, delete and reduce the scope of the subject progressively by high-handedness with NO respect for a minority view. Spirit of Man 03:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Other opinions

I propose that we make a distinction between characterizing Dianetics as pseudoscience and reporting that it has been widely judged to be pseudoscience. It seems to me that the latter is more in keeping with the editorial approach of wikipedia; it really isn't our job to pass judgement on those claims. It is enough to give a fair summary of the prinipal claims, and indicate the degree to which there are credible arguments to the contrary. So, I suggest we state that "Dianetics," from the time of its first appearance, has been widely described as pseudoscience. Then cite a couple of good examples of this, and specify a couple of the strongest resons why it has been so characterized. Mention that support for Hubbard's scientific claims from scientists, science journalists or historians of science is virtually nil. If a concise counterargument from scientologists can be discerned--either that it is, too, science, and here's why, or that the claims to science are irrelevant, it is somehow beyond science-- we can add that, making it clear that this view is limited to Hubbard's followers (unless there's evidence that the Dianetics-is-science view has support among some a reputable non-scientologist cohort, something I've never seen). I think that would pretty much cover the topic of pseudoscience, and permit the article to shed the lengthy "what is science?" subplot. BTfromLA 02:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * well put, BTfromLA Terryeo 13:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It walks like a duck, it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, there is no valid evidence that it is not a duck---why not call it a duck? Because a few duck-supporters say that it is not a duck, when even the books about the duck are against them? Myself, I'm for calling a duck a duck, and saying that an extreme minority claims that it is not a duck. Tenebrous 13:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * We're not far apart on this, Tenebrous--I'm simply saying that it isn't our job to argue that it is pseudoscience. We should report that it is and has been judged to be pseudoscience by virtually all reputable commentators since the time of its first appearance.  Make it clear, in other words, that reliable sources have consistently identified this as a duck, despite the fact that some in the duck's flock object to the characterization.  I don't see how readers will be in any way shortchanged or misled by such an approach--all we lose is a long digression in the article  and and endless set of non-productive talk-page debates.  BTfromLA 17:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. That is fine with me, but I still think it's a good idea to give people the opportunity to find out why it is judged to be so. Add something like "For more information about what qualifies as pseudoscience, see [whatever]." As long as it's clear to the reader that this is a duck, I'm happy. Tenebrous 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay...
 * Dianetics can "raise your intelligence"-pseudoscience.
 * Dianetics can raise your IQ scores-science.
 * God (in any form of worship) "can change your life for the better"-pseudoscience.
 * God (in any form of worship) can affect your life in any measurable way-science.

Under what standards is dianetics pseudoscience, and the bulk of religion is not? Ronabop 12:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dianetics is characterized as a science repeatedly, is characterized as based on scientific fatcs, in DMSMH, and in Scientology promotional materials. Raymond Hill 14:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dianetics has been included in a religion since 1954, has disclaimers that all such books are only sold as a record of L. Ron Hubbard's personal research since at least 1970. The books with "Science" on them are written pre-1954. Christian Science has the word science in and many other religions as well. I don't see the overwhelming need to classify it so heavily here, in the face of the facts I have presented supportive of science. Spirit of Man 21:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)