Read https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence for starters. Wordclear it. Grab some clay and demo the crap out of it. Google cognitive bias whilst you’re at it. Then come back to this comment and read on.

Any given study of a psychological therapy will have a specific purpose (eg. “randomized controlled trial of grade 0 scientology and cognitive behavioral therapy for social phobia”) and include the use of numerous diagnostic tools, assessments, interviews, profiles, rating scales, questionnaires, etc. The data then undergoes rigorous statistical analyses (typically blinded to reduce confirmation bias) using a variety of evaluative methodologies, structural equation modeling, distribution analyses, cluster adjustments, error rate controls (eg. holm-bonferroni) the list goes on. There are long term followup studies on top of all that, such as logistic regression analysis, latent growth curve modeling, equivalence analysis, confidence intervals, etc. Results are then published for peer review and further study. And on and on it goes.

The purpose of this process is to establish a stronger, more robust proposition. Through meticulous, painstaking research that can be evaluated, repeated and verified, the efficacy of a talk therapy can be reliably established.

Compare this process with yours.
#forshame.

Oh jeez. Once again, I cannot answer your question any better because it is based on a false premise. As I have already stated, you have not demonstrated how scientology meets the criteria you’ve assigned it. In the absence of any evidence, I must take your statement of faith…on faith. It’s folly. I’m out of ideas on how else I can explain this. It’s basic logic, dude. GIYF.

The anecdotal results you’ve ascribed scientology are of a nature comparable to any number of psychological therapies and religious faiths. Do you want me to post some of their “success stories”? Again, as I have already said, it is not unreasonable to be of the position that there may be some therapeutic benefit in scientology. But you have provided no evidence to suggest its potential extends beyond even the placebo effect or that its ultimate value is any more significant.

There’s nothing wrong with the placebo effect, per se. Psychologists have been arguing for decades as to whether talk therapies provide any real value beyond it. The distinction, however, is that psychologists adhere to the scientific method to demonstrate that even a placebo-affected result of therapy can be established and that it is significant enough to justify appropriate use.

There’s also nothing wrong with someone feeling happier about life or overcoming an upset or ill. If scientology was studied and delivered as a generic self-betterment therapy or as a treatment for specific disorders, it might well prove very useful. Even as a placebo effect. But that is a world away from how it is delivered now and the claims made for “clear”, “operating thetan”, of perfect memory, cures for disease and superhuman powers. I will ask you again: is it possible that scientology might not actually “work” in this particular regard? Do you have perfect memory or superhuman powers? If not, do you believe you will if you persist? Do you even know if they even exist? Because that’s faith, if nothing else.

As a religion, the claims made for scientology are not particularly unusual. What makes scientology unusual is that its practitioners:

a) deny their religiosity by attempting to cloak themselves with the trappings of scientific absolutism – no religious discipline does this

b) deny the value of logic, reason and the scientific method as means to establish credibility – no scientific discipline does this

c) expect to be taken at their word

This is a prime example of why scientology is not taken seriously – neither as a religion or as a system of therapy. I don’t doubt your loyalty to the subject, based on, and as well as, the therapeutic benefits you’ve achieved/perceived. But if you want scientology to be embraced by the world you will eventually have to take what I am saying onboard. Change your operating basis. Own up to your beliefs and quit fooling yourself that they are anything but. Or start a clinical trial. In other words, put up or shut up. Good day.

Do you not realize that this site is composed purely of trolling? And I am being accused of being a troll!?

As to proof being “anecdotal” how otherwise then would the “research scientists” prove whatever it is they have failed to even postulate upon in the area of the mind and spirit, let alone “prove”? And why would one to want to “prove” to someone who says “I couldn’t communicate very well beforehand but since I have done Grade 0, I can now communicate with anyone!” And not only the recipient but all the people around him NOTICE THAT HE HAS CHANGED FOR THE BETTER and that what he says is observably true. But the “research scientists” don’t like observing do they? And fortunately I can also OBSERVE an E-Meter (for instance) and when it F/Ns and the person is smiling as he just resolved a long time problem for himself. Still, I suppose the Lab Rats would invent some nonsense to question this, instead of OBSERVING!

Any more attempts at waffling and beating around the bush? Your premise that Scientology is a faith system is total hogwash. The results are observable in the real universe.

And I am still waiting to hear of any other technology of the human mind and spirit that can compare!

So no faith in scientology, it’s all proven science. Except the only proof is anecdotal. Nothing wrong with anecdotes. But they don’t prove science.

Laying on of hands is just tiny part of the enormous volumes of Christianity. They’ve got a lot more books than scientology.

The resistance to recognizing Scientology IS based on faith is one of the hardest things there is to understand. There is nothing wrong with faith, but fundamental scientologists protest the idea that they have faith more vehemently than being accused of being satanic.

It’s one of the defining characteristics of a true scientologists.

Along with the conceit that if anyone asks a question or points out some illogic they are “attacking” and “trying to destroy man’s only hope.”

Perhaps I should explain: the person whose hiccups stopped was just a person in a shop – she was not a Scientologist and had probably never heard of Scientology. It had nothing to do with “faith” as you are all trying to make out and deflect what is a simple straightforward story. Sorry to spoil all your obtuse efforts to make nothing of something when it doesn’t fit in with your agendas.

As to the laying on of hands as far as I know this does seem to work, but then so does a touch assist, which is of course a relatively very minor piece of Scientology technology. So you should stop embarrassing yourself by trying now to imply and juxtapose people visiting Lourdes with the whole content of the Technical Volumes, hundreds of different processes, communication drills, all of the the tapes of Hubbard, C/Ses, auditors, e-meters, examiners, word clearers, cramming, ethics, etc. etc.

And I have nothing against people curing themselves of something by faith either if they believe that and it works for them, but that is not the point here is it, despite your poor attempt to deflect again. But to compare such with the list above and try to make out – very craftily I might add, that Scientology is also a “faith system” in the same vein, is being mightily obfuscating and beating around a bush that doesn’t exist. As you well know! So talking of bushes that don’t exist, now without trying to deflect the conversation again. please “pray tell” (as used by Mwesten), what technology of the human mind and spirit can compare.

I’m still all ears, and as someone else stated, the sounds of crickets chirping has been going on for some while now.

What is your position on people being cured in evangelical Christian churches by the laying in if hands? Or by visiting Lourdes? Is this Christian tech at work?

If so I have just answered your repeated requests for another body of tech that works comparable to Hubbard and is far more widely used.

If you don’t recognize this as tech, but as a result of faith, then why is scientology different than other faith?

Replying to Peacemaker’s desperate attempt to negate my comment about stopping someone’s hiccups above:

This is exactly what I mean with my statement of: “They don’t want to hear it and hope that one won’t actually take the trouble to prove evidence of it doing so, or if you can be bothered to produce evidence that anyone can SEE they will say that it is not really “evidence” and re-define the word to suit their agendas.”

I actually DID this! It occurred. Her hiccups stopped immediately, after 3 days of constant hiccuping! She was delighted! She asked me how I did that. Got it?

Now how anyone can position “placebo effect” or “Faith” or whatever disparaging term you may like to use to try and obscure or belittle the fact that this occurred, is beyond me. Either you can’t read simple English, or you can’t grasp a simple idea, or of course it disturbs you for whatever agenda you have, that such a simple application of Scientology was actually extremely effective and helped this person tremendously. The only fraud and charlatan here is you with your patently nonsensical comment who is hoping again that the fawning followers here don’t actually think about what you stated but simply nod heir heads sagely and agree with your drivel.

I will take a leaf out of your book and start with a quote from your comment: “Unless you have mastered every single “technology” on this planet (both past and present) to be able to draw such an extraordinary conclusion?!” Still wriggling out of answering the initial question by proposing an unreal and ludicrous condition, hoping that people won’t notice that it is ludicrous. But this was exactly my question to all and sundry – other than Scientology, WHAT other technology (of the mind and spirit) exists? And we can throw in what “scientific research” has gone into this awesome list to this question.

I’m all ears and still waiting…

FP, every true believer has stories of miracle cures, whether it’s from kissing the feet of statues or revering the portrait of an old guru. It’s placebo effect, combined with phenomenon like confirmation bias* and false attribution (of things that would have occurred anyway).

I don’t suppose Hubbard taught you about the placebo affect, cognitive biases, and other phenomenon that can fool people – fancy that oversight, from a man who supposedly knew it all. But you are part of quite a tradition that also includes the Christian Scientists who believe that can heal, the transcendental meditators at Maharishi University in Iowa who are certain that they can levitate, and so on.

* Confirmation bias – Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…
Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.