There was a recent study (nothing to do with Scientology) made that Freud simply made up his patient’s experiences and the man was a complete fraud. If you are really comparing Dianetics and Scientology to psychoanalyis then you will be waiting for a long time because you have looked in the wrong place.

I could say exactly the same thing about your propositions above. Coupled with the fact that seemingly you don’t have any great experience with auditing or seeing people obtain results from Scientology.

mwestern, the problem is scamologists cannot understand that the plural of anecdotes is not scientific data.

That 10,000 people saw a woman float when a guy in a top hat said some secret words is not logically or scientifically significant.

FP, I did not say that something seemingly observed can’t be true, only that the impressions of superficial observation do not prove it, and may in fact be entirely mistaken – the point is that that there is a long history, including in science itself, of individuals and groups being thoroughly convinced that they had observed some cause and effect, not only of things that now seem patently ridiculous, but also of more plausible ones that have proven entirely wrong.

A early 20th century precedent, and in many ways a parallel, to Dianetics and Scientology, was Freudian psychoanalysis. Its practitioners – in their day, more numerous and much better educated and trained – were quite sure that the “insights” that their patients were having from delving into early life traumas, were producing meaningful change, and that their patients were getting better because of it. While their own preliminary research seemed to support their observations (if not even beliefs), more detailed follow-up studies showed that “insights” while impressive seeming, were illusory and did not actually lead to measurable or meaningful change; and that patients improved at a rate no different than what they would have on their own and without analysis, since it turns out that mild psychological problems often resolve on their own over time, and people experience psychological growth and maturation as a matter of course.

The “psychs” actually did the science, admitted their mis-perceptions and mistakes, and moved on to more provable and evidence-based approaches to counseling and talk therapy, that could be verified through thorough research. We’re still waiting for Scientology and its diehards to get a clue….

May I politely suggest you have an M/U on the word “proven”. Just because you have “observed” something does not automatically make it “true”. Proof must be established before one can even begin to consider it a “fact”. Please, I beg you. Learn the subject of logic and how to engage in reasoned discourse. Whilst you’re at it, google “cognitive biases” and learn about the scientific method and why researchers use controls. #clearyourwords

Yes it must be awful for you and others like you when a fallacious proposition is exposed for the nonsense that it is. Still, I am sure there are many other fallacious principles about “Scientology” that can be invented in a burst of “magical thinking”. So even “seeing something work” now is simply dismissed as (your) fantasy by a bombardment of nonsense saying it can’t be true by comparing with outlandish scenarios in the vague hope that people will believe it. Well, some will I suppose. Amazing the twisted logic being applied here.

In your haste to invalidate, you obviously cannot read, therefore re-read my last sentence wherein I stated I had observed physical evidence of this and stop blustering and spouting nonsense.

He also said “absolutes are unobtainable,” ergo there are no “alls” or “onlys”. Per LRH, nothing is black or white – just varying shades of grey.

It’s a shame you choose not to apply LRH logic, especially to LRH himself.

“A FACT is something that can be proven to exist by visible evidence. An OPINION is something which may or may not be based on any facts. Yet a sloppy mind sees no difference between a fact and somebody’s opinion.” – LRH, HCO PL 26 April 1970R, The Anatomy of Thought.

Now you want to backpedal and pretend you were kidding?

You’ve taken a few shots at Mike, but that particular one was just a joke? Ok, sure.

Foolproof, it’s not surprising you think you’ve seen it work – you’re a true believer.

Other true believers are equally sure they’ve seen statues of Jesus bleed, have been cured by touching the feet of a statue of the Black Madonna, or have received the supposed benefits of traditional Chinese medicine remedies like bear galls and ground rhino horn. None of it is provable, and all of it is almost certainly false – and would prove to be false, if properly researched.

Hubbard’s “work” and Scientology, unfortunately, actually indoctrinate people in and reinforce erroneous and exploitable habits of thought – similar to the sort of “implants” that are supposed to be a bad thing, and even an artifact of brainwashing – such as confusion of cause and effect, and of causation and correlation:

“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.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

“Magical thinking is a term used in anthropology and psychology, denoting the fallacious attribution of causal relationships between actions and events”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking