PM: “Science is at issue because it’s implied in the name of the subject, Scientology. And research matters, because you use or mis-use terms like ‘data’ that imply empirical means…”

These are YOUR considerations – which are based on not understanding the tech.

“…and because you are asserting unproven and even disproven subjective claims (anecdotal, actually – which is a logical fallacy) that have to be examined objectively.”

To start with, it isn’t necessarily true that anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy. It “may be considered within the scope of scientific method, as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

In any case, the fact of the matter is that those who are using the tech successfully don’t consider it necessary to get scientific proof of its efficacy – that again is your consideration. It’s may be good idea, but it isn’t imperative, the way you try to make it sound.

On top of it, look at the paragraph you just wrote about the same study you already sent me on a wild goose chase about – and you still have nothing to say but a lot of assertions and generalities. You don’t give one single quote, which tells me there isn’t anything convincing enough to quote. And then you advise me to research it myself with Google!

As I’ve said, I’m really not interested in discussions with you that go all around the tech instead of on the topic of tech itself. You write well, but the logical fallacy I see on a continuing basis is “Style over Substance.”

marildi, I hope that you catch this, I was just looking back here and realized that a response I composed must not have posted, so let me try to finish answering you briefly.

Science is at issue because it’s implied in the name of the subject, Scientology. And research matters, because you use or mis-use terms like “data” that imply empirical means, and because you are asserting unproven and even disproven subjective claims (anecdotal, actually – which is a logical fallacy) that have to be examined objectively.

The study in communication is a meta-study, and fewer than half of the studies included are specific to oncology. Medicine is an area where communication is particularly important and where there are lots of fairly standard interactions that make for good research, but the communication techniques in use and being measured are widely applicable – I could get into demonstrating that more thoroughly, and citing the relevant research, perhaps on some future topic where it is applicable. If you scroll down through the google results and look for the one from ResearchGate, there you can see the full version of the study without paid access. It’s a pretty good example of modern science, and how it provides better answers and more proof, though with lots of questioning and some questions left unanswered, and without comfortable certainty, compared to Hubbard’s falsely sure but ineffective pseudoscience.

I’ve previously cited that Sarge Gerbode’s TIR has been proven scientifically, through several studies nonetheless. So has EMDR – though here is some good skeptical science showing that while it does work, like many things of auditing’s vintage, other modern therapies are even more effective:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/emdr-taking-a-closer-look/

You can see there the rigorous intellectual process through which real science reviews, questions, critiques, tests and improves itself. None of that in Scientology either in or out of the CofS, is there? (the way that indies criticize each other and squabble among themselves, doesn’t really count, particularly in the absence of empirical measures like tracking results)

M2C, I want to leave an answer for this, in part to finish some thoughts that had come up on an even earlier topic that had started to get into past lives.

I do want to acknowledge that it’s probably possible to audit without falling into any of the pitfalls I have cited at various times. Unfortunately, it’s not practical here for me to get enough to detailed information to ascertain if I think you really are auditing faultlessly, though you could be.

The problem I see with auditing past lives, is that unless they’re run as “dub in”, or imaginary (like dreams), if the auditor gives them any reality then you are starting to get into false memories and reinforcement. Then, BTs are just a theory, and just one – and I would say, the weakest, most contrived – choice of several explanations, so if you give that reality, your are imposing an ideology on auditing. And for that matter, if you can audit “dub in” or imaginary material and consider that to have value, why aren’t dreams audited, if the auditing process isn’t guiding and evaluating rather than just eliciting experience – why is the experience of a third of our lifetimes ignored? (my cynical suspicion, is that Hubbard knew that getting into dreams, would reveal that past lives mostly or entirely came from the same mental phenomenon, similar to what the research I cited has proven)

And I do think that the whole structure of auditing is virtually set up to evaluate, direct, and indoctrinate – it would be hard to avoid that. I know that theoretically there’s the auditor’s code, but that’s not only inadequate, it even sets up a control environment where the auditor can thwart the PCs “own determinism” (as the Code specifies) when deemed necessary. Pretty much any command (!) other than “what’s that?” contains some element of evaluation and direction, not only because of what it focuses on but also because of what it omits.

Again, if you personally are doing auditing that avoids the problems, kudos to you. But I have trouble imagining that could be accomplished with anything other than stripped-down book one auditing, probably even unmetered.

Also, if you really believe in OT powers, then how do you know that an auditor is not influencing and directing the PC’s mind with their own thoughts, and making the needle read as they think it should? There’s something that Hubbard didn’t want you to look at!

Finally, to address an issue that keeps being brought up, I may have more experience than you or others might guess, but I’m rusty in scieno-speak, have some need to avoid being too specific about things so that I don’t identify myself, and also don’t want to get into it because indies and freezoners seem to want to use it as grounds to evaluate and invalidate. And, my broader perspective on the subject, including varied experience and knowledge of the relevant research, often gives me better understanding than might be gained through some specialized technical experience.

Wynski, we have never met and you really don’t know me at all. It appears to me that you on;y want to know enough of what another poster says or thinks to be able to neatly pigeon-hole him/her with a cartonish two-dimensional label you can then use to dismiss him or her. You don’t really want to discuss any of the issues brought up. So, enough said.

Wynski, when where did he state that? Perhaps he did, somewhere/somewhen but I believe I recall him also stating otherwise. It seems you are more interested in having your opinions accepted, than in presenting triuthful statements of what he said or thought about various matters. You post a lot but I’ve yet to see you back your opinions up with a reference. And of course, a BIG Thank You for wishing me failure and ill in my future. I hope you someday develop some equanimity about being disagreed with. No need to upset yourself so, bro. No need to name call, either, the way you do. It doesn’t make you seem superior; only makes it seem like you think so.

Could be iamvalkov IF L, Fraud didn’t state that one remembers/recalls by using the MIND (its moment by moment recording of your existence).

BUT, he DID state that.

FAIL. But your slavish devotion to the psycho Hubbard will cause you much fail in life.

I hate to intrude and to continue an elderly thread but my excuse is a classic one: “I can’t help it.”

To think that scientology or any other information system can enhance meditation is to not understand meditation. Meditation is the withdrawing of your attention from mental objects of perception: thoughts and feelings. This withdrawing allows you to know the consciousness that underlies thoughts and feelings. That consciousness is unconditioned. It has never been impacted by anything. It doesn’t change. It has no history. It is perfect equilibrium experienced as peace beyond understanding. It is ever-present. That consciousness is what you are, thus meditation is a means to self-knowledge.

“no track no charge” is not an “inability to remember”, either. ANOTHER STRAW MAN. And I thought you were Mr. Logic himself.

The thing is, Brian, there are imponderables involved here. For instance, if you had never done the scientology that you did, would your meditation experience have been the same as it has been? Did scientology perhaps enable or help you to gain more from meditating? These are the kind of questions that seldom have hard and fast answers. I was not very involved in scientology, in my day, but I have no doubt what I did do in scientology facilitated my receptivity to many thinjgs as I went through life.