Talk:Dianetics

Please read before starting
Welcome to Wikipedia's Dianetics article.

Newcomers to Wikipedia and this article may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here.

A common objection made often by new arrivals is that the article presents Dianetics in an unsympathetic light and that criticism of Dianetics is too extensive or violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy WP:NPOV, while WP:NOR and WP:V require equal attention. The sections of the WP:NPOV that apply directly to this article are reasoning behind NPOV, the neutral point of view, NPOV: Pseudoscience, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Religion, NPOV: Undue weight, and NPOV: Giving "equal validity", How to deal with Theories. The contributors to the article have done their best to adhere to these to the letter. Also, splitting the article into sub-articles is governed by the POV fork guidelines.

These policies have guided the shape and content of the article, and new arrivals are strongly encouraged to become familiar with them prior to raising objections on this page or adding content to the article. Other important policies guiding the article's content are No Original Research (WP:NOR) and Cite Your Sources (WP:CITE).

Tempers can and have flared here. All contributors are asked to please respect Wikipedia's policy No Personal Attacks (WP:NPA) and to abide by consensus (WP:CON).

This talk page is to discuss the text, photographs, format, grammar, etc of the article itself and not the inherent worth of Dianetics. See WP:NOT.

On the other hand, this talk page serves the purpose of discussion, toward arriving at consensus of viewpoints of editors as spelled out at WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

• Archive 1 (to mid-December 2005)
• Archive 2 (to Jan 2006 rewrite)
• Archive 3 (to late Jan 2006)
• Archive 4 (to early Feb 2006)
• Archive 5 (aging sections through 2006-02-24)

Overuse of citation templates

I've reverted Terryeo's plastering of the template over the first sections of the article. It may be appropriate to highlight one or two issues like that, but surely not many times over. Terryeo, if you have citation issues, could you please highlight them here on the talk page instead of cluttering up the article? Also, is there any chance that you could try to find citations yourself rather than depending on everyone else to do it for you? Have you actually contributed so much as a single citation in the entire article? If not, why not? -- ChrisO 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not too long ago I spelled out 7 wrongnesses with the citations as they stand, for example citing a whole book as a reference for a 7 word phrase. Quantity does not quality begat. Terryeo 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Especially the idea that a citation is needed for "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments." That's blatant abuse of the process, right there. "I want you to describe Dianetics in my wording! If you use any other words besides mine I'll slap a hundred demands for citations on the article!" Such petty gamesmanship is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I want the article to accurately describe Dianetics. An excellent and available to everyone reference is to be found [1] which has on its first page, "Dianetics is an activity." I appriciate it, Feldspar, that you consider I am a dyed-in-the-wool, born again (something) who would strike with lightening those whom think bad thoughts. Such is not the case. I want the article to accurately describe what Dianetics is. This should take perhaps one paragraph. It should be the first paragraph. After readers understand what the article is about, hey, say anything within wikipedia's policies that makes sense to you. The opening sentence everyone keeps reverting to is not an accurate description of Dianetics. Terryeo 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Terryeo, I can't find where it says that. Perhaps you are referring to a different site? Tenebrous 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't read this either (although I wouldn't be surprised to see it appearing after 14h00). Anyways, that would be irrelevant even if the site says it's an activity, this means nothing. It's more useful to state what it is exactly. Also, Terryeo, remember that you reworded a lot the intro of this article at previous time, and you have gone through different description of what is Dianetics: a "philosophy", a "body of information", a "theory", etc. Now you want it to be an "activity"... Raymond Hill 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please read WP:POINT. User:Tenebrous 01:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Tenebrous Terryeo 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Okay, I've done that and see your point regarding "gaming the system".Terryeo 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I don't see how you can consider the wording "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments" to be inaccurate, yet you consider "Dianetics is an activity based on a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind" to be correct. They sure seem to be saying the same thing to me, but the wording is better is the first version. If you want to insist we use the same exact wording as dianetics.org, I don't think you'll find much support. Keep in mind, we're not trying to present the topic in a way that devotees of the subject matter will agree is "the truth", we're trying to present a neutral overview of the topic in the form of an encyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday. Dianetics is first and foremost an action. Like the Catholic confessional, it has ideas which it is based on. But you wouldn't present the confessional as "a set of ideas .. which attempt to alleviate ..." but instead you would present it as an action. Dianetics is an action which involves communication. Sure, there are ideas it is based on. Sure, it purports to provide some kinds of relief. But it is (usually 2 people) an activity, it is communication. The subject is easily misunderstood. Can we have "activity" as an early word in its description? Terryeo 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying Dianetics is more a religious practice than a therapy? Raymond Hill 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the Dianetics site no longer says "Dianetics is an activity" but instead says, "Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does." Phased slightly differently it would be: "Dianetics is an activity that gets rid of the reactive mind". I do mean to say that Dianetics is an action (based on ideas of course). This separates Dianetics from Intelligent Design because Dianetics does something, that's why it exists at all. But Intelligent Design is a theory without an action. Dianetics has you pare off they guy's reactive mind. Intelligent Design has you look at the growing grass. Dianetics is an activity.[2] Intelligent Design is an observation. I am not introducing "religious practice" at this time.Terryeo 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's follow this out. Terryeo says "Site X says 'Dianetics is an activity' therefore we should describe it as an activity". Someone points out that Site X doesn't say 'Dianetics is an activity'. Terryeo replies that the site says 'Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does' as if this was the textual support he claimed he had that Dianetics is an activity. Does the sentence 'X gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does' still make as much sense if we substitute something that is not an activity, such as a dietary supplement or a pill? Just as much sense. So why is this sentence in any way relevant to the current discussion, since it doesn't actually support any of the claims that anyone considers to be at issue? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's do follow it out. I'm not stuck on using the word "activity". I do want the article to accurately present Dianetics. I used that word and that link because (at that time) it used the word "activity." Its an action, you know, an activity, a practice, something people do. Yes, it is based on ideas. The reason I bring it up is to cause the first paragraph of the article to present what Dianetics is to the reader. Terryeo 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics has a much wider scope than "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments". It contains at least 10 basic books, innumerable courses and tapes that describe the philosophy, science, research, therapy and practice of Dianetics as it applies to the spirit, mind and body, over a span of 75 years that produced at least 50,000 Clears and has been read by something like 20,000,000 people. Terryeo chooses to call this "activity". Certainly we can come up with something closer to the actual scope than what we have in the article now. Does anyone agree? Spirit of Man 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole lot of information, no arguement. And the Scientology books and lectures often reference Dianetics ideas.Terryeo 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The books and courses and tapes, as you yourself say, describe Dianetics. They are not Dianetics itself. If you disagree with this then please explain what is in the books, courses, tapes, et cetera that is not contained in Dianetics, the set of ideas and associated practices. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well that's true, there exists a group of information which a guy could point to and say, "Dianetics". That's true. But there is action which is done by people that have read that information. Read it, do it. That kind of thingTerryeo 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said, Dianetics has "a much wider scope". I also said in the request for mediation that the calling parties are seeking "to diminsish the scope of the subject". I did not say, "They are not Dianetics itself." Your question seeks to limit the scope to ideas and practices of the mind. Let's take your question as an example of a thought process I think you have constructed, believe in, and continue to represent. You wish to diminish the scope of the subject as I presented it, and in your mind you diminish this scope to a "set of ideas and associated practices." So in your mind you wish to limit the scope of Discussion, so you limit your question here to "books and courses and tapes". So far, you have deleted 20,000,000 people at least, reading and speculating on Dianetics, 50,000 Clears produced by Dianetics, about 50,000 staff members world-wide actively conducting the activity of Dianetics each day, towards a Goal "to Clear the planet". The study referenced in Science of Survival with 88 students getting an IQ gain of 10+ points and providing one public example of test results for Dianetics. There is a meter that makes visible spiritual and mental reactions that no other mental study can match. So back to the limits of your question. What do the "books, courses and tapes" say beyond "ideas and practices" of the mind. First of all ideas and practices is more of a concise dictionary entry than an Introduction to an article on Dianetics of many thousands of words, with sub-articles. One book and many tapes, describe the philosophy of Dianetics, how Dianetics is different than other philosophies by starting with the novel idea that nothing is known. This at once bypasses all fixed ideas of philosophy and the starting points of all other philosophies. From that beginning comes major discoveries that explain all existence, explain the nature and scope of the human spirit and explains the demonstrable potentials of the human mind. One of the qualities of the human spirit is that it creates the mind. A second quality is that it doesn't need a mind to operate at all. It can view the human mind. The human mind is visible, measurable, testable and demonstrable. Simply compressing a description of all existence, the nature of the human soul, the solution to all insanity, criminality and war, self-generated illness and inability, and the technology of how you do all this, to a non-descriptive term like "idea", I say misrepresents the scope. The books, courses and tapes represent a developing subject over a period of 75 years. The ideas in the article mostly reflect a couple of controversial years when the public was buying a book and testing new ideas with little or no training to back them up, that were also being rejected and hammered by competing political and mental studies without any testing by those entities what-so-ever. It really discusses little more than way too much conflict relative to some of the ideas and 55 year-old practices in one book. Most of which is taken out of context by quoting Winter who was in conflict with the basic ideas of Dianetics anyways. The pictures and auditing required to be given and received in the Dianetics Seminar Course provide hands on experience with each of the "ideas" of the materials of Dianetics as currently used. Yes, YOU could condense the world to two words, "ideas" and "practices", but you lose the world when you do it. I would rather you just NOT do it. Spirit of Man 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

"Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy presented by L. Ron Hubbard and its publishers as a record of his personal researches into the human spirit and mind, which is now incorporated into the activities of the applied religious philosophy of Scientology." is a better introduction of the scope of the subject, I think. Spirit of Man 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Are we back to "term, topic, context?" An introduction should present what the article is about. Dianetics is an action, it is something people do. Usually 2 people do it together. Yeah, there is, you know, ideas or theory or whatever you want to call the information that tells what to do. But it is something to do. Terryeo 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, why does the header duplicate what is said of the the limited scope in the introduction? Spirit of Man 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The header at the top of this discussion page you mean? ChrisO placed it there (dumbo template). It was his opinion at the time that this article's talk page should follow Intelligent Design's talk page and he attempted to limit discussion on this page to a single area of presentation which was "how to treat a subject as a pseudoscience". I removed said template a couple of times, people reverted it. I brought up that this talk page and article follows exactly all of the policies of every article and finally, in fustration, expanded the thing to include the possibility of talking of religion on this talk page and of talking of theory on this talk page too. Duh, we can talk anything, expand the template all you want, its useless anyway.Terryeo 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect example

"The preclear is asked to inspect and familiarize himself with the exact details of his own experience and the auditor may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds. This is entirely up to the preclear." This is a perfect example of a point made much earlier, that although DMSMH et al. might be primary sources on aspects of Dianetics they are not unimpeachable sources -- it is not as simply as "DMSMH said it so that's the way it is." Above we see claims that Spirit of Man added to the article today, that the auditor "may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds". However, transcripts from Winter show the auditor most definitely evaluating the information the preclear finds, asking leading questions, declining to accept any of the preclear's own explanations and inserting his own, etc.[3] In theory, it might be "entirely up to the preclear", but in practice, it is clearly not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I think I'm pretty reasonable about the information comprises Scientology. The Winter example (which is Winter's statement and not anyone else's statement, not the Church of Scientology's statement) could be 100% accurate. Maybe. Or, because Winter was disabused of the ideas of Dianetics, it could be just slightly inaccurate. Or even a whole bunch inaccurate. We only have Winter's word about it and we don't have any verification besides his written word. We don't have a second source. At least his statement should be viewed with a tiny bit of skepticsm because he published it with the intent to defame and belittle Dianetics. It hasn't been notorized or witnessed, its only his word. Terryeo 03:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you're still fighting tooth and nail the sworn testimony of Scientology's own witness, you're clearly not a very good judge of when skepticism is appropriate. Your prejudice is showing, by the way, when you declare that "he published it with the intent to defame and belittle Dianetics," an assertion for which you provide no evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I read your link there Feldspar. The guy's headache cleared up. There was some suggestion the therapist (dianetics auditor) used. There was very little evaluation. It is a typical Xenu.net sort of example. It is an early example, modern sessions by trained (within the church) auditors don't go like that.Terryeo 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"The guy's headache cleared up." Excuse me, how is that relevant? The point at issue is not "does Dianetics clear up headaches?" but "can the assertion 'the auditor may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds' be inserted into the article as fact because, for instance, DMSMH tells us that this is how it works?" To get the answer "no" all we need to do is find counter-examples, and while you make a big deal of the example being found on Xenu.net, very clearly you failed to read the context and realize that this sample auditing session was presented to the public by a supporter of Dianetics as an example of Dianetics done right. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"The guy's headache cleared up" is relevent because the leading questions (or whatever they be called) produced a result? The Auditor clearly evaluates what Winter said and used Winter's chest scratching also, in asking the questions he asked. Of course the auditor evaluated. His evaluations are used toward asking helpful questions and he does't say things like, "are you aware you are scratching your chest, why are you doing that?' Terryeo 22:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed Feldspar, an excellent example of how Xenu.net exaggerates beyond any jot of good sense. The actual situation is as Spirit of Man has stated it to be, the Auditor's Code spells out the degree of CRIME it is to evaluate a preclear's statements to him, while Xenu.net would find some tiniest bit of evaluation somewhere in vast pages and pages and present it as COMMON. It is as Spirit of Man has stated and not as Xenu.net says. It is possible you will find some imperfection and flaw in a body of practices. Even Catholic Priests are known to molest little boys (given a very large body of priests and a long period of time), but the generality and the practice is as Spirit of Man has stated it to be.Terryeo 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for using that metaphor. Really. =) You may have meant to be offensive to my religion but what you actually did was give me the chance to show how one can be reasonable about one's own religion and avoid playing the religion card. If someone added to an article about Roman Catholic priests the sentence "they are always celibate", would I say "Oh, yeah, that's how it's supposed to work, so let's pretend it always does work that way"? No. Instead, I would say something like "While all Roman Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate, in practice there have been violations, many of which came to light in the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal." See? Not only do I not feel the need to assault and discredit the source that brings to light a less-than-pretty part of my religion, I acknowledge its truth and give people a link to find out more. That's part of what it means to edit in good faith, Terryeo; if you were interested in editing in good faith, this would be a valuable learning opportunity for you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, some Catholic priests molest little boys. Is this typical of all Catholic priests? No. Does that mean that we can't have a whole article devoted to the subject? Nope. Same with this, except that neither you nor I have any idea on how often this occurs. Should this information be in this article? Yes, I consider it to be relevant. What can we say about it? One, that it has happened. Two, that the CoS considers it to be wrong when it does happen. Three, there is no information as to frequency of occurence. That's all there is. Tenebrous 03:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course its not common or the Catholic Church would soon fail. We can also spell out the preventitive procedures the Church of Scientology invokes to prevent evaluations and the corrective procedures the Church uses to insure it doesn't continue to happen. But no, there's no published, statistical data.Terryeo 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

While Dianetics was being developed and publically used by Hubbard (1950 to 1954), I have no idea how often that exception happened. In more recent times the Auditor's Code has spelled it out to be a CRIME and this is not an idication of punishment, but an indication of the procedure used to correct an auditor who does evaluate for a preclear, to a preclear. It might happen once in a while but the Church of Scientology has a corrective procedure for a CRIME which gets the auditor to understand the situation so he doesn't continue to perform the CRIME. In addition, the Church procedures put in place "an examination" to happen immediate after every session, done by a second auditor in a separate location (preclear goes to the examiner immediately after session) which is designed to assure such instances of evaluation (and some other possible problems) are uncovered immediately. However, it is possible in sessions which happen outside of Church bounds that evaluations might happen. Unheard of? no. Common? no. Terryeo 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's neccessary to spell out all of how the CoS tries to keep it from happening, but if you've got a citation that describes it, you could add something like "The CoS considers this to be dangerous and follows a strict protocol to prevent it from happening." and tack the cite to the end. Tenebrous 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Myself, I would not include this element of "What happens when the auditor evaluates a preclear's statement for and to the preclear". I just wouldn't bring the question up or go through the complexity of technology, corrective technology and all the rest because it involves additional documentation, (The Auditor's Code which is solid page long) and involves CRIME and involves a number of corrective technologies the Church uses. However, if Xenu.net (dispicable!) is going to be cited as to state such evaluations are commonplace then, to give a balanced presentation to the reader of these articles, it would be necessary to put a perspective. It is not commonplace. It is carefully guarded against. The procedures to isure an auditing session remain free of evaluation, like many technologies, can't be stated in a single sentence.Terryeo 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just make an Auditor's Code article and link to it? --Davidstrauss 20:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, David, that would be OKAY, but that we would pretty much have to quote the whole Auditor's Code (about a typewritten page long) and wouldn't that get us onto the edge of copyright violations? Terryeo 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

We might need to rephrase it, but even including it even directly may be fair use. --Davidstrauss 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Joe Winter [1950] parted ways with Dianetics on just this exact issue. He would not accept information the preclear felt was real. He evaluated for preclears in violation of the Auditor's Code. He even tried to force the entire Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation to reject what preclears said when they mentioned anything earlier than this life. He is perhaps "the classic example" of why one does not violate this first principle of the Auditor's Code. It is NOT a Dianetic principle to evaluate anything FOR the preclear, and even J. Winter left Dianetics when he failed to appreciate how great its implications and can be and the resulting damage that can be caused. Spirit of Man 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics procedure in practice

I would like to remove this statement from the article, but Antaeus retains it:

"(often also referred to by Hubbard as the "patient")"

The Research and Discovery Series 2, July-Aug 1950, page 576, says, ["patient", indexed here in non-Dianetic contexts, see "preclear" for term used in any Dianetic contexts.] This term is not appropriate here for many reasons, such as not being used in Dianetics in the last 50 years at lease. Does anyone mind if I delete it? Spirit of Man 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The meanings of words change. Hubbard begin with the idea that the "patient" need know nothing about Dianetics, Had the "patient" lay back on a couch and all the rest. Dianetics advanced. By 1955 it was very clear that the more a "patient" understood, the faster they advanced. "Patient" was no longer an accurate description of a preclear. "Subject" never applied to the preclear. Dianetics intends and means to increase a person's own volition. Both "patient" and "subject" imply nothing toward the result Dianetics intends. Terryeo 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus has once again reverted the deleted "patient" material without Discussion. Why do you want it there Antaeus? It hasn't been used in Dianetic practice for 55 years, which I clearly stated in the edit. Why would you want to direct people's attention to it in a section on "current" Dianetic practice? Do you intend to mislead people into believing a "treatment" is implied when it is not? I think that is truly the case. I refer you to the inside cover or copyright page of DMSMH or church policy that says, anyone with a medical condition or wants medical treatment will be referred to a medical doctor. Only those seeking spiritual gain are accepted for auditing. That would be a "preclear". Spirit of Man 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing in either the article itself or here on the talk page indicating that that section of the article is on "current" Dianetic practice only. Where do you see that? With no such indication and no such agreement I think the fact that L. Ron Hubbard, who claimed that auditing was capable of curing a great number of conditions which would definitely be counted as "medical" and not "spiritual" by the vast majority of the population, also referred to the person receiving the benefit of the auditing as the "patient" and not just the "preclear", is entirely relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Glitch in edit/revert

I reverted Terryeo's "physical" removal. (Note 5 supports that the book at least does make physical claims.) However, the revert seems to have skipped over and overwritten a second edit by Terryeo that didn't exist when I started the revert. It wasn't my intent to wipe Terryeo's further work without reading any of it. For the moment, I'll step back and not stress the Wiki system further by trying to untangle it. AndroidCat 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, regarding my removing the "physical", well I do that pretty often in the article and it would be good to discuss it. Dianetics doesn't say it can regrow lost limbs, after all. As the legal situation has become more clear and court cases have defined what is allowable, where possible areas of illegality exist, Dianetics has become more careful with its language. It hasn't changed direction, but has become more careful of its skirts, so to speak. Today the Dianetics website and the Church of Scientology are very careful about claiming they fix any kind of human body problem. Terryeo 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. When would you say that the CoS ceased making such claims? -- ChrisO 01:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's tricky. What do they call physical and what is psychosomatic: "Psychosomatic illnesses such as arthritis, asthma, rheumatism, heart trouble, and on and on for a total of 70 percent of man’s ills—and women’s too—are the reaction of the body against a painful mental image picture. When this picture is cleared away—if it is the right picture—the illness usually abates." [[4]] (I believe they're quoting or paraphrasing a lecture, but I'm not sure which one.) AndroidCat 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's talk about "Psychosomatic". Apparently Hubbard always addressed a person as a spiritual being. The "psyche" part of psychosomatic. Before 1952 the spiritual part was referred to in scientific terms, the "awareness of awareness unit", or with the portion of the analytical mind containing his basic identity, known as "basic personality". In 1951 the basic principles of the "psyche" part were more fully articulated as the first three Dianetic axioms. By 1954 it was understood that some Clears could create any portion of their minds at will. It was not until some time later that it was articulated that "Dianetics" was in fact what the soul or spirit was doing to the body. In Dianetics the mind consists of mental image pictures containing sensations. When one or more of these mental sensations, having to do with the body, is used by the spirit continuously or chronically, that is a chronic body sensation, and was called a "chronic somatic". So in Dianetics the psychiatric term "Psychosomatic Illness" is not used. The term "chronic somatic" is more technically correct. When the spirit no longer uses those mental image pictures continuously to create that sensation in the body, the person doesn't have "arthritus" any more. The spirit doesn't even have to stop creating the pictures of the sensation, he just has to stop using them continuously to influence the body. So these days if someone has some unwanted "chronic sensation" one would normally just do a simple assist. The sensation moves away from the body and the person has "a miracle" happen. I taught a mom to do an "assist" in about 30 minutes. Her daughter had chronic ear infections since birth. One ear drum was gone and the other 80 percent scar tissue. She did the assist and was chatting with me. The daugher went over to the TV and turned it down because it was "too loud". The mom's jaw dropped. Her doctor confirmed the daughter no longer had an ear infection and said, let's give it a little time. "It is not unusual for kids this young to regrow their ear drums." Spirit of Man 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Your anecdotal, unverified evidence remains irrelevant to any discussion on Wikipedia. --Davidstrauss 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here Strauss classifies an editors discussion, attempting to dismiss it.Terryeo 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

David, it is unfortunate that you did not understand what Spirit of Man was saying after you understood that he spoke of a personal experience to illistrate of a point he made. If you used "choclate cake" as an illistration of "good deserts" because you, personally, like choclate cake, I think people could understand you Terryeo 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

David, I was distinguishing what is "spiritual" and what is "physical" in Dianetics with an example. This is not an article. Why do you feel such an example is irrelavent to clarifying discussions? Spirit of Man 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You're posting far more than it takes to make your point. You could have said "ear infection" as your example instead of posting a rambling testimonial containing irrelevant statements like "The mom's jaw dropped." The example you posted is clearly crafted to convince the reader of the effectiveness of Dianetics. Don't claim that it was merely an example of what Dianetics allegedly affects. --Davidstrauss 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Here strauss judges an editor's discussion is crafted with a POV. This is appropriate to Wikipedia, but strauss implies it is inappropriate to Wikipedia. NPOV is achieved through efforts of several POVs, this is the ground on which wikipedia is build. WP:NPOV.

David, I refer you to WP:CIVILITY Your remarks are "crafted" to be inflamatory and escalate drama and are judgemental. I have not seen you post here except with this tone. If you wish to make a point of Wiki policy, I suggest you make it clearly and politely, after you read CIVILITY. Spirit of Man 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are the one derailing discussion here with your repeated testimonials to the wonders of Dianetics. Wikipedia policy states that I must assume good faith if I don't have reason to believe otherwise, but you continue to plug Dianetics where it's inappropriate, so I can't really consider your big post above in "good faith". Oh, and I read WP:CIVILITY. Nothing I've done here violates it. Ironically, you and Terryeo are the ones accusing me of trying to undermine Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. Terryeo has even posted accusatory messages on my talk page. --Davidstrauss 23:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course I stated something on your talk page Strauss. At no time did I accuse you, but yes, I did state something there. I gave you an example and asked you a question which the exmple I stated illistrated. Of course I did, I was attempting to get into communication with you about the matter :) Terryeo 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

"Physical" usually means "missing parts". It doesn't mean scar tissue or something that is not healed. For our purposes it means the physical body part anyone can see, instead of the pictures the spirit imposes on the body. In Dianetics we address the spirit and the spirit's desire to go Clear. We refer people that have body problems, and no interest in spiritual matters, to others. Spirit of Man 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ChrisO, the Dianetics book is correct and appropriate for 1950. But the Church does not make claims where it is unlawful to do so. In California a number of laws were passed making it illegal to "cure" certain named medical illnesses. I contacted the Better Business Bureau there and they list "arthritus" as one of these. I haven't found the entire list of such illnesses for CA yet. So I do not make this claim in CA as it is now unlawful to do so. I bought a book in 1970, "The Creation of Human Ability", 1968. Pasted into the inside front cover is a disclaimer. Dianetics, as practiced by the Church, addresses only the spirit. The Church as any church, is free to practice spiritual healing, it does not. Its primary goal is spiritual awareness for all. For this reason, the Church does not accept individuals who desire treatment for illness. It refers such people to qualified specialists in other organizations who deal in such matters. So we have a legally defineable line. The Church deals with spiritual matters only, and refers people not interested in that to medical people. That was between 1968 and 1970. Further to that, another citation says the book is presented as a record the personal researches into Life by L. Ron Hubbard. Spirit of Man 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case, how do you explain the CoS trying to treat victims of 9/11 with Purif? --Davidstrauss 19:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The CoS actually provides a service for persons who donate to it. Its actually inaccurate to use the word "treatment" for any service the CoS provides to parishoners. Does a barber "treat" a "patient" when giving a haircut? Some Firemen did Scientology's purif, some firemen sweated out odd colors and reported they felt enomrously more energtic afterwards. The Purification Rundown is a service provided to parishoners and not an "attempted treatment". It differs vastly from psychiatry in this way, you see :) Terryeo 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read "treat victims" I'm pretty sure you didn't read it from the Church of Scientology, but instead read it from some site like Clambake. It seems like a very trivial point, doesn't it? "Treat" instead what the Church of Scientology presents the Purification Rundown to be. It is just this sort of point that the Church has delt with and which has changed the wording of Dianetics claims. "Treat Victims" implies the poor guy is helpless and something is done to him. The purification rundown, let me tell you, is a whole lotta sweat and effort. You don't feel like a victim and you don't look like a victim. heh !Terryeo 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

David, I don't know that it is up to me to explain what you ask. Tom Cruise is a Volunteer Minister licensed by ABLE. He set up centers with medical doctors with his own funds and contributions of others to support that cause. Firemen that were not so treated have a very bad prognosis. The technology used in the "Clear Body, Clear Mind" book used for such things, has been written up and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The purification technology is used in medical clinics. Each person that goes through it is required to be under medical supervision. Each clinic that uses it has to have medical doctors to supervise any firemen that participate. What part of that do you feel has anything to do with CoS "treating" anybody? What would you do with such victims? I agree with and support Tom! Spirit of Man 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The latest 'restatement' of the first sentence

"Dianetics is a practice, based on ideas about the human mind, gives as its goal "getting rid of the reactive mind."

OK, first of all, this isn't even grammatical, which shows the care that was taken with it. Secondly, "based on ideas about the human mind" begs the question: which ideas about the human mind? Thirdly, what sort of sense does it make to insert a quote that Dianetics is about "getting rid of the reactive mind" when the phrase "reactive mind" has absolutely no meaning except to a reader who doesn't need the article because they already know? What is the ultimate goal of editing like this? Is it to make a reader throw up their hands in disgust and say "I give up! Obviously the Wikipedia articles on Dianetics will never contain any comprehensible information on Dianetics; I guess I have to go to the Official Dianetics Website in order to get any simple answers!"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus: Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith. You're obviously assuming a motive of confusion. --Davidstrauss 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess that would make real good sense if you did, Feldspar. You seem to think every other word I say is either a "lie" or some sort of misrepresentation. Why don't you perk on over to [5] and get the straight skinny? Terryeo 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo: Stop the personal attacks. --Davidstrauss 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

huh?Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Terryeo: Please develop some sort of reading comprehension. The issue here is that while purportedly being interested in communicating Dianetics to the reader, you are consistently making changes to the Dianetics articles which, if we were to judge from their effect, represent an attempt to make them as cryptic and unreadable and absolutely uninformative as possible. The issue is not that I don't recognize your "restatements" as accurate to the spirit of Dianetics, it's that very often I can't even recognize them as English, and I can never discern any attempt on your part to make the article more precise, accurate and accessible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

errr, That's sure what I'm trying to do. Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

While Antaeus' tone above is a bit too harsh for my taste, I have to agree with his assertion that many of Terryeo's changes make the articles more vague and imprecise. I am willing to allow that Terryeo may be sincerly trying to make them more accurate, but the effect is the opposite, and Antaeus has outlined a number of specific examples of this elsewhere on the talk page (and the talk pages for other Scientology-related articles). BTfromLA 05:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay. How can it be said that Dianetics is an action? Yeah, there is a body of information and it is an action?Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

2¢ about the current state of the article

I've been away from the article for a few weeks. For what it's worth, here's how it looks to me after some time away.

• The warning at the top seems crazy. A box claiming that a Wikipedia article with 99 footnotes is in serious need of more cited references is a quick tip-off that Wikilooniness is ahead.
• The disambiguation between the subject and the book is unnecessary, and also comes across as a bit nutty. The book is clearly introduced and linked in the first paragraph of the article. The subjects are completely related--it's not as if somebody came looking for an article on the village of Dianetics, Saskachewan, or some other unrelated topic wth the same name.
• The article is way too long. The sections on "procedure"' and "pseudoscience" seem pretty digressive, and most every part but the intro seems to cry out for major trimming. Alas, the endless talk page arguments inhibit the possibility of editing toward concise prose--there's just too much POV point/counterpoint and endless calls for more and more references and citations, to the point of undermining the readability of the article.
• I haven't made my way through all the talk page discussions I've missed, but let me go on record as saying that replacing a specific description of Dianetics with vague terms like "activity" or "action" is completely off the mark, and I'm disappointed to see that some editors still seem to think that it is our job to describe Dianetics only in terms that L. Ron Hubbard would have approved of. There's not much hope if we can't get past that.

By the way, I apologize for seeming to disappear in mid-discussion, especially as I see this whole mediation bit came up shortly after I logged out. Work demands interceded. BTfromLA 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, BT. I agree with most of your points except the idea that the disambiguation line is unnecessary; it wasn't back when there was no separate article on the book, but now that there is, it's necessary for the reason that any disambiguation line is: to alert people "this might not be the article you want; if it isn't, here's where to look for where the article you want might be." I actually added the disambiguation lines to the two articles because I found an article that started a section with "L. Ron Hubbard's book Dianetics states that ..." I changed that link, of course, to point to the book, but then I realized that any other link that pointed to "Dianetics" in an attempt to reference D:MSMH would be less likely to ever get fixed if the article it pointed to didn't clarify that it wasn't the article for the book. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

May I propose an editor's duty is to present articles rather than to attempt to out-guess a reader about what article he wants to read? The Navigation Template is right there. "DMSMH" is right there, it is a mouse click away. If we put an additional disambiguation on top of the article, what shall we guess the reader wanted? DMSMH? Dianetics Engram? Dianetics Reactive Mind? Scientology? The Church of Scientology? The Scientology Project Page? Terryeo 22:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and propose it but it's nonsense. Putting a disambiguation line so that people know whether they've reached the article they were trying to get to is not "attempt[ing] to out-guess" the reader. Since people call Dianetics "Dianetics" (obviously) and they also demonstrably call Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health "Dianetics", it is sensible to put in a disambiguation line, in case someone wanted to link to one of them and got the other instead. Your straw man -- or was it a feeble attempt at humor? -- that anyone proposed adding disambiguations for "Engram", "Reactive Mind", "Scientology", "Church of Scientology", or any of the many things that people have not been known to link to Dianetics in an attempt to reach, is just sad, pathetic, and irrelevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It is just another dispersion. Let's get the "CAUTION, before you read this, please consider this, maybe you are mistaken and shouldn't read this!", let's get it out of there.Terryeo 09:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Heck, just found another that needed that change.[6] I'm not the biggest fan of the decision to have separate articles on the subject and on the book, but since we do, I think it's a good idea to have notices to alert -- or remind -- editors that one article is for the abstract subject and one is for the specific title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in the opinion of others on this one. I think any competent reader will quickly understand what they are reading about and where to go if they want more details about that book. I agree that having a spin-off article about the book is a dubious addition, but the Wikipedia tendency seems to be more, more, more... so I think we're fighting the current to argue against an article on anything. BTfromLA 05:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the warning. The looniness is not hidden, it hardly needs an additional level. I deleted the disambiguation at the book, but ChrisO put it back. It replicates what is currently allowed in either introduction by the "calling parties" to the mediation. Both introductions totally misrepresent the scope of their subjects anyway and to duplicate the error is just twice as offensive. The "spin-off articles" are actually the basic books to a large degree. There are a number. Any attempt to make them actually represent those books fairly is deleted summarily by the POV represented by Antaeus and/or ChrisO. I agree the pseudoscience part should go. I have defended all of the points presented for science and we went through about 3 levels of handwaving by Tenebrous and KC and others before they gave up on it. I don't see anyone actually defending pseudoscience, and I maintain it doesn't apply. No peer-review is actually required by Wiki of a science or even an academic article, so who really cares? The entire treatment in article and talk, should be removed. I am still incomplete on my philosophy section which got summarily archived as well. Welcome back. Spirit of Man 06:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Before you gave up, actually. Or maybe you missed those responses. Your ideas of what Wikipedia requires of a scientific source is...hard to comprehend, but I'm sure that you could find any number of people on Wikipedia who could clear that up for you. Tenebrous 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Does it require "peer-review" in ALL cases? No. Does Wiki require a citation to have a reputable publisher? DMSMH has three; Hermitage, Bridge and New Era. Do the eight precepts required of a science in the article require consistency? Dianetic axioms, definitions, logics, theory of mental image pictures and the source of all human aberration, and the therapy that addresses those very same pictures is such a science. Please tell me how that is not consistent? Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience has to stay, I didn't see anybody giving up on it. With all the numerous claims of Dianetics associating itself with science (and still to this day), and with the poor and near absent track record of Dianetics with the scientific community, it certainly deserve the title of pseudoscience. If the pseudioscience section is too big, it's because it seems that it was necessary to explain in details why it is pseudoscientific to those who adovate Dianetics and have argued at lenght about this. Raymond Hill 14:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay that pseudoscience stays, but can't we get rid of that template sort of "I'm going to prove Dianetics is pseudoscience by following these Wikipedia defined steps?" I mean, the point gets communicated without all the excess and the article is too long.Terryeo 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Pseudoscience treatment goes. It is not within the current scope and use of Dianetics. Dianetics addresses the spirit only. Even within the confines of this group of articles on Dianetics any mention of Dianetics as a science is summarily deleted. All books since 1970 have a disclaimer, "a record of Hubbard's personal research into Life." So where is the claim for science, that is being so labelled? Not here. Apparently even discussions on this talk page have been quickly archived. I defend it as a science because it was at the time of the writing of some books and is defensible. My personal research was along that line and I have not found anything "not scientific" about it.

Your personal research cannot be included on Wikipedia and is also not relevant to this discussion. Tenebrous 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to defend your eight precepts required of a science and your four legal criteria is not a grounds for keeping them in the article. Your mulitple referrals to Wiki policy that does not support your view of "absolutely must be peer-reviewed" I take as "personal research". Wiki policy at WP:RS does not require peer-review of all academic subjects, let alone scientific idea that address the spirit and are not medical. Dianetics has produced 50,000 Clears though. Show me one peer-reviewed paper of a "cure" of a psychosomatic illness in medicine or psychiatry using their methods?

There were things I couldn't do, so I found out how to do them correctly. Simple. I defended all eight precepts and four legal criteria. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Your defense of these was factually incorrect and showed clearly that you did not understand the concepts involved. It was also extremely lengthy and not a discussion that belonged on Wikipedia. "Pseudoscience" is not our judgement. Tenebrous 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You are free to say it was your lack of "judgement" that posted the pseudoscience materials in the article. Whose "judgement" was it to delete the test result citation? You didn't discuss any lack of understanding only that you personally felt that way. Alright you do feel that way. But someone pointing out the consistency of a consistent science is the correct thing to do. Simply asserting it is NOT consistent, that the Discussion doesn't belong because it "too" long [see WP:NOT]. Do you mind if I cite the consistency of the subject next to the PR statement in the article that it is not consistent? Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics meets them. It meets those requirements dispite the false assertions presented in the article. It meets Wiki criteria. Wiki doesn't even require peer-review for academic subjects. A clear line has been drawn between medicine which treats material things only, and Dianetics which treats spiritual things only. I say it meets the criteria of science, while being a religious subject for over 50 years. Why devote any time in the article on this "dead horse" issue? ChrisO presents Carrol [pseudoscience] saying, he can't see what the data would look like, when it had been readily available in Chart form signed by licensed psychologists, for anyone to see since 1951. That is crap. Just because ChrisO deletes the Charts, deleted the citations, deletes the publishers, deletes the test studies and results, and someone archives the criticism of all that, does not make even the flimsiest case for pseudoscience. It is more of a "pseudo-" ChrisO personal research claim. Keep it and I will invite friends here for a belly-laugh at your cartoon, at Wiki expense. Spirit of Man 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Spirit, you've got this completely the wrong way round. Dianetics is not classed as a pseudoscience by Scientology (obviously).

Where did I say this? Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics is classed as a pseudoscience by genuine scientists and has been for over 55 years.

Then cite your reputable publishers and sources that say this. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a canonical example of a pseudoscience.

I respect that you personally have taken the initiative here to spell all this out for me, but show your reliable publishers and citations please per Wiki policy. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It even features in dictionaries and encyclopedias of pseudoscience.

Are there really such things? Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Carroll's book, "Skeptics Dictionary" is his personal research. Reviewing his entry on Dianetics is revolting. He quotes Gardners book, "Fads" as one paragraph, and by the 10th paragraph summarily pronounces Dianetics to "obviously" be pseudoscience. He is no scientist, he is a philosopher teacher. This is not a scientific journal. It is very poor personal research. He apparently ignores the tests of basic principles and their articulation and the description of the mind and how it is said to work, then pronounces that everything "is in the form of anecdotes and speculations". He misconstrues the nature of the auditing process and then confesses he can't see the difference from talking with someone. He ignores the auditors code for use in sessions only and generalizes that conduct to a mistatement that Hubbard is instructing anyone to think think way about Dianetics. He in fact recommends people be hyper critical and to not accept anything until one has proven it to himself. His book is written in 2003 but ignores the test results from 1950 for that type of auditing. In short I haven't found anything truthful at all in his Dianetic entry. Spirit of Man 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

So I'm afraid your POV simply isn't relevant to this question - it's not how you see it that counts in this context, it's how the scientific world sees it.

Please show your publishers and citations for "the scientific world". What part of that world addresses the spirit? None. So how could they have a scientific view of the spirit? They couldn't. What scientific tests have they run and what body of scientific knowledge do they cite to represent their "scientific" evaluations. Any tabloid reporter could "say" anything he wants. Hayakawa said that no scientific results could be claimed in science at all. Show your scientists, show your studies, show your test results, show your publishers. Then let's talk. I have showed you mine. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

And it demonstrably sees it as a pseudoscience. There is absolutely no chance that the pseudoscience section will be deleted from the article, as such a deletion could never be considered NPOV. -- ChrisO 00:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please present your case for how that is true. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. There is no group which classifies "pseudoscience. A tiny handful of psychiatrists and a even tinier handful of medical "scientists" have stated their opinion "pseudoscience" but it is a complete exaggeration to say science has said so, though a tiny handful of scientists have said so.Terryeo 09:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

(points) What he said. Actually, it's been said before--a couple of times, I think. Spirit must have missed those posts, or misread them. Tenebrous 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

When you persist in exaggerating what is a person to do? A few medially trained people have screamed "pseudoscience" while official organizations of medical science have stated nothing ! Terryeo 09:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify my view on this: Dianetics is indeed, as ChrisO points out, a clear-cut, widely cited example of pseudoscience, particularly in its original and best known (DMSMH) incarnation. That fact should be made clear in the article and should be mentioned in the intro section (as it is, last I checked). And the article should include one or more examples to illustrate why Dianetics, while claiming to be science, is not scientific. But it's an article about Dianetics, not pseudoscience or scientific standards of evidence, nor even Dianetics in relation to science. It seems to me that listing the various criteria by which something is judged scientific is really better suited to articles on topics like pseudoscience and scientific method. I think that as it stands, the article is bogged down with unnecessary details that interrupt the "through line" and general readability of the essay. The pseudoscience section is an example of this, but not the only example. BTfromLA 04:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. If it is so widely "cited" that there are no "test results" then why disallow the actual test results I cited in the Introduction to Science of Survival? If it is so widely cited then what is the problem with allowing me to cite Bridge Publications as a reputable publisher that publishes Science of Survival. So if Carroll says "he can't see what test data would look like", what is the problem with a reader being allowed to look in Science of Survival and seeing the Chart of IQ scores that show 10+ points of gain published in 1951? If the eight points that are used to prove pseudoscience are so convincing why delete or archive the Discussion here that shows they do not apply? I have shown the axioms of Dianetics that define the spirit. I have shown the theory of Dianetics that shows the spirit records its environment in pictures. I have shown some of these pictures contain pain and unconsciousness. So the body has a picture of pain that a doctor diagnos's as "arthritus". Then the spirit ceases to create that picture of pain with Dianetic therapy, and the pain is gone from the body, and the person no longer has such pain. The doctors and X-rays can verify it. This presentation shows Dianetics is "consistent". That is one point of the eight in the article. It is in fact a science per the criteria. This may be done for each or most of the criteria. So Dianetics does meet the criteria and the false statements in the article do not prove pseudoscience, they merely document that someone [ChrisO] feels that way. It is their personal research. Wiki policy WP:V says we should site reputable publishers. WP:RS does not say that peer-review HAS to be done to prove a science or article. So why did we have six or eight people here in Discussion claiming this as evidence of pseudoscience? So are you saying, "We should delete all the citations of evidence that supports "science" so the false things and personal research presented in the name of pseudo-science may stand uncontested and 'widely cited' and the article should be so treated, my mind is made up!" What is the point of an encyclopedic article and procedures that have only produced personal research on an article about a Science of the Mind? Well, some believe strongly enough in this to disallow science. Fine. Welcome to the Wiki Inquisition. Hello Torquemada! Spirit of Man 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I agree that the article is too long - in particular, I've already said that I'll move some of the history content into a separate article on the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. However, I disagree with your comments on the pseudoscience section. As we've seen from this discussion, Dianetics has demonstrably been classified as a pseudoscience by many sources over a very long period of time, but this classification is controversial with the pro-Dianetics fraternity. We need to explain the wider context and in particular, we can't leave out what you call "Dianetics in relation to science" because this is so central to the whole subject. That's why Dianetics is controversial in the first place.

When I wrote the pseudoscience section I was struck by how similar the arguments used by Dianetics proponents were to those of intelligent design supporters. In both cases, proponents have tried to present the debate as being about subjective claims of individual critics rather than objective concerns about the pseudoscience's adherence to the scientific method. The argument goes: "ID/Dianetics isn't in conflict with science, just with a small number of evolutionists/psychiatrists who are biased for ideological or financial reasons. There's nothing wrong with ID/Dianetics in terms of scientific methodology, and it's a scientifically valid/proven theory." The debate is framed as being a purely subjective "he said, she said" affair of duelling subjective opinions.

I haven't done this. You cited Pub Med which gives the Fischer and fox papers. Fischer was a student at NYU and this is a student paper. The key feature is that it does not use the "intensive procedure" already established by the protocols in the Science of Survival study that demonstrated results. Fox is a study of one from UCLA, in 1950 and published as if it was from New York University in 1959. The study was done when the person was under the chemical affects of the drug. I addressed the eight precepts you presented without citation and the four Daubert legal precepts. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

From the scientific perspective, of course, this is nonsense - the reason scientists disagree with ID/Dianetics is because it doesn't use the scientific method.

It does use the scientific method. [Your use of the term "nonsense" is an appeal to emotion not reason.] It uses the named methods of Francis Bacon, see Novem Organum. It starts with no a-priori or "self-proclaimed" knowledge. It starts with nothing. Evolution of ScienceIt tests the basic idea of survival as a command apparently given to life at some remote beginning. Once this was established by tests it was taken as the basic axiom for DMSMH in 1950. This was revised to a spiritual context in 1951 Science of Survival and the first three Dianetic Axioms written there reflect this as the entrance point for what is represented in that time frame as a Science of Mind. Your ref 34 confuses this as a-priori knowledge that was not tested. That is the mistake of your citation, not Dianetics. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need a full court press by the scientific establishment to make this judgment.

I don't see your scientific citations. I see Carroll [represented as philosophy] with his own book, not peer-reviewed scientific journal, saying he can't see what the test data would like when Science of Survival information clearly presented this as early as 1951. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

ID didn't become a pseudoscience overnight when the American Association for the Advancement of Science put out a statement condemning it. It was easily classified as a pseudoscience right from the start because it didn't meet the objective criteria for a bona fide science - and that was a determination that anyone could have made. Dianetics is no different in this respect.

This is personal research here and in your article. It meets your criteria. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The ID article includes a very brief overview of the criteria by which ID is regarded by scientists as being non-compliant with the scientific method. I thought this was a useful asset and decided to add it to the Dianetics article to illustrate the asme point. If we don't include the criteria, I think we fall into the trap of presenting the issue as an argument from authority (i.e. "he said, she said") rather than an argument from evidence. -- ChrisO 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence. You are apealing to emotion. You lifted your article almost verbatim from ID. Even the denunciations for the subject there are for the most part exacting reproduced here. I'll reserve judgement on how they applied to ID, but they don't apply to Dianetics as I have already presented here in Discussion that was archived by others. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics has consistency; basic principles presented at axioms, basic methods stated as Logics that present the method of making consistent definitions, consisten basic theory...the mind consists of mental image pictures, some contain pain, those that do are the reactive mind, when that is removed, the mind is then optimum. The optimum individual is the Clear that has no reactive mind. A clear can be tested for neuroses and mental disorders and found to contain none.

Parsimonious; the nature of the spirit is defined. The spirit has the purpose to survive. In resisting survival he makes pictures. The pictures are the mind. The most non-survival pictures are the reactive mind. When that is removed by the spirit, the mind is clear. The person is then sane. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And so on. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh ! welcome back to home away from the slave pit (or something). A fresh perspective ! not bad ! heh. BTW, mediation was so convoluted that it was denied. lol. Terryeo 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Accurate edit summaries

Terryeo claimed that he was merely removing the {{otheruses4}} template. While I feel that the disambiguation line is as useful as any disambiguation line, I would have let the change stand if Terryeo hadn't made an unmarked change to the introduction at the same time, from "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments." to "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices. It purports to help people." Terryeo knows of course that other editors oppose his attempt to remove the documented fact that the practices of Dianetics attempt to treat mental and physical ailments and substitute the flabby, vague "to help people" ; because he knows this, his choice to make both changes but only to mention one of them in his edit summary smacks of an attempt to deceive. I am restoring both. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is more accurate to state: "to help people" than to state: "treat mental and physical ailments". It says so at the website [7]] by stating, "the single goal of dianetics is to remove the reactive mind." Unless you got a real good understanding of how a reactive mind might cause "physical and mental problems" it is more accurate to state, "to help people". Terryeo 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Gawd Feldspar, what we would do without you around to save us? Whew! Terryeo 09:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, in pulling up the history of this talk page I see: (cur) (last) 13:01, 27 February 2006 Spirit of Man (→2¢ about the current state of the article - Comment to BTfromLA)

(cur) (last) 01:24, 27 February 2006 Terryeo (→2¢ about the current state of the article - reply to Feldspar)
Which leaves a gap of 11 hours and 36 minutes. Is there something wrong with my browser? Terryeo 19:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am certainly removing the disambiguation, it is a blind guess on the part of an editor that a person coming to this page does not want to arrive at this page. Further, the book link is available to them at the top of the navigation template. Its dumb to have it there. I plan to consistantly remove it. Further, it is clearly obvious that the article is not being created by a consensus of editor opinion. Obvious, clearly. Spirit of Man has worked hard toward consensus. He creates an an editor reverst his stuff out with almost no discussion. One or two editors side with the revert and it stultifies the article's growth and accuracy. I have worked for months, the contrary editors who revert me don't understand the words used and can not possibly understand, therefore, what the subject is about. I'm through tip toeing. Feldspar will sometimes go several days, happily reverting other poeple's created edits and he isn't the worst contrary editor. I haven't given up discussion, but I'm through discussing every tiny one letter change on the discussion page before doing it. The policy is "edit boldly". I've long put concensus on at least an equal footing with that. But the policy doesn't say, "edit boldly if everyone agrees with you". The contrary editors revert without discussion and uses excuses like "POV, reverted". Have a happy editing time, heh, just joining the crowd on this one.Terryeo 19:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Terry, I don't want to put too fine a point on things, but you may want to read this, this, and this. Tenebrous 02:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit by Spirit of Man, as it simply removed a cited (albeit poorly) sentence without any edit explaination. --Davidstrauss 03:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write that material, it was written by a group of four Dianetic critics, all I did was pull it out of being buried in a paragraph on illness and noted that on the edit summary. I don't know why it didn't appear, I must have done something wrong on that summary line. Your edit fails to note the actual source of information, The Auditor a publication of the American Saint Hill Orgainzation and again buries it once again, inside a paragraph on illness. David, why did you put it in there and delete the source material and use a conflict site for your citation? Spirit of Man 01:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the disambiguation (again). For one thing it is a blind guess that a reader coming to this article might want to go to the other article instead. That is just a pure, silly blind guess. They already have the template to navigate with one click. Then a dumb disambiguation offers them yet one more mousey click to another article so they don't actually have to read this one. How far are we going to go with this top of page nonesense? heh! I removed it. Terryeo 11:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to pretend that it is a "blind, silly guess" to think that anyone will ever link the word Dianetics to get the article regarding the book, when the book is actually (now) described at Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, then go ahead and pretend. Of course, you'll look ridiculous doing so, since two counter-examples ([8], [9]) already show that people have and may well again link Dianetics when they mean Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. However, it will at least be a tiny bit less ridiculous than your insistence that what a "Doctor of Divinity" or a page reprinted by the U.S. Navy from the website of an amateur doesn't say is more authoritative than what the Church of Scientology's Deputy Inspector General for Legal Affairs says in court under oath. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

why the discussion page template

What possible use is it? It is too long, states nothing useful and if we just work on it a little more, hey, maybe we can include the whole history of Wikipedia, huh? Terryeo 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Request for Discussion to remove the pseudoscience treatment on this Dianetics article, sub-articles and Discussions.

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" [10] 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" [11] 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" [12] 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.

1. Tenebrous 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
2. AndroidCat 01:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
3. ChrisO 01:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Krsont 13:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
5. Raymond Hill 14:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC) (intrinsically pseudoscientific, not because the poll says so)
6. Antaeus Feldspar 15:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
7. Modemac 15:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
8. Davidstrauss 23:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
9. wikipediatrix 04:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree, Dianetics should not be characterized as a pseudoscience.

1. the subject "Dianetics" should be characterized. it is not NPOVTerryeo 13:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Object to the poll

1. 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)

The Straight Dope

Terryeo classified the external source "The Staight Dope" as a critical site. However, the Straght Dope is a site that is not at all about criticizing Scientology. It exists solely to fight ignorance and stupidity by publishing true and accurate information about thousands of topics. Anyone that publishes the truth about Scientology is automatically dismissed as a critic of Scientology by Terryeo. Does he also consider the Encyclopedia Britianica first and foremost a critic of Nazism because it publishes the fact that millions of people were slaughtered in the Holocaust? Vivaldi 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you consider "the Encyclopedia Britianica" a critic if it wrote; "Whatever may be said for Scientology as a philosophy (and there are those who say it has helped them), its record as an organization is one of unmitigated sleaze. Get mixed up with these people at your peril.

--CECIL ADAMS" Spirit of Man 02:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If that site publishes the known truth about thousands of subjects, then do this. Pick a subject that you know well. Read about it there. Is it the truth? I read what they say in the area I know well. It doesn't fight ignorance and stupidity, it doesn't publish true and accurate information in the area of Scientology.Terryeo 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting an ugly Critical Site marker on every site that disagrees with the Church of Scientology certainly isn't the way to go--unless we're prepared to balance every single Scientology link with an equally ugly Scientology Site marker. I don't think we want to go there. AndroidCat 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What makes a "Critical Site" marker ugly? Actually I would agree with any indicator to the reader that saves him trouble, that makes it easier for the reader to explore information. "Critical site" is not cast in stone, other methods could be used.Terryeo 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Stylistically, it's damned ugly, and I'd insist that all sites were labeled with an equally ugly "bullet". AndroidCat 04:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay with me, consensus of editor opionion is what makes these articles. How should we do it? BTW, I agree some presentations are more aesthetic than others. Terryeo 07:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo: "any indicator to the reader that saves him trouble"... What trouble? Raymond Hill 13:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. The reader wants to understand the subject, some readers will want to read critical sites first. Other readers will want to read official sites first. If you know of a better way, good. By "save the reader trouble" I mean that without some indications, some sites can appear to be friendly and offical when actually they are cricital. There is even an "offical" church site which is designed for people who are critical of scientology and leads them gently through what you might first think, is a sympathy for criticsm. We can save the reader some trouble (some time, effort, reading), by presenting what sort of information is at a link. But how we do that, well, I'm not certain "offical" and "critical" are quite the right words to use.Terryeo 13:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to raise the practice of marking Church of Scientology sites automatically as an "Official Site". On pages where CoS is the obvious owner of a trademark or copyright of the topic of the page, then that's usually fine. On pages like Study Tech it isn't clear if CoS or ABLE or CCHR (etc.) can speak as the official site. On pages like Scientology versus The Internet, CoS might have sites with their official position, but they aren't THE Official Site and shouldn't be labeled as such unless this is to difference them from the Covert Sites? (Kidding.) With so many pages ranging from core to fringe topics, it's easy to lose track of how Official a site is on a particular page. AndroidCat 06:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Applied Scholastics dot org states: "Based on L. Ron Hubbard's extensive technology, Applied Scholastics™ programs enable individuals to handle the literacy and education of the children and people in their communities." It is the organization for the dissemination of Study Tech into societies. It is recognized by the Italian Government as having good technology which is useful to teachers. Applied Scholastics is an organization which falls under another organization, ABLE, which falls under yet another organization, RTC. By "fall under" I mean the lower org leases or rents the patents and copyrights of the higher org. All of these use the extension "org" and all of these use their name as the URL. CCHR does the same, falling under RTC and uses "CCHR" as an URL [13] with an extention of "org". Terryeo 07:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

These subjects are controversial, one of the methods people have been using is to mis-mark a link. The page that comes up sounds like it might be an official Scientology site, at first it reads in an easy manner and without criticsm. Then after 1/2 page or something its tone changes. This sort of difficulty of sorting Offical Sites from Sites which intend to defame that which they purport to be about should be sorted by Wikipedia editors. We want to present the two sides of the controvers as plainly as we can. "Offical Site" and "Critical Site" works (obviously) but there would be other methods too. How about "Church site" and "Opponenet site?" ABLE speaks for itself. CCHR speaks for itself. The Social interaction group which intends to present Study Tech is "Applied Scholastics". They go; "AppliedScholastics.org", "CCHR.org", "Criminon.org", "Scientology.org", do you begin to see a pattern here? Terryeo 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is that depending on the Wiki page, Scientology's site isn't always the Official Site from the Wiki perspective, any more than xenu.net should ever be labelled the Official Site of critics. As well, if the concept that various CoS entities are independent is 100% standardly applied, then a CoS site can't be the "Official Site" of the Wiki CCHR page. (An example of something that I corrected.) I'm just asking that people not get into the automatic habit of labeling CoS sites as Official Site. (BTW, did you know that all email to ABLE is routed to smtp.scientology.org?) AndroidCat 04:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Scientology's website, www.scientology.org is obviously the "official site" of the church of scientology while www.whatisscientology.org is an offical site of the philosophy of scientology. Those are "primary sources". "Official" has several meanings. To my knowledge, Wikipedia has no guideline which exactly defines what an "official site" is, as we use the term here. My interest is to prevent confusion for the reader. My interest here is to do the work which will cause an article to present information to a reader which makes it easier for him / her to understand. "Offical site" and "Critical site" seems like a reasonable way to help the reader. Do you know of a better way to help the reader sort through a complex issue? I agree that CCHR has its own "offical site". The routing of email, I don't know about but would suspect it has to do with firewalls, preventing email attacks, spam filters, etc. Terryeo 13:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The bigger problem is that labeling sites as critical is often wrong. Straight Dope is not a critical site. Their mission, unlike that of http://www.Xenu.net , is not to press any particular point of view. It is a neutral resource that exists to find the truth about various topics and publish their findings for the benefit of everyone. Just because those findings are objectionable to some Scientologists, does not mean it deserves a tag of "Critical Site" or "Opponent Site". The Straight Dope is an "unbiased site" that as no affiliation with either critics or Scientology. Vivaldi 04:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Straight Dope is a site which proclaims that its statements are the product of "Cecil". To state it another way, One guy (who Straight Dope considers 'very smart') is stating his opinion. One guy on a planet of 6.5 billion people. The single problem has to do with practicality. The guy who states his opinions at straightdope has (ask any scientologist) never done any Dianetics or Scientology. A parallel might be to ask someone who has never driven a car about how to drive a car. That guy doesn't have a clue about Dianetics. That he is skeptical is cool but of what value is an such an opinion? He has only stood well back in the distance and Viewed Dianetics, he has no clue in the world about its workability. He has no clue about its value. He has never seen a person become able to walk because of a Dianetic assist. He has never been close to someone whose life improved because of Dianetics. How can I tell? Because he mentions nothing good. Its a skeptical, critical only site and tells nothing about how people's lives have improved because of Dianetics. Terryeo 13:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm, Terryeo. This tells me that Scientologists must have all taken a lot of psychiatric drugs. After all, if someone who "has never done any Dianetics or Scientology" cannot have "a clue about Dianetics", what are we to make of Scientologists' assertion that they know everything they need to about how awful all "psychiatric" drugs (like aspirin) are? I mean, if Cecil Adams has to do Dianetics to know about Dianetics, and Scientologists claim they know about psychiatric drugs, there's only two possible conclusions... -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Feldspar, I am so happy that you have been told something, however the above discussion is about straightdope, the website. However tittilating it may be to bend the subject toward drugs, the discussion orginated about the quality of the citations arising from straightdope (one man's opinion). Terryeo 19:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There's at lease one other situation and conclusion. I knew a person that had taken LSD. I knew what his life was like before Dianetics. I gave him 50 hours of Dianetics just on LSD. I saw in detail what LSD did to his mind and what his mind was like after Dianetics. I saw what his life was like after a Dianetic handling of a drug designed by psychiatry to produce "insanity". I have inspected the effects of LSD in detail and have familiariarized myself with what can be achieved when that drug is fully resolved for the individual. You have no more idea of what the effects that a psychiatric drug like LSD can have on a mind than the Man in the Moon. You are absolutely in no position to bad mouth the science behind the benefits this man received with Dianetics. My conclusion is that the use of psychiatric drugs produces insanity, and that insanity can be resolved by Dianetics. But why? Why spend my time resolving an insanity produced by a "so-called" medical science? If it's end-result is INSANIT, what conclusions can one draw about those who support and defind it? Spirit of Man 15:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

LSD was not "designed" to do anything, it was discovered. It is also not a psychiatric drug, and the few instances of its use as such remain highly controversial. Some form of mental instability may be a long-term consequence of LSD use, but saying that it "causes insanity" is a misrepresentation. Also, drugs are designed (or more frequently discovered) by pharmecutical companies, not psychiatrists. Since this is an example of recreational drug use, it's very hard to understand how you can blame psychiatry for it. Also, you're perfectly to burn psychiatry for its past abuses, misuses, and crimes, and yet when it comes to similar things within Dianetics/Scientology, these things are unimportant, irrelevant, and we shouldn't hold the actions of a few against the whole? I call that hypocrisy. Tenebrous 00:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are asking, "On what basis does the Church of Scientology take a stance against Psych drugs?" And you are doing that because you assume the Church of Scientology has not "take a lot of psych drugs" and therefore does not have experience in the area of psych drugs and therefore can not be anything but critical because I state that Cecil has no experience with Dianetics (other than to "view it from afar")? Is that what you are asking me? Why does the Church of Scientology stand against psych drugs? Terryeo 14:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The same silly logic that Terryeo espoused here would also indicate that people could not form an opinion about the possible benefits and workability of a technology that, lets say, involved the molestation of children, unless one goes out and molests actual children themselves. Fortunately, most people can derive a sense of right, wrong, and worth, without actually having to debase themselves to levels of the people and things they are studying. Analyzing the victims of abuse and other witnesses of the abuse are plenty sufficient. One does not need to actually engage in evil to understand that it exists and comment intelligently about it. Vivaldi 21:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The site is one man's opinion. Does he criticize Scientology? Yes, he does. If you can read it and come away with a conviction that you're going to start in Scientology tomorrow because he praises it, heh, say so. Obviously he criticizes it, he isn't neutral.Terryeo 14:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(Using Terryeo's own logic one could also say the Encyclopedia Britianicca is not a neutral encyclopedia, but rather a group that is dedicated to criticizing the KKK): Go read the Encyclopedia Britianacca article about the Ku Klux Klan. If you would read those articles and and come away with a conviction that you're going to start in the Ku Klux Klan tomorrow because the encyclopedia praises it, heh, say so. Obviously the Encyclopedia Britianacca criticizes the Ku Klux Klan, it isn't neutral. Vivaldi 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

All independent neutral researchers that study Scientology will uncover evidence that a Scientologist would find to be critical. Therefore, according to any Scientologist, all indepedent researchers are critics. Also, Terryeo, it appears that your POV that you are pushing in this article, namely that The Straight Dope is a critical site of Scientology, needs to be cited. This appears to be original research on your part. Vivaldi 20:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Free clue: while Cecil Adams' column is the product (or at least the responsibility) of one man, to call what he does "opinion" is bend the meaning of the word into complete nothingness. Adams answers questions from readers using something called "research", unearthing things called "facts". By the postmodern-style reductio ad absurdum you are indulging in, everything ever written everywhere is "opinion" and of equal truth value. While this is convenient for your POV campaign, those of use with some standards regarding the value of verifiable reality aren't buying this. --Calton | Talk 13:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Calton, here is a quote from that site regarding Dianetics: "...that the brain was analogous to a computer with two independent memory banks, the Analytical (conscious) Mind and the Reactive (subconscious) Mind." Dianetics represents the "mind" as all the mental image pictures in a person's existence, NOT the brain. These pictures are by-products of the spirit, NOT the brain. They control the brain and are not controlled by the brain. I agree with Terryeo, that the citation represents Cecil's opinion rather than "facts" when it comes to Dianetics. I don't agree with Cecil's facts and I don't agree with his opinion. Spirit of Man 23:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So here we have the essential differences: your obfuscations are at least succinct (albeit pompous), while Terryeo's are merely incoherent. The goal remains the same, and equally unconvincing. --Calton | Talk 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Unconvincing? For 55 years Dianetics has attempted to introduce "mental" in a manner which says, "of thought and not of the body". That's 55 years of saying so. Cecil hasn't got it. Some people have understood the concept. Some persons, (Cecil) apparently, will never understand the concept. Convince you? NO. State the situation? Yes. The article here is not about how convinced anyone is, the article here is the presentation of certain information in a manner which the average reader can grasp the concepts. Cecil does not grasp the concept. It is a concept very very basic. Let us present the concept in this article. Cecil's opinion does not include the situation that Dianetics was built on. Our wikipedia article should present Cecil's site as "critical" because it does not grasp the basic concept.Terryeo 13:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Calton, for your information here is the Goal of Dianetics: "A world without insanity, without criminals and without war--this is the the goal of Dianetics."

You mean a world without criminals like Reed Slatkin? Awesome! Of course, to be accurate, that is what Hubbard claimed the goal of Dianetics/Scientology to be, not necessarily what the goal is. Since things like trying to frame one's critics for falsified bomb threats and falsified hit and run accidents are, themselves, crimes, it would of course be remiss to only provide the talk that Dianetics/Scientology talks and not mention how frequently it fails to walk the same walk. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, a world without criminals like Reed Slatkin, and anyone that "falsifies bomb threats" and "falsified hit and run accidents". You are right. If someone in Dianetics or Scientology violates a civil law they suffer the same penalties as anyone else. Your examples are dramatic, but one would be expelled from Scientology for far less than that. As one progresses higher and higher towards Clear or above the rules become tighter and tighter. Completely aside from that, one will not retain their abilities if they violate the law or violate what is best for the greatest number, or what they have agreed to do. Despite your dramatic examples it is a worthy goal, and those people were obviously NOT working in the direction of such a goal, and it remains the goal of Dianetics. "Slatkin" would be expelled from Dianetics far faster than it took to convict him on that crime. I understand such a case in Dianetics would have their background investigated and all his crimes brought to light, not just the one he received a civil conviction on. By the way, the last time I checked an Almanac, psychology had 50,000 deaths a year for people receiving psychology. So, a lot needs to be done to attain "a world without insanity and crime". If you aren't working towards that, what are YOU doing? Spirit of Man 20:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

An "almanac"? How intriguing. I wonder just what kind of almanac lists such dubious statistics; was it by any chance from that "reputable publisher" Bridge Publications?

No it was commercial in a book store. Your covert attack or backhand, on Bridge is noted. Spirit of Man 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In any case, your assurance that any offenders would be quickly expelled is not only in contradiction to what has actually happened, it's an example of the "no true Scotsman]" fallacy. "Followers of Dianetics are helping to create a world without crime!" "What about these 'followers of Dianetics' who committed crimes on behalf of the organization, or for personal greed or personal lust?" "Since they committed crimes, they're not true followers of Dianetics." -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The simplicity is, the higher one goes, the more ethical one becomes. The Church of Scientology does not just excommunicate (as the Catholic Church does) but such a "Suppressive Person Declare" must include as part of it, a list of actions that the person can do and become an active part of the Church again. Being declared is not a punishment, it is part of a correction. Actually it is the last in an increasingly complicated list of actions which can happen. Far more simple ethics actions usually happen.Terryeo 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I don't accept your "fallacy" argument. I don't accept your true followers thing either. If a student, or preclear or scientologist is known to be violating any such crime they go off all courses, all auditing, all services until it resolved. It is allowed to be resolved. Resolution is the usual handling rather than punishment. I think you are uninformed and have substituted your own evil misconception for the truth. Do your homework. Spirit of Man 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

He's also confusing psychology and psychiatry. And Spirit, what you see as a worthy goal, I see as destroying individuality. Argue it on my talk page if you want, but the point: not everyone would agree that (a) that is the goal of Dianetics (b) that goal is good (c) the methods that you have chosen are good/effective. Tenebrous 03:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Psychology is a field of study. Psychiatry differs because it is Psychology + Medicine. A person who has become educated and holds a doctor degree in both is a Doctorate of Psychiatry.Terryeo 15:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You may be right on psychiatry vs psychology. What do you suppose it is world-wide instead of just in the USA for both? Spirit of Man 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What "individuality" do you consider to be destroyed? That sounds like Menninger. Anybody that does art is crazy so the way to "help" people is to make them "crazy". That is itself insane, and a justification for atrocities like the holocaust. What is your idea of "help"? Spirit of Man 02:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to show the evolution of Terryeo's beliefs on the subject of labeling sites: Diff from Talk:Applied Scholastics. Back on Jan 28, Terryeo believed that classifying a site was original research: "I propose that stating it as a watchdog site is an act of original research, a conclusion drawn by an editor and inserted into an article which predispositions a reader's right to draw his own conclusions. Let the dang site speak for itself, okay?". However, it appears that now Terryeo is not willing to "Let the dang site speak for itself", but instead wishes to insert his own very original research into this article when it pushes his own POV. Vivaldi 07:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, is that a criticsm? I thought we had gone on past that issue. If a site declares itself to be a "watchdog site" then, by golly, present it as a "watchdog site". These are exactly the sort of conclusions that editors make which are better left to the reader to make thier own decisions. Our task is not to interpret information, our task is to present selected information from a vast sea of information. Terryeo 19:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, are you still amazed that people find your hypocrisy and point it out? I didn't realize we had ever "gone on past that issue", because last time I checked you hadn't apologized for you POV pushing and site labeling, and in fact you seem to have been still fighting for your labels quite recently above. Are you now admitting that you shouldn't have labelled The Straight Dope a critical site? The whole point of this argument is that your view that you have written about has changed. In this very article you yourself labeled straightdope.com as a "critical site". Besides the fact that I completely disagree with your assessment that The Straight Dope is a critical site about Scientology, I wanted to demonstrate that you have changed your views on the subject of site labeling in general when it pushes your own POV to do so. So previously you wrote, "let the dang site speak for itself", but when you edited this site list a month later you labeled it as a critical site, instead of letting the site speak for itself. You say one thing and do another. see hypocrisy. Vivaldi 10:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, let me understand exactly what you mean to say there, Vivaldi. In the main it looks like you are lecturing me. Stating that my point of view has assimilated new information and the result is that my point of view has changed. In the main you seem to presenting; to change one's point of view is a hipocracy. Is that what you are saying? Terryeo 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Goal of Dianetics

I would like to add a new section, the goal of Dianetics. Please discuss here: Spirit of Man 14:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Recruit people into Scientology? «Any time you write or say Dianetics today, define it -- "Dianetics, that part of Scientology which stresses mental anatomy." That swings people into Scientology before they think about it.» -- L. Ron Hubbard, HCO POLICY LETTER OF 2 OCTOBER 1958, "SALE AND CONDUCT OF ACADEMY COURSES" Raymond Hill 00:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The goal in the article is a quote from the cited book, from 1951. You seem to be going down a new road not introduced. What are you talking about and why? I didn't say anything about Scientology there, why are you citing a policy that doesn't apply? Is this some form of personal attack? Spirit of Man 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If a "Goal of Dianetics" section is to be created, the above quote certainly has its place in the section: L. Ron Hubbard seemed to consider Dianetics as a recruitement tool, according to his own words. That could be a goal, recruiting into Scientology. What part of my comment you consider a personal attack? Raymond Hill 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I have cited the long term objective, the goal of Dianetics, that expresses what it is for and why it is done at all. You seem to be taking some obscure quote from Oct 58, and are pretending that is the "real" goal. You seem to be pretending the section is not there. What's up? Spirit of Man 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs its own section. Actually, a section like that seems like it would be merely an excuse for POV-pushing. And there's not a hell of a lot of context. "Hubbard said that the goal of Dianetics is to create a perfect world, however, he also said that it was a useful recruiting schtick." What else are you going to say? Tenebrous 02:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the general subject of Dianetics. That embraces a lot of things. The goal of that activity is relavent. You seem to be quoting something about a "perfect world". To my knowledge there is no such quote. Hubbard says, "Absolutes are unattainable". What are you talking about? Are you of the point of view the citations of the written material of the subject should be eliminated and only citations to controvertial material should be included in the article? Spirit of Man 01:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't relevant or shouldn't be included. Once again you fail to comprehend the argument.

We have only begun this argument. How can I once again fail comprehend the argument. It may well be that I have failed to comprehend it, but you haven't said what it is yet. I understand I said a long term goal. I understand you said "recruitment". What would you like me to comprehend. I don't get it. Are you saying Dianetics is not the primary method to Clear people, but is merely a prank to mislead people into Scientology? That is not true. Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Argument, as in 'the argument I was making'. You say that we should have a section. What will it include? One sentance? Sorry, not allowable. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Educate me. Where in Wikipedia policy is a single statement of the goal of an activity "not allowable". Spirit of Man 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please try to read and understand what is being said, before jumping to conclusions. The quote was an example, a reduction of the total content of such a section to one sentance. "Perfect world" is a paraphrase, however, just because you don't know of such a quote does not mean it does not exist.

Are you now talking about Tenebrous's statement? Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I made that statement, then yes, it's likely that I was referring to it. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you same person as Raymond Hill? Spirit of Man 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

However, it's still not relevant to the question, which remains unanswered.

I understand you are not talking about the question immediately following [mine], but the question above about "recruitment"? Why be so obscure? Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Is "[mine]" supposed to link to something? The question is content: what are you going to say that needs its own section? Tenebrous

Tenebrous, I see I need to distinguish between you Ray. Spirit of Man 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"Are you of the point of view the citations of the written material of the subject should be eliminated and only citations to controvertial material should be included in the article?" This is absolutely baseless and accusatory, as well as being irrelevant.

Here is an example. Tenebrous just reverted my citation of "The Auditor" magazine which gives a monthly tally of the total number of Clears in the world. The current issue 328 is for Feb 2006. He deleted that primary source to cite an estimate from two years that has a POB statement associated with it "Scientology Stats are Down". He did this in the same fell swoop as deleting the Goal section. It is relevant and rather continuous on Wiki. A second example is the DMSMH page, the cited book and the cited article discusses the philosophy, science and therapy of Dianetics. ChrisO and you have reverted this to reduce the content to "self-improvement techniques" which are not even taken up in the article. How can you say this is "baseless"? Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If you want an apology for the deletion of the updated count of fictional persons, you have it. However, accusing ChrisO and Raymond of "dispersive editing" (to use Terryeo's phrase) is not productive. Take issue with the content, not the user, unless you're taking this to RfC. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

No I am not looking for deleted... apologize later. I happen to know a few Clears and the rumors of them being "fictional persons" seems disingenous at best. I'm looking for fair treatment according to Wiki policies. I can live with your dripping sarcasm and your insincerety, that is not a problem to me. As to "dispresive editing": I wrote a DMSMH page. So did Chis. Mine was deleted and reverted to his newer one. It was edited to the newer one, queries to it are rerouted to his. His article talks about Dianetics philosophy, science and therapy, and not self-improvement techiques. His link to self-improveement techniques link to psychological materials, not Dianetics methods. So I revised the first line to reflect the actuality. He and Antaeus have deleted it repeatedly in violation of Wiki policy on citations. Is this an example of what you mean by "dispresive editing". Linking the reader to what does not exist and deleting what does exist? If they do it what is the problem with saying they do it? Their text isn't doing it, they are. Spirit of Man 18:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As regards "fictional persons", I don't think Clears are fictional people -- as long as we define "Clear" as "people that the Church of Scientology has announced as reaching the state of 'Clear'". Of course, we'll need to make sure that no one, intentionally or unintentionally, blurs the line between "Clear-as-person-the-CoS-says-is-Clear" and "Clear-as-person-who-possesses-all-the-powers-attributed-to-Clears", since there is no factual verification that anyone actually meets the latter criteria -- but we'd have to do that anyways. Anyways, Spirit of Man, I'm disappointed in you. I thought surely by now you'd finally understand that when you created an article titled "Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health" for the purpose of promoting your own view of Dianetics (not the book, but the concept/philosophy) in a way that you could not get other editors to let you do at Dianetics, it was deleted by a unanimous AfD because it was a POV fork, and POV forks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. But instead of taking that AfD as feedback and trying to learn from it, you're still acting as if it was somehow your article was deleted by unilateral decision of myself and ChrisO (who didn't even cast a vote in the AfD) and that the NINE other editors who thought your article should be deleted had nothing to do with it. I have to say, it seems to me that if you haven't understood that in the nearly two months since then, then it means you probably haven't been trying to understand. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I combined the references. The Auditor's current figure along with previous claims. The "sometime after 2004" part should be replaced with the exact date The Auditor resumed publishing totals as soon as someone can supply it. AndroidCat 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about a section here, not what is cited and what isn't. One quotation does not deserve its own section, period. If you can dig up several paragraphs of material, with cites, and some critical commentary to balance it, then you can put it in the article. Anything else I will delete as POV-pushing. Tenebrous 06:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have demonstrated a POV here by deleting a primary citation [Number of Clears] per WP:V, and pasted in a POV citation that is two years old...and based on this primary source anyway. Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have placed a "No Personal Attacks" note in my talk section. You have deleted the section on "The Goal of Dianetics" calling it POV pushing. You have rv my citation to the primary source of the number of Clears and replaced with a POV citation two years old. You threaten to personally delete all my edits to the section. How is this not your personal attack? What do you consider I did that warrants your this treatment? You didn't say, you just referred me to this section. Spirit of Man 14:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The statistics deletion was accidental; I don't really care what sources you use. Personal attacks, well. How about "I think you are uninformed and have substituted your own evil misconception for the truth. Do your homework." ? Yep, that definitely qualifies.

Can you tell me where you found this statement? I don't recall saying that to you? Spirit of Man 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous: Here is the context I found from above: "You mean a world without criminals like Reed Slatkin? Awesome! Of course, to be accurate, that is what Hubbard claimed the goal of Dianetics/Scientology to be, not necessarily what the goal is. Since things like trying to frame one's critics for falsified bomb threats and falsified hit and run accidents are, themselves, crimes, it would of course be remiss to only provide the talk that Dianetics/Scientology talks and not mention how frequently it fails to walk the same walk. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)" Tnebrous, how would you characterize what Antaeus said, was he saying that Hubbard was speaking truly when he wrote this goal, or is Antaeus accusing Hubbard of something more evil, "not necessarily what the goal is." I think Antaeus is saying in Dianetics, "trying to frame one's critics for falsified bomb threats and falsified hit and run accidents" is condoned rather than treated as a crime. I think he is saying, condoning such things is evil. Tenebrous, do you agree, this is what Antaeus believes and is saying there? If you do, please remove your personal attack message on my talk page. Spirit of Man 17:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no way that that that sentance could be characterized as anything other than a personal attack, no matter what the context is. And there is no excuse for that. Tenebrous 03:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the section, I've explained my problems with it. It's obviously not a personal attack, because I'm not saying anything bad about you. My issue is with the content, not the user. If you address my concerns, I'll be happy. However, you appear to be more interested in talking about how you've been maligned, wronged, persecuted, etc. How about this: given the number of people who disagree with you, you should consider the possibility that you are in fact wrong. We are not out to get you. There is no conspiracy. Calm down, take a deep breath. Hold it for a couple heartbeats. Release. Repeat. Good. Now, explain to me what else you want to put in this section, and how you're going to write it so it's NPOV. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have deleted the new version with a nebulous statement about POB pushing. What is your problem? Why are you deleting citations instead of placing your own? Spirit of Man 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, you state «You seem to be quoting something about a "perfect world". To my knowledge there is no such quote.»... This statement is surprising, in view of your edits [14]: «"A WORLD WITHOUT INSANITY, without criminals and without war—this is the goal of Dianetics." <ref> [[Science of Survival]] by L. Ron Hubbard, page 1, Bridge Publications, Inc.». Raymond Hill 02:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What is surprising? Are you playing at 20 questions now? Spirit of Man 03:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"A perfect world" implies an "absolute". There is NO such quote. Spirit of Man 14:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A world without insanity, criminals, and war can't be described as perfect? How about utopian? How is a "world without insanity" not an "absolute"? Hubbard seems to contradict himself---what is the context of that quote on absolutes? Also, given the amount of material Hubbard churned out, it's not a good idea to say definitely that he didn't ever use the phrase "perfect world" in any of his writings. Tenebrous 15:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"A world without insanity, criminals, and war" is very very far from utopian. If you have ever been in charge of the decision, should company A (offering to paint a building for $10K) or company B (offering to paint the building for 9.5K with the incentive thrown in they leave you 80 gallons of paint, additionally) paint the building? Decisions in politics too are swayed by economic offers, in government. And the USA government has less corruption than many do. Even if everyone were perfectly ethical and there was no war, life would still be far from utopian. Resource allocation would still be a problem, education would still be a problem, the streets would not run with milk and honey. heh. Terryeo 19:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, not utopian in my opinion. Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't answer any of my questions. Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"How is a "world without insanity" not an "absolute"?" In Dianetics, much of insanity is actually an untreated medical condition. So such people are sent to find what "has not been found or treated medically". Often a hypothyroid condition, or a pinched nerve, or a deficency of something is found. An treatable, but so far untreated condition is found. The world would certainly be more ideal if a person with a goiter and severe mental troubles were given treatment and then was physically healthy and "sane" again. I have done this. My niece told me her daughter had been having chonic ear infections since birth, 7 years. The school wanted an ADD program. I had her go to a medical specialist and get the right antibiotic and treatment. In a short time the girl had no ear infection and was not an ADD candidate. The girl's life is still not ideal by any means, but she doesn't have that one problem any more. She had lost one entire eardrum and had 80 percent scar tissue in the other and couldn't hear well. I showed the mom how to do an assist and she did. After the assist, the mom and I were talking and the daughter went over an turned down the TV, "It was too loud!". She immediately got into a fight her sisters who liked it loud. So the world still turns after an insanity is handled. And after poor hearing is handled. I think the same will be true when the goal of "a world without insanity" is approached or achieved. Maybe there are other worlds? Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"what is the context of that quote on absolutes?" It is Logic 6, under the front cover of Science of Survival. It is mentioned in Evolution of a Science. It is cited in many places. Logic 5 is "A definition of terms is necessary..." Logic 7 is "Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems...". Aristotelian logic used two values, Right and Wrong or true and false, or in computers 1 and 0. Many religions use a single valued logic, God is right. [Period] In Dianetics, an infinity of possibilities between two such "absolutes" is envisioned, thus the gradient scale idea. The ends of the spectrum are not attainable, such as absolute Right or absolute Wrong. But we can see somethings are more right than others. In Dianetics they are Right to the degree they assist the survival of all, and wrong to the degree they are non-survival. So PERFECT as an absolute would not be used. More perfect or less perfect might be. Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You have brought to this discussion the idea of "Delusions|writings". Could you please give me one example of what you honestly feel this applies to? Spirit of Man 18:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we save the phenomenological "Really Deep Thoughts" applesauce and just edit this article in plain English? This entire discussion is just one big diversion better suited to college freshmen over a bottle of wine. wikipediatrix 04:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I quote you on this? "Can we save the phenomenological "Really Deep Thoughts" applesauce and just edit this article in plain English?" I think it's cute. Spirit of Man 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Defining the minority view

Here is my first shot at a minority view. Please place comments at the end so I can read them and update this view.

The subject of the article is Dianetics, and the primary author of Dianetics is L. Ron Hubbard. His written works are citable and to be respected.

The primary publishers of these written works are Bridge Publications and New Era Publications. They have fact checking capabilities and are reputable and citable.

The Wiki sub-articles of Dianetics; such as DMSMH, Dianetics Today, Engram, etc. are included in this view.

The intent of the minority view is to represent Dianetics in a positive light. Minority view citations may not be deleted simply because they are positive.

Material presented should be a clear and true representation within the actual scope of the subject as written and practiced. The citable scope of the subject may not be reduced by the Majority View. Introductions will respect the actual scope of the subject.

Dianetics addresses the human spirit, and people wanting medical treatment are referred to competent medical specialists.

Dianetics addresses the human mind as a set of mental images of experience created by the spirit. It does not directly address the brain. These mental images containing sensation, can produce sensations in the body. Thus Dianetics is what the spirit is doing to the body through the mind.

Dianetics uses a technique called processing or auditing, that uses Dianetic developements in communications. No hypnosis is used, ever.

The goal of Dianetic therapy is the Clear. The various definitions of Clear and the count of Clears are to be respected.

The goal of Dianetics is a world without insanity, criminality and war.

Dianetics has been incorporated into Scientology in 1955 and its developement extends from 1930 to the present and will continue into the future.

It is understood that the Majority View may not agree with this view and not respect the same things, and will provide their own edits. But the Majority View may not present information that is known to be false. Spirit of Man 06:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

What is this, Spirit of Man? What is the goal of this manifesto? Are you proposing to drop this into the article, or does it have some other purpose? BTfromLA 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, BTfromLA. Above under objection to the poll, Tenebrous makes this statement; "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." I was just supplying a draft of what that might look like. It is not my intention to drop it into the article. It is just a statement of the minority view. Spirit of Man 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Spirit of Man. The above looks more like a draft of some kind of statement of beliefs and principals than anything to do with encyclopedic writing, and it is hard for me to imagine how any of it would fit in the article. "His written works are citable and to be respected...the Majority View may not present information that is known to be false..." I'm at a loss as to how these sort of commandments have any place here. What has this to do with a dispassionate, encyclopedic description of anything? As to representing the minority view on pseudoscience, I think the goal should be to make a very concise, one or two sentence statement, probably something that begins along the lines of "Scientologists argue that Dianetics is in fact science because..." or "Supporters of Hubbard's work counter that the claims of pseudoscience are irrelevant to Dianetics because...", finished with a brief, clearly sourced example of their reasoning. (If you read my comments above, you know I'm also for reducing the overall length of the section about pseudoscience, and the fact that you seem to be proposing a lengthy counter-section only reinforces my case... ). One more thing, Spirit of Man: do you really believe Bridge Publications is the sort of "reliable source" or "reputable publisher" that the wikipedia guidelines about credible sources are describing? I think editors have explained to you several times why this is not the case, and I think if you read the guidelines that becomes pretty clear. I doubt that there is much fact checking involved in publications by L Ron Hubbard, if by fact checking you mean what the world of journalism means, and what Wikipedia means--independently verifying facts and sources. Bridge may have an army of "fact checkers" to make sure that every word is just as Hubbard intended it, but that isn't fact checking, which involves verifying that the writer of the book or article got their facts right, and changing the author's text if they discover that the author got something wrong or aserted something that is unverifiable. And the fact checking bit is hardly the only reason why Hubbard and Bridge are not reliable sources of scientific data about Dianetics... I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that. BTfromLA 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, thanks for the caring response. It looks like we have a few things to work out. I have no objection to encyclopedic writing or edits to correct that, and I haven't included that in this minority view. This Minority View consists of talking points and can be used to clarify things. For example, what is the Majority View? It is simple to ask, but the answers might be something else. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy responses, spirit of Man. I just got home from a 14+ hour work day, so I don't have the energy to respond in similar detail, sorry. I'll try to address a couple of key points, and come back for more later if time allows. BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably don't have time, but if someone would care to try a shot at a Majority View, that might be helpful. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

" What has this to do with a dispassionate, encyclopedic description of anything?" When I write a section on "the Goal of Dianetics" for example, it does not meet a dispassionate, encyclopedic editing process. It meets something very passionate instead that violates one of the above principles. [It also, violates Wiki policies and guidelines.] Its summary deletion is described in the Edit Summary as "POV pushing". It's discussion says they have no objection to its being there, but…[it isn't there anymore] I understand that to mean one of the above principles ["citable scope"] has not been respected. It was met with summary deletion instead. Primary citations which are the life blood of Wiki have been removed and the emotion of rejection, substituted. No balancing citation was presented. That editor was simply not complying with Wiki policy, WP:V. He apparently seeks to move a conception of neutrality ever more away from the factual citations of the subject. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I obviously can't address every example you have in mind of editors deleting your additions. It may well be that some of the deletions are rash, emotion-fuled, and pov-driven, as you suggest. But in my observations of the editing here, I think that many of your (and Terryeo's) contributions have been blatantly partisan and written in a manner that was either vague and difficult to follow or extremely subjective. On those grounds, they deserve to be severly edited, if not reverted outright. I will once again point out that I think many of the frustrations on all sides would be minimized by adhering to a standard of clear writing in an encyclopedic style. BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

People in Dianetics and Scientology don't think in terms of pseudoscience on this issue. They follow the Buddhist dictum or a saying credited to Gautama Siddartha; "What is true for you, is true" "What is not true for you, is not true." This is basically, what a Scientist says, when he tests the hypothesis or theory of another. Can he test it, can "he" observe the same things, can "he" see the same phenomenon, and can "he" come to a different conclusion or is the theory so sound, that no other conclusion seems possible? To a greater or lessor degree, each Scientologist is asked to make and does make this evaluation for himself on each thing in Dianetics. He is not encouraged to accept it as if from some Authority like Aristotle in Scholasticism. Or Freud in psychology. He is asked to understand it, understand the words used to describe it, demonstrate it, use it, and ask himself is it workable enough for him personally that he can get excellent results with it? So I have always done this with Dianetics, to my satisfaction. I have presented citations here that essentially do the same in this context. No one has proven pseudoscience here, they only proclaimed it as "opinion". I have presented a scientific basis for Dianetics per their criteria and they have not disputed it in those terms. Only by Proclamation. So this is the basis of the conflict, from my view; I present citations and the majority proclaims only. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Scientologists believe that charges of pseudoscience are irrelevant because the standard for them is "workability," not science. Why not just say that? BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Charges of pseudoscience are irrelevant because the standard for us is "workability," not science. In 1950 and that era of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, when books were published with "Science" on their covers an appeal to science was made. At least one study was done to the criteria defined by the science of psychometry of the day. The primary appeal was to the public and the intelligent laymen without organizations that knew how to handle the subject. Both appeals were ineffective, in my opinion. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"As to representing the minority view on pseudoscience". I don't see how this issue and its treatment here is any different than the other "claims" in the article by the majority view. Wiki policiy says if you believe something is in error, you should find a correct citation and present it. Things without citations may be deleted by anyone. We only come into conflict when the above principles, and their correct citations are violated. When these are cited, I believe they are all in accordance with Wiki policies and Guidelines. The conflict is when they are summarily deleted, instead of the majority view presenting a balancing citation. They do present citations sometimes, some are bulletin boards, some showing the opinions of self-interested book or fanzine, but not scientific journals, but they simply delete all fairness when they delete all citations that support the above view. When I presented the Science of Survival study of test results. It was deleted then rewritten as if from another source, a survey. Then the "survey" was discredited with a "fanzine" opinion article that did not agree as to the facts of the SoS study. This violates the "citable scope" above. It also violates Wiki policy in that they did not find a superior citation to refute it, they rewrote it into something it was not with a citation that is not accessible. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Citable scope"? What's that? (Sounds like one of those 50's movie formats.) I can't address all the stuff you're saying above--though I don't think I've ever seen the study and charts that you keep saying were deleted. Otherwise, I basically responded to this subject above. BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Chart was proposed by the psychometrists. The conducted before and after Wechsler tests and the results were compared to get a difference for each participant. This graph is available in Science of Survival 20 printing. These differences for the 88 participants, are then plotted with IQ gain or loss vertically. The high gain was 26 up. The most loss was 8 points down. Eight participants tested negative. 80 tested positive for an average gain of about 10 points. The graph is signed by The Graph is signed as "Prepared by:" Gordon Southon, Psychometrist. The study is cited in the Introduciton to SoS. It is signed by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation not Hubbard. It is not available to my knowledge on the web. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

By citable scope I mean as in the DMSMH Introduction. The article addresses the philosophy, science and therapy, but not the self-improvement techiques. The current first line cites "self-improvement techiques" on Wiki, that do not mention Dianetics. The book does mention philosophy, science and therapy so placed these in the introductory line and cited DMSMH witch is the subject of the page and the article content that address these things. Those things are citable. But I requested a citation for "self-improvement techniques" and ChrisO says, the book is "classified that way" and there is a "Self-Improvement Package sold... I don't take that as a better ref than the book and article and its content on the book itself. The Minority Viewpoint and Wiki policies were violated in my opinon.Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, "One more thing, Spirit of Man: do you really believe Bridge Publications is the sort of "reliable source" or "reputable publisher" that the wikipedia guidelines about credible sources are describing?" Yes, I do. Do they publish peer-reviewed scientific journals like the AMA? No. Does the AMA have a credible track record from the view of Dianetics, No. [From the view of Linus Pauling, Double Noble laureate who was shunned for Vitamin C research? No. From the view of Albert Schatz, Nobel Laureate (belated) who was shunned for claiming to have found the first researched wonder drug, antibotic, and innumerable others? No. On the subject of nutrition, No. On the subject of Chiropractic, and other subjects shunned and invalidated by the AMA as quackery? No] Is Bridge more reputable than the Denver bulletin board article cited? yes. More reputable than the books by Gardner [represented as an amateur mathmetician], Yes. Than the article by Fischer, a student? Yes To press the point, what publisher or article presented in the entire Dianetics article is more reputable? I believe the Majority View feels obligated to defame and disrespect Bridge and New Era and Hermitage House. What is the criteria you used, to ask this question in this way? And one more thing, you elaborated far more than I read into the Wiki policy on fact checking than I did. Do you really have a Wiki reference for all those things? Or any of them? In any event, they do have fact checking and that is NOT evident in the articles cited and included in the article by the Majority View. I have pointed out major errors in nearly all of them, that would have been corrected by the caliber of fact checking that you envision and compare to Bridge. Do you agree none of the "controversial" citations meet your personal criteria? If you believe some do please educate me. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the bit about sources on WP:V, it says this: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Note the "third-party." Bridge, etc., are partisan interested parties when in comes to Dianetics and Scientology--extremely so. As to my definition of fact-checking--I've had some small experience writing and being written about. And well-funded news publications who place a value on their reputation for accuracy hire fact checkers to be sure that if a reporter writes that, say, Tom Cruise was paid $35 million to appear in a tv commercial, that he really was pid that amount for that commercial. Doesn't make 'em perfect, by a long shot, but it does add to their credibility. Peer-review, in an academic context (with science in particular) serves the same function. BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed by critics that Hubbard facts are not checked. This is an opinion of the Majority View. I claim they are checked thoroughly. This is my view. Are there any facts, like the one you cited that show Bridge has not done fact checking? I know of none. I have asked many times but have no answer. Hermitage published the same book in 1950. It is not published to a science market, it was published to the broad public. Tenebrous, said to someone it published science "text books". There are about 20 tests mentioned Evolution of Science that Hubbard claims he did. I know of no other scientists that have cross checked these tests. There is no conflicting data. I submit the Majority View wishes to diminish the subject one way they have used to do this is vilify Bridge. Well, as editors we can read they vilify, that does not mean they have proven. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You skipped past the key point, Spirit of Man. "Credible THIRD-PARTY sources." In other words, people who are writing about a subject as outside observers and who have a stake in being factually accurate in their accounts (like journalists or scholarly researchers). Bridge isn't being vilified--it is certainly the main place to find the writings of Hubbard and the official opinions of the CoS, and as such it is frequently and rightly a source of materials quoted in the article--but it is a completely biased source of arguments about the claims of and contentious issues that surround Dianetics and Scientology. "The New York Times" is, I think, a prime example of the sort of third-party source the guidelines are suggesting, with regard to scientology and most other topics. But they wouldn't be a credible third-party source about the qualities of the New York Times. BTfromLA 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to be succinct. Bridge Publications, there are two factors. First, is it a "refutable publisher" per WP:V, that is, do they publish information which is presented as the author intended it to be presented. In that particular, editors have (I think) agreed that they do. That is, Bridge can be considered as a refutable, special interest publisher. So we don't have to cross check their work with other sources to asertain their publications are what the author intended. So therefore, anything Bridge publishes can be considered valid within its own context. This is not to be confused with "accpected by the scientific community" or with, "accpected by the public at large", but within thier area of publication they produce good publications.Terryeo 19:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of man (I think) has been edited out so very many times when he (and I too) have put good, cited information into the article. Cited by Bridge Publications books. You know, Make a quote, cite the source. and *boom* it gets edited out. This is directly contrary to Wikipedia policies but happens. I think Spirit of Man is attempting to cause other editors to see that if Xenu.net can be quoted, then certainly Bridge Publications can be quoted. If the New York Times can be quoted, then certainly, books registered with the Library of Congress (almost all of Bridge's books are) can be quoted and appropriately cited. Terryeo 19:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I might point out that about half the citations and sources in the article are published by Bridge. Why delete Bridge only when minority view editors cite them? Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we establish stable datums to work from

• Bridge Publications is a refutable, (though special interest) publishing house. Its publications may be quoted as a "primary source" okay? Terryeo 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• Dianetics has a valid website which may be quoted as "primary source", okay? Terryeo 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• People who practice Dianetics are in the minority but this article would not exist if they did not exist. Therefore that point of view must be included in the article in some manner. okay? Terryeo 16:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Holy crap, this thing is long

Content issues entirely aside from a moment: this article is huge, and that needs to be fixed right about now. Would a split to History of Dianetics be all right by everybody? That seems to cut the article more or less in half.

Sometime today I'm going to undertake a major grammar/style edit on this beast to see if I can't shorten it at least some without losing any content. Fair warning. Madame Sosostris 19:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

By all means, go for it, though I fear that the contentiousness on the talk page--which involves a lot of mania for citations and example and counter-examples--may make it difficult for any substantial copy editing to stand unreverted (though it is MUCH needed): you may want to take this editing project in stages to avoid having your work undone in one swoop. I'm against the "History of " spinoff--I don't see why the necessary content can't fit into a single article, most of which can be incorprooated into a narrative history. There's a lot of unnecessary material in the article as it stands. BTfromLA 19:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I always go by sections on things like this. I'm hoping not to step on too many toes by focusing on stuff like sentence structure rather than content, at least at first. We may find that the spinoff is necessary, though, so keep an open mind. Madame Sosostris 20:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm about halfway done -- got as far as the pseudoscience before throwing up my hands and running. Does anyone have any suggestions (or reprimands) before I continue? Madame Sosostris 22:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It amuses the hell out of me that you cut exactly the same things that I cut earlier and your edits stand while my edits seem to draw editors to revert them. I have even wondered if the first thing editors do is follow my edits and revert for no reason except that I edited. HEH! Terryeo 02:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

People don't like it when you just take information out without doing anything else. The trick is to rewrite extensively during the removal process, so that nobody wants to revert you, because the article is substantially better for what you've done. Madame Sosostris 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)