The reason that people fall for Scientology or cults like it is not because they are stupid. In fact, it’s been said that the smarter someone is, the easier they are to get involved in something like Scientology and the easier it is for them to create the cognitive dissonance (self-justification) necessary to stay involved despite seeing numerous signs and reasons to get out.
What is lacking are critical thinking skills. I’ve said this in other articles and I thought it was time to give a clear-cut example of what I’m talking about.
Some Scientologists actually think that they are accomplished critical thinkers and that they fully understand logic and reason. They think this because they’ve looked over or even studied a series of policies which L. Ron Hubbard called the “Data Series”. In fact, the Data Series is a very incomplete form of data analysis which gives one just enough know-how to be dangerous but not enough to be effective.
I found out in leaving Scientology how incomplete and inadequate the Data Series was when I came across the actual educational materials of logic and reason and critical thinking. Hubbard is somewhat contemptuous of this material, similar to how he talks about psychology or other competitors to his ideas. Hubbard gives Scientologists the idea that no one past or present has any idea how to analyze information or how to think, and Hubbard had to figure it all out for us. This is just not true.
Yes, the world is a crazy place sometimes and yes, there are definitely people who don’t know how to think. That doesn’t mean no one understands anything about logic or can’t teach effective critical thinking skills. There is a wealth of information about this subject, both on and off the internet.
Scientologists often talk about “outpoints,” which are Hubbard’s versions of logical fallacies. To any Scientologists reading this, here are some “outpoints” for you. I’m going to take one claim made by Scientology and then provide a critical breakdown of that claim using factual information and statistics, most of these from within the church itself.
Scientology Claim: There are tens of millions of Scientologists all over the world. This claim has been made for decades by Church PR spokesmen, such as Tommy Davis, on news and media shows, and came up again within the past year by Kirstie Alley on Howard Stern’s radio show.
To begin to analyze this claim, on any given day of the week, walk into any Scientology church anywhere in the world. A reporter did just that at the latest Ideal Org in Sydney, Australia. He did not just walk in, he was toured by the org’s PR personnel at 5pm , meaning they had ample opportunity to “pack the place” with public when he was coming. Yet in the entire tour of the four-story Ideal Org premises, only one person was in any of the course rooms and that student was falling asleep! The report on that is here.
From Pasadena’s Ideal Org on May 2, 2014, the Executive Director sent out word that they had highest-ever numbers of people on the Purification Rundown (a whopping total of 17 people) and the Survival Rundown course room was packed with 24 OT VIIIs doing this bottom-of-the-Bridge service. These figures were the best news the ED had to report, omitting any information about other Academy or Public Division services. A recent tour done of that org by someone I know in the middle of the evening on a weeknight revealed only a couple of people on course, no one scheduled for or going in session and the rest of the org literally bereft of anyone but a few staff.
Take a look at the new Ideal PAC Base which includes both the Advanced Organization of Los Angeles and the American Saint Hill Organization as well as the Los Angeles Church of Scientology, all on one street. Drive-bys done in the past couple of months have shown the base to be all but deserted. They finished renovations on all of these buildings and did a “Grand Opening” event on March 8, 2014. Eyewitness accounts indicated not more than 1,000 people there, despite the Church’s claim on its website of 6,000 attendees. The photos shown of the Grand Opening are distorted out of proportion and make an accurate assessment of the scene very difficult.
Since then, the PAC Base OT Committee minutes of May 26, 2014 show only 250 active committee members for the past week. Valley org had a mere 54. Pasadena and Santa Barbara did not report their active members. Yet two of the PAC Base orgs were in the number one position in the Birthday Game, indicating that these orgs are expanding. So apparently these miniscule numbers indicate a vastly expanding scene better than any other in Scientology.
According to Scientology’s own records, Los Angeles has the highest concentration of Scientologists anywhere in the world. So if Scientology had millions of active members, wouldn’t it stand to reason that there would be more than a few hundred people on service at any one time in all of the Scientology centers in that city?
Let’s take a different approach to this, a sample of an internationally attended Scientology event. On the front page of the Church’s official website, it states that on November 30, 2013, “more than 6,500 Scientologists, representing some 50 nations, advancing into the Great Hall for a celebration.” What this means is their annual IAS event in Clearwater, Florida had about 6,500 people at it.
Compare this international representative attendance at one of Scientology’s biggest events with another group that really does have over 10 million members planet-wide: the Mormons. They have what is believed to be the largest theater-style auditorium ever built – the LDS Conference Center in Salt Lake City – which seats 21,000 people at one time. This auditorium was built specifically for attendees of the LDS General Conference, which is held twice a year to a packed house. In addition to those 21,000 live attendees, the Conference is broadcast via Mormon-owned TV and radio stations to all 50 US states and internationally and are also webcast and later available on the Mormon’s official website.
No one would dispute that there are tens of millions of Catholics all over the world. So how many come out to see the Pope when he makes an appearance? Pope Francis hasn’t shown up yet in the United States, but he regularly does services at Saint Peter’s Square in the Vatican to audiences of 150,000+ believers. Those are not even special events – they are just the Pope going out on a balcony and addressing some of his followers or giving a Sunday Service. The Scientologists could only dream of having so many attend one of their Sunday Services.
The point of these comparisons is obvious. If Scientology was anywhere near the size it claims to be, its most important international events would be attended by tens or even hundreds of thousands of people and broadcast all over the world for all to see. The exact opposite is the case. In fact, for years I was personally responsible for seating all the attendees at Scientology’s international events in Los Angeles which were usually held at the Shrine Auditorium (seating capacity 6,300). Only once in the 8 years that I did that job was the Shrine ever filled close to capacity and there was hardly ever need for any “overflow” seating. The “big target” we were always trying to achieve (and never even came close to) was to get 10,000 attendees to an event.
None of this is conclusive evidence that Scientology does not have millions of members worldwide, nor am I trying to actually prove any such thing with this article. I’m just showing how by looking at actual facts and evidence rather than PR hype, a critical thinker can easily blow holes in these claims.
This raises some important questions which should be asked within the church itself and which its members should demand answers to. Questions like “If we are the fastest growing religion on the planet, why are there so few people attending our services?” or “If we have so many members, why do so few come to the most important yearly events we put on?” or “If we are growing so fast that we have to have Ideal Orgs in every location, costing literally millions of dollars to purchase and renovate, then shouldn’t we invest some of the billions of dollars in the Church’s financial reserves towards getting these orgs open immediately?”
I invite any Scientologists reading this to please look at the false representations being made to you by Church officials for what they are: so much hot air. Being a critical thinker does not mean you have overts and are dramatizing missed withholds. It means you care about what is going on and you have the intelligence to see for yourself the actual state of things. It is within your rights to demand answers to these questions. I think if you persist in asking, you will find the answers quite eye-opening.
Great post Chris. Yes, Scientology is on life support here in Australia and it is just the Taiwanese and the old stagers who have one foot in the grave who are keeping it afloat. It will be history within 3-4 years. Folks with good sense are going to your site and others including mine at http://www.answerstofreedom.com to get real free answers.
This is an excellent, well thought out post.
To diverge a bit from the topic, the word “critical” got me me thinking that a real way to see if someone is committed to Co$ is to dare them ot express something critical about Co$, lrh, or dm.
You are absolutely spot on Chris. In Scientology you are taught to not think for yourself, but to let Hubbard’s Tech do all the thinking for you, bypassing any critical judgement that should come from you yourself. It is certainly not in your best interests to let them control your thinking.
Great article Chris.
This is an area which permeates the thinkingness of the Kool Aid-drinking Scnist. They have convinced themselves that they are great thinkers and have above-average powers of observation. So much so, that nothing can convince them otherwise.
Hubbard has much to say about the evaluation of data and analysis. Unfortunately, none of this seems to apply to the subject of Scn itself.
The church’s own group bank is littered with A=A=A “logic”. For example, Critical Thought=Criticalness=Overts and Withholds=Bad. They are unable to differentiate between these things. As a result, Critical Thought is ruthlessly rooted out and eliminated. All it takes is a handful of SP Declares to send a message that questioning authority and the status quo can be very dangerous indeed.
It is unfortunate, since there is much value in infinity-based logic; which brought about many of the workable concepts in Scn . However, the church has abandoned this and now practices dualism, the logic favored by fanatical extremists.
Of course, any thinking Scnist will see the unworkability and irrationality to this approach. And if he were to mention this you can guarantee the force/intelligence scale will be firmly tipped in the direction of force. Members entrenched in the church’s bank are bombarded with dualistic concepts laid in by heavy use of force. The church has few choices on this path since their position cannot be defended by intelligent argument.
In today’s Scn, it’s Us vs Them, Good vs Evil, Command Intention vs Other Intention. This is the level of rationale. Stupid? You bet.
StatPush
Infinity-based logic, like everything in Scientology, is a bastardized form of something that Hubbard might have been mildly familiar with, but twisted into his own ends. Infinity-based logic in particular is something that upsets me, since what’s being bastardized is quantum mechanics. Except that Hubbard left out some key elements: the concept of quanta, and the concept of resolution. It’s quantum mechanics without the “quantum” and “mechanics” part.
I learned my quantum mechanics from a Nobel winner. Hubbard didn’t get that far in his education. It makes me physically ill that people are still stating that infinity-based logic is some kind of magic breakthrough.
Espiando –
So are you saying that infinity-based logic, instead of being an infinite series of greys as Hubbard said, actually “stops” or resolves at certain points (quanta), and so there ARE finite numbers of conclusions that can be made in real infinity-based logic?
By the way, what is the point called where the probabilities turn into an outcome? Like when you rip the top of the box off of Schroedinger’s Cat and see that it is dead?
Or when the dice come to rest on the table and you see what the outcome of the roll was.
What is that point called? Is that called a resolution? I think there is also another term for it, isn’t there?
Alanzo
Alan:
Exactly. There are discreet quanta because there are only a finite number of outcomes available for each aspect of the situation. At a resolution, the probability wave function collapses into a single outcome, like the Schroedinger’s Cat thought problem.
Think about it this way: take three dice, put them into a cup, shake the cup, and put the top of the cup over the table. If you sum up the pips on the dice, there are only sixteen possible outcomes, none of which are resolved because you haven’t turned over the cup yet. However, all of those sixteen are not equally probable. Your most probable totals are 10 and 11. You are dealing with a limited set of outcomes within a specific probability wave function.
“But what if you rolled an infinite-sided die?” you ask. Until the wave function collapses, the probability of any individual number coming up is zero. But the wave function collapses anyway. Infinity-based logic thus essentially states that there are no resolutions to a particular situation. In other words, the exercise of using infinity-based logic is an incomplete mathematical construct.
It is also a contradictory mathematical construct, since Hubbard said that using infinity-based logic can help you reach a decision. Since it is neither concise nor complete, it violates Goedel’s Theorem on what is a valid mathematical system.
The point of resolution is essentially called “the collapse of a probability waveform into a value”. That’s kinda why I used the term “resolution”. It’s a lot clearer to people.
Very interesting, StatPush.
A good way to think about Infinity-valued logic is to examine some examples of logics of different values.
For instance, as you mentioned, 2 valued logic is where you can only have two possible answers:
True or False,
Yes or No,
On or Off,
etc.
Only two possible conclusions can be arrived at in 2 valued logic.
There is an eastern form of logic called tetra-lemmic, or 4-valued, logic. With this logic, there are 4 possible conclusions.
Something can be :
1. True
2. False
3. Both True and False
4. Neither True nor False
4 Valued logic allows for conclusions about things that under 2 valued logic would rage with controversy forever. And phenomena exist that are impossible to settle and make conclusions about if you only have 2 possible conclusions that you can make about them.
For instance, the phenomena of ghosts, as humans experience them, can only be true or false under 2 valued logic.
But under 4 valued logic, as a human there is a bin you can throw the phenomena of ghosts into – Both true and false.
And this is how ghosts seem to exist for humans – they are there, and not there, at the same time.
So you need a logic that has enough bins for you to conclude about something in a way that actually corresponds to how you perceive it as a human being.
Under 2 valued logic, since there can only be TRUE or FALSE, you get controversies forever, and some things never settle. And as you say, religious fanatics using 2 valued logic end up having to kill everyone who disagrees with 1 of the 2 answers they have available.
As for infinity valued logic – I have no idea what that is.
After studying logic for a while now, infinity-valued logic makes absolutely no sense and seems completely useless to me. I think it was something Hubbard either completely misunderstood, or he made it up in order to distract Scientologists away from real critical thinking skills.
Alanzo
from scientology.org 🙂
Logic 7
Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.
This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be right for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered wrong for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor; the more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor.
COROLLARY: Any datum has only relative truth.
COROLLARY: Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth.
Question: Does this imply “Absolutes are unobtainable” is itself an absolute?
StatPush
Let’s take a look at this statement:
Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.
Are they?
Weeds are a problem. Is it necessary I evaluate the subject of weeds (and their data) on a gradient scale?
No! I get down on my hands and knees and pull them out.
Headaches are a problem.
Is it necessary that I evaluate a headache (and its data) on a gradient scale?
No! I take two aspirin and the headache goes away.
WTF is he going on about when he says “Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data”?
Really.
Tell me!
Alanzo
I think what infinity-based logic implies is that any solution to a problem is somewhere on a gradient scale of possible solutions.
For example, your headache… it may be a simple case of dehydration – solution: drink some fluids. Or, it could be caused by caffeine withdrawal. Many possible solutions, each with potential pros and cons.
For me, this more closely follows real world problem solving and the subtleties of experience. As a side note, I believe this type of logic was first introduced by Korzybski in 1933, hardly a new discovery in the 1950s.
Based on my research into LRH from a variety of sources, he had a tendency to embellish and make bold claims, but rarely provided evidence or allowed critical inspection. So, its not surprising when he released the Data Series, it solved yet another age old problem that has plagued mankind. As well, he often invalidates efforts of those who came before him; dismissing their theories as a product of aberrated minds. This all works to his advantage and positions him as an authoritative figure, without the messy business of actually having to prove anything.
StatPush
Statpush –
I agree with what you said about L Ron Hubbard.
Sometimes I think he was evil. Sometimes I think he was crazy. Sometimes I think he was both.
I also understand that the idea originally came from Korzybski, but not L Ron’s interpretations of the idea, exactly.
Let’s look at your attempt to accept L Ron’s reasoning.
You wrote:
“I think what infinity-based logic implies is that any solution to a problem is somewhere on a gradient scale of possible solutions.”
A gradient scale of possible solutions?
Like how, exactly?
Let’s take my headache.
How does a gradient scale apply to my headache?
Alanzo
Alanzo,
I view diagnostic medical science as gradient scales, as well as treatment. So, you have a headache? As mentioned before, it could as minor as dehydration, or as major as brain tumor…and everything in between.
I would find it alarming if I went to the Emergency Room with a headache and my doctor responded:
Headache = Take an aspirin
I would hope the physician would apply some critical thinking to my situation, assess the severity, and proscribe an appropriate solution. The physician, knowingly or unknowingly, is using or applying gradient scales in this process, as well as other logical methods.
I don’t reject the concept of gradient scales or infinity-based logic just because LRH promotes it or claims it his own. I assign value to the concept based on its merits and usefulness, rather than it’s originator(s).
StatPush
Statpush wrote:
“I don’t reject the concept of gradient scales or infinity-based logic just because LRH promotes it or claims it his own. “
Neither do I.
You turned the scenario of my headache into an emergency room situation and said, “I would find it alarming if I went to the Emergency Room with a headache and my doctor responded:
Headache = Take an aspirin”
I would hope the physician would apply some critical thinking to my situation, assess the severity, and prescribe an appropriate solution. The physician, knowingly or unknowingly, is using or applying gradient scales in this process, as well as other logical methods.”
Is he really applying gradient scales? I don’t see that.
I see him trying to find the cause of the symptoms and trying to apply the solution which applies to the causes of those symptoms.
That’s not gradient scales.
So how does “Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.” apply in this situation of my headache in the emergency room?
I’m not seeing how “gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data” yet.
Please advise.
Alanzo
Statpush –
I have a confession to make: I played a dirty trick on you.
I put you in a position of having to defend one of Hubbard’s positions in Scientology, and that is almost always the indefensible position of a sitting duck, or a fish in a barrel.
There are a few things that ARE defensible in Scientology, like the Logic right after Logic 7, Logic 8. That one is defensible and it is an exact copy of what Korzybski wrote.
Logic 7, though, I think is Hubbard’s mis-understanding and mis-interpretation of Korzybski, and maybe some other stuff thrown in, and you will get slaughtered every time trying to defend those positions.
So sorry. It was unfair of me to put you in that position.
It has been said that a person moves from Scientologist to Ex-Scientologist once they decide they can no longer defend the indefensible.
If you’d like to take up any more of Hubbard’s positions to defend, just let me know. I love shooting fish in a barrel! (:>)
Alanzo
Good question. Both absolute and illusion to me seem archaic and maybe a product of the two valued logic.
Reality falls all in between.
Excellent article and good commentaries.
In social sciences and research (and other fields) there is something known as a false dichotomy. That’s a situation where someone presupposes 2-valued logic when 4-valued logic applies. Instead of something being an “either/or” proposition” it may be a “both/and” situation.
An example of a false dichotomy would be “You are either with me, or you are against me.” Well, that’s not true. I could be neither, for example — neither true nor false.
Scientology is riddled with false dichotomies. One of the most pernicious is this, though not always stated plainly: “Either you do all you can for the good of Scientology, or you are suppressive and you are surrendering your (and others’) eternity.
We usually hear that proposition as the “whole agonized future of every man, woman, and child for all eternity depends on what you do here and now in Scientology.” No it doesn’t and thank God it doesn’t.
Scientology is trying to drag us back into the demon-infested world of irrational, unproven belief that Carl Sagan talked about. We can be both brighter and braver through the critical reasoning that Chris points out.
FOTF nails it once again.
Alanzo
Totally agree.
The “you are either with us or against us and thus need to be destroyed” mentality is an example of the most blatant false-dichotomy anyone could think-up.
I was once a Christian and also briefly a Hindu, but now I don’t believe that “stuff” anymore. Does that mean I am a horrible enemy to them and that they are justified in trying to destroy me? That is stupid, paranoid and criminal — a violation of the human right of free expression and choice. It is thuggery and worse.
The message is: the only thing of value is Miscavage and $cion itself. Everyone else has zero value unless they can work as a slave for the aforementioned. On top of that, they should be “destroyed” if they don’t want to work as a slave or if they change their mind. Exactly like North Korea.
Agree Chris. I wish I was taught critical thinking skills when I was young. It should be mandatory in all schools. I had to wait to learn these skills until the internet came out. If I had learned them I probably wouldn’t have gotten involved in the cults that I got into, including $cion.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Where is the evidence that everything that ONE human being says is absolutely correct and thus must be followed? If you believe that then you give-up any chance for critical-thinking for the sake of not being “out-tech”. If everything that LRH said was perfect, then he is a god and not a human-being. What is the extraordinary sound evidence for that huge claim?
What is the extraordinary sound evidence that you cause everything that happens to you? Or that when you don’t like something in the Co$, it is evidence that you have committed some type of crime? From a critical-thinking perspective these “theories” must be supported by experiments that are repeatable and then can make predictions. The first claim (you cause everything) is false, as if it were true it would break all known laws of physics. The second claim is just asinine. It is a cult tactic to keep you brain-washed.
Thanks Chris for shedding light in this area.
SP666 wrote-
“The first claim (you cause everything) is false, as if it were true it would break all known laws of physics. “
Your name is entirely appropriate because with this one statement you have destroyed the basic assumption underlying all of Scientology:
The thetan, using agreement with other thetans, is the creator of all reality.
Therefore, if it happened to you, then you created it or agreed with it.
It is the ultimate introversion technique, and guilt producing mechanism in Scientology.
And you have just destroyed this with your statement.
Thanks a lot, man. Scientology is now laying in tatters all over the internet because of you.
Alanzo
Thanks, nice to do my little part.
But people like Chris are the real heroes.
Chris, you have travelled very far on your own path to understanding. I am always surprised at the way you manage to say the essential in such a concise way. Orwell would have loved it.
I remember the way it was in Paris in the late 70s , academy courses were packed, there were so many people doing trs in the comm course that it was difficult to get a chair, we would hire rooms in the hotel next door because all the hgc ones were occupied. People would invite their friends or relatives for a conference. Staff tried to keep the place neat, repaint here and there in the corridors or the rooms. Spaces in the org didn’t look like the fancy office of the head of the First National City Bank. There was no fund raising. It was a friendly place and it was packed. And now? Well I am afraid, it would rather be : 10 than x 10 and instead of up and vertical, a steady descending spiral with fewer people, more fundraising in exchange for nothing and a steady trip to unreality and hype. Thank you Chris, it´s always good to read what you habe to say.
Alex, please don’t take this the wrong way, but this blog is about critical thinking, and the scientist in me always demands empirical evidence. I’m not saying that you or anyone else who makes similar claims is a liar (in fact, I don’t think you are lying), but I do have to ask this of you:
How much of your reminiscences, and those of others in the late 70s who make similar claims, are tinted by rose-colored glasses? There’s no hard, independent evidence (by which I mean evidence not coming from Church sources) of the claims of overcrowded courserooms and auditing in hallways, just the recollections 35 years on of people who were there. When combined with the disdain that Exes and Indies have for Miscavige and his rampaging barbarians, and the Year Zero approach those people take to 1982 and the Mission Holders’ Massacre, it does make someone who wasn’t in and wasn’t there a little skeptical.
It’s a human tendency to accentuate happy periods in one’s life and disparage the low periods. Memory does have a tendency to cheat a little bit in that regard, and it tends to cheat more the more removed you are from the events. Were those times really that great and wonderful? Wasn’t there a lot of chaos in 1978 when Hubbard came out with The Year Of Lightning-Fast Tech, Dianetic Clear, and OTVIII? No one talks about the impact on missions and orgs of those announcements. And no one seems to have any bad memories of those times.
As I said, I wasn’t there, and I’m not trying to invalidate your statements here and other places I’ve seen you respond. I’m just saying that Exes and Indies seem to have set up the late 1970s as their own Golden Age, and it’s right and proper to be skeptical of that as much as it is for Indies and Exes to be skeptical of Miscavige’s disgusting and disturbing use of that same term.
Great story Chris. I particularly was interested in the first paragraph. Chris,if and when $ci. crashes somehow or another,have the cult members any claim to the moneys gathered from the sale of all the buildings?
No Scott. As far as I know, that money is gone forever. In less, of course, some people wanted to sue for fraud…
As an experiment, let’s go with the numbers CoS publicizes: 10 million members, 6500 on or through Solo NOTs. Based on accounts from former members, Int Management events would only draw about 10,000 attendees in total. And let’s say there are roughly 20,000 card carrying IAS members (one could extrapolate this by researching Impact magazine and compiling names), which I think is very generous.
Based on their own figures:
● Only 0.065% of their membership have made it onto or completed Solo NOTS, the second highest spiritual level available. Additionally, I would guess that most on the level are middle-aged, and have spent a good portion of their adult life pursuing the level.
● Just 0.1% of their supposed membership bothers to show up at an International event.
● And just 0.2% are compelled to belong to their official membership organization.
Put in this light, I would say church management is doing a rather poor job. These percentages indicate to me that:
● It is nearly impossible to attain the highest levels of spiritual enlightenment.
● That Int events aren’t worth going to.
● And the IAS isn’t worth supporting.
Given the church’s fondness for statistics, you know they could give you exact figures of active members, inactive members, former members, declared members, etc. Yet they do not. Why? Well, it doesn’t require a genius to answer that, just someone willing to confront the truth.
StatPush
I agree that lack of critical thinking skills in otherwise intelligent people has made them vulnerable to cults of all stripes. Especially scientology, since there is supposedly a scientific basis behind all of the ‘research’ that lead to the ‘tech’ that they offer. I took a logic course in college but it was an intro course and I didn’t have enough grasp of the subject to keep me from falling under the sway of the cult. In addition to the lack of critical thinking skills, I believe that there is something else at work here, even more deeply rooted than just thinking or lack of thinking. For me, I WANTED something badly, and they found this by applying their standard dissemination methods by finding my ‘ruin’. When someone wants something badly enough, they will jump thru all sorts of hoops and ignore all sorts of red flags that are waving madly around them. There is nothing really wrong with wanting something, like a better life or an improved life or better conditions for your fellow man. The problem is that scientology can’t deliver that. But, once you are lured in and have a couple of ‘wins’, you are convinced that they can deliver on these promises. From that point, it can be a long, long road out. You have to over ride that emotional desire for what you really, really wanted with logic and critical thinking to be able to walk away. To make it even more difficult, they have instituted a perverted system of what they call ethics to make walking away even more difficult and in some cases dangerous.
Even though the Data Series is a simplistic approach to logic, it is one of the tools that I used to help pry open my cult blinded eyes and see that what they were saying and doing was completely contrary to their claims. I would encourage any still-in or under the radar scientologist to study and apply the materials in the Data Series and enjoy the fruits of their efforts. Life is so good, in every way, outside the influence of the cult that you will wonder what kept you under their thumb for so long.
Make peace with your ‘ruin’, you most likely still have it and probably always will. So does everyone else. It’s called the human condition. The sooner we can quit fighting that the sooner we can see what is right in front of our eyes and appreciate being alive. From the accounts that I have read, Hubbard was never able to do that. Truly sad. And truly sad that so many have abandoned their lives to follow such a deluded ‘Master’.
Ms. B. Haven, I could not agree with your assessment of ruin finding more. I think you’ll find if you do a little looking on logic and reason that there is so much more to know about it than what is covered in the Data Series. Hubbard barely scratched the surface of effective and reasoned thinking and he leaves you with woefully incomplete tools. I am a trained Data Series Evaluator and have written and executed numerous evals successfully. But to imagine that Hubbard nailed it on logic and reason is to not live in reality, as witnessed by his own catastrophic failures. I heartily encourage you to learn more about this vital subject.
Chris, you are absolutely right that Hubbard’s Data Series is woefully incomplete when it comes to the subject of logic. It was complete enough for me at the time to be able to start looking at ‘outpoints’ and from there I was able to extract myself from the cult.
Your comments were impetus to have me look a little deeper into my own experiences with this material. I have been enjoying your blog as well as John P.’s blog on the subject of logic. and critical thinking. Lots of good points are brought up in the posts and in the subsequent discussions. One thing that I have noticed about myself that is a blind spot is my innate trust of other people. My default position is that other people are trustworthy. The problem with that is that it just isn’t the case. Most people are good people and worthy of trust, but there are enough schisters, con artists, snake oil salesmen, and other assorted yahoos out there to cause lots of trouble for lots of people. When the pendulum swings too far the other way one can become too skeptical and distrusting. The extremes are not good places to hang out. Better to stay in the middle with eyes open to see what is really there right in front of your eyes. Logic and critical thinking are great tools to keep one on solid ground in the middle. Keep up your good work.
Excellent post Chris! Let’s hope some ‘innies’ get to read it and act.
Nice place ya got here, Chris!
Way to go!
Welcome to the neighborhood!
Alanzo
+1
I think the data series are another kind of logic entirely than classical logic and what we now refer to as critical thinking skills.
The specific purpose of the data series was to find the causes of up stats and down stats and situations in Scientology.
But logic and critical thinking has a different purpose entirely. It’s purpose is to identify the parts of arguments, and to examine them for their veracity.
I have heard the purpose of logic was “to preserve the truth throughout the reasoning process”.
The parts of arguments are:
a. Statements, claims or premises
b. The evidence which supports those statements, claims or premises
c. The relevance of the evidence to the statements, claims or premises.
d. And how sound that evidence is in support of those.
e. Conclusions based on the claims, and the evidence for the claims
These are the things that logic and critical thinking deal with.
The Data Series has almost nothing to do with these.
Therefore, when Hubbard claimed that he had “solved” the subject of logic after 3000 years, that was a claim to be examined using critical thinking skills.
But because Hubbard told Scientologists that they did not need to study logic “less they go mad trying to figure it out”, no Scientologists had the skills to examine Hubbard’s claims.
And the Data Series was never going to teach Scientologists how.
I believe Hubbard knew this. I believe that the Data Series is a decoy for logic and critical thinking that Hubbard used to distract Scientologists away from having the skills they needed to see that he was full of shit.
Unfortunately, I fell for it.
For a while, at least.
Alanzo
Great post Chris!
Knock-knock!
(Through speakeasy) Who dat?
Chris
Chris Who?
Chris Thompson
Password?
“Alonzo sent me”
Yeah, right.
No, Really!
We don’t got no Alonzo.
Can’t I just take a peek?
Get out of here buddy! Go sleep it off !
Alright, FINE!
Thompson’s here!!
Everyone SCATTER!!!
Alanzo
Good article, Chris.
In scientology one is, of course, thoroughy indoctrinated with the concept that critical thoughts about a person or thing are prompted by overts/withholds (harmful acts/something not said) against that person or thing. Critical Thinking has a whole other meaning to a scientologist, lol.
Alanzo; I address your “problem”. A headache is not a problem in scientology parlance (neither is a garden full of weeds). Both are conditions per the paradigm. A problem is always a “how to…” or “whether to…” per Hubbard. A problem would be something like “How to get rid of this headache/ how to avoid getting a headache etc”. I’m not saying Hubbard is correct in this, I’m just saying.
Good to see you, Panda!
“A headache is not a problem in scientology parlance (neither is a garden full of weeds). Both are conditions per the paradigm. A problem is always a “how to…” or “whether to…” per Hubbard. A problem would be something like “How to get rid of this headache/ how to avoid getting a headache etc”. I’m not saying Hubbard is correct in this, I’m just saying.”
If I remember correctly, a problem is defined in Scientology as “effort vs. counter effort” (and you are supposed to put your fists against each other while you are saying this)
So we take this pronouncement by Hubbard “Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.” and we put our fists against each other and look at how gradient scales are supposed to help in evaluating this (and their data).
I’m sorry, I don’t see it.
When you really examine this, it just falls apart.
Actually, I think that the definition of problem was promoted to sell something at a different time than Hubbard was promoting “gradient scales” to sell something else, and so they don’t necessarily have anything to do with each other.
If Scientology was a real philosophy, they would have something to do with each other.
But it isn’t, and they don’t.
Alanzo
Hi Al,
If you don’t see it then you don’t see it. I’m not interested in teaching scientology to you (or anyone). You should probably check out Problems theory if you really want to understand the concept but, hey, you know me;
The Devil’s Advocate: Keeping Critics Honest since 2008.
Cheers, mate.
Panda wrote:You should probably check out Problems theory if you really want to understand the concept but, hey, you know me;
The Devil’s Advocate: Keeping Critics Honest since 2008.
Cheers, mate.
Just a little drive-by insinuation of dishonesty before running back into the woods. Thats my Panda!
If it’s there to be seen then you should be able to show it. Especially since im not the only person here.
So. Since you cant show it, it must not be there.
Failure to make your point AND insulting insinuations!
Panda rules!
Alanzo
That’s kinda weird, Al. Why would you take that from what I wrote? Do the research and you’ll see that I’m correct about Hubbard’s description of what a Problem actually is.
Panda –
So you are saying that IN ADDITION to Hubbard saying that a problem was an “effort vs. counter-effort” (because he did also say that, right?) he ALSO said “A problem is always a “how to…” or “whether to…” per Hubbard. A problem would be something like “How to get rid of this headache/ how to avoid getting a headache etc”.
So he said both?
All right. Then how does “Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.” fit in with that?
Besides “Critics are dishonest”, I mean.
See, here’s what I’m saying: If you are going to sell something that you have presented to people as a philosophy, and you have a “technology” that you are saying helps people with problems, and you have Logics and you have Axioms and you have definitions which are presented to people on problems so that it can be applied – shouldn’t these things be somewhat related?
Because we were calling ourselves Scientologists, and were so personally invested and identifying with the subject, we never noticed what a contradictory mess Scientology was.
This is yet another example which shows that Hubbard was just making it up as he went along.
Don’t you think?
Alanzo
Peter Soderqvist, always the Fount of Reason, has been over the territory of infinity valued logic and Hubbard’s interpretation of it before. He emailed me a link which was rich in detail and more information:
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?p=537558#p537558
He also sent me this link to a kind of gradient scale of approaching the problem of abortion by Michael Shermer.
http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/05/fuzzy-logic/
Is this what Hubbard was on about?
Did Hubbard even know what he was talking about? Or was he just cobbling things together for sale?
If he’s going to be a philosopher, shouldn’t Hubbard have been at least as clear as Shermer?
Alanzo
I loved the article Chris.
One thing– I don’t remember hearing them claim tens of millions of members. I don’t know if this is something you heard that I missed, a mistake in the editing or wishful criticism.
I was a member in 1970. At that time they used to claim 15 million members world wide and to be the fastest growing religion in the world. This was claimed repeatedly and in writing. When I questioned a more senior cult member about this, he said that it was the amount of people Scientology had helped. Even he seemed sceptical.
Several years ago, perhaps ten years ago the Globe and Mail did an article on Scientology where they claimed 100,000 members across Canada. A month or two later on Global Television (no relation to the newspaper) they claimed 200,000. The last census, which was actually taken about the same time said 1525. That’s it! Here in Toronto, a city larger than Chicago, they are all but invisible. Still, they raised (it seems) 3 million for their Ideal Org. They current occupy the 3rd floor of a small building in a high rent area. My wild guess is that there are about 150 of them here, including babes in arms. They usually don’t even have a body router outside the org. Flyers are not distributed. Posters aren’t up around town. They seem to be taking their last breaths. One can only hope.
You are right that there are not that many Scientologists. The claim has been made, as I said in my article, by Tommy Davis and most recently, by Kirstie Alley on Howard Stern’s radio show within the last year. She specifically said “tens of millions of members”.
Thanks, Chris. I appreciate it. I had never heard their claims as that high.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0TUf8NUIqQ
I checked youtube. It is right there. Tens of millions from Kristie to the world, just as you said.
Brilliant!
Small point Chris: cognitive dissonance is not self-justification, but a painful mental state that arises when people try to hold contradictory views in their mind. People in general try to avoid this state and that is why we try to avoid taking contradictory viewpoints seriously. The Scientology doctrine of “entheta” is one way to avoid painful cognitive dissonance. Thought-stopping and rationalization are others. This psychological term gets bandied around a lot in conversations about Scientologists and is often misused. Keep up the great work!