Sure, except we have no evidence that Lafayette(TM) actually did that. As Louanne herself admits, the research data have never been published. And as far as I know, no Scientologist(TM) has ever bothered to establish, to the satisfaction of a neutral observer, that these results are real and are consistent, that Lafayette(TM)’s words are anything but the lies of a madman.

Incidentally, Cthulhu isn’t a god. He’s a Great Old One. There’s a difference.

Why is that, what drives you?

The concern that you are pushing pseudoscience as opposed to real science or real religion, doing real and positive harm to both rationality and spirituality. (That Scientology(TM) has supernatural aspects is irrelevant: young-earth creationists and parapsychologists also speak on matters beyond this world, yet they are not called religion except by those who wish to denigrate religion.)

When you pray to Cthulhu and your enemies get devoured by giant tentacles that rise up from the sea without explanation, and when that happens consistently, the theories that explain how that’s not possible and the poorly observed or statistical “evidence” that prove those theories will fly out the window faster than you can say “bye”.

That’s correct. That’s when you should start finding an explanation for the puzzling phenomenon that defies the theories that just flew out the window and perhaps see what else praying to Cthulhu could help you with.

If you then find an explanation that predicts other effects that praying to Cthulhu could bring about and then you try it and it actually brings about the predicted effects, then you are probably onto something. If you keep doing that and refine your explanation and the technique of prayer in the process, you may achieve quite a level of understanding of the nature of prayer and Cthulhu and a level control over your environment that you may seem a wizard to those who have no clue what you’re doing.

See? That’s what L. Ron Hubbard did with some phenomena and ended up with Scientology, except that there were no prayers or gods involved.

You see there are people that dwell on abstractions and intellectual debate and there are those who seek results and ignore everything that fails to produce results.

The latter are called “scientists.” The former are called “string theorists.”

Yes, that’s a good example. On the same note, Scientology is about results, not about debating theories. Results require application and application requires understanding, which in turn requires answers, study and observation. That’s what we’re after and yet you’re trying to engage us in pointless debate.

Why is that, what drives you?

And there are videos that show Benny Hinn healing actual people miraculously. So?

Seriously, you are right, the research data of Dianetics has never been released.

And one has to wonder why. Did Lafayette(TM) choose to hide those data as a test of your faith? Or did he just forget to write them down?

Amazing what these guys will admit to without the faintest idea they are committing crimes.

Excuse me? I admitted to checking a book out of a library. That’s not a crime where I come from. Tell me, Gary: do you frequently misinterpret communications in such a negative fashion? ‘Cause I hear that’s a pretty anti-social(TM) trait.

Statistical evidence is a very poor substitute for direct observation just as thinking is a very poor substitute for looking.

Pardon me, Stan, but where do you think statistical and scientific evidence comes from, if not direct observation?

When you audit someone and their “purely physical” illness disappears shortly afterwards without anyone treating that illness, and when that happens consistently, the theories that explain how that’s not possible and the poorly observed or statistical “evidence” that prove those theories will fly out the window faster than you can say “bye”.

When you pray to Cthulhu and your enemies get devoured by giant tentacles that rise up from the sea without explanation, and when that happens consistently, the theories that explain how that’s not possible and the poorly observed or statistical “evidence” that prove those theories will fly out the window faster than you can say “bye”.

You see there are people that dwell on abstractions and intellectual debate and there are those who seek results and ignore everything that fails to produce results.

The latter are called “scientists.” The former are called “string theorists.” (Zing.)

I don’t have to. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the connection. Go word-clear “null hypothesis.”

Statistical evidence is a very poor substitute for direct observation just as thinking is a very poor substitute for looking.

When you audit someone and their “purely physical” illness disappears shortly afterwards without anyone treating that illness, and when that happens consistently, the theories that explain how that’s not possible and the poorly observed or statistical “evidence” that prove those theories will fly out the window faster than you can say “bye”.

You see there are people that dwell on abstractions and intellectual debate and there are those who seek results and ignore everything that fails to produce results.

The latter usually gets somewhere while the former is busy improving their debating technique.

Amazing what these guys will admit to without the faintest idea they are committing crimes.

Pat

>All right. So I crack open my copy of Dianetics(TM), courtesy of the Streisand-Adelman Virtual Library, and here’s the closest I find to actual empiricism in the context of my quote:

“Streisand-Adelman Virtual Library”, that’s a good one (waving index finger in anti-piracy fashion)…

Seriously, you are right, the research data of Dianetics has never been released. That doesn’t change the fact that two people can get together with the book and start auditing as described. Requires some courage though.

- Louanne

I’m not trying to prove anything. I’m not asking you to trust me. That’s not the way Scientology works. What’s true for you is true because you tried it and it worked. It doesn’t work on faith, just “did it work?”. If this isn’t true for you, I’m totally ok with that. I’m also not going to discuss the tech with you for this exact reason. It either works for you or it doesn’t. You want to be scientific about this? Sit down and audit someone on Dianetics without evaluating for them (telling them what to think) or invalidating their data and see what happens. That’s empirical. There are lectures available in any Church or Mission that you can listen to that give actual demonstrations. Just ask to hear the Dianetic Demonstrations (part of the Lecture set called Dianetics Lectures and Demonstrations) as a Tape Play service (I think they charge $2.50 per lecture for this). Go ahead. Test it. Be my guest.

Pat

All right. So I crack open my copy of Dianetics(TM), courtesy of the Streisand-Adelman Virtual Library, and here’s the closest I find to actual empiricism in the context of my quote:

“Two hundred and seventy-three individuals have been examined and treated, representing all the various types of inorganic mental illness and the many varieties of psycho-somatic ills. In each one this reactive mind was found operating, its principles unvaried.”

That’s… it. That’s all. No footnotes, no references, no documentation to establish that this study occurred, let alone that it obeyed any standards of rigor or produced the claimed results. For comparison, let us examine a real scientific study:

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/297/15/1657

Note the extensive documentation of the circumstances, methods, and results of the study. This allows other scientists to, well, study the study — and, if desired, to replicate it. This process is called “peer review,” and while it is not perfect, it is far more reliable than simply taking every man at his word who says “Dude, this totally works; trust me.”

Hey, this is what happens when you don’t read the books.

The cases where these were proven empirically have been documented.

Original Theses
Evolution of a Science
Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental Health
Science of Survival

Even the quote you give has empirical data, if you were to read it in context. I don’t think you have a problem reading, so why not do that?

Pat

I know, right? Science is fucking awesome.

But tell me one thing. How do you prove that negative?

I don’t have to. The burden of proof is on the person claiming the connection. Go word-clear “null hypothesis.”

I mean, it’s not like it would be particularly difficult to demonstrate that Lafayette(TM)’s claims are true, if they are. Take two groups, a control group and an experimental group. Audit(TM) the experimental group, Scientology(TM) style, and let the control group simmer in its entheta(TM). Then see if there’s any difference in the average physical health of the two groups. Or, if you’re worried about the morality of exposing people to Scientology(TM), just run an observational study. Compare the health of wogs with that of Scientologists(TM). You can’t infer causation, but you can at least infer correlation.

Unfortunately, my understanding is that Scientologists(TM) get sick and die just like everyone else. Even Lafayette(TM) himself suffered from allergies, as you admit. (Or was there an unresolved spiritual “thing” that was involved with that? And if so, how the heck did Lafayette(TM) still have an unresolved spiritual “thing”?)