From: cultxprt@indirect.com (Jeff Jacobsen)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: CofS critique part 5
Date: 24 May 1994 23:43:12 GMT
Organization: Internet Direct, Inc.
Lines: 281
Message-ID: <2ru3eg$586@herald.indirect.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: id1.indirect.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]

                           THE HUBBARD IS BARE        
PART 5
                            by Jeff Jacobsen
                               PO Box 3541
                               Scottsdale, AZ  85271

     copyright 1992 by Jeff Jacobsen
     may be reprinted so long as it is kept in its entirety and not 
     edited.
          
      
      
     
     
     SCIENCE AND DIANETICS
     
     
        L. Ron Hubbard constantly makes the claim that dianetics is a
     "scientific fact."  In fact, he makes that claim 35 times in
     Dianetics.  For example, "All our facts are functional and these
     facts are scientific facts, supported wholly and completely by
     laboratory evidence."1  Hubbard shows that he regards correct
     scientific experimentation to a high degree by carefully hedging
     his approval of another scientific experiment done by someone
     else.  This test was conducted in a hospital to see whether
     unattended children became sick more often than attended
     children.  "The test... seems to have been conducted with proper
     controls,"2 he cautiously states, not having apparently seen the
     entire written report.
        In The Phoenix Lectures Hubbard is also critical of the early
     psychiatric work of Wundt in the latter 1800's; "Scientific
     methodology was actually not, there and then, immediately
     classified... what they did was unregulated, uncontrolled,
     wildcat experiments, fuddling around collecting enormous
     quantities of data..."3  And in a lecture in 1954, Hubbard
     complained loudly and long about how poorly psychologists and
     psychoanalysts conducted research and how they neglected to
     maintain proper records.4
       I am similarly cautious about Hubbard's experiments, especially
     since there seems to be no record of how they were done, what
     exactly the results were, what kind of control group was used,
     whether the experiments were double blind, how many subjects
     there were in each experiment, and other pertinent data.  I have
     asked ranking scientologists for this data, and have fervently
     searched for it myself, and have yet to see it.  This brings up
     the question about whether Hubbard can call his original research
     science.
        And, in keeping with the need to understand each word we use,
     it brings up the question of just what science is.  What does it
     take for someone to legitimately make the claim that his ideas
     are scientifically proven?  When can something be called a
     scientific fact?
     
        As with many subjects in life, the deeper one looks into
     science, the more complex it gets.  There is not even one single
     agreed upon definition for science in the scientific community. 
     Those people who seek to establish a unifying definition are
     dealing in what is called the philosophy of science.  One of the
     most respected and most influential of these is Karl Popper. 
     Popper claims that no theory can be called scientific unless it
     can be demonstrated that deliberate attempts to prove a theory
     wrong are unsuccessful.  Thus, a theory must open itself up to
     criticism from the scientific community to see whether it can
     withstand critical scrutiny.
      Popper's formulation for scientific validation is;
     
       (1) It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for
     nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations.
       (2) Confirmations should count only if they are the result of
     RISKY PREDICTIONS; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the
     theory in question, we should have expected an event which was
     incompatible with the theory - an event which would have refuted
     the theory.
       (3) Every 'good' scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids
     certain things to happen.  The more a theory forbids, the better
     it is.
       (4) A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is
     non-scientific.  Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as
     people often think) but a vice.
       (5) Every genuine TEST of a theory is an attempt to falsify it,
     or to refute it.  Testability is falsifiability; but there are
     degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more
     exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were,
     greater risks.
       (6) Confirming evidence should not count EXCEPT WHEN IT IS THE
     RESULT OF A GENUINE TEST OF THE THEORY; and this means that it
     can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify
     the theory (I now speak in such cases of 'corroborating
     evidence'.)
       (7) Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false,
     are still upheld by their admirers - for example by introducing
     AD HOC some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting the
     theory AD HOC in such a way that it escapes refutation.  Such a
     procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from
     refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering,
     its scientific status.5
     
        The falsifiability approach is a good one, because no theory
     can be proven unless every case possible is individually examined
     to see that it applies to every possible case, which is normally
     impossible to do.  For instance, a popular example of a "fact" in
     science classrooms of the 19th century was that "all swans are
     white."  This was, however, shown to be untrue when a variety of
     swan in South America was discovered to be black.  This "fact"
     was proven wrong by a previously unknown exception to the rule,
     and this example points out that it is never entirely possible to
     prove a theory in the positive without examining every possible
     case of that theory. (It is, of course, not possible to
     completely falsify many theories also, but for the sake of
     brevity I would refer the reader to Popper's Logic of Scientific
     Discovery for further arguments on this subject.) 
        Let us go now momentarily to one of Hubbard's scientific
     claims: 
     
     Its [the reactive mind's] identity can now be certified by any
     technician in any clinic or in any group of men.  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 psychosomatic ills.  In each one this
     reactive mind was found operating, its principles unvaried.6
     
        After the brief previous discussion of science, we can begin
     to question Hubbard's claim to scientific validity.   Exactly who
     were these 273 people?  Were they believers in Hubbard's theories
     or a representative sample of the public at large?  Exactly how
     was the experiment conducted that proved the existence of the
     reactive mind?  This needs to be known so others can try it to
     test for variables that Hubbard may have overlooked, to see if
     his experiment produced a statistical fluke, and to help in
     conducting experiments to try to disprove the theory.  The more
     times an experiment is conducted, the more likely it is shown to
     be true, keeping in mind of course that no matter how many times
     an expedition went looking for white swans, it would find them,
     so long as they didn't go to South America.
        Was Hubbard seeking confirmation in his experiments or was he
     attempting to refute his theory, as Popper suggests a true man of
     science would do?  Designing a test that will provide
     confirmation of a thesis is not difficult.  Below is such a test.
     
     A REAL EXPERIMENT COMES UP DRY
     
        Hubbard does mention an experiment to perform that can prove
     the existence of engrams: 
     
     If you care to make the experiment you can take a man, render him
     "unconscious," hurt him and give him information.  By Dianetic
     technique, no matter what information you gave him, it can be
     recovered.  This experiment should not be carelessly conducted
     because YOU MIGHT RENDER HIM INSANE.7 {emphasis in original}
     
        Three researchers at the University of California, Los
     Angeles, decided in 1950 to give this experiment a try.8  
     
     If an individual should be placed, by some means of [sic] other,
     into an unconscious state, then, according to traditional
     psychology, no retention of the events occurring about him should
     take place and consequently, no reports of such events can be
     elicited from the individual, no matter what methods of
     elicitation are employed (hypothesis I).  According to dianetics,
     retention should take place with high fidelity and, therefore an
     account of the events can be elicited by means of dianetic
     auditing (hypothesis II).9
     
        The Dianetic Research Foundation of Los Angeles cooperated
     with the experimenters by providing a subject and several
     qualified auditors.  The subject was a 30 year old male who
     worked for the foundation and was considered a good candidate for
     the experiment by the foundation since he had "sonic" recall and
     had been audited.  The experiment was carefully laid out
     according to dianetic theory and was at all times done under the
     cooperation and suggestions of the Foundation.
        The subject was knocked unconscious with .75 grams of sodium
     pentathol by Dr. A. Davis, MD, who is one of the authors of the
     experiment.  When the subject was found to be unconscious, Mr.
     Lebovits was left alone with the subject while two recording
     devices recorded the session.  Mr. Lebovits read a 35-word
     section of a physics book to the subject, administering pain
     during the reading of the last 18 words.  He then left the room,
     and the patient was allowed to rest for another hour, at which
     time he was awakened.
       Two days later, the professional auditors from the Dianetic
     Research Foundation began to audit the subject, trying to elicit
     the engram, or recording of the spoken text that according to
     dianetic theory resided in the subject's reactive mind.
        The auditors did elicit several possible passages from the
     subject and supplied these to the experimenters.  The results
     were that "comparison with the selected passage shows that none
     of the above-quoted phrases, nor any other phrases quoted in the
     report, bear any relationship at all to the selected passage. 
     Since the reception of the first interim report, in November
     1950, the experimenter tried frequently and repeatedly to obtain
     further reports, but so far without success."10
     
        The experimenters concluded by stating that while their test
     case was only one subject, they felt that the experiment was well
     done and strongly suggested that the engram hypothesis was not
     validated.  I know of no other scientifically valid experiment
     besides this one by non-dianeticists which attempted to prove
     Hubbard's engram theory.
        Here was an experiment designed to confirm the engram
     hypothesis which, according to Hubbard, was a "scientific fact." 
     Apparently (or, perhaps, IF) Hubbard did this test he got
     positive results.  But this is a good example for showing that
     even one type of experiment should be conducted several times in
     order to be sure of its outcome.  Perhaps some neutral party
     today could be persuaded to attempt it again.
        There is one point I consider the most damning to Hubbard's
     attempt to cloak dianetics in scientific validity.  While he
     seems to be inviting others to conduct their own investigations
     (and thus seems to be open to attempts to refute his claims), he
     never explains his own experimental methods, thus closing the
     door to the scientific community's ability to attempt to verify
     his claims.  In order to evaluate Hubbard's claims, the
     scientific community would seek to replicate his experiments to
     see if the same results were obtained and to check for possible
     influences on the experiment Hubbard may have overlooked.  They
     would also, as Popper suggests, try to shoot holes in the theory,
     either on a logical basis or by conducting refutational
     experiments.
        If Hubbard really respected science, he would have welcomed
     and helped the scientific community in its attempts to both
     support and attempt to refute his theories.  But he and his
     successors in dianetics and Scientology refuse to join in
     scientific debate over the merits of Hubbard's ideas, maintaining
     a dogmatic rather than scientific stance.  
        My attempts to get the experiments from the Church of
     Scientology have been in vain.  I have never heard of anyone who
     has seen them, nor even anyone who claimed to know how they were
     conducted.  It is mainly for this reason, I believe, that
     dianetics cannot claim scientific validity.  Until Hubbard's
     supposed original experiments are released to the public,
     dianetics can only be called science fiction.
        As a footnote, the only references I found to Hubbard's actual
     notes on any original experiments were on taped lectures by
     Hubbard in 1950 and 1958.  He stated in 1950 that "my records are
     in little notebooks, scribbles, in pencil most of them.  Names
     and addresses are lost... there was a chaotic picture..."  A
     certain Ms. Benton asked Hubbard for his notes to validate his
     research, but when she saw them, "she finally threw up her hands
     in horror and started in on the project [validation] clean."11 
     In another lecture in 1958 he explained "the first broad test"12
     of dianetics, wherein he would audit some patients of Dr.
     Yankeewitz at the Oak Knoll Hospital without the knowledge of the
     doctor.  Hubbard called these shoddily done tests "significant",
     but added that they are "unfortunately not totally available to
     us".13
        If this is the type of material Hubbard was basing his
     "scientific facts" on, then there is probably no need to even see
     them to be able to reject them with good conscience.
     
     
     
     1 DIANETICS, (1987 edition) p. 96
     2 DIANETICS, p.143
     3 L. Ron Hubbard, THE PHOENIX LECTURES,  (Los Angeles; Bridge
     Publications, 1982) p.203
     4 L. Ron Hubbard, "Lecture:Universes", 1954, from the "Universes
     and the War Between Theta and Mest" collection, cassette tape
     #5404C06
     5 Karl Popper, CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS: THE GROWTH OF
     SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (NY; Harper Torch Books, 1963) pp. 36,37
     6 DIANETICS, p.70-71
     7 Dianetics, p.76
     8 Psychological Newsletter (Dept. of Psychology, New York
     University, New York, NY) 1959, 10:131-134 "An Experimental
     Investigation of Hubbard's Engram Hypothesis (Dianetics)", by
     Fox, Davis, and Lebovits
     9 ibid. p.132
     10 ibid. p.133
     11 L. Ron Hubbard, "What Dianetics Can Do", lecture series 2,
     1950, cassette tape #5009M23
     12  "The Story of Dianetics and Scientology"
     13 ibid.

--
cultxprt@indirect.com
Jeff Jacobsen
PO Box 3541
Scottsdale, AZ  85271      Here I stand - I can do no more.



