ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at


Discussion in 'Important documents' started by Lohan2008, Jun 10, 2009.

  1. Lohan2008

    Lohan2008 Gold Meritorious Patron

    Scientific evaluation and criticisms

    Dianetics sets forth the non-germ theory of disease, embracing, it has been estimated by competent physicians, the explanation of some seventy percent of man's pathology.

    – L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, [37]

    Hubbard's original book on Dianetics attracted highly critical reviews from science and medical writers and organizations. The American Psychological Association passed a resolution in 1950 calling "attention to the fact that these claims are not supported by empirical evidence of the sort required for the establishment of scientific generalizations."[38][39]

    Subsequently, Dianetics has achieved no general acceptance as a bona fide scientific theory. Scientists have described Dianetics as an example of pseudoscience.[40][41]

    Few scientific investigations into the effectiveness of Dianetics have been published. Professor John A. Lee states in his 1970 evaluation of Dianetics:

    Objective experimental verification of Hubbard's physiological and psychological doctrines is lacking. To date, no regular scientific agency has established the validity of his theories of prenatal perception and engrams, or cellular memory, or Dianetic reverie, or the effects of Scientology auditing routines. Existing knowledge contradicts Hubbard's theory of recording of perceptions during periods of unconsciousness.[42]
    The MEDLINE database records two independent scientific studies on Dianetics, both conducted in the 1950s under the auspices of New York University. Harvey Jay Fischer tested Dianetics therapy against three claims made by proponents and found it does not effect any significant changes in intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, or the degree of personality conflicts;[43] Jack Fox tested Hubbard's thesis regarding recall of engrams, with the assistance of the Dianetic Research Foundation, and could not substantiate it.[44]

    Hubbard claimed, in an interview with the New York Times in November 1950, that "he had already submitted proof of claims made in the book to a number of scientists and associations." He added that the public as well as proper organizations were entitled to such proof and that he was ready and willing to give such proof in detail.[45] In January 1951, the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation of Elizabeth, NJ published Dianetic Processing: A Brief Survey of Research Projects and Preliminary Results, a booklet providing the results of psychometric tests conducted on 88 people undergoing Dianetics therapy. It presents case histories and a number of X-ray plates to support claims that Dianetics had cured "aberrations" including manic depression, asthma, arthritis, colitis and "overt homosexuality," and that after Dianetic processing, test subjects experienced significantly increased scores on a standardized IQ test. The report's subjects are not identified by name, but one of them is clearly Hubbard himself ("Case 1080A, R. L.").[46]

    The authors provide no qualifications, although they are described in Hubbard's book Science of Survival (where some results of the same study were reprinted) as psychotherapists. Critics of Dianetics are skeptical of this study, both because of the bias of the source and because the researchers appear to ascribe all physical benefits to Dianetics without considering possible outside factors; in other words, the report lacks any scientific controls. J.A. Winter, M.D., originally an associate of Hubbard and an early adopter of Dianetics, had by the end of 1950 cut his ties with Hubbard and written an account of his personal experiences with Dianetics. He described Hubbard as "absolutistic and authoritarian",[47] and criticized the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation for failing to undertake "precise scientific research into the functioning of the mind".[48] He also recommended that auditing be done by experts only and that it was dangerous for laymen to audit each other.[47] Hubbard writes: "Again, Dianetics is not being released to a profession, for no profession could encompass it."[49]

    Commentators from a variety of backgrounds have described Dianetics as an example of pseudoscience, that is, information which claims to be scientific but which fails to meet the basic criteria for science. For example, philosophy professor Robert Carroll points to Dianetics' lack of empirical evidence:

    What Hubbard touts as a science of mind lacks one key element that is expected of a science: empirical testing of claims. The key elements of Hubbard's so-called science don't seem testable, yet he repeatedly claims that he is asserting only scientific facts and data from many experiments. It isn't even clear what such "data" would look like. Most of his data is in the form of anecdotes and speculations ... Such speculation is appropriate in fiction, but not in science.[50]
    W. Sumner Davis similarly comments that

    Dianetics is nothing more than an example of pseudoscience trying to legitimize itself ... Hubbard, had he indeed been a scientist, would have known that truth is not built on axioms, and facts cannot be found from some a-priori knowledge. A true science is constructed on hypotheses, which are arrived at by the virtue of observed phenomena. Scientific knowledge is gained by observation and testing, not believing from some subconscious stipulation, as Hubbard would have us believe.[51]
  2. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Lol. This doesn't even mention the slave labor. This guy is obviously a Hubbard apologist. ;)
  3. Lohan2008

    Lohan2008 Gold Meritorious Patron


    uniquemand: Re: RPF
    Oh, yeah, I thought it was clear I was joking. Sorry.
  4. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    All I can say is that it was one of the hardest books to read ever!

    Ive enjoyed 1930's electronic manuals more.:pullhair:
  5. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    I rather liked DMSMH. I found it very easy. I read it cover to cover three times in about three days (a weekend or so). I like SOS better, though.
  6. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    It could be that my vocabulary is crap. It certainly isnt written for the common people. Or maybe I just didnt want to read it cos I thought it was flawed.
  7. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Which was it?

    Hubbard does use language strangely. I didn't object to reading it, I had sought it out.
  8. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    I had it somewhat thrust at me, the whole subject, it wasnt my idea to get involved. I was there not by my own determinism, therefore I couldnt be arsed to read it properly, kept forgetting what I was doing it for.

    I was doing it to please a member of my family who now wont talk to me cos Im an evil SP.
  9. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist


    You might want to look up "Dianetics an experiment comes up dry"

    Then you can look up "False Memory Syndrome" to get the bigger picture.

    Engrams don't exist except as a fabrication.
  10. flashgordon

    flashgordon Patron with Honors

    I feel they should have included in "Dianetics" that if a person had been on Psych drugs or street drugs that they will most likely become an illegal PC. When I read "Dianetics", I had no idea that some people were denied auditing. The book was revised after 1950 and things were added to "Dianetics", why didn't LRH add that?
  11. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Because he was making it up as he went along.
  12. flashgordon

    flashgordon Patron with Honors

    Could you explain to me more of what you mean and how that explain why he left the illegal PC part out of Dianetics?
  13. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    A psych case is illegal because it could get the org into trouble, committing suicide etc, if a member of the public audits someone and the guy gets suicidal then no org is affected so it doent matter.

    Yes he really was that caring.

    The public can get screwed as long as he and the orgs couldnt be touched.
  14. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    I mean he was adding to the subject as he went along, largely by plagiarizing other authors, and then converting their offerings into Scientologese, with a slapdash effort at making an appearance at continuity. He left the "illegal PC" part out of Dianetics because he didn't anticipate the success of the subject, and hadn't realized that he would be held responsible for what happened when people who should be under the care of doctors hurt each other using his offering. He wasn't aware, yet, that he would need to mitigate liability.
  15. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    uniquement, since when has dianetics actually been successful, appart from NEP buying Bridge books and vice-a-versa
  16. flashgordon

    flashgordon Patron with Honors

    Yes, but he was aware later when he came out with the ilegal PC HCOB's. Why didn't he add the possible that a PC could be barred from being audited by scientology auditors because of Psych involvement or too much street drugs in later releases of Dianetics?
  17. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    DMSMH was perfect, it sold, so why change anything. If he was getting money for it, what could be more important than that?

    Anyway he continued to sell it after he thought that dianetics wasnt the answer, why did he do that? Probably because it still brought people in thinking that they could go clear, easily and cheaply. It sounded fairly plausible as a technique.

    La La
  18. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    I ran Book I sessions right after reading it with a friend, who came to improvement in mood, realization, and extroversion of attention. He thought it was amazing, changed the way he felt about himself, and wanted more! I thought I should probably take a course before we did more. I had never been in to the Church/FDN at that point, just read the book.

    Probably because he wasn't aware of that stuff. I also think that the drug and "psych involvement" stuff is a bunch of malarkey.

    I don't think he ever thought Dianetics wasn't "the answer". I think he began to realize it was "an answer" amongst many, but I agree that the reason he left it alone was because it was a "successful action".
  19. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    If there was only book one, no orgs or execs would the planet be any clearer by now?
  20. uniquemand

    uniquemand Unbeliever

    Perhaps, perhaps not. Clearing is an individual decision. Teaching how to do it, while it CAN be done in an organization, IMO, leads to commercial interest, which perverts the purpose. Apprenticeships, IMO, are the best way to teach it, once a person develops an interest after reading. The details of the requirements for the apprenticeship, of course, could still be financial, but if you have more than a couple apprentices, you would have very little time for anything else. I'd be happy to teach one person at a time for about a year, which is basically what I do.