Generally speaking, it is my contention that Hubbard did no credible research of his own. Instead he distilled ideas from books he had read, the few college courses he took, his own experiences, and his very fertile and disturbed mind, and came up with a mish-mash of bizarre theories which he wrote down in scientific-sounding phrases and words.

I was a participant, though minor, on alt.religion.scientology back in the heyday of the uprising against the Church of Scientology.

I came to the conclusion that Dianetics/Scientology is a therapy system L. Ron Hubbard created to fight the symptoms of mild schizophrenia he suffered from (for which there is some direct evidence and the whole of D/S as indirect evidence). Most Scientology goals and methods are quite intelligible when that premise is assumed. The state of ‘Clear’, for example, is essentially a state in which sensory and auditory hallucinations and hallucinations of thought no longer occupy the subject. Real superhuman, eh.

Oh, if you want some great fun with Hubbard, find the tomato experiments where he discovered that they scream when sliced. If you want to know just how far Scientology goes (or used to go, it’s just about money and power now), try looking up ‘auditing process R2-45′ or ‘Operation Snow White’.

“You guys ignore one major fact which is that dianetics/scientology auditing does work!”

*laugh*

Here’s a deal — you point me to one reputable, double-blind third-party study that affirms any of Hubbard’s nonsense… and I’ll eat my hat.

Here’s one great example of Hubbard’s “science:”

LRH claimed that engrams (a type of thought) had mass… and that it was a “fact” that Scientologists who had undergone auditing using an E-meter actually MEASURABLY lost weight as they were freed from negative engrams.

Sounds like an easily testable claim, no? Especially since LRH claimed POUNDS of difference… not micrograms or something more difficult to measure.

So, rather than bash LRH as a liar and a fraud (ad hominem being so passe)… I’m left to wonder why Scientologists haven’t gone out of their way to clearly and, ahem, scientifically prove their dear leader’s words to be true.

You know — as opposed to requiring everyone to write up their anecdotal “wins” prior to advancing to the next level of wallet biopsy.

I never paid a cent into it. I was born with a “magnetic personality,” and didn’t need to go “clear” to get one. Plus, I was almost uncontrollably creative.

Now maybe if they’d said going clear would give you cavity-proof teeth, perfectly formed bowel movements every time, or that you could eat cheese by the brick with no ill effects…sign me up!

Well Deck Moss, you pay more, you get more :)

Hubbard promised the moon, and everything else…all the answers to the universe. That Scientology was the only viable alternative to shooting yourself in the head, which you might as well do, if you walk out that door now… (from their old propaganda piece)

This all from a huckster who popped pills, chain-smoked, and lied about practically everything!

If a person can ignore the part about Xenu and DC-8 airplanes 75 million years ago…Hubbard’s early study of Satanism with a disciple of Aleister Crowley…dozens of tapes of his voice where he sounds like a ranting raving lunatic, and about a thousand other things about Hubbard and his cult, that’s it, your mind is fried.

There may be a few, but I’ve never met a straight adolescent who sincerely wished he could be gay.

Although you say you aren’t a Scientologist now, your thinking was severely twisted by Hubbard cuckoo.

For most people, yourself and Kinsey excepted, sexual orientation is fixed throughout life.

Scientology is a choice. You can choose to get involved in the brainwashing methods of a deluded sci fi writer who thought he had all the answers…”Dr. Hubbard, nuclear physicist and medical doctor” (as printed on one of his books about radiation.) Or you can choose to be part of the rational world and get an education, or at least read books by people with real ideas, not mind-control money-making scams.

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.

Generally speaking, it is my contention that Hubbard did no credible research of his own. Instead he distilled ideas from books he had read, the few college courses he took, his own experiences, and his very fertile and disturbed mind, and came up with a mish-mash of bizarre theories which he wrote down in scientific-sounding phrases and words.

They’ve come a long way from conducting “personality tests” on the streets, but there’s no conversation to be had. . .the old line of “I don’t want to have this coversation”, “this conversation is finished” is the typical language of the person questioned. . . .engaging in logic is futile.