Talk:Dianetics/Archive06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Overuse of citation templates

I've reverted Terryeo's plastering of the [citation needed] template over the first sections of the article. It may be appropriate to highlight one or two issues like that, but surely not many times over. Terryeo, if you have citation issues, could you please highlight them here on the talk page instead of cluttering up the article? Also, is there any chance that you could try to find citations yourself rather than depending on everyone else to do it for you? Have you actually contributed so much as a single citation in the entire article? If not, why not? -- ChrisO 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not too long ago I spelled out 7 wrongnesses with the citations as they stand, for example citing a whole book as a reference for a 7 word phrase. Quantity does not quality begat. Terryeo 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Especially the idea that a citation is needed for "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments." That's blatant abuse of the process, right there. "I want you to describe Dianetics in my wording! If you use any other words besides mine I'll slap a hundred demands for citations on the article!" Such petty gamesmanship is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I want the article to accurately describe Dianetics. An excellent and available to everyone reference is to be found [1] which has on its first page, "Dianetics is an activity." I appriciate it, Feldspar, that you consider I am a dyed-in-the-wool, born again (something) who would strike with lightening those whom think bad thoughts. Such is not the case. I want the article to accurately describe what Dianetics is. This should take perhaps one paragraph. It should be the first paragraph. After readers understand what the article is about, hey, say anything within wikipedia's policies that makes sense to you. The opening sentence everyone keeps reverting to is not an accurate description of Dianetics. Terryeo 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Uh, Terryeo, I can't find where it says that. Perhaps you are referring to a different site? Tenebrous 03:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't read this either (although I wouldn't be surprised to see it appearing after 14h00). Anyways, that would be irrelevant even if the site says it's an activity, this means nothing. It's more useful to state what it is exactly. Also, Terryeo, remember that you reworded a lot the intro of this article at previous time, and you have gone through different description of what is Dianetics: a "philosophy", a "body of information", a "theory", etc. Now you want it to be an "activity"... Raymond Hill 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, please read WP:POINT. User:Tenebrous 01:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Tenebrous Terryeo 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Okay, I've done that and see your point regarding "gaming the system".Terryeo 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, I don't see how you can consider the wording "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments" to be inaccurate, yet you consider "Dianetics is an activity based on a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind" to be correct. They sure seem to be saying the same thing to me, but the wording is better is the first version. If you want to insist we use the same exact wording as dianetics.org, I don't think you'll find much support. Keep in mind, we're not trying to present the topic in a way that devotees of the subject matter will agree is "the truth", we're trying to present a neutral overview of the topic in the form of an encyclopedia article. Friday (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday. Dianetics is first and foremost an action. Like the Catholic confessional, it has ideas which it is based on. But you wouldn't present the confessional as "a set of ideas .. which attempt to alleviate ..." but instead you would present it as an action. Dianetics is an action which involves communication. Sure, there are ideas it is based on. Sure, it purports to provide some kinds of relief. But it is (usually 2 people) an activity, it is communication. The subject is easily misunderstood. Can we have "activity" as an early word in its description? Terryeo 21:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying Dianetics is more a religious practice than a therapy? Raymond Hill 15:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right, the Dianetics site no longer says "Dianetics is an activity" but instead says, "Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does." Phased slightly differently it would be: "Dianetics is an activity that gets rid of the reactive mind". I do mean to say that Dianetics is an action (based on ideas of course). This separates Dianetics from Intelligent Design because Dianetics does something, that's why it exists at all. But Intelligent Design is a theory without an action. Dianetics has you pare off they guy's reactive mind. Intelligent Design has you look at the growing grass. Dianetics is an activity.[2] Intelligent Design is an observation. I am not introducing "religious practice" at this time.Terryeo 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's follow this out. Terryeo says "Site X says 'Dianetics is an activity' therefore we should describe it as an activity". Someone points out that Site X doesn't say 'Dianetics is an activity'. Terryeo replies that the site says 'Dianetics gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does' as if this was the textual support he claimed he had that Dianetics is an activity. Does the sentence 'X gets rid of the reactive mind. It’s the only thing that does' still make as much sense if we substitute something that is not an activity, such as a dietary supplement or a pill? Just as much sense. So why is this sentence in any way relevant to the current discussion, since it doesn't actually support any of the claims that anyone considers to be at issue? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's do follow it out. I'm not stuck on using the word "activity". I do want the article to accurately present Dianetics. I used that word and that link because (at that time) it used the word "activity." Its an action, you know, an activity, a practice, something people do. Yes, it is based on ideas. The reason I bring it up is to cause the first paragraph of the article to present what Dianetics is to the reader. Terryeo 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Dianetics has a much wider scope than "Dianetics is a set of ideas about the nature and structure of the human mind, and a set of associated practices which attempt to treat physical and mental ailments". It contains at least 10 basic books, innumerable courses and tapes that describe the philosophy, science, research, therapy and practice of Dianetics as it applies to the spirit, mind and body, over a span of 75 years that produced at least 50,000 Clears and has been read by something like 20,000,000 people. Terryeo chooses to call this "activity". Certainly we can come up with something closer to the actual scope than what we have in the article now. Does anyone agree? Spirit of Man 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a whole lot of information, no arguement. And the Scientology books and lectures often reference Dianetics ideas.Terryeo 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The books and courses and tapes, as you yourself say, describe Dianetics. They are not Dianetics itself. If you disagree with this then please explain what is in the books, courses, tapes, et cetera that is not contained in Dianetics, the set of ideas and associated practices. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well that's true, there exists a group of information which a guy could point to and say, "Dianetics". That's true. But there is action which is done by people that have read that information. Read it, do it. That kind of thingTerryeo 22:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said, Dianetics has "a much wider scope". I also said in the request for mediation that the calling parties are seeking "to diminsish the scope of the subject". I did not say, "They are not Dianetics itself." Your question seeks to limit the scope to ideas and practices of the mind. Let's take your question as an example of a thought process I think you have constructed, believe in, and continue to represent. You wish to diminish the scope of the subject as I presented it, and in your mind you diminish this scope to a "set of ideas and associated practices." So in your mind you wish to limit the scope of Discussion, so you limit your question here to "books and courses and tapes". So far, you have deleted 20,000,000 people at least, reading and speculating on Dianetics, 50,000 Clears produced by Dianetics, about 50,000 staff members world-wide actively conducting the activity of Dianetics each day, towards a Goal "to Clear the planet". The study referenced in Science of Survival with 88 students getting an IQ gain of 10+ points and providing one public example of test results for Dianetics. There is a meter that makes visible spiritual and mental reactions that no other mental study can match. So back to the limits of your question. What do the "books, courses and tapes" say beyond "ideas and practices" of the mind. First of all ideas and practices is more of a concise dictionary entry than an Introduction to an article on Dianetics of many thousands of words, with sub-articles. One book and many tapes, describe the philosophy of Dianetics, how Dianetics is different than other philosophies by starting with the novel idea that nothing is known. This at once bypasses all fixed ideas of philosophy and the starting points of all other philosophies. From that beginning comes major discoveries that explain all existence, explain the nature and scope of the human spirit and explains the demonstrable potentials of the human mind. One of the qualities of the human spirit is that it creates the mind. A second quality is that it doesn't need a mind to operate at all. It can view the human mind. The human mind is visible, measurable, testable and demonstrable. Simply compressing a description of all existence, the nature of the human soul, the solution to all insanity, criminality and war, self-generated illness and inability, and the technology of how you do all this, to a non-descriptive term like "idea", I say misrepresents the scope. The books, courses and tapes represent a developing subject over a period of 75 years. The ideas in the article mostly reflect a couple of controversial years when the public was buying a book and testing new ideas with little or no training to back them up, that were also being rejected and hammered by competing political and mental studies without any testing by those entities what-so-ever. It really discusses little more than way too much conflict relative to some of the ideas and 55 year-old practices in one book. Most of which is taken out of context by quoting Winter who was in conflict with the basic ideas of Dianetics anyways. The pictures and auditing required to be given and received in the Dianetics Seminar Course provide hands on experience with each of the "ideas" of the materials of Dianetics as currently used. Yes, YOU could condense the world to two words, "ideas" and "practices", but you lose the world when you do it. I would rather you just NOT do it. Spirit of Man 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
"Dianetics is a philosophy, science and therapy presented by L. Ron Hubbard and its publishers as a record of his personal researches into the human spirit and mind, which is now incorporated into the activities of the applied religious philosophy of Scientology." is a better introduction of the scope of the subject, I think. Spirit of Man 05:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Are we back to "term, topic, context?" An introduction should present what the article is about. Dianetics is an action, it is something people do. Usually 2 people do it together. Yeah, there is, you know, ideas or theory or whatever you want to call the information that tells what to do. But it is something to do. Terryeo 03:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, why does the header duplicate what is said of the the limited scope in the introduction? Spirit of Man 01:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The header at the top of this discussion page you mean? ChrisO placed it there (dumbo template). It was his opinion at the time that this article's talk page should follow Intelligent Design's talk page and he attempted to limit discussion on this page to a single area of presentation which was "how to treat a subject as a pseudoscience". I removed said template a couple of times, people reverted it. I brought up that this talk page and article follows exactly all of the policies of every article and finally, in fustration, expanded the thing to include the possibility of talking of religion on this talk page and of talking of theory on this talk page too. Duh, we can talk anything, expand the template all you want, its useless anyway.Terryeo 03:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perfect example

"The preclear is asked to inspect and familiarize himself with the exact details of his own experience and the auditor may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds. This is entirely up to the preclear." This is a perfect example of a point made much earlier, that although DMSMH et al. might be primary sources on aspects of Dianetics they are not unimpeachable sources -- it is not as simply as "DMSMH said it so that's the way it is." Above we see claims that Spirit of Man added to the article today, that the auditor "may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds". However, transcripts from Winter show the auditor most definitely evaluating the information the preclear finds, asking leading questions, declining to accept any of the preclear's own explanations and inserting his own, etc.[3] In theory, it might be "entirely up to the preclear", but in practice, it is clearly not. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I think I'm pretty reasonable about the information comprises Scientology. The Winter example (which is Winter's statement and not anyone else's statement, not the Church of Scientology's statement) could be 100% accurate. Maybe. Or, because Winter was disabused of the ideas of Dianetics, it could be just slightly inaccurate. Or even a whole bunch inaccurate. We only have Winter's word about it and we don't have any verification besides his written word. We don't have a second source. At least his statement should be viewed with a tiny bit of skepticsm because he published it with the intent to defame and belittle Dianetics. It hasn't been notorized or witnessed, its only his word. Terryeo 03:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Since you're still fighting tooth and nail the sworn testimony of Scientology's own witness, you're clearly not a very good judge of when skepticism is appropriate. Your prejudice is showing, by the way, when you declare that "he published it with the intent to defame and belittle Dianetics," an assertion for which you provide no evidence. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I read your link there Feldspar. The guy's headache cleared up. There was some suggestion the therapist (dianetics auditor) used. There was very little evaluation. It is a typical Xenu.net sort of example. It is an early example, modern sessions by trained (within the church) auditors don't go like that.Terryeo 09:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"The guy's headache cleared up." Excuse me, how is that relevant? The point at issue is not "does Dianetics clear up headaches?" but "can the assertion 'the auditor may not tell him anything about his case or evaluate any of the information the preclear finds' be inserted into the article as fact because, for instance, DMSMH tells us that this is how it works?" To get the answer "no" all we need to do is find counter-examples, and while you make a big deal of the example being found on Xenu.net, very clearly you failed to read the context and realize that this sample auditing session was presented to the public by a supporter of Dianetics as an example of Dianetics done right. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
"The guy's headache cleared up" is relevent because the leading questions (or whatever they be called) produced a result? The Auditor clearly evaluates what Winter said and used Winter's chest scratching also, in asking the questions he asked. Of course the auditor evaluated. His evaluations are used toward asking helpful questions and he does't say things like, "are you aware you are scratching your chest, why are you doing that?' Terryeo 22:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed Feldspar, an excellent example of how Xenu.net exaggerates beyond any jot of good sense. The actual situation is as Spirit of Man has stated it to be, the Auditor's Code spells out the degree of CRIME it is to evaluate a preclear's statements to him, while Xenu.net would find some tiniest bit of evaluation somewhere in vast pages and pages and present it as COMMON. It is as Spirit of Man has stated and not as Xenu.net says. It is possible you will find some imperfection and flaw in a body of practices. Even Catholic Priests are known to molest little boys (given a very large body of priests and a long period of time), but the generality and the practice is as Spirit of Man has stated it to be.Terryeo 03:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for using that metaphor. Really. =) You may have meant to be offensive to my religion but what you actually did was give me the chance to show how one can be reasonable about one's own religion and avoid playing the religion card. If someone added to an article about Roman Catholic priests the sentence "they are always celibate", would I say "Oh, yeah, that's how it's supposed to work, so let's pretend it always does work that way"? No. Instead, I would say something like "While all Roman Catholic priests are supposed to be celibate, in practice there have been violations, many of which came to light in the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal." See? Not only do I not feel the need to assault and discredit the source that brings to light a less-than-pretty part of my religion, I acknowledge its truth and give people a link to find out more. That's part of what it means to edit in good faith, Terryeo; if you were interested in editing in good faith, this would be a valuable learning opportunity for you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, some Catholic priests molest little boys. Is this typical of all Catholic priests? No. Does that mean that we can't have a whole article devoted to the subject? Nope. Same with this, except that neither you nor I have any idea on how often this occurs. Should this information be in this article? Yes, I consider it to be relevant. What can we say about it? One, that it has happened. Two, that the CoS considers it to be wrong when it does happen. Three, there is no information as to frequency of occurence. That's all there is. Tenebrous 03:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course its not common or the Catholic Church would soon fail. We can also spell out the preventitive procedures the Church of Scientology invokes to prevent evaluations and the corrective procedures the Church uses to insure it doesn't continue to happen. But no, there's no published, statistical data.Terryeo 08:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
While Dianetics was being developed and publically used by Hubbard (1950 to 1954), I have no idea how often that exception happened. In more recent times the Auditor's Code has spelled it out to be a CRIME and this is not an idication of punishment, but an indication of the procedure used to correct an auditor who does evaluate for a preclear, to a preclear. It might happen once in a while but the Church of Scientology has a corrective procedure for a CRIME which gets the auditor to understand the situation so he doesn't continue to perform the CRIME. In addition, the Church procedures put in place "an examination" to happen immediate after every session, done by a second auditor in a separate location (preclear goes to the examiner immediately after session) which is designed to assure such instances of evaluation (and some other possible problems) are uncovered immediately. However, it is possible in sessions which happen outside of Church bounds that evaluations might happen. Unheard of? no. Common? no. Terryeo 08:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it's neccessary to spell out all of how the CoS tries to keep it from happening, but if you've got a citation that describes it, you could add something like "The CoS considers this to be dangerous and follows a strict protocol to prevent it from happening." and tack the cite to the end. Tenebrous 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Myself, I would not include this element of "What happens when the auditor evaluates a preclear's statement for and to the preclear". I just wouldn't bring the question up or go through the complexity of technology, corrective technology and all the rest because it involves additional documentation, (The Auditor's Code which is solid page long) and involves CRIME and involves a number of corrective technologies the Church uses. However, if Xenu.net (dispicable!) is going to be cited as to state such evaluations are commonplace then, to give a balanced presentation to the reader of these articles, it would be necessary to put a perspective. It is not commonplace. It is carefully guarded against. The procedures to isure an auditing session remain free of evaluation, like many technologies, can't be stated in a single sentence.Terryeo 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we just make an Auditor's Code article and link to it? --Davidstrauss 20:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, David, that would be OKAY, but that we would pretty much have to quote the whole Auditor's Code (about a typewritten page long) and wouldn't that get us onto the edge of copyright violations? Terryeo 01:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
We might need to rephrase it, but even including it even directly may be fair use. --Davidstrauss 19:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Joe Winter [1950] parted ways with Dianetics on just this exact issue. He would not accept information the preclear felt was real. He evaluated for preclears in violation of the Auditor's Code. He even tried to force the entire Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation to reject what preclears said when they mentioned anything earlier than this life. He is perhaps "the classic example" of why one does not violate this first principle of the Auditor's Code. It is NOT a Dianetic principle to evaluate anything FOR the preclear, and even J. Winter left Dianetics when he failed to appreciate how great its implications and can be and the resulting damage that can be caused. Spirit of Man 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Dianetics procedure in practice

I would like to remove this statement from the article, but Antaeus retains it:

"(often also referred to by Hubbard as the "patient")"

The Research and Discovery Series 2, July-Aug 1950, page 576, says, ["patient", indexed here in non-Dianetic contexts, see "preclear" for term used in any Dianetic contexts.] This term is not appropriate here for many reasons, such as not being used in Dianetics in the last 50 years at lease. Does anyone mind if I delete it? Spirit of Man 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The meanings of words change. Hubbard begin with the idea that the "patient" need know nothing about Dianetics, Had the "patient" lay back on a couch and all the rest. Dianetics advanced. By 1955 it was very clear that the more a "patient" understood, the faster they advanced. "Patient" was no longer an accurate description of a preclear. "Subject" never applied to the preclear. Dianetics intends and means to increase a person's own volition. Both "patient" and "subject" imply nothing toward the result Dianetics intends. Terryeo 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus has once again reverted the deleted "patient" material without Discussion. Why do you want it there Antaeus? It hasn't been used in Dianetic practice for 55 years, which I clearly stated in the edit. Why would you want to direct people's attention to it in a section on "current" Dianetic practice? Do you intend to mislead people into believing a "treatment" is implied when it is not? I think that is truly the case. I refer you to the inside cover or copyright page of DMSMH or church policy that says, anyone with a medical condition or wants medical treatment will be referred to a medical doctor. Only those seeking spiritual gain are accepted for auditing. That would be a "preclear". Spirit of Man 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I see absolutely nothing in either the article itself or here on the talk page indicating that that section of the article is on "current" Dianetic practice only. Where do you see that? With no such indication and no such agreement I think the fact that L. Ron Hubbard, who claimed that auditing was capable of curing a great number of conditions which would definitely be counted as "medical" and not "spiritual" by the vast majority of the population, also referred to the person receiving the benefit of the auditing as the "patient" and not just the "preclear", is entirely relevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Dianetics has been practiced in the public eye for about 55 years. For the first year or two, while it was being developed "patient" was used. Historically that is accurate. But for 50 years now, that isn't accurate. "Preclear" is accurate. Just last week I got a newsleter, talks about Dianetics being used in Africa. Some person had be tortured, it healed but they still couldn't walk on one foot. They did a Dianetics session with the "preclear", the person was soon walking. As long as we present a historical perspective, "patient" would be okay, but if we present it in broad, general ways without mentioning the year of it, "preclear" is more accurate. Terryeo 01:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Glitch in edit/revert

I reverted Terryeo's "physical" removal. (Note 5 supports that the book at least does make physical claims.) However, the revert seems to have skipped over and overwritten a second edit by Terryeo that didn't exist when I started the revert. It wasn't my intent to wipe Terryeo's further work without reading any of it. For the moment, I'll step back and not stress the Wiki system further by trying to untangle it. AndroidCat 23:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, regarding my removing the "physical", well I do that pretty often in the article and it would be good to discuss it. Dianetics doesn't say it can regrow lost limbs, after all. As the legal situation has become more clear and court cases have defined what is allowable, where possible areas of illegality exist, Dianetics has become more careful with its language. It hasn't changed direction, but has become more careful of its skirts, so to speak. Today the Dianetics website and the Church of Scientology are very careful about claiming they fix any kind of human body problem. Terryeo 01:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It's an interesting question. When would you say that the CoS ceased making such claims? -- ChrisO 01:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
That's tricky. What do they call physical and what is psychosomatic: "Psychosomatic illnesses such as arthritis, asthma, rheumatism, heart trouble, and on and on for a total of 70 percent of man’s ills—and women’s too—are the reaction of the body against a painful mental image picture. When this picture is cleared away—if it is the right picture—the illness usually abates." [[4]] (I believe they're quoting or paraphrasing a lecture, but I'm not sure which one.) AndroidCat 03:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Let's talk about "Psychosomatic". Apparently Hubbard always addressed a person as a spiritual being. The "psyche" part of psychosomatic. Before 1952 the spiritual part was referred to in scientific terms, the "awareness of awareness unit", or with the portion of the analytical mind containing his basic identity, known as "basic personality". In 1951 the basic principles of the "psyche" part were more fully articulated as the first three Dianetic axioms. By 1954 it was understood that some Clears could create any portion of their minds at will. It was not until some time later that it was articulated that "Dianetics" was in fact what the soul or spirit was doing to the body. In Dianetics the mind consists of mental image pictures containing sensations. When one or more of these mental sensations, having to do with the body, is used by the spirit continuously or chronically, that is a chronic body sensation, and was called a "chronic somatic". So in Dianetics the psychiatric term "Psychosomatic Illness" is not used. The term "chronic somatic" is more technically correct. When the spirit no longer uses those mental image pictures continuously to create that sensation in the body, the person doesn't have "arthritus" any more. The spirit doesn't even have to stop creating the pictures of the sensation, he just has to stop using them continuously to influence the body. So these days if someone has some unwanted "chronic sensation" one would normally just do a simple assist. The sensation moves away from the body and the person has "a miracle" happen. I taught a mom to do an "assist" in about 30 minutes. Her daughter had chronic ear infections since birth. One ear drum was gone and the other 80 percent scar tissue. She did the assist and was chatting with me. The daugher went over to the TV and turned it down because it was "too loud". The mom's jaw dropped. Her doctor confirmed the daughter no longer had an ear infection and said, let's give it a little time. "It is not unusual for kids this young to regrow their ear drums." Spirit of Man 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Your anecdotal, unverified evidence remains irrelevant to any discussion on Wikipedia. --Davidstrauss 19:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here Strauss classifies an editors discussion, attempting to dismiss it.Terryeo 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
David, it is unfortunate that you did not understand what Spirit of Man was saying after you understood that he spoke of a personal experience to illistrate of a point he made. If you used "choclate cake" as an illistration of "good deserts" because you, personally, like choclate cake, I think people could understand you Terryeo 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
David, I was distinguishing what is "spiritual" and what is "physical" in Dianetics with an example. This is not an article. Why do you feel such an example is irrelavent to clarifying discussions? Spirit of Man 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You're posting far more than it takes to make your point. You could have said "ear infection" as your example instead of posting a rambling testimonial containing irrelevant statements like "The mom's jaw dropped." The example you posted is clearly crafted to convince the reader of the effectiveness of Dianetics. Don't claim that it was merely an example of what Dianetics allegedly affects. --Davidstrauss 23:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Here strauss judges an editor's discussion is crafted with a POV. This is appropriate to Wikipedia, but strauss implies it is inappropriate to Wikipedia. NPOV is achieved through efforts of several POVs, this is the ground on which wikipedia is build. WP:NPOV.
David, I refer you to WP:CIVILITY Your remarks are "crafted" to be inflamatory and escalate drama and are judgemental. I have not seen you post here except with this tone. If you wish to make a point of Wiki policy, I suggest you make it clearly and politely, after you read CIVILITY. Spirit of Man 21:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You are the one derailing discussion here with your repeated testimonials to the wonders of Dianetics. Wikipedia policy states that I must assume good faith if I don't have reason to believe otherwise, but you continue to plug Dianetics where it's inappropriate, so I can't really consider your big post above in "good faith". Oh, and I read WP:CIVILITY. Nothing I've done here violates it. Ironically, you and Terryeo are the ones accusing me of trying to undermine Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology. Terryeo has even posted accusatory messages on my talk page. --Davidstrauss 23:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course I stated something on your talk page Strauss. At no time did I accuse you, but yes, I did state something there. I gave you an example and asked you a question which the exmple I stated illistrated. Of course I did, I was attempting to get into communication with you about the matter :) Terryeo 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
"Physical" usually means "missing parts". It doesn't mean scar tissue or something that is not healed. For our purposes it means the physical body part anyone can see, instead of the pictures the spirit imposes on the body. In Dianetics we address the spirit and the spirit's desire to go Clear. We refer people that have body problems, and no interest in spiritual matters, to others. Spirit of Man 17:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
ChrisO, the Dianetics book is correct and appropriate for 1950. But the Church does not make claims where it is unlawful to do so. In California a number of laws were passed making it illegal to "cure" certain named medical illnesses. I contacted the Better Business Bureau there and they list "arthritus" as one of these. I haven't found the entire list of such illnesses for CA yet. So I do not make this claim in CA as it is now unlawful to do so. I bought a book in 1970, "The Creation of Human Ability", 1968. Pasted into the inside front cover is a disclaimer. Dianetics, as practiced by the Church, addresses only the spirit. The Church as any church, is free to practice spiritual healing, it does not. Its primary goal is spiritual awareness for all. For this reason, the Church does not accept individuals who desire treatment for illness. It refers such people to qualified specialists in other organizations who deal in such matters. So we have a legally defineable line. The Church deals with spiritual matters only, and refers people not interested in that to medical people. That was between 1968 and 1970. Further to that, another citation says the book is presented as a record the personal researches into Life by L. Ron Hubbard. Spirit of Man 17:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In that case, how do you explain the CoS trying to treat victims of 9/11 with Purif? --Davidstrauss 19:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The CoS actually provides a service for persons who donate to it. Its actually inaccurate to use the word "treatment" for any service the CoS provides to parishoners. Does a barber "treat" a "patient" when giving a haircut? Some Firemen did Scientology's purif, some firemen sweated out odd colors and reported they felt enomrously more energtic afterwards. The Purification Rundown is a service provided to parishoners and not an "attempted treatment". It differs vastly from psychiatry in this way, you see :) Terryeo 20:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
If you read "treat victims" I'm pretty sure you didn't read it from the Church of Scientology, but instead read it from some site like Clambake. It seems like a very trivial point, doesn't it? "Treat" instead what the Church of Scientology presents the Purification Rundown to be. It is just this sort of point that the Church has delt with and which has changed the wording of Dianetics claims. "Treat Victims" implies the poor guy is helpless and something is done to him. The purification rundown, let me tell you, is a whole lotta sweat and effort. You don't feel like a victim and you don't look like a victim. heh !Terryeo 22:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
David, I don't know that it is up to me to explain what you ask. Tom Cruise is a Volunteer Minister licensed by ABLE. He set up centers with medical doctors with his own funds and contributions of others to support that cause. Firemen that were not so treated have a very bad prognosis. The technology used in the "Clear Body, Clear Mind" book used for such things, has been written up and published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The purification technology is used in medical clinics. Each person that goes through it is required to be under medical supervision. Each clinic that uses it has to have medical doctors to supervise any firemen that participate. What part of that do you feel has anything to do with CoS "treating" anybody? What would you do with such victims? I agree with and support Tom! Spirit of Man 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The latest 'restatement' of the first sentence

"Dianetics is a practice, based on ideas about the human mind, gives as its goal "getting rid of the reactive mind."

OK, first of all, this isn't even grammatical, which shows the care that was taken with it. Secondly, "based on ideas about the human mind" begs the question: which ideas about the human mind? Thirdly, what sort of sense does it make to insert a quote that Dianetics is about "getting rid of the reactive mind" when the phrase "reactive mind" has absolutely no meaning except to a reader who doesn't need the article because they already know? What is the ultimate goal of editing like this? Is it to make a reader throw up their hands in disgust and say "I give up! Obviously the Wikipedia articles on Dianetics will never contain any comprehensible information on Dianetics; I guess I have to go to the Official Dianetics Website in order to get any simple answers!"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Antaeus: Wikipedia policy is to assume good faith. You're obviously assuming a motive of confusion. --Davidstrauss 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess that would make real good sense if you did, Feldspar. You seem to think every other word I say is either a "lie" or some sort of misrepresentation. Why don't you perk on over to [5] and get the straight skinny? Terryeo 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo: Stop the personal attacks. --Davidstrauss 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
huh?Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Terryeo: Please develop some sort of reading comprehension. The issue here is that while purportedly being interested in communicating Dianetics to the reader, you are consistently making changes to the Dianetics articles which, if we were to judge from their effect, represent an attempt to make them as cryptic and unreadable and absolutely uninformative as possible. The issue is not that I don't recognize your "restatements" as accurate to the spirit of Dianetics, it's that very often I can't even recognize them as English, and I can never discern any attempt on your part to make the article more precise, accurate and accessible. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
errr, That's sure what I'm trying to do. Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
While Antaeus' tone above is a bit too harsh for my taste, I have to agree with his assertion that many of Terryeo's changes make the articles more vague and imprecise. I am willing to allow that Terryeo may be sincerly trying to make them more accurate, but the effect is the opposite, and Antaeus has outlined a number of specific examples of this elsewhere on the talk page (and the talk pages for other Scientology-related articles). BTfromLA 05:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, okay. How can it be said that Dianetics is an action? Yeah, there is a body of information and it is an action?Terryeo 22:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

2¢ about the current state of the article

I've been away from the article for a few weeks. For what it's worth, here's how it looks to me after some time away.

  • The warning at the top seems crazy. A box claiming that a Wikipedia article with 99 footnotes is in serious need of more cited references is a quick tip-off that Wikilooniness is ahead.
  • The disambiguation between the subject and the book is unnecessary, and also comes across as a bit nutty. The book is clearly introduced and linked in the first paragraph of the article. The subjects are completely related--it's not as if somebody came looking for an article on the village of Dianetics, Saskachewan, or some other unrelated topic wth the same name.
  • The article is way too long. The sections on "procedure"' and "pseudoscience" seem pretty digressive, and most every part but the intro seems to cry out for major trimming. Alas, the endless talk page arguments inhibit the possibility of editing toward concise prose--there's just too much POV point/counterpoint and endless calls for more and more references and citations, to the point of undermining the readability of the article.
  • I haven't made my way through all the talk page discussions I've missed, but let me go on record as saying that replacing a specific description of Dianetics with vague terms like "activity" or "action" is completely off the mark, and I'm disappointed to see that some editors still seem to think that it is our job to describe Dianetics only in terms that L. Ron Hubbard would have approved of. There's not much hope if we can't get past that.

By the way, I apologize for seeming to disappear in mid-discussion, especially as I see this whole mediation bit came up shortly after I logged out. Work demands interceded. BTfromLA 04:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back, BT. I agree with most of your points except the idea that the disambiguation line is unnecessary; it wasn't back when there was no separate article on the book, but now that there is, it's necessary for the reason that any disambiguation line is: to alert people "this might not be the article you want; if it isn't, here's where to look for where the article you want might be." I actually added the disambiguation lines to the two articles because I found an article that started a section with "L. Ron Hubbard's book Dianetics states that ..." I changed that link, of course, to point to the book, but then I realized that any other link that pointed to "Dianetics" in an attempt to reference D:MSMH would be less likely to ever get fixed if the article it pointed to didn't clarify that it wasn't the article for the book. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
May I propose an editor's duty is to present articles rather than to attempt to out-guess a reader about what article he wants to read? The Navigation Template is right there. "DMSMH" is right there, it is a mouse click away. If we put an additional disambiguation on top of the article, what shall we guess the reader wanted? DMSMH? Dianetics Engram? Dianetics Reactive Mind? Scientology? The Church of Scientology? The Scientology Project Page? Terryeo 22:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and propose it but it's nonsense. Putting a disambiguation line so that people know whether they've reached the article they were trying to get to is not "attempt[ing] to out-guess" the reader. Since people call Dianetics "Dianetics" (obviously) and they also demonstrably call Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health "Dianetics", it is sensible to put in a disambiguation line, in case someone wanted to link to one of them and got the other instead. Your straw man -- or was it a feeble attempt at humor? -- that anyone proposed adding disambiguations for "Engram", "Reactive Mind", "Scientology", "Church of Scientology", or any of the many things that people have not been known to link to Dianetics in an attempt to reach, is just sad, pathetic, and irrelevant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It is just another dispersion. Let's get the "CAUTION, before you read this, please consider this, maybe you are mistaken and shouldn't read this!", let's get it out of there.Terryeo 09:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Heck, just found another that needed that change.[6] I'm not the biggest fan of the decision to have separate articles on the subject and on the book, but since we do, I think it's a good idea to have notices to alert -- or remind -- editors that one article is for the abstract subject and one is for the specific title. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in the opinion of others on this one. I think any competent reader will quickly understand what they are reading about and where to go if they want more details about that book. I agree that having a spin-off article about the book is a dubious addition, but the Wikipedia tendency seems to be more, more, more... so I think we're fighting the current to argue against an article on anything. BTfromLA 05:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the warning. The looniness is not hidden, it hardly needs an additional level. I deleted the disambiguation at the book, but ChrisO put it back. It replicates what is currently allowed in either introduction by the "calling parties" to the mediation. Both introductions totally misrepresent the scope of their subjects anyway and to duplicate the error is just twice as offensive. The "spin-off articles" are actually the basic books to a large degree. There are a number. Any attempt to make them actually represent those books fairly is deleted summarily by the POV represented by Antaeus and/or ChrisO. I agree the pseudoscience part should go. I have defended all of the points presented for science and we went through about 3 levels of handwaving by Tenebrous and KC and others before they gave up on it. I don't see anyone actually defending pseudoscience, and I maintain it doesn't apply. No peer-review is actually required by Wiki of a science or even an academic article, so who really cares? The entire treatment in article and talk, should be removed. I am still incomplete on my philosophy section which got summarily archived as well. Welcome back. Spirit of Man 06:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Before you gave up, actually. Or maybe you missed those responses. Your ideas of what Wikipedia requires of a scientific source is...hard to comprehend, but I'm sure that you could find any number of people on Wikipedia who could clear that up for you. Tenebrous 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Does it require "peer-review" in ALL cases? No. Does Wiki require a citation to have a reputable publisher? DMSMH has three; Hermitage, Bridge and New Era. Do the eight precepts required of a science in the article require consistency? Dianetic axioms, definitions, logics, theory of mental image pictures and the source of all human aberration, and the therapy that addresses those very same pictures is such a science. Please tell me how that is not consistent? Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Pseudoscience has to stay, I didn't see anybody giving up on it. With all the numerous claims of Dianetics associating itself with science (and still to this day), and with the poor and near absent track record of Dianetics with the scientific community, it certainly deserve the title of pseudoscience. If the pseudioscience section is too big, it's because it seems that it was necessary to explain in details why it is pseudoscientific to those who adovate Dianetics and have argued at lenght about this. Raymond Hill 14:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay that pseudoscience stays, but can't we get rid of that template sort of "I'm going to prove Dianetics is pseudoscience by following these Wikipedia defined steps?" I mean, the point gets communicated without all the excess and the article is too long.Terryeo 17:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Pseudoscience treatment goes. It is not within the current scope and use of Dianetics. Dianetics addresses the spirit only. Even within the confines of this group of articles on Dianetics any mention of Dianetics as a science is summarily deleted. All books since 1970 have a disclaimer, "a record of Hubbard's personal research into Life." So where is the claim for science, that is being so labelled? Not here. Apparently even discussions on this talk page have been quickly archived. I defend it as a science because it was at the time of the writing of some books and is defensible. My personal research was along that line and I have not found anything "not scientific" about it.
Your personal research cannot be included on Wikipedia and is also not relevant to this discussion. Tenebrous 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Your refusal to defend your eight precepts required of a science and your four legal criteria is not a grounds for keeping them in the article. Your mulitple referrals to Wiki policy that does not support your view of "absolutely must be peer-reviewed" I take as "personal research". Wiki policy at WP:RS does not require peer-review of all academic subjects, let alone scientific idea that address the spirit and are not medical. Dianetics has produced 50,000 Clears though. Show me one peer-reviewed paper of a "cure" of a psychosomatic illness in medicine or psychiatry using their methods?
There were things I couldn't do, so I found out how to do them correctly. Simple. I defended all eight precepts and four legal criteria. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Your defense of these was factually incorrect and showed clearly that you did not understand the concepts involved. It was also extremely lengthy and not a discussion that belonged on Wikipedia. "Pseudoscience" is not our judgement. Tenebrous 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You are free to say it was your lack of "judgement" that posted the pseudoscience materials in the article. Whose "judgement" was it to delete the test result citation? You didn't discuss any lack of understanding only that you personally felt that way. Alright you do feel that way. But someone pointing out the consistency of a consistent science is the correct thing to do. Simply asserting it is NOT consistent, that the Discussion doesn't belong because it "too" long [see WP:NOT]. Do you mind if I cite the consistency of the subject next to the PR statement in the article that it is not consistent? Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Dianetics meets them. It meets those requirements dispite the false assertions presented in the article. It meets Wiki criteria. Wiki doesn't even require peer-review for academic subjects. A clear line has been drawn between medicine which treats material things only, and Dianetics which treats spiritual things only. I say it meets the criteria of science, while being a religious subject for over 50 years. Why devote any time in the article on this "dead horse" issue? ChrisO presents Carrol [pseudoscience] saying, he can't see what the data would look like, when it had been readily available in Chart form signed by licensed psychologists, for anyone to see since 1951. That is crap. Just because ChrisO deletes the Charts, deleted the citations, deletes the publishers, deletes the test studies and results, and someone archives the criticism of all that, does not make even the flimsiest case for pseudoscience. It is more of a "pseudo-" ChrisO personal research claim. Keep it and I will invite friends here for a belly-laugh at your cartoon, at Wiki expense. Spirit of Man 20:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Spirit, you've got this completely the wrong way round. Dianetics is not classed as a pseudoscience by Scientology (obviously).
Where did I say this? Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Dianetics is classed as a pseudoscience by genuine scientists and has been for over 55 years.
Then cite your reputable publishers and sources that say this. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a canonical example of a pseudoscience.
I respect that you personally have taken the initiative here to spell all this out for me, but show your reliable publishers and citations please per Wiki policy. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It even features in dictionaries and encyclopedias of pseudoscience.
Are there really such things? Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Carroll's book, "Skeptics Dictionary" is his personal research. Reviewing his entry on Dianetics is revolting. He quotes Gardners book, "Fads" as one paragraph, and by the 10th paragraph summarily pronounces Dianetics to "obviously" be pseudoscience. He is no scientist, he is a philosopher teacher. This is not a scientific journal. It is very poor personal research. He apparently ignores the tests of basic principles and their articulation and the description of the mind and how it is said to work, then pronounces that everything "is in the form of anecdotes and speculations". He misconstrues the nature of the auditing process and then confesses he can't see the difference from talking with someone. He ignores the auditors code for use in sessions only and generalizes that conduct to a mistatement that Hubbard is instructing anyone to think think way about Dianetics. He in fact recommends people be hyper critical and to not accept anything until one has proven it to himself. His book is written in 2003 but ignores the test results from 1950 for that type of auditing. In short I haven't found anything truthful at all in his Dianetic entry. Spirit of Man 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
So I'm afraid your POV simply isn't relevant to this question - it's not how you see it that counts in this context, it's how the scientific world sees it.
Please show your publishers and citations for "the scientific world". What part of that world addresses the spirit? None. So how could they have a scientific view of the spirit? They couldn't. What scientific tests have they run and what body of scientific knowledge do they cite to represent their "scientific" evaluations. Any tabloid reporter could "say" anything he wants. Hayakawa said that no scientific results could be claimed in science at all. Show your scientists, show your studies, show your test results, show your publishers. Then let's talk. I have showed you mine. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
And it demonstrably sees it as a pseudoscience. There is absolutely no chance that the pseudoscience section will be deleted from the article, as such a deletion could never be considered NPOV. -- ChrisO 00:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Please present your case for how that is true. Spirit of Man 22:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. There is no group which classifies "pseudoscience. A tiny handful of psychiatrists and a even tinier handful of medical "scientists" have stated their opinion "pseudoscience" but it is a complete exaggeration to say science has said so, though a tiny handful of scientists have said so.Terryeo 09:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
(points) What he said. Actually, it's been said before--a couple of times, I think. Spirit must have missed those posts, or misread them. Tenebrous 02:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
When you persist in exaggerating what is a person to do? A few medially trained people have screamed "pseudoscience" while official organizations of medical science have stated nothing ! Terryeo 09:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Please allow me to clarify my view on this: Dianetics is indeed, as ChrisO points out, a clear-cut, widely cited example of pseudoscience, particularly in its original and best known (DMSMH) incarnation. That fact should be made clear in the article and should be mentioned in the intro section (as it is, last I checked). And the article should include one or more examples to illustrate why Dianetics, while claiming to be science, is not scientific. But it's an article about Dianetics, not pseudoscience or scientific standards of evidence, nor even Dianetics in relation to science. It seems to me that listing the various criteria by which something is judged scientific is really better suited to articles on topics like pseudoscience and scientific method. I think that as it stands, the article is bogged down with unnecessary details that interrupt the "through line" and general readability of the essay. The pseudoscience section is an example of this, but not the only example. BTfromLA 04:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. If it is so widely "cited" that there are no "test results" then why disallow the actual test results I cited in the Introduction to Science of Survival? If it is so widely cited then what is the problem with allowing me to cite Bridge Publications as a reputable publisher that publishes Science of Survival. So if Carroll says "he can't see what test data would look like", what is the problem with a reader being allowed to look in Science of Survival and seeing the Chart of IQ scores that show 10+ points of gain published in 1951? If the eight points that are used to prove pseudoscience are so convincing why delete or archive the Discussion here that shows they do not apply? I have shown the axioms of Dianetics that define the spirit. I have shown the theory of Dianetics that shows the spirit records its environment in pictures. I have shown some of these pictures contain pain and unconsciousness. So the body has a picture of pain that a doctor diagnos's as "arthritus". Then the spirit ceases to create that picture of pain with Dianetic therapy, and the pain is gone from the body, and the person no longer has such pain. The doctors and X-rays can verify it. This presentation shows Dianetics is "consistent". That is one point of the eight in the article. It is in fact a science per the criteria. This may be done for each or most of the criteria. So Dianetics does meet the criteria and the false statements in the article do not prove pseudoscience, they merely document that someone [ChrisO] feels that way. It is their personal research. Wiki policy WP:V says we should site reputable publishers. WP:RS does not say that peer-review HAS to be done to prove a science or article. So why did we have six or eight people here in Discussion claiming this as evidence of pseudoscience? So are you saying, "We should delete all the citations of evidence that supports "science" so the false things and personal research presented in the name of pseudo-science may stand uncontested and 'widely cited' and the article should be so treated, my mind is made up!" What is the point of an encyclopedic article and procedures that have only produced personal research on an article about a Science of the Mind? Well, some believe strongly enough in this to disallow science. Fine. Welcome to the Wiki Inquisition. Hello Torquemada! Spirit of Man 21:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Welcome back!
I agree that the article is too long - in particular, I've already said that I'll move some of the history content into a separate article on the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation. However, I disagree with your comments on the pseudoscience section. As we've seen from this discussion, Dianetics has demonstrably been classified as a pseudoscience by many sources over a very long period of time, but this classification is controversial with the pro-Dianetics fraternity. We need to explain the wider context and in particular, we can't leave out what you call "Dianetics in relation to science" because this is so central to the whole subject. That's why Dianetics is controversial in the first place.
When I wrote the pseudoscience section I was struck by how similar the arguments used by Dianetics proponents were to those of intelligent design supporters. In both cases, proponents have tried to present the debate as being about subjective claims of individual critics rather than objective concerns about the pseudoscience's adherence to the scientific method. The argument goes: "ID/Dianetics isn't in conflict with science, just with a small number of evolutionists/psychiatrists who are biased for ideological or financial reasons. There's nothing wrong with ID/Dianetics in terms of scientific methodology, and it's a scientifically valid/proven theory." The debate is framed as being a purely subjective "he said, she said" affair of duelling subjective opinions.
I haven't done this. You cited Pub Med which gives the Fischer and fox papers. Fischer was a student at NYU and this is a student paper. The key feature is that it does not use the "intensive procedure" already established by the protocols in the Science of Survival study that demonstrated results. Fox is a study of one from UCLA, in 1950 and published as if it was from New York University in 1959. The study was done when the person was under the chemical affects of the drug. I addressed the eight precepts you presented without citation and the four Daubert legal precepts. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
From the scientific perspective, of course, this is nonsense - the reason scientists disagree with ID/Dianetics is because it doesn't use the scientific method.
It does use the scientific method. [Your use of the term "nonsense" is an appeal to emotion not reason.] It uses the named methods of Francis Bacon, see Novem Organum. It starts with no a-priori or "self-proclaimed" knowledge. It starts with nothing. Evolution of ScienceIt tests the basic idea of survival as a command apparently given to life at some remote beginning. Once this was established by tests it was taken as the basic axiom for DMSMH in 1950. This was revised to a spiritual context in 1951 Science of Survival and the first three Dianetic Axioms written there reflect this as the entrance point for what is represented in that time frame as a Science of Mind. Your ref 34 confuses this as a-priori knowledge that was not tested. That is the mistake of your citation, not Dianetics. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't need a full court press by the scientific establishment to make this judgment.
I don't see your scientific citations. I see Carroll [represented as philosophy] with his own book, not peer-reviewed scientific journal, saying he can't see what the test data would like when Science of Survival information clearly presented this as early as 1951. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
ID didn't become a pseudoscience overnight when the American Association for the Advancement of Science put out a statement condemning it. It was easily classified as a pseudoscience right from the start because it didn't meet the objective criteria for a bona fide science - and that was a determination that anyone could have made. Dianetics is no different in this respect.
This is personal research here and in your article. It meets your criteria. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The ID article includes a very brief overview of the criteria by which ID is regarded by scientists as being non-compliant with the scientific method. I thought this was a useful asset and decided to add it to the Dianetics article to illustrate the asme point. If we don't include the criteria, I think we fall into the trap of presenting the issue as an argument from authority (i.e. "he said, she said") rather than an argument from evidence. -- ChrisO 08:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence. You are apealing to emotion. You lifted your article almost verbatim from ID. Even the denunciations for the subject there are for the most part exacting reproduced here. I'll reserve judgement on how they applied to ID, but they don't apply to Dianetics as I have already presented here in Discussion that was archived by others. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Dianetics has consistency; basic principles presented at axioms, basic methods stated as Logics that present the method of making consistent definitions, consisten basic theory...the mind consists of mental image pictures, some contain pain, those that do are the reactive mind, when that is removed, the mind is then optimum. The optimum individual is the Clear that has no reactive mind. A clear can be tested for neuroses and mental disorders and found to contain none.
Parsimonious; the nature of the spirit is defined. The spirit has the purpose to survive. In resisting survival he makes pictures. The pictures are the mind. The most non-survival pictures are the reactive mind. When that is removed by the spirit, the mind is clear. The person is then sane. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
And so on. Spirit of Man 02:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh ! welcome back to home away from the slave pit (or something). A fresh perspective ! not bad ! heh. BTW, mediation was so convoluted that it was denied. lol. Terryeo 04:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

why the discussion page template

What possible use is it? It is too long, states nothing useful and if we just work on it a little more, hey, maybe we can include the whole history of Wikipedia, huh? Terryeo 11:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/a/Talk%7EDianetics_Archive06_996a.html"