Talk:Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Solitarytrees

Sorry, solitary trees is two individuals with a specific agenda. They say so, they are dedicated to pushing their particular POV and have no fact checking, no validity and don't attempt to do anything but convince their readers that their particular POV is correct. They are a personal website and fall under WP:RS which states: "a personal website may not be used as a secondary source" Terryeo 08:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Your misguided "personal websites" crusade is not going to work. Stop Gaming the Rules and Wikilawyering. wikipediatrix 13:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
"Wikilawyering" is an overused, ill-defined term as you use it. But in any event, it appears my "personal crusade" has more substance to it than you suspected it might. Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Problems_with_Convenience_Links Terryeo 01:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Removing the link to the Board of Health Report was certainly misguided, as that's just a source stored on that site. But referencing an essay written by ChrisO as the only source supporting that ashtray thing and the remote viewing claims..... That's somewhat questionable to me. WP:RS was obviously intended specifically to discourage people from referencing personal essays and rants by people on the web. If ChrisO has independent sources to back up his claims, we should reference those instead.--KSevcik 14:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Are you saying that ChrisO, the Wikipedia editor, is the author of that essay? If that's the case, I was unaware of that... but a source is still a source. Why say "the only source", as if it needs more than one? Anyway, other sources for the Ashtray TR are obtainable, and I will obtain them. wikipediatrix 17:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
At this difference, [1] ChrisO states that he contributes to Xenu.net, he may well have created that article which he cites. "Many people have contributed to it, including myself", he says: Terryeo 18:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Heck, at this point I'm tempted to allow any editor's reference as "created by chriso, see Xenu.net and Clambake.org", to let such a verification stand, unchalleneged. ChrisO's personal opinion contributes to Xenu.et, then his personal opinion is cited as a verification in almost all of these Scientology articles. Heh Terryeo 18:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, at the bottom of the webpage it says "by Chris Owen." It seemed a logical conclusion to me that it's the same ChrisO. As for "the only source," if the article only links to one source and it happens to be an off-wiki essay by a wiki user editing these articles, it just looks funny. Glad to hear there's other sources for the info out there. Thanks for clearing it up--KSevcik 19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TR 9

Training Routine 9. If the article is to spell out this training routine, it should do so accurately. Its present representation of it comes from a secondary source of information which does not accurately present the routine. This is yet another example of how personal websites should not be used as secondary sources because they tend to state an individual's own opinion of the situation. Normally we could rely on an individual's opinion but for Wikipedic standards we should attribute a person's opinion to him and present it alongside other people's opinions and more widely known, more scholarly opinions. Terryeo 18:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There's nothing about TR 9 in the article. wikipediatrix 14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Websites

solitarytrees is a personal website. The guy has a personal opinion and a personal agenda and his information may or may not be accurate. He may even, like Xenu.net, allow wikipedia editors (such as ChrisO says he does here) to contribute to him and then come here to Wikipedia and quote the previously contributed, created, personal article and cite the website as the source of the "published" article. Nothing would stop that, this is one of the reasons personal websites are not to be used as secondary sources per WP:RS Terryeo 04:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "personal websites" generally refers to a website in which the owner's content is about themselves. People who do websites investigating or researching specific subjects are not doing "personal websites". By your desperate definition, virtually all non-business sites out there would be "personal websites". wikipediatrix 12:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate your response, Wikipediatrix. I have often stated that it seems appropriate to me to have some controversy in these articles. My concern is mainly that the subject of the article becomes introduced. The undiscussed difficulty is how to communicate both aspects of a subject to the reader. The Church of Scientology presents good information and juxtaposed against it, editors attempt to present, again, good information. But Xenu.net presents all of its information as "this is opinion", while presenting documents, lectures, and other information which appears (at least at first glance) to be bonafide documents with good spelling and so forth. The editors here are not treating Xenu.net and other websites as editors treat opinions from personal websites. Feldspar and others have made, you know, various arguement that the content of Xenu (and such websites) can not be judged and used based on the website's disclaimer (or claim) but instead, each page of the site must be judged on its merit, then cited and used on Wikipedia, based on its individual webpage merit. If this is the standard by which we edit, then why don't we state that as a guideline? Terryeo 16:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Feldspar and others have made, you know, various arguement that the content of Xenu (and such websites) can not be judged and used based on the website's disclaimer (or claim) but instead, each page of the site must be judged on its merit, then cited and used on Wikipedia, based on its individual webpage merit. That's almost correct, which is a lot better than your average. The actual issue which causes most people to believe that your argument is being put forth in wholly bad faith is your claim that the website's disclaimer must be applied with robotic, absolutist literality to everything hosted on the website, such that if the disclaimer states 'The contents of this website are solely my opinions' and a particular page very clearly identifies the contents as having originated in the book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner, that the disclaimer for the whole website must take precedence over what the page clearly states as the origin of the page contents, and the material must be removed as being 'opinions' from a 'personal website' despite the fact that ... well, frankly, the fact that such an interpretation is totally stupid. If you are going to put such absolute unswerving faith that the website maintainer's disclaimer is absolutely 100% true even in the most mindlessly literal sense for every single iota of text on the whole of his website, then you might as well trust that everything he says is true enough to be used on Wikipedia; if one sentence of his disclaimer is worthy of such perfect faith and absolutely literal interpretation then surely all the rest of what he says should be similarly elevated. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:V tells us our standard. People get hot under the collar about WP:RS and get worked up about other elements, but the policy really reverts back to WP:V. The most widely published, well known sources of good information are what we should use as much as possible. That seems pretty simple. Terryeo 08:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "bullshit"?

Terryeo's latest uncivil edit summary says, and I quote:

"I removed uncited bullshit. The link points to a page which talks about NARCONON, not "psychokinesis" whatever that is."

Ignoring the obvious rudeness, I will remind him that the citation link points to a page that clearly gives the information expressed and if he doesn't see it, he isn't looking hard enough. Also, if he really doesn't know what "psychokinesis/telekinesis" is (hint: it's defined in the article!), then how can he be qualified to state whether it's discussed in the link or not? (another hint: you can do a ctrl-F and search that page for "kinesis") wikipediatrix 19:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As you have stated the situation, Wikipediatrix, it appears a very refined, well known, widely published about phononema. However, a search of google using the search terms, "psychokinesis and bullshit" turns up 618 hits [2] and so I can not think that to refer to psychokinesis by that term is unknown in the civilized world. Were you able to verify that psychokinesis were an actual goal of the Church I would be inclined to use a less emotionally impactive term. "Bullshit" is emotionally expressive but it hardly explains how a person who has talked with many OT completions, who has read all of the published end phenonoma of the OT levels, how such a person would react to the article's presentation. Would "LOL" be more exact? How about, "what a silly idea?" Understand, I'm not amused by the presentation in the article, but by the attempt to use Scientology terms to describe psychokinesis as a goal of the Church. The moon is made of green cheese? Its just completely way out of any ball park the Church plays in.Terryeo 19:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
How does the amount of Google hits for a euphemism provide an excuse for poor editing and poor talk-page conduct? As if. wikipediatrix 02:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The quantity of google hits displays how the term, through common usage, may be used within an edit summary to communicate to other editors the commonly viewed, popular opinion of the object of the adjetive. Normally, editors can read that edit summary, then come to this discussion which expands that edit summary and thereby come to learn exactly how common the view of "psychokinesis" is when used with the discriptive adjective, "bullshit". In this manner, then, the subject itself is more easily understood in its most common, basic terms. Terryeo 12:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI, a google seach for "scientology + bullshit" yields "about 204,000" hits. BTfromLA 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
There you go. Whether you use "bullshit" or don't use "bullshit" in your daily speech, its a commonly recognized and descriptive term, suitable for describing "Scientology and Psychokenisis", particularly when said link doesn't contain the information its previous statement implies it contains. Terryeo 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solitarytrees, a personal website

Solitarytrees Is a personal website it states it is created by Ted Mayett and Keshet. "© 1998-2006 Ted Mayett and Keshet" The website presents the personal story of Ted Mayett and includes "Why we created these pages". Its information attacks Scientology, the NAACP and so on. It therefore falls within the parameters of "personal website" and should not be used as a secondary source of information within Wikipedia articles. This is per WP:RS which states that Personal Websites should not be used as secondary sources. Terryeo 16:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Narconon Image

That image, as it appears right now has a subtitle on it which states: "Narconon's Communication & Perception course 4a instructs recovering drug addicts to scream levitation commands at ashtrays." Obviously Narconon does not at any point in their programs, instruct any individual to ever "scream levitation commands at ashtrays." That is not verifiable. What might be verifiable would be "command in the loudest possible voice". May I point out, without tromping on toes, the first subtitle would be better placed in an expose' newspaper article than on our Wikipedia where WP:NOR is the standard we apply? Terryeo 19:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

It is perfectly verifiable, and I have the book right here. Would you like to see scans from it? wikipediatrix 02:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
What is the title, author and ISBN of the book that you have right there please? Terryeo 13:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Narconon Communication & Perception Course, L. Ron Hubbard, 2004 edition. It has no ISBN number. Published by ABLE. wikipediatrix 13:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, good. Is it hardbound or softbound? A book or a booklet, if you will? Terryeo 19:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Softbound. At several hundred pages, however, it's certainly no booklet. wikipediatrix 20:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for responding, Wikipediatrix. I was surprised a Narconon publication would use the word "scream" to describe a training routine, as the original routine is carefully worded otherwise. Terryeo 20:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The booklet actually says "levitation commands" and not simply, "commands?" The article doesn't add in some original research which is not present int he 300 page book? The reason I ask, I've looked at the Bulletin which spells out TR-8, it uses the word 'commands' and states its purpose, none of which is toward levitation. Terryeo 21:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix has not replied about "leviation commands", which pretty obviously is not the term used in the book, but instead, seems likely is a term which was Original Research and created of whole cloth from a term actually used in the book and mis-quoted. Some less emotionally slanted term, likely. Terryeo 12:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. So if the entire page was filled only with direct quotes from L Ron Hubbard, you would be happy? Puddytang 00:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Useful article on Super Power Rundown and purported effects

http://www.sptimes.com/2006/05/06/Tampabay/Scientology_nearly_re.shtml -- includes personal claims by the one "public" who's gone through the Super Power program. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

One of the article's paragraphs reads, "Matt Feshbach believes he has super powers. He senses danger faster than most people. He appreciates beauty more deeply than he used to. He says he outperforms his peers in the money management industry." Those words by Feshbach might be called "statements" or they might be called "attestations". He is the only person who knows what he used to percieve, so he is the only living authority who can compare what he perceives today, to what he perceived yesterday. Therefore there is no opponent to his statement, therefore he is not "claiming" but he is "attesting". [3] Terryeo 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
While you're using the dictionary, look up "quotation" and see if the definition is "something that looks pretty similar to what someone said." -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll assume that was directed to me. Comments which reference other comments on other user pages might best be contained on those other user pages or, alternatively, on one personal discussion page. Placed here, that discussion is dispersive rather than contribuatory, but feel free to talk to me on my discussion page. Terryeo 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secret vs Confidential

Presently the article reads: "higher-level secret Operating Thetan information". The Church presents it as "confidential Operating Thetan information". The difference between "secret" and "confidential" is not a great amount, both mean undisclosed. However, confidential is documentatable, people who read the links which point to Church sites will run across the term confidential but will never run into the term "secret" as a description. Actually the Church is not keeping a secret, but keeping a confidence. The article would be more neutral to use the word "Confidential" than to use the word, "secret". Terryeo 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Vandalism by anon user 68.12.62.131

anon user 68.12.62.131 in his edit of (17:54, 18 June 2006) edited without understanding Wikipedia's standards of citation. He inserted a statement at the end of the subsection MEST, The Church of Scientology has been extremely controversial throughout its history for promising the things it does. and cited a personal website (lisatrust) to substantiate his edit. However, WP:RS states, personal websites can not be used as secondary sources and his edit should be deleted. lisatrust.bogie.nl could be used in exterior links, but not within an article as a secondary source of information. Terryeo 02:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see AndroidCat has removed the vandalism without removing the personal website which is being quoted and cited to within the article. lisatrust, Appears to be a personal website. Does anyone contest? Terryeo 09:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The link was already there as the source of the quotation. My reasons for removing the addition to the quotation block had nothing to do with Terryeo's familiar line of argument. (When did every change that someone else disagrees with become vandalism? Will "edit terrorism" be next?) AndroidCat 11:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you didn't agree with the edit which I referred to as "Vandalism" because you removed it. You disagree with my description of it, but likewise disagree that it was a good edit. Okay, fine. If you view my statement as inaccurate, why not give your own reasoning for removing the edit? If you find my statement of "vandalism" to be familar, why don't you point to my several uses of the word? If it is a familar arguement which you often see and disagree with, why not present the information. Terryeo 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
(1) My comment when I reverted the edit was quite clear. (2) Your argument for removing the link as part of 68.12.62.131's edit was in error. (3) Your comments on vandalism are irrelevant. AndroidCat 21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
No, it is a vandalism to find a quotation which cites a website and then, after the quotation and before the link to the website, insert one's own, created sentence, leaving the rest of the information as it was. That's a vandalism. I said so. Terryeo 05:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I'm a little unclear. What was your reason for concluding that it could not possibly have been a mistake? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I spelled out the editor and the date and time. The difference makes his edit viewable. I classified it a "vandalism" rather than a "mistaken edit" because that is how it appeared to me. Terryeo 21:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm still a little unclear. What led you to conclude that the anon could not possibly have been acting in good faith? -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I concluded it was a vandalism because of the placement of the inserted text. The insertion of a sentence of unattributed text, by itself, might not be a vanadalism. Often such an insertion is not a vandalism. But its placement, cleverly placing it into a position that could be construted to be cited (though it was not cited by the citation) and its content (somewhat akin to other statements the citation says) led me to conclude it was a deliberate vandalism by a (somewhat) experienced Wikipedia editor who understands Wikipedia markup and current use of <ref>,</ref>Terryeo 15:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but each time you explain, your reasoning seems to get more and more inexplicable. Exactly how do you conclude that the edit you protested was "deliberate vandalism by a (somewhat) experienced Wikipedia editor who understands Wikipedia markup and current use of <ref>,</ref>" when ... the edit in question did not involve Cite.php tags at all? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the point is keep you typing and wasting your time, trying to explain things to him that he already knows full well. Since Terryeo no longer edits these articles, I see no point in arguing with him any more. So many of these discussion pages are now clogged like cholesterol-filled arteries, filled with pointless arguments with Terryeo over hair-splitting nothingness. wikipediatrix 19:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
A citation is needed and I point to it. Editors don't go, "oh, okay". Instead it is a week of pointless arguement, challenging that a citation is needed, calling me a "strawman" and other derogatory terms. In the long run it works out that a citation is needed. On this page I classified the anon edit as a valdalism. It was immediately changed. And then what? Editors challenge my classification of it as a vandalism? Why? What possible good does it cause the article. I would be enormously curious why Wikipediatrix is unwilling to notice the actuality and state it in simple terms, why Feldspar and Android Cat could say, "oh, well, yeah, it was vandalism" or "oh, well, I wouldn't classify it that way". But not, its gotta be a yard long talk about cholesterol, pointless prattle etc. etc. If I say small, you all gotta say big? And if I say big, you all gotta say small or your day doesn't have sunshine? <Signing at a later time, now> Terryeo 22:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I hear Tangent is lovely this time of year, but I've never really had the urge to go there. AndroidCat 20:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
No, if you say small, you should be able to defend the premise "small". If you say big, you should be able to defend the premise "big". And if you say "vandalism", which has a very specific meaning which excludes good-faith edits (even mistaken ones), and you reiterate over and over your claim that yes, you mean vandalism (and therefore do mean to make accusations of knowing bad faith), and you go on to amplify your accusations by directly stating that you think it was an experienced Wikipedia editor editing as an anon, you had better be able to back up those accusations. You really like to skirt so close to the edge of your personal attack parole, but guess what? That kind of gamesmanship doesn't go over well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Feldspar, I expect in the long run, Wikipedia editors will agree that personal websites which are partisan in nature can not be used as secondary sources, nor as repositories of information to be used in Wikipedia articles. I suspect that almost all of the issues which drove editors to personally attack me, inviting similar comments which, when summed, drove the Rfc which drove the RfA which User:ChrisO initiated (artfully done, and it appeared that he alone had little to do with it), that almost all of those issues will resolve to be as I was saying they should be. No convenience links to information on personal websites, no personal websites as secondary sources, etc. etc. :) But hey, Everyone has some kind of an opinion, even up on Saint's Hill, heh. Terryeo 04:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Never ever

Shouldn't it say somewhere in the article (or did I miss it) that there is no evidence at all that anybody has ever been able to do this stuff ? Or is that too obvious ? Unmitigated Success 10:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It certainly should ! The article opens:
  • In Church of Scientology doctrine, the subjects of supernatural or superhuman powers and abilities are ones that recur often. This applies to all Scientology and Dianetics materials from the most basic introductory texts to the higher-level secret Operating Thetan information.

Well, I for one know that to be a pile of horse doo-doo, Original Research by Some Wikipedia Editors who misunderstands some statements. For example, Cause over MEST, duh. A perfect example of a misunderstood, mispresented piece of information that is purported by Wikipedic to mean, psychic cause over MEST. The whole subject is a pile of nonesense, the lede mispresent the subject, the subject is presented falsely and then an innocent editor comes along and asks the article to add a bit of how unproven it all is. It doesn't exist, guys. The article is Original Research and horse dung, and then mispresented as if it were an actual subject, and recurs often. What a pile of bunk. Terryeo 22:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying touch assists don't actually exist in CoS? That there is no belief in scientology that medical treatment can by supernaturally bypassed for mental conditions? I'm soooo confused. With that being said, I agree that this article's very premise is unfair, unless we also single out, uhm... "horse doo-doo" that states that christians believe that prayer can change the universe, cures disease, raises people from the dead, that long-dead people can create miracles, etc. Anybody wanna create the "supernatural abilities in christianity" article? No? Why not? Ronabop 07:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Horse doo-doo is a little stretched (and very cheesy, you can write bullshit if you like), since there are undeniable references and quotes in this article (how is Advance! (#130, pgs.22-23) original research ?!). But I don't agree with Ronabop about the whole Christianity analogy, because just read Laying on of hands or Miracles at Lourdes, it's basically the same approach without the corny phrase "supernatural abilities", and I find it reasonable in both instances to either document the occurrences of these "vacuum tube activators" and "I can see, I can see !" or plainly say that it's complete bullshit. Unmitigated Success 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Subjects of superhuman powers recur often simply lights me off. You show me a haunting and I'll show you the ghosts whom are creating the haunting, leaving. "Witch Doctors" have done "miricle Cures" for longer than western civilization has exsited (according to some sources). I won't argue the exitence of such, I won't argue that it happens every day and I won't argue it is beyond normally communicatable English. But I will argue that superhuman powers recur often in Scientology. It is too general a statement to be useful in an article. Terryeo 13:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
If it's simply the "recur often" that's a problem, it can be fixed, especially since the often isn't justified (there are many examples in the articles, but apparently Scientology literature is so ridiculously large that it doesn't necessarily mean anything). We can change it to "recurring concept", or something else you can come up with. However, I stand by the fact that this article is legitimate, and that it should say in the introduction that these particular claims made by scientology are baseless. Unmitigated Success 14:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the changes. Unmitigated Success 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Terryeo 18:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Reseach, Touch Assist

The article has a section on Touch Assist. Any Scientologist reading it would laugh out loud. But that's not the point. The point is WP:NOR because not a single reference is presented for what is so obviously false information. I won't spell out why laying on of hands has no relationship to a touch assist unless asked and I won't spell out why Hubbard's written statements which can be quoted are not "pseudoscientific claims". However, should an editor find a previously published by reliable sources, source of information which states that Hubbard's statements are pseudoscientific claims, then, that source could be quoted and cited. But I will say, as the article stands now, that paragraph is Original Research until some source of information for it is presented to the reader. Terryeo 22:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If you like, I'll present a reference, quote sections which apply. Then an editor could use if. At present the touch assist piece is so far from the actual situation that is certainly belongs in supernatural abilities. Terryeo 22:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it, what's wrong with the reference? It's all quoted from Hubbard's "Touch Assists - Correct Ones", Board Technical Bulletin of 7 April 1972, revised 23 June 1974, and it smells and tastes a hell of a lot like pseudoscience. Unmitigated Success 14:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no reference in the article to BTB 7 Apr 72. Board Technical Bulletins were never created by Hubbard, nor was he an executive of the Church when they were created. They are not part of the Church's technology, though they were at one time. They were created by an individual, David Mayo. Mayo held a high position in the technical delivery of the Church and created Board Technical Bulletins. Those were in force for a few years until Mayo's mistakes became obvious enough that correction was necessary. Correction was applied, part of Mayo's list of things he was to do included looking up and understanding the word "Clear". He refused to do so and blew, he was therefore expelled from the church and declared by the Church to be a suppressive person. BTBs are not part of the Church's technology and has not been a part of the Church for more than 20 years. I won't spell out any of the other bad technology Mayo created. Removing his work was a pretty big deal, but it is all gone from Church operating technology and procedures. A personal website, [4] quotes a piece of that BTB. That personal website surrounds that presentation with personal opinion. None, and do mean exactly none of the information which appears on that link has the least thing to do with the Church's touch assists. So, I ask again, would you like a valid reference to a touch assist and some valid quotations from it? Terryeo 21:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You could have just made that argument before, and replaced the passage with the proper content. Any Scientologist reading it would laugh out loud. There's no point in being so smug, it's hard to tell the difference between the official bullshit and the apocryphal bullshit: why wouldn't you laugh out loud at "Clears do not get colds", or at the vacuum tube electricity generating church members? Unmitigated Success 12:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, you're right it telling me that my first communication was ineffective. I won't make excuses, but obviously my saying what I did was not effective. If I supply published documentation and quotes, would you consider (not promise to, but consider) putting it into the article? Terryeo 18:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Unmitigated Success 18:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Volunteer Minister's Handbook (665 pages) ISBN 0884040399 has a section on Touch Assist. It says some things which are taken from Scientology Technology. The referenced technology is Hubbard Communications Office Technical Bulletins (HCOBs).Terryeo 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
HCOB 7 Apr 72RA is titled Touch Assists Correct Ones and states: "Touch Assist HCOBs are right enough as to the data in them. In the past, many had been written by others than myself".

HCOB 25 Aug 87 Issue II, Touch Assists, More About states: "A Touch Assist may be done by anyone, on anyone." "The purpose of a Touch Assist is to reestablish communication with injured or ill body parts. It brings the person's attention to the injured or affected body areas. This is done by repetitively touching the ill or injured person's body and putting him into communication with the injury. His communication with it brings about recovery. The technique is based on the principle that the way to heal anything or remedy anything is to put somebody into communication with it." "Every single physical illness stems from a failure to communicate with the thing or area that is ill." "When attention is withdrawn from an injured or ill body areas, so are circulation, nerve flows and energy. This limits nutrition to the area and prevents the drain of waste products. Some ancient healers attributed remarkable flows and qualities to the 'laying on of hands.' Probably the workable element in this was simply heightening awareness of the affected area and restoring the physical communication factors." "Tell the (person) that you are going to be doing a Touch Assist and explain briefly the procedure. Tell the (person) the command you will be using and ensure he understands it. Give the command, then touch a point, using moderate finger pressure. Do NOT touch and then give the command; that would be backwards. Touch with only one finger. If you used two fingers the (person) could be confused about which he was supposed to look at or feel. (when the person tells you he has done your command) Acknowledge the person." "No matter what part of the body is being helped, the areas touched should include the extremites (hands and feet) and the spine." "Continue the assist until the (person) has very good indicators and a cognition." "Tell the (person), "End of assist." Terryeo 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC) These information are available in The Volunteer Minsister's Handbook, in the Assists Processing Handbook, as individual 2 or 3 page HCOBs which can be purchased from any Church (cheapest) and as HCOBs, part of the complete set of HCOBs, a 17 volume set, the Index is ISBN 0884044750.Terryeo 19:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes according to your references (please tell me you didn't go through 17 volumes to find this), take a look and make changes if needed, I didn't quite get everything (what's a command?). And thanks for the laughs, this is priceless. Unmitigated Success 21:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A command sometimes used is "Feel my finger?", immediately followed by a touch with moderate pressure. The person replies, the volunteer minister (or other person) acknowledges that the person has. Then repeats, touching another place on the person's body. The 17 volumes include an index by subject. Terryeo 01:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Why add Terryeo's information at the expense of removing the existing text, which was also sourced? Why not include both? wikipediatrix 21:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
It is more balanced than it was, presenting information from the source of information rather than exclusively presenting critical information. The reference which was being used included personal opinion on personal website and can never be included in any wikipedia article. Terryeo

[edit] Unreferenced Statement

Touch Assists begins with an unreferenced statement: Scientologists (especially Volunteer Ministers) are taught to administer what Hubbard called the "touch assist", a pseudo-scientific procedure .. No reference is presented for the puseudo-scientific procedure. Terryeo 01:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Scientology doesn't perform any kind of research. Where's the peer review for the HCOBs? Where's the experimental data to back it up? If the Lancet had published something about this, I have a hunch it would have caused a bit of a commotion. Unmitigated Success 06:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that Scientology publishes their "research" anywhere, but the Church of Scientology has an enormous amount of statistical information about almost every action of almost every individual, department, division, organization and group. They rarely publish much of it (to my knowledge). It doesn't get peer reviewed because there are no peers. On one side of the road is science and the scientific method. Western civilization shows that such methods work. On the other side of the road stands the larger portion of the population of our planet. It doesn't have internet access and air conditioning. Hubbard trod and Scientology was created in a an untrodden field. Hubbard's researches, which he often mentions doing, were not designed to, and don't, satisfy the peer reviewed, scientific community. His effort and the Church of Scientology's effort is to produce workable actions. And by workable I mean to say, "helpfully workable". So no, you're not going to see peer review anytime soon because there are no peers who are willing to give the command, "Recall a time when you had just finished constructing something" (an auditing command, taken at random). Terryeo 09:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess you are saying, "unless a procedure has peer review and experimental data, Wikipedia should introduce the procedure as 'pseudo-scientific'?" While I am saying, "Unless an information is published which states a procedure is pseudo-scientific, the the procedure should simply be stated and not introduced as pseudo-scientific". Does that summate our differences? Terryeo 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The only addition I would make to those criteria is "and portrays itself as scientific." But yes, it is the lack of acceptance by the scientific community that makes something otherwise "scientific" pseudoscience. --Davidstrauss 09:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much it, yes, if something falls under the definition of pseudoscience, it should be described as such. Unmitigated Success 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

To be thought of as "pseudoscientific" requires first, some attempt to be thought of as "scientific". For example, would you classify a piece of art, painted on a canvas, as "pseudoscientific"? Most people would not because there is no effort by the artist to present art as science. A touch assist is helpful to a person toward becoming in good communication with their body. Where's the science ? There's gotta be some science, first. The documentation I have quoted talks about communication. But all of this is mundane, anyway, unless a reliable source publishes and then that source can be cited and quoted. Terryeo 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a community of people who are dedicated scientists. Which of those persons has commented on the Catholic Confessional, declaring it to be "pseudo-scientific?" Well, none of them. The Church of Scientology (a religious and not a scientific body), created what is called a "touch assist". In what manner does such a religious procedure appeal to the "scientfic community"? How is a reader of a wikipedia article to make a connection between his common knowledge and an editor's Original Research (WP:NOR), that a religious procedure should satisfy, appeal to, be ascribed to or fulfill a scientific procedure? This is why we have WP:V and its threshold of inclusion is verifiability. Until a piece of information is published and verifiable, it can not be included in Wikipedia. If an editor insists that a touch assist is "pseudo-scientific" then the burden of evidence is on him. Let him stand forth and CITE HIS SOURCE. Where's the difficulty with doing things the Wikipedic way? Terryeo 19:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Catholic Confessional doesn't make claims regarded as "scientific" in nature. Hence, it fails the first criterion for pseudoscientific classification. Touch Assists, however, make claims of a scientific nature that aren't actually scientific. Hence, pseudoscience. --Davidstrauss 07:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Where? Where does the Church of Scientology claim that a touch assist is scientific? That, you should cite that in the article.Terryeo 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Truely, Mr. Strauss, your statement rests on a statement which says the Church of Scientology presents that auditing is scientific in nature. :) An truely interesting place for such a statement to rest. Very interesting, if unattributeable. A fairy tale, really. The Church of Scientology has never made such a statement, has it? And to use the statement which has never appeared except in the imagination of a few editors as a foundation for refusing a citation, this is Wikipedic? Terryeo 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that the Church of Scientology would never claim any connection with science [5], or make medical claims [6] AndroidCat 02:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Neither science nor medicine is referenced to by the Church in that news release. Terryeo 14:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
How about this one: Scientology flyer, distributed in Tampa, Florida in summer 2005, «Scientology is a precision science.» Since the Church of Scientology still promote Scientology as a science, and Hubbard as an expert in science, pointing out that Scientology practices are pseudo-scientific is certainly appropriate. --Raymond Hill 16:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is about Touch assists. Surely you don't mean to say that because Hubbard baked an Apple Pie that his apple pie was "pseudoscientific"? That would require a reader to think, "Because Hubbard has been accused of pseudoscience, then everything Hubbard ever did or touched is likewise, pseudoscience". Terryeo 14:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
"Hubbard first attracted public attention with Dianetics, which he himself dubbed a "Modern Science of Mental Health". In 1956, Hubbard claimed that Scientology "improves the health, intelligence, ability, behavior, skill and appearance of people. It is a precise and exact science, designed for an age of exact science" (Hubbard, 1956/1983, p. 8).
"Later, Hubbard claimed that Scientology "is today the only validated psychotherapy in the world... Scientology is a precision science...the first precision science in the field of the humanities... The first science to put the cost of psychotherapy within the range of any person's pocketbook... The first science to contain the exact technology to routinely alleviate physical illness with predictable success" (The Hubbard Information Letter of April 14, 1962)." [7] (emphasis added) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget that news release, the quotes you gave me yourself are (or at least try to look that way) medical in nature (hence scientific as well), since they claim to explain the nature of disease (a lack of "communication"), and how it can be cured with the touch assist. And since it's a million light years away from the usual medical description, it's pseudoscientific. Unmitigated Success 16:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. There is the potential to refuse to understand the idea which Hubbard presented. After all, it is not criticizing medicine. It is not attacking a profession. It is a different point of view than the point of view that is taught in western medicine. It is so different that it might be a little difficult to do anything but quote, which is what Wikipedia suggests we do. This enables a reader to read the information which Hubbard states. As a curiosity, the idea is so strange that the several editors who have commented in this section can not understand it, and that is why the idea is being criticized? The reason I ask is because some people have personally attested it is a helpful-to-them method. It makes me curious why editors would be so critical about a process which at least some people say is quite helpful to them. What we, personally think of a touch assist should have little bearing on the presentation of a touch assist, huh? Terryeo 06:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The last thing we need is for Wikipedians to think, truly. That people you know find it helpful is anecdotal evidence and original research, so it doesn't come into consideration. And, for my part at least, I think it's complete baloney, which is different from not understanding it. There's nothing to understand: a lack of "communication", you touch the guy, and voilà, there's not much more. Hubbard even says that anybody can do it. What we do agree on is that these are medical claims at odds with the consensus and based on no experimental data, which makes it pseudo-scientific. Unmitigated Success 08:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion doesn't come into consideration, except on discussion pages. Agreed. However, when a newspaper publishes information about touch assists, then that information comes into Wikipedia's sphere of presentation. I have spelled out the theory of the action at request and provided quoted documentation at request. Those are not medical claims, I don't know how to present the situation any more clearly, there is no medical claim made in the quoted documentation nor in my discussion. Furthermore, since there is no attempt by in my discussion to state any medical claim and there is no attempt in the documentation which I cited and quoted about any medical claim, pseudo-scientific doesn't apply. It is a different point of view, that's all. Unmitigated Success is talking about an action falling into the medical sphere, but it doesn't fall into the medical sphere. It doesn't fall into the psychological sphere. I have tried to spell out why the action of a touch assist does not fall into either of those spheres. When you give a touch assist you are assisting a person to become aware of and use their body. For example, the guy has had his foot in a machine for hours and can no longer use his foot. Well, in 2 or 3 days he would recover. But with a touch assist he is soon (in a few minutes) aware of and using his foot again. Terryeo 13:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
You're saying his foot would heal much faster with a touch assist. How is that not medical? Unmitigated Success 14:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, as I have stated before, your inability to write anything that does not blatantly defy the conventions of logic means it is impossible to follow your argumentation. I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in supposing that you actually wanted to make a point in this post, as opposed to simply wasting the time of your peers. Ignoring for a moment your somewhat shaky grasp of the english language, as well as the rather dubious claims you make, one can only marvel at the way you manage to contradict yourself in the space of a short paragraph. You state that the "touch assist" doesn't "fall into the medical sphere", and then make an outrageous claim that shows you believe the contrary: "For example, the guy has had his foot in a machine for hours and can no longer use his foot. Well, in 2 or 3 days he would recover. But with a touch assist he is soon (in a few minutes) aware of and using his foot again. ". I agree with you in that if you limit the action of a "touch assist" to a vague "awareness" of the body (such as that claimed by buddhists), you are making no medical claim. However, here you undeniably make a factual statement, and as this statement is most evidently codswallop, one is justified in deeming your organisation's claims as quackery. Yandman 14:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I see, Yandman. You are compltely unable to recognize the printed word on the page because I created an publication and signed the publication and you don't yet realize that I did. Instead, you state that an organization did that. Alas ! Terryeo 01:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"the guy has had his foot in a machine": What machine do you have in mind? A compactor? A wood chipper? A shredder? A conveyor belt? Regardless, this is quite a claim you just made, and you just confirmed splendidly why pseudoscientific applies here. --Raymond Hill 00:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I gave it my best shot at communicating an idea. I made no claim, though you said I made a claim. I stated a hypothetical (obviously) situation to communicate the idea. You have told me you don't understand the idea, not from the quoted documentation, not from my statement and not from the article. But you falsely purport that my explanation is a "claim" instead of the splendid explanation it is ! heh. Terryeo 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You did say some guy's foot would heal faster. Again, how is that not a claim, and how is it not medical? Unmitigated Success 06:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Terryeo, you don't "see". The use of meaningless non sequiturs in order to divert the course of an argument can be a powerful technique in an oral debate (an example springs to mind), however only a fool would try to do this in a medium where the entire text of the discussion is right before one's eyes. To be honest with you, I have no idea what you intended to say in your most recent post, and to be equally honest I couldn't care less. As Mr. Paxman would say: "Again, how is that not a claim, and how is it not medical?". Yandman 07:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL, I certainly failed to communicate. Terryeo 09:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In stating that I don't "see" you have evaluated my statement and concluded that my statement was false. Please stop your personal attacks. User:Yandman Terryeo 09:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
My statement was: "The use of meaningless non sequiturs in order to divert the course of an argument can be a powerful technique in an oral debate... however only a fool would try to do this in a medium where the entire text of the discussion is right before one's eyes". This sentence leads to a dichotomy: I said that if you tried to divert the course of the argument, you were a fool. This gives us two possible situations: Either you didn't purposefully try to bring attention away from your flawed argument, and so there was no attack made; Or you did do it on purpose, and so felt attacked. Your reply was: "Please stop your personal attacks", therefore you were in the second category, and did try to move the focus of the debate away from your errors. In which case, the violator is you, not me. Yandman 12:35, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of writing articles, did you see that flashy batman costume? Terryeo 03:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-Scientific

Immediately under Touch Assists the article presently states: Scientologists (especially Volunteer Ministers) are taught to administer what Hubbard called the "touch assist", a pseudo-scientific procedure. The information, "a pseudo-scientific procedure" is unreferenced. I have stated the Church does not present the procedure as "pseudo-scientific". Several editors have stated their original research and conclusions. Editors however, should not present their original research in an article WP:NOR. Instead, editors should present verified information in articles. The statement is uncited, the "pseudo-scientific" portion of it should be removed. Terryeo 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Is your argument that nothing should ever be described as pseudo-scientific? Pretty much everything that is understood as pseudo-scientific--astrology or phrenology, for example--was presented by its promoters as true and scientifically valid. BTfromLA 05:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, you never answered my question, so I'm going to ask you a third time: how can you say the touch assist is not presented as a medical procedure (and hence scientific in nature) when you're also saying it can help people heal faster? Unmitigated Success 08:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see I did not answer your question, Unmitigated. The information which I quoted presents a touch assist. You are completely free to read and understand it to be medical in nature. I read it and understand it to be about communication. But you read it and might understand it to be medical in nature. If you ask me, "is a touch assist medical in nature" then I really shouldn't give you a casual answer, I really shouldn't give you a personal evaluation which would be my opinion about whether a touch assist is medical in nature. The documentation says what it says. How you understand the documentation is up to you. How I understand it is up to me. Terryeo 16:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Scroll up a bit: you were presented with cites from Hubbard and the Church of Scientology, in which Scientology is characterized as a science, an exact science (see this diff). You didn't address these cites yet (there are many more available), which are the reason to keep pseudoscientific in the text. --Raymond Hill 15:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OKay, I'll reply. This discussion is about "touch assist". I am unsure how to gently reply because the references which are being presented say nothing about "touch assist". I don't know how to remove anyone's confusion. In 1950 there was Dianetics and there was some talk about psycho-somantic illness and some people got those "illnesses" crossed up with medicine and somehow, Dianetics was intruding into the medical sphere. My understanding is, Dianetics addressed thought, what people think when you ask them about their thoughts. For example: "do you have a recall about apples?" That isn't medical because it is about what a person experienced in the past and recalls in the present. But some people, somehow got Dianetics procedure tangled up with medicine. Now here is "touch assist". You say to the person, "feel my finger" and touch the person. To feel your touch the person must necessarily, somehow attend through his body to where you touched him, in order to feel your finger. This is a medical procedure? I don't think so. The information I quoted doesn't say so does it ? Terryeo 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

When the New York Times (or any like publication) publishes that, Raymond Hill, then it can be included in Wikipedia articles. Our policies and guidelines present, at WP:NPOV, All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. So, you see, until a point of view is published, it is Original Research by an editor (WP:NOR). The New York Times or a similar publication would need to publish that information before it could be included in an article. Terryeo 16:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If there are many publications which make the statement you desire, then just site the more reputable source of information which says that which you wish were stated. Terryeo 08:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, I was about to come to your defense on this one, thinking that the "pseudoscience" claim was not all that strong in this case. But then I looked at the article. Check out these quotes, from HCOB 25 Aug 87 Issue II : "Every single physical illness stems from a failure to communicate with the thing or area that is ill." "When attention is withdrawn from an injured or ill body areas, so are circulation, nerve flows and energy. This limits nutrition to the area and prevents the drain of waste products." Those are medical claims, unambigously so, and they fly in the face of established science. BTfromLA 19:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Your conclusion is yours and you earned it by reading the text. Should you find a publication which agrees with your developed point of view then include it. If not, don't. I don't read that as a medical claim. I don't consider it attempts to present science. It doesn't measure, it doesn't run blind tests, it doesn't make charts. It makes a statement. The statement is a reasoning which a person may understand, if they wish to, before attempting to help another person with a touch assist. Terryeo 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, definitions of pseudoscientific:
  • Dictionary.com: "A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation."
  • The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: "A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation."
  • Encarta: "Theory mistaken as scientific: a theory or method doubtfully or mistakenly held to be scientific"
  • Wikipedia: "Pseudoscience is a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research."
Now, Scientology presents itself as a science countless times, the Church of Scientology often presents Scientology as a science (as demonstrated.) There is no scientific foundation to the various Scientology practices. Therefore, pseudoscientific applies, without the need of cites. It's the other way around: cites to scientific validation of the various Scientology practices are needed if you want to remove the pseudoscientific characterization. I actually found cites, but you need to realize they are not needed, since you keep bringing the issue again and again. --Raymond Hill 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
You say Scientology presents itself as a science countless times. I say no, it doesn't. Countless times should be very easy to document. I don't believe it does. I believe you are thinking of Dianetics presentations in the time period 1948 - 1952, or possibly are reading Scien- (same root word as science, meaning know) and are concluding that Scientology attempts to present itself as a Science. I don't think there exists countless times where Scientology has stated that it is a Science. There might be one, there might be two, but I don't think there is anything near countless. Which throws the foozball back onto the lap of the person who wants to state pseudo-scientific. It would be necessary to find a source (reliable source) which says so. Terryeo 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
(I think countless is a figure of speech, but your conclusions are yours, my conclusions are mine, and Lafayette Ronald Hubbard's conclusion's are Lafayette Ronald Hubbard's conclusions. One occurence of scientology presenting itself as science is enough anyway. Unmitigated Success 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC))
Rather than countless times how about pervasive? I have lots of unambiguous quotes, from just an hour of research, and even some that clearly state that Dianetics is a part of Scientology, which means that Scientology is also Dianetics (of course, the first step is to become clear.) But you should know better, you know Scientology material. You wouldn't want to unfairly put all the burden of work for your own contentions on other editors, while you very well know that actually in no way there are only one or two quotes stating that Scientology is a science, would you? --Raymond Hill 05:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I keep saying, "when a reliable source states that a touch assist is a pseudoscientific action, then the thing to do is to quote and cite. But, if a reliable source does not state that, then the article should not state that. You are not going to convince me, guys. I have used this technology. I have saved someone's life with it. It works, it is helpful. Your efforts to convince me otherwise should be put toward writing the article. I know the stuff. So let's follow Wikipedia policy, shall we? If the article states the a "touch assist" is a pseudoscientific procedure, it should be only because a reliable source of publication, published that information. Terryeo 19:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldpar documents about five examples in a post earlier on this page. BTfromLA 05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I like these ones:
  • «Scientology is a heuristic science.» — HCO Policy Letter of 18 September 1963, "SCIENTOLOGY INSTRUCTORS";
  • «Good credit is a primary dissemination line. It breeds confidence. You can't have bad credit and still be thought of as a valid science.» — HCO Policy Letter of 28 January 1965, "ACCOUNTS HATS FINANCE / HOW TO MAINTAIN CREDIT STANDING & SOLVENCY";
  • «Our main show is that Scientology is the first science on Earth that could salvage a human being. Let's play it straight to the guy himself.» — HCO Policy Letter of 2 May 1957, "DISSEMINATION";
  • «This is SCIENTOLOGY, the overall study which embraces DIANETICS, the science of human thought.» — "PROFESSIONAL COURSE LECTURE SUMMARY BOOKLET NUMBER 18"; etc.
--Raymond Hill 15:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

<undent> Somehow I feel like I am talking about the touch assist portion of the article. And no one else is. Instead, people are not talking about the touch assist portion of the article but are telling me why they think their point of view is valid, even though there is no published information stating a relationship between "touch assist" and "pseudoscience". It baffled me at first because I was talking about the small piece of the article, touch assist, and was attempting to present information toward it being more a better article. Terryeo 19:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Touch assist is a Scientology practice. Scientology often presents itself as a "exact science". Don't you think it is important to ensure the reader is not misled into thinking that a touch assist has a scientific basis? Using pseudoscientific prevents that. The use of pseudoscientific doesn't prevent the reader into thinking that a touch assist may have a "spiritual value", which is your position. So frankly, I don't understand why you have a problem with the term. --Raymond Hill 19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Continuing to justify one's original research does not remove it from original research. Until a reliable publication, publishes the datum you state, NPOV requires it not be included. Terryeo 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I answered this argument already: it's the other way around. In order to remove pseudoscientific, you need to provide proper references for this. Realize how anybody could make a wild claim, present it as being scientifically sound, and according to your point of view, it would be impossible to document it as pseudoscientific, as long as the scientific community didn't bother to investigate and explicitly characterize it as pseudoscientific. Pseudoscientific is particularly appropriate when the claim doesn't fit at all within current knowledge. You see, if Hubbard wanted Scientology to be adequately seen as a science, he had the burden to prove his claims. But he never bothered, so blame him, not me. If this can help, consider the current sentence we have in the article: "a pseudo-scientific procedure supposed to help heal illnesses or injuries". Now consider this variation: "a procedure, with no scientific basis, supposed to help heal illnesses or injuries." Now, would you ask me to provide a reference about the absence of scientific evidence for touch assist? This is why this is the other way around: provide proper references that demonstrates that touch assists are indeed scientifically sound. --Raymond Hill 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
There has been no claim, Raymond. You are fighting the thin air, no one claimed there was any science to it. None. Read the above, there's no claim of science there. Terryeo 19:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
No claim? scientologyhandbook.org Under "Theory", there's an explaination of "every single physical illness". How is that section not a scientific and medical claim? AndroidCat 23:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you are attempting to make little of and ignore the issue Raymond raised. He raised an issue of "Pseudoscience". You have found a stored, past page which is no longer used, and you used it to introduce a different question. As I state above, how you read information is up to you. Raymond and I were talking about "pseudoscience" and publications about that. There being no publication which states that a touch assist is "scientific" and, further, there being no publication which states, contrawise, that a touch assist is "pseudoscientific", it is then inappropriate for the article to present that a touch assist is either. Terryeo 08:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently you expect scientific claims to state in bold "This is a Scientific Claim!", rather than just clearly making a number of scientific and medical claims and backing it up with nothing much. As for the pages on the site, CoS has been shifting some of their sites around over the past months and upgrading from the solid but ancient Website 3.13 software to Apache. The site was moved to another server just a few days ago, and I expect that they'll have the bugs out soon. The text is excerpted from a published work, The Scientology Handbook, and I doubt they'll be tossing that away. AndroidCat 13:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
"I'm folding up like the biggest telescope ever was" said Alice in a scientific expression of claim (From Carroll's Deal Alice, emphisis created for purposes of illustration. "Touch Assist" was completely mis-represented in the article. I quoted some test which, if read carefully, could lead a person to know a little about a touch assist. It certainly isn't a supernatural ability. A 10 year can learn and do it and get results. The guy is sitting there, he's been thrown up on the beach by the wave, he's confused and you ask him, "feel my finger" and you touch his toe. You go back and forth on his extremities so his attention, to respond to you, must go through his body to the touched body part. Supernatural? Scientific? Quote the relevant text, cite the relevant text, don't do any original research. Don't place your personal conclusions on the page, but quote text, cite text. Terryeo 13:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
No original research, this is a fact: there is no scientific basis to the Scientology practice called touch assist. The use of pseudoscientic correctly underline the fact that the touch assist practice is not based on science. I still maintain my position, you will have to find someone else to convince. Raymond Hill 15:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
The burden of evidence is upon the editor who makes an edit. Should I edit an article, for example, and state: "Silversmithing has become a lost skill in England" (which, by the way, it has). Then it would be incumbant on me to support the statement which I placed into the article. In this case, in this article, we see "touch assist" being presented as pseudoscientific. It is incumbant on the editor who placed it to support his statement. Actually, the "pseudoscience" stuff is mostly one a handful of personal websites and is mostly a matter of personal opinion. You might agree with it, but it is not an established, broadly published point of view about Scientology at all, and probably not at all about touch assists. Terryeo 09:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] personal websites as secondary sources

Wikipedia's WP:V talks about what quality of sources should be used in creating our articles. WP:RS then, by a concensus of editors spells out the intent of WP:V more specifically. In particular and specific to this article, personal websites may not be used as secondary sources of information within Wikipedia articles. The reason for this concensus of editors which has been arrived at by extensive editor discussion at WP:RS is that personal websites have nothing between the person who wishes to express an opinion or a point of view, and the presented information. The blockquote of Stacy Brooks of the Lisa McPherson Trust is published on a personal website and verifiable from that personal website. The information about that website is not extensive, but it does give an email address which is infolisatrust@yahoo.com. Therefore, because I see that an editor or two wishes to include her point of view, why don't you all do one of two things?

    • email Brooks and find out what the source of her information is and then cite it? - or -
    • Follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines and remove the direct blockquote from a personal website ? Terryeo 15:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Or:
    • Ignore Terryeo's attempts at getting yet another lengthy (and utterly useless) discussion going. Yandman 15:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Or:
    • Demonstrate a willingness to create something better than newsgroup chatter. Wikipedia uses better standards than the newsgroup chatter. Those standards should actually be upheld by every editor. Your arguement is not with me, but with the concensus of editors who create and maintain those standards. My posting those standards here is not an antagonism, nor a personal attack. Terryeo 16:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wikipedia Policy

taught to administer what Hubbard called the "Touch Assist", a pseudo-scientific procedure supposed to help heal illnesses or injuries. Says the article.

Good editing: taught to administer the "Touch Assist". Good because a reference is easily cited from a widely published source of information.
Bad editing: a pseudo-scientific procedure ..... Bad because no reference is cited, no reference of a reliable nature is likely to be found. In addition it is an evaluation of the procedure instead of a piece of information which has been published about the procedure. Terryeo 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That the act of simply touching someone with a finger will alleviate pain is pseudoscientific goes without saying. There are some obvious things we don't have to a provide a source for, like that water is wet and the sky is blue. But hey, feel free to find some sources in reputable science journals that state that the Touch Assist is indeed scientific, and we can fix it. wikipediatrix 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
A "touch assist" is not the act of simply touching someone with a finger and whether it is that or is not that, Wikipedia requires that information be verified and if not verifiable, can be removed by any editor. Terryeo 17:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
wikipediatrix, a touch assist is not something that is addressed by science and science cannot call it scientific or pseudoscientific. A touch assist is designed to help the spiritual being communicate with injured or ill parts of his/her body. It is a spiritual thing. It is outside the realm of science. But if you find some peer-reviewed scientific journal that calls it pseudoscientific, then go for it. I just doubt you will as those publications should know the limitations of science. And yes, if "the sky is blue" were contentious you would need to source it. Calling all or part of Scientology pseudoscience is contentious. It is not science at all, it is metaphysics or religion, take your pick. See Wikipedia:Common knowledge --Justanother 17:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Justanother, you may have to correct Terryeo on his misunderstandings of Scientology, then. He has repeatedly told us that the use of a touch assist will help a person with an injured leg to be able to use that leg again much more quickly, which of course is not a claim of a spiritual result but a testable medical result which is of course pseudoscientific if no tests actually support the claims of such results. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I am not commenting about the subject, nor about my experience. I am commenting about Wikipedia policy which states, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability. For editors to make a statement which can not be verified (such as healing with a fingertouch is pseudoscientific) is against WP:V. Again, I am not commenting about the validity of a the Touch assist, but about Wikipedia POLICY. Terryeo 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Errr..... The book is called "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health". How is this not adressed by science? yandman 07:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Official church site "Dianetics is a science of the mind", with comparisons to the law of gravity. AndroidCat 10:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
First, I reiterate that a touch assist is designed to help the spirit in its relationship to the body and that it is a spiritual, not "scientific", thing. Spiritual issues are subjective and are not addressed by science, they are outside the realm of science. Unfortunately Scientism is the religion of the day and spiritual concepts are held up to the standard of science when perhaps it should be the other way around (if it were that way perhaps we would not have nuclear weapons scattered all over the world just waiting to fall into the very wrong hands, if they are not already there).
On the Dianetics issue, I can only offer my opinion. In 1950 (and likely similarly today too), the subject of mental healing was composed of schools of thought such as Freudian or Jungian that were based on unproven theories of behavior or structure, while science and engineering (and the efforts and sacrifice of millions of men and women) had just won WWII (the atomic bomb , radar, the proximity fuze) and Americans were enjoying a new level of technology in their everyday lives (refrigerators, air conditioning, automatic transmissions, television, etc.) I think LRH considered himself more an engineer than a philosopher and he cast his theory of the mind's workings into a technological mold. This is not to say that his theories of behavior or structure were any more proven than Freud's or Jung's and it is certainly possible that, in 1950, LRH was trying to cast Dn as a science to give it added credibility. He may well have gone overboard if he claimed that he had created a science in the strictest sense of the word (I am not sure he did but I remember DMSMH as being a bit over-the-top on that issue and this is all my opinion anyway). However, it is important to remember that the theories that Ron advanced related to the engram being held in the cell and other physical aspects of Dianetic theory were alway labeled as no more than hypothesis. Even in 1950, Dianetics was a "science of the mind", not of the physical universe. Further, once LRH moved into the area of the spirit with Scientology, the "pseudoscience" claim becomes even more moot; Dianetics is still "science of the mind" but now the mind is clearly a spiritual construct. And finally, what do we mean by a "science of the mind"? We don't mean hard science, we mean something with laws and rules that you can learn and apply, another valid definition of the word science: "Methodological activity, discipline, or study". No pseudoscience. And why is it compared to gravity? Here is something from my user page on the subject of Scientology and science: "However, it works and it is reproducible. If I apply the principle of the ARC triangle to my relationship with another person, I get the uniform result of improved understanding between us and a more harmonious relationship. The fact that people can "naturally" do this does not invalidate the 'law of ARC' no more than the fact that people can "naturally" fall down invalidates the law of gravity." --Justanother 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filtering documented evidence through a POV

The external links section has a link. It said: Successes from Specific Services. Various success stories in Dianetics and Scientology. Church of Scientology.. The reason is said that is because the webpage is titled: Successes from Specific Services. User:Wikipediatrix, edited to produce: Successes from Specific Services. Various claims of success stories in Dianetics and Scientology. Church of Scientology. No one is claiming a success story on that page. The page presents information. The information is titled "Success Stories" and is then presented in an A, B, C sort of manner with people's initials as the attribution. There is no "claim" because there is no counter-arguement. A "claim" requires an statement and a counter-statement. The dictionary says so. [8]. Terryeo 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I have more or less rectified the language pb by changing the sentence to: "Various success stories advising/claiming of benefits from Dianetics and Scientology". Jpierreg 00:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Terryeo, none of the nine definitions of "claim" that you linked to say anything about requiring a statement and counter-statement. None. Not at all. Nothing remotely similar. You just made that up out of whole cloth and linked to a dictionary that doesn't say what you say it does. Why do you do such things? BTfromLA 05:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand how anyone could not understand that a titled book or webpage should not be referred to by its title. To present a titled book or webpage as "a claim" or "an allegation" is inappropriate. Let the facts speak for themselves, allow the reader to form their own opinions. Quit inserting "claim" if it is Church information and omitting "claim" if it is Scientology - critical opinion. Terryeo 08:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I think you've lost yourself in your own nonsense there, Terryeo. You say that a page should not be referred to by its title, and then you criticise trix for ... err ... not referring to it by its title. yandman 08:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
That's not what the word on the page read. Terryeo 11:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Words don't read, people do. Or rather, some of them do. I can't say I understand what you're talking about. yandman 12:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Claim: 3. To state to be true, especially when open to question; assert or maintain: claimed he had won the race; a candidate claiming many supporters. [9] This is the use of the word which User:Wikipediatrix edited toward, changing the actual information into her idea of the information. The original presents people's attestations, that is, individual people make a statement and sign it, attesting to their personal knowledge. The Church then presents those statements, removing the signature but keeping the initials. An attestation is a statement, the broader, more general catagory of what a person might say, and not a claim which is open to question. If you tell me what you had for breakfast is that your claim, your attestation, or your statement ? It would be your attestation. We should present the information as the source of information presents it. Then, the reader can judge for themselves. When we filter the reader's information we are doing the reader an injustice. Terryeo 09:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here Terryeo ignores the fact that the statements attributed to initials fail WP:V, WP:ATT and don't come from a WP:RS. Presenting them as-is without warning the reader would do Wikipedia an injustice. P.S. Please try not to insert comments in stream-of-consciousness order. AndroidCat 13:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
AndroidCat, hey man, I appreciate your attempt to correct my behaviour by stating, P.S. Please try not to insert comments in stream-of-consciousness order. Since you don't want that, perhaps you could suggest a different sequence for my presentation of information? Actually I did a fair bit of working back and forth in order to cite the dictionary in a meaningful manner since there are a number of definitions of the term "claim". We are talking here about how to label an exterior link, we are not talking about using that information as a primary or as a secondary source. To do so would require a higher level of reliability than an exterior link requires. My statement is to present the information as simply as possible with no bais words to color the reader's assimilation of that information if the reader chose to go to that exterior link. And your justification for coloring the reader's assimilation is ??? Terryeo 16:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Regarding links: So you feel that external links are exempt from WP:V WP:ATT and WP:RS, and editors have no obligation to warn the reader about unsourced, unverifiable claims by unreliable sources? Noted, although it seems like a switch on your part.
As for order, you continually wedge later comments between previous comment/responses (sometimes months later), breaking up the flow and making it difficult to respond to you without increasing the disruption, which is why I moved it. (By the way, moving my postscript to a pre-postscript seems like petty pique on your part.) AndroidCat 18:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not mention anything about the subject you secondly comment about, about order. If you would like to discuss that, I'm prefectly willing to, including the accusation you state. In regard to your first comment, about links being exempt from WP:V, my statement most certainly is directed to that. In particular, while you suggest READERS BE WARNED, I suggest external links provide further reading for the interested person. Presenting the link in a manner consistant with WP:V is of utmost importance. If you are suggesting that readers need be WARNED when a link points to a specific sort of site then I suggest you are attempting to bias the reader. On the other hand, if you wish to WARN the reader about a pay site or about a pdf formatted link, then I'm with you on that. Terryeo 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Opinion on Personal Website

Our own User:ChrisO's personal opinion is referenced in Telepathy and remote viewing. User:ChrisO's essay titled Narconon and Scientology: a comparison is posted on the personal website solitarytrees and used as a secondary source of information. The article states: Scientology has had similar TRs over the years for recalling the thetan's lost telepathic abilities such as mind-reading and remote viewing. 6. WP:V tells us that personal opinion which appears on personal websites is not of sufficient quality to be used as a secondary source within an article. Such personal opinion might appear as an "exterior link" or a "further reading" sort of reference, but shouldn't appear as a secondary source linked as a reference from within an article. Terryeo 03:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supernatural

The phrase "Supernatural abilities" does not appear in any printed Scientology doctrine, so this article, even though sourced and referenced, is built upon a fundamental untruth and someone's POV impression of what is being described here. I repeat, the Church of Scientology have never, never, ever, EVER used the phrase "Supernatural abilities" in any of their doctrine. This article's title should therefore be changed. Any suggestions? Heightened abilities in Scientology doctrine sounds like the most logical choice to me. However, it should also be noted that things like Narconon workbooks and old back issues of "Advance" magazine are NOT official Scientology "doctrine" by any definition of the word. Highfructosecornsyrup 22:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is that "casual" (read "wrong") use of the term "doctrine" again. --Justanother 23:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
"Supernatural abilities" means abilities which are not based on the laws of nature. Scientology promises its followers that they will attain abilities which transcend the laws of nature, therefore, that is a proper expression. Your suggestion of using "heightened abilities" would imply that these abilities somehow do not violate the laws of nature, which is obviously not the case. Raymond Hill 14:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Raymond, do you imply that we already know and completely understand ALL the laws of nature? I put it to you that if we did then these abilities might not seem "supernatural" at all. But that is a philosophy discussion. There should be a better term we can use though. Not "heightened abilites. Michael Jordan has/had "heightened abilities". I drink a cup of coffee and get "heightened abilities". I could actually go with "superhuman" as even LRH called the Clear "Homo Novis" or something. Any other thoughts? --Justanother 20:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I quote you: "Raymond, do you imply that we already know and completely understand ALL the laws of nature?". My answer: No. I actually fail to see where I implied such a thing. In any case, I'm still convinced though that "supernatural abilities" is an accurate title for this article, as "superhuman" is too broad, and doesn't necessarily and specifically evoke a human with supernatural abilities. Raymond Hill 21:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In saying that these abilities, say telepathy or telekinesis, "violate the laws of nature", (which I think is a fair read of what you said since you state that saying they do not "is obviously not the case") so in saying that these abilites "violate the laws of nature", I submit that asking if you are implying that we know ALL the answers is a fair question. Because there may well be a "law of nature" of which we are unaware that would explain such abilites perfectly and they would no longer be supernatural at that point. It is, as I said, much more a question for a discussion of philosophy than for the question actually before us. How is superhuman "too broad"? What quality would be "superhuman" but not fit under the umbrella of the ultimate goals of Scientology for the individual? --Justanother 22:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, saying "supernatural abilities means abilities which are not based on the laws of nature" obviously implies the known laws of nature. It would be absurd if I were to state that such abilities "are not based on laws of nature, known or unknown." Now, you state that we might discover new law(s) of nature, "which would explain such [supernatural] abilities perfectly." Well, we would first have to agree that these supernatural abilities are proven to exist, which is not the case.
Now, let's focus on why you want to change the title of this article, I quote you: "the phrase 'Supernatural abilities' does not appear in any printed Scientology doctrine". Well, telekinesis and telepathy are supernatural abilities. This article adresses Scientology's telekinesis, telepathy, exteriorization, etc., among other promised abilities, therefore, it is appropriately titled. Raymond Hill 23:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the "obvious implication" rebuttal (smile). But you have a point. Anyway, philosophy aside, it was not the "supernatural" part of Syrupediatrix' objection that I was really agreeing with. It was the doctrine part. It is the "casual" (read "wrong") use of the term "doctrine" again. There is no specific supernatural ability promised in Scientology. Just increased cause over your own spiritual universe at the sub-full OT levels and "full cause" over MEST at some mythical "full OT" or "native state" level. So it could be called "Claimed supernatural experiences in Scientology" and that would be much closer to the truth. Just not as sexy. --Justanother 00:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Would something like Superhuman abilities and Scientology be okay?--T. Anthony 00:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. --Justanother 00:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No. "Superhuman" doesn't necessarily involved supernatural abilities. It is said sometimes for out of the ordinary strength, or endurance. The content of the article are about unproven/unprovable claims that aren't explained through the laws of nature (of course, or else we could prove/disprove them.) How about we keep the title as it is? Raymond Hill 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
True, but I think you're being overly literal or rationalistic. The average person isn't thinking mental calculators, World's Strongest Man, or human echolocation when they think "superhuman." For most people "superhuman abilities" means like the ability to fly or even have psi powers. Supernatural, to me, means something beyond nature. As I believe in the supernatural to me linking it to this kind of stuff, which strikes me as being more like pseudoscience, is demeaning to the supernatural. However I guess I'd accept it.--T. Anthony 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
No prob on the superhuman, Raymond, but the doctrine term is flat misleading. But hey, I think we are really getting somewhere here! How about "Supernatural abilities and Scientology"? --Justanother 01:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, but perhaps to avoid the entire "perception of super and nature" argument, we could work inside the terms given by Scientology itself. I would suggest "Powers of Clear Thetans," with perhaps a few redirects from supernatural and such. Any takers?--15:19, 7 January 2007

[edit] Neutrality Dispute?

This page is flagged as being biased (yellow rectangle at the top of the page), but I don't see anything that could be considered in that manner. Could this be removed?

It speaks to the issue of calling individual anecdotes, "doctrine", i.e. giving undue weight to titillating matter. The article needs some reworking to be WP:NPOV -- Justanother 23:26, 13 December 2006

Everything hubbard says is doctrine, though. That's what happens when your leader is infalliable. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • As "author of the Scientology scripture", what he said becomes Scientology [[10]]. .V. [Talk|Email] 20:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctrine

I think the word "doctrine" itself has a negative connotation, except among Christians when they are talking about Christian doctrine. I don't know if there is another word that would be better. I also considered removing the time travel story as too trivial; but it was such a great story! :-) Steve Dufour 11:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] clarification requested

The original version of Dianetics made overt promises that it could cure disease, but this was toned down in later years, after investigations that medicine was being practiced without a license.

Steve Dufour removed the above as uncited, but he didn't specify what part of it he thought could be challenged. Which part? I think the only part that might be not substantiable, actually, would be the "toned down" part. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I overlooked it there was no citation given at all for this information. Steve Dufour 02:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
While various charges have been brought against Dn and Scn over the years, I have never seen nor heard any mention anywhere that DMSMH was changed as a result so that would need a citation and without that claim (changes) the other part (charges) is adequately covered elsewhere. --Justanother 03:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I cleaned up the headings so that they actually relate to the "power" being discussed. The Super Power one might should be deleted as we do not know what it is about. --Justanother 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I pulled the tags as it looks pretty OK other than as I mention here. The only one I have a problem with is the time travel anecdote as that is just an anecdote from an OT, not doctrine. So either remove the anecdote or remove "doctrine" from the title or add an OR-ish intro line in the section as to how it fits into the general OT "cause over MEST" thing. --Justanother 03:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Of those options, removing "doctrine" from the title seems to be the least destructive to the encyclopedia. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I will BOLD it. Thanks. --Justanother 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Later, though, no hurry. --Justanother 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

<< Actually, on final thought, I will leave the title alone as the concept of OT and "cause over MEST" are most certainly doctrine and the time-travel thing is harmless. Someone else can address it if they care to but "doctrine" should stay in the title. --Justanother 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/u/p/Talk%7ESupernatural_abilities_in_Scientology_doctrine_7ae1.html"