Diane: Mind Control? - alt.religion.scientology

Message from discussion Diane: Mind Control?

Peter McDermott

More options Sep 10 1997, 3:00 am

Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology

From: n...@petermc.demon.co.uk (Peter McDermott)

Date: 1997/09/10

Subject: Re: Diane: Mind Control?

  Reply to author
  |
  Forward
  | Print
  | View thread
  | Show original
  | Report this message
  | Find messages by this author
  

In article <3420c261.28104...@news.concentric.net>,

dr...@yourown.risk.com (bc) wrote:
>>She ignores it because you're making the same *type* of argument as
>>those who argued for the belief that the sun rotates around the
>>earth. You're basing your argument on the subjective experience of
>>yourself and others, and choosing to ignore evidence based on the
>>scientific method.

>Obviously you didn't read the post, or my response to Rebecca.

I read your response after I posted this, but I don't see how
that invalidates my point.

>>>What is now "subjectively" accepted as true by the aforementioned
>>>"authorities"--the non-existence of mind control--is not
>>>"objective". The facts are not all in.

>>You don't accept the APA as authorities on matters concerning
>>the human psyche? Is this a left-over from your days as a clam,
>>or did you have these concerns before you joined in the first
>>place?

>I said I don't accept the APA as the *final* authority. Geez,
>Peter, I don't even know why I bother responding to you. Other than
>the fact that I don't like to see your bullshit left unrebutted.

I'm still waiting for your rebuttal to start. Whining about
the odd choice of word here or there does not constitute a
rebuttal (though I wouldn't expect you to appreciate that
given the quality of your argument.)

>>The facts are not all in on *anything*. That's the nature of
>>science. At any given point, we work on the basis of the best
>>available explanation. Is it coherent? Is it consistent? Does it
>>fit the available data.

>Uh, Peter, that was the point that *I* was trying to make. Thank
>you.

So why didn't you make it?

>>The US courts and the APA reject the arguments in favour of
>>mind-control by reviewing the available evidence and finding
>>that the holes in the mind control theory are just too large
>>to accept. While there *is* a measure of subjectivity about that
>>process, it's beauty is that it isn't usually carried out by a
>>lone individual but represents a consensus view of the evidence.
>>You'll always have some individuals who, for various reasons,
>>refuse to accept that, but more often than not, those reasons
>>will be subjective rather than objective, ie, they tend to be
>>wedded to a theory of their own.

>Like the one that says mind control doesn't exist, for instance.
>The US Courts and the APA are made up of people just like you and
>me, Peter. All of them making *subjective* decisions based on *
>subjective* interpretations of *subjective* data.

Sure, but that's the thing about science. It works on consensus.
The more people you have, the more likely they are to pick up
on the flaws in the arguments or the data, and the more likely
they are to point that out.

As a consequence, they aren't likely to suffer from the same
sort of prejudices as those whose agenda is shaped by either
their experience of cults, or their goals as anti-cult activists.
Of course, they'll suffer other prejudices, but I'm at something
of a loss to understand what they could be with regard to an
issue like this.

>BTW, the US Courts and the APA also have political motivations,
>Peter.

So what do you suggest their political motivations are for
denying the reality of cult mind control?

>I believe I have already made my point elsewhere as to why I don't
>accept the US Court system as an arbiter of any reliability. The
>APA is in the same boat. In my *subjective* opinion.

Your choice, of course. However, I don't think you can compare
the findings of a jury, with the process of scholarship and
peer review. You obviously choose to regard all information as
subjective. I'd suggest to you that it's *precisely* that sort
of thinking that led you to be suckered by a nut-cult in the
first place. Just *my* opinion, of course.

>>You choose to disagree with their findings on the basis that
>>your subjective experience (and the subjective experience of
>>others) leads you to believe something different, yet as you've
>>pointed out with your sun/earth example, subjective experience
>>is *not* the best test of a theory in such matters.

>I don't believe that the court or the APA is the *best* test of the
>theory either, Peter.

Forget about the court for a moment. You're saying that despite
the fact that the APA have based their findings on the aggregate
of all of the available research, as published in the scientific
journals of a range of disciplines and so scrutinized by many
people in the field, you don't believe that that's the best test?

What exactly *do* you believe the best test is then?

>I don't believe politically motivated organizations are really
>reliable for scientific study.

The APA don't actually *do* the study. They are simply basing
their findings on the available evidence *from* the scientific
studies.

Is your antipathy towards psyches a leftover from your days in
the cult? What do you believe is the basis of their political
agenda in this area?

Or is it that you simply choose to ignore any and all
evidence that doesn't fit in with your world-view? Again,
that's a tendency that *I* see as typifying cult membership,
though I'd accept that it isn't just limited to them.

>>Yet when people point out to you that there your beliefs are
>>at odds with the dominant scientific opinion, you accuse them
>>of 'preaching at' or 'invalidating' you. which is precisely
>>*why* people draw parallels between your response and that
>>of the cult. They respond in exactly the same way when faced
>>with scientific refutation of their beliefs.

>Perhaps if you'd read the threads between Bernie and myself, you'd
>have a vague idea of what the fuck you're talking about, Peter. Go
>back and hit Deja News. Look up some of the threads between myself
>and Bernie. Please. I'm anxious to see what your response might be
>after you have actually availed yourself of a clue.

But you're doing exactly the same thing to me, here. I present
you with arguments that you don't seem to feel comfortable with,
and you start whining about how your patience is wearing thin,
and you're only doing it to rebut my bullshit.

>>>There is no final authority on the human mind--most especially
>>>not the US Courts or the APA.

>>There doesn't need to be a "final authority". That isn't how
>>science works. It works on the basis of the best available
>>explanation at any given moment, and it appears that those
>>scientists who have studied *this* particular issue have found
>>that the mind control explanation has been found seriously
>>wanting.

>You know, Peter, that IS the beauty of it. I think *all* the
>theories are at least somewhat wanting. And eventually, there will
>be one or two or three hundred put forth that come a little closer
>to the "truth" (whatever THAT is). And until someone can come up
>with a better explanation of what I experienced, I'm sticking with
>mine--which has been corroborated by lots of different people.
>Including *professionals*. Sorry if you don't choose to accept
>them. That's really not my problem

Says it all, really. If it's true for you, and you can get a
bunch of other people to agree with you, then it *must* be
true, mustn't it?

Sorry, but that just isn't how science works, and your anger
in the face of people questioning your beliefs *does* seem to
me to typify cultic behaviour whether you like it or not.

Some of this is my opinion. The rest is fact. Those with a
clue will know which is which.

Reply to author Forward