Image: Illustration by Richard Mia
In the 1990s I had the opportunity to dine with the late musician Isaac Hayes, whose career fortunes had just made a stunning turnabout upward, which he attributed to Scientology. It was a glowing testimonial by a sincere follower of the Church, but is it evidence that Scientology works? Two recently published books argue that there is no science in Scientology, only quasireligious doctrines wrapped in New Age flapdoodle masquerading as science. The Church of Scientology, by Hugh B. Urban, professor of religious studies at Ohio State University, is the most scholarly treatment of the organization to date, and investigative journalist Janet Reitman’s Inside Scientology is an electrifying read that includes eye-popping and well-documented tales of billion-year contracts, aggressive recruitment programs and abuse of staffers.
The problem with testimonials is that they do not constitute evidence in science. As social psychologist Carol Tavris told me, “Every therapy produces enthusiastic testimonials because of the justification-of-effort effect. Anyone who invests time and money and effort in a therapy will say it helped. Scientology might have helped Isaac Hayes, just as psychoanalysis and bungee jumping might have helped others, but that doesn’t mean the intervention was the reason. To know if there is anything special about Scientology, you need to do controlled studies—randomly assigning people to Scientology or a control group (or a different therapy) for the same problem.” To my knowledge, no such study has been conducted. The real science behind Scientology seems to be an understanding of the very human need, as social animals, to be part of a supportive group—and the willingness of people to pay handsomely for it.
If Scientology is not a science, is it even a religion? Well, it does have its own creation myth. Around 75 million years ago Xenu, the ruler of a Galactic Confederation of 76 planets, transported billions of his charges in spaceships similar to DC-8 jets to a planet called Teegeeack (Earth). There they were placed near volcanoes and killed by exploding hydrogen bombs, after which their “thetans” (souls) remained to inhabit the bodies of future earthlings, causing humans today great spiritual harm and unhappiness that can be remedied through special techniques involving an Electropsychometer (E-meter) in a process called auditing.
Thanks to the Internet, this story—previously revealed only to those who paid many thousands of dollars in courses to reach Operating Thetan Level III (OT III) of Scientology—is now so widely known that it was even featured in a 2005 episode of the animated TV series South Park. In fact, according to numerous Web postings by ex-Scientologists, documents from court cases involving followers who reached OT III and abundant books and articles by ex-members who heard the story firsthand and corroborate the details, this is Scientology’s Genesis. So did its founder, writer L. Ron Hubbard, just make it all up—as legend has it—to create a religion that was more lucrative than producing science fiction?
Instead of printing the legend as fact, I recently interviewed the acclaimed science-fiction author Harlan Ellison, who told me he was at the birth of Scientology. At a meeting in New York City of a sci-fi writers’ group called the Hydra Club, Hubbard was complaining to L. Sprague de Camp and the others about writing for a penny a word. “Lester del Rey then said half-jokingly, ‘What you really ought to do is create a religion because it will be tax-free,’ and at that point everyone in the room started chiming in with ideas for this new religion. So the idea was a Gestalt that Ron caught on to and assimilated the details. He then wrote it up as ‘Dianetics: A New Science of the Mind’ and sold it to John W. Campbell, Jr., who published it in Astounding Science Fiction in 1950.”
To be fair, Scientology’s Xenu story is no more scientifically untenable than other faiths’ origin myths. If there is no testable means of determining which creation cosmogony is correct, perhaps they are all astounding science fictions.
This article was originally published with the title The Real Science behind Scientology.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
47 Comments
Add CommentDid I read the same article as you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo peer review can ever be done on Scientology, as the Church will not allow it, and quite simply it cannot be done without their cooperation. But no article on Scientology is complete without at least mentioning their criminal behaviors (google: Operations Snow White)and harassment of critics (google: Paulette Cooper). Hubbards claims that man descended from Clams, that there exist brainwashing centers on mars, that he was once nearly hit by a train on Venus, that radiation is water-soluable, etc. -- All of those are clearly within the realm of Science Fiction and not Science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a need to spread the word to as many audiences as possible that the church of scientology is a corrupt and corrupting organisation. An off shoot is the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (WISE) which targets businesses especially doctors, dentists and chiropractors to sell them "knowledge" they could get for $25.99 from Barnes and Noble and sign then up for church of scientology services. The beliefs are kooky but most are. There is a growing group of independant scientologists who are a lot happier out of the church of scientology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific America has probably work out that the church of scientology is so controversial that just mentioning it increases site traffic as the church of scientology's Office of Special Affairs (OSA) flock to ridicule negative articles and critics come to explain what OSA is up to. A job for OSA fun for the critics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere absolutely is real science behind scientology, proven by 10,000 years of close observation, peer reviewed every day, and expressable in a general law, a unifying theory of everything human in all societies:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a sucker born every minute.
I've read a lot about creation concepts from various cultures over the years. They all seem to have the same issues; the inability for our species to understand infinity and the lack of knowledge of evolution or unwillingness to accept it. The older creation myths may be more simplistic than the more recent but they all have the same defect; they lack any verifiable evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow. Xenu, spaceships, Teegeeack, “thetans”, Electropsychometers? Sounds like those other stories about people who lived 900 years, or a man who's strength was controlled by the length of his hair, or a man who was swallowed by a whale and was spit back out alive 3 days later, or even the one about a man who died and then came back to life after 3 days. They all sounds arbitrary and made up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's okay level OT3 in scientology you find out all that stuff about other religions was implanted by aliens 75 million years ago. You have the "cognition" (realisation) that you "mocked it all up" which is scilon for imagined it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt gets better, at OT8 you find out what you are not and are ready to find out what you are. Of course if you do this through the church of scientology you'll be down around $1m for "services" alone.
ok guys, because a resurrection, and the sea parting in half is much more believable....to each their own. Doesn't matter what others believe in, let them be, and move on with your life. If you feel like believing that butterflies are deceased souls, or that worshiping a monkey will make you live longer, who cares!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, the title was a bit misleading,..I was expecting an analysis of the science behind scientology, but a thought comes to mind: I would much rather live in a free country where the right to religious belief is constitutionally supported than one where it is not. The author concludes this article with a good point, in that, their beliefs are no stranger than "conventional" christianity's or Islam. Some people improve their lives by taking walks in the park. Some by going to psychotherapy. Some by driving a motorcycle. Some by meditation, etc., and some by religion. In a free country, it is, and should be 'to each his own.'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour statement "If there is no testable means of determining which creation cosmogony is correct, perhaps they are all astounding science fictions." is a rather peculiar one to appear in this magazine. After all, the current version of the Big Bang theory is quite testable and has been subject to rather stringent experimental verification procedures, notably the analysis of the cosmic microwave background by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you know that faith and science cannot be reconciled then why even both with this topic to begin with...? Its like selling ice cream in Antarctica. And if you're going to pick on one belief system...why not pick on em' all...? A silly editorial decision in my opinion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's so funny to see the scientobots come and complain about how their beliefs are ridiculed. Grow up, you have every right to believe what you want, I have every write to mock it for the absurdity it is. If it makes you feel any better, it is on par with the absurdities of other religions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGaryBee, the editorial is prescient because Scientology, and its core text Dianetics, has from the beginning claimed to be scientific. In fact, it claimed to be more scientific than the current mental health practices of the day, and a new scientific breakthrough in the field of mental health. When the text was largely rejected and even ridiculed by the science and mental health community, Hubbard reframed Dianetics as Scientology, a religious faith. The full title of Dianetics is "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health." Scientology's practice of the purification rundown, backed up by such theories by Hubbard that toxins are stored in fat and can be ran out by high doses of niacin, heavy exercise, and multi-hour sauna treatments, are medical claims. This practice is at Scientology's core, and they use it in their supposedly secular front groups such as Narconon (drug treatment), and Criminon (behavioral treatment for prisoners). This could be studied in a double blind trial, and Narconon has cited dubious studies to back up the purification process. Scientology is not just subject to confirmation bias, aspects of it can be unscientific, because they often make scientific claims that can be critiqued by scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real issues with the church of scientology have nothing to do with the beliefs, like you say the rest are pretty kooky too. It's all about the corrupt, corrupting and dangerous organisation calling itself the church of scientology. That isn't going to be left alone because it just keeps on coming back.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany ex-members of the church of scientology have formed a growing group of "independent scientologists" who practice the same beliefs away from the church of scientology and many also protest what they see as the corruption within the organisation calling itself the church of scientology.
The only issue with the kooky beliefs the issue with that is unlike other religions these are kept secret until you've paid $100,000's for services.
Young Earth Creationism is also criticised for the woo'ist nonsense that it is. At least they come back with attempting to defend their beliefs with their "evidence", which is then discredited. So far I've not had any reasoned attempt by a scientologist to defend their the claims of the church of scientology that dianetics is a science of the mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the more esoteric beliefs in space cooties, that's no big deal but at least let people know that's what you're leading up to before setting them on the course to find out, especially when the course(s) cost 10's of 000's of dollars to do.
The church of scientology's latest buddies, the Nation of Islam, don't keep their belief in space aliens secret so why does the church of scientology try to?
Incidentally what does the NoI get out of their relationship with the church of scientology? I gather members of the NoI are told to do church of scientology courses (great for otherwise flagging business) but what does the church of scientology give back other than the fancy certificates and trophies?
The fact the church of scientology makes scientific claims and medical claims, often behind closed doors but not always, justifies the story here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a good thing because it serves the other purpose which is to ensure as many people get to hear about how bad the church of scientology really is so they stay clear of it. It's called inoculation.
The Scientology corporation is not only harmful to its clients, but to any country where it gains a foothold. This is because the company hires an army of lawyers and private investigators to attack and harass any person whom they consider an enemy, including lawyers, judges, government employees, journalists, authors, and former clients who try to publicly tell the story of how they were defrauded and abused.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease sign the online petition at the white house website to have the US government investigate why over 300 complaints to the FBI have not resulted in any criminal charges. Only a few hundred more signatures are needed before the October 24 deadline for the Obama administration to respond.
Sign the petition now:
wh(dot)gov/4Os (the letter O)
All of this information is nothing new; it is merely gossip from the internet. None of this has been confirmed by the church. This kind of propaganda is promulgated by those who have an axe to grind. It's kind of ironic that a publication with the name "Scientific American" don't really care enough to come up with logical, empirically solid claims -- they're just doing what Joe Shmoe is doing -- going to the great, vast and wide Google. Hope other writers bring more justice to what this publication seems to promise; and have failed to deliver.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello there Scientology agent winnievelvet. I guess you don't know about Hubbard's OT3 documents entered into court records. You probably also don't know that images of the text in Hubbard's own handwriting are available online. That's OK, the Scientology corporation does not want you to know these things until you have paid them over $300 000.
Scientology was never either a science or a religion. It was invented by a fiction writer who said "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion". Then went ahead and did just that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, pretty much any religion seems to attract followers, and Scientology actively markets itself (especially through seeking high-profile members). Other than that, it's just organised crime. You pay money to get your sins washed away (actually, that sounds like most religions).
SCIAM's former contributor for recreational math, Martin Gardner (1914-2010), wrote a review of Dianetics in his 1957 book, "Fads and Fallacies In The Name of Science" which is still available from Dover publishers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://books.google.com/books/about/Fads_and_fallacies_in_the_name_of_scienc.html?id=TwP3SGAUsnkC
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/gardner/
Michael Shermer in part makes his living by debating very stupid creationists and selling tiny hints (like this article) that he can think critically. This is not your best source of insight into the nature of mind-control cults like Scientology.
Not to change the subject, but SCIAM is not any better for adding Michael Shermer's articles, which rarely if ever, explain science. If the reader was so ignorant that he or she needed Michael Shermer to debunk psuedoscience, he or she would not be reading SCIAM in the first place and would do a lot better by getting a college text on critical reasoning and working through it.
Besides some education in some aspects of psychology, Michael Shermer, according to his own account, has a history as a true-believer in both Christian faith and Ayn Rand-ism. That should give you some idea of where is coming from intellectually. Currently he is a Libertarian.
When Michael started publishing his SKEPTIC magazine, if I remember correctly, one incentive to join his club was to get to go to a cocktail party (yes, to get drunk) with the well-known radio guilt monger, Dr. Laura Schlessinger:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=presley_21_1
They have parted ways (last time I checked) but it shows that Michael Shermer is a late-comer to reasoining and objectivity. If he knew anything about Dr. Laura, he would not have tried to pass her off as a critical thinker, an objective analyst.
Michael's claims are never peer-reviewed for SCIAM, and the editors at SCIAM do not accept critique of that sort. Like Michael, they tend to dismiss informed critque of their associates and focus on the fact that some uniformed readers (or writers) make unrealistic claims that are easily sunk with a little critical reasoning and science.
A great many of Michael's articles are advertisements for some author's new book, which Michael claims shows deep insight. Again, no peer review follows. If you are depending on Michael Shermer to inform you wisely, hoping to improve your thinking that way, you will die long before that happens.
This is the first I've heard about Xenu. The "real" science with which Scientology was launched was "Dianetics". As I recall, Hubbard's 1950 article was a 3-part serial. Most of it was a rant about the supposedly closed minds of the scientific establishment, but it did propose the "dianetics" theory. I judged it to be a scam. But there are reasons why it quickly spread among some educated people of the day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt bottom, it was a specialized version of Freudian psychoanalysis. It dealt with "repressed memories" that people supposedly formed in their fetal stage. Hubbard called them "engrams", and concocted an "auditing" procedure to "clear" them.
In 1953, living in a housing cooperative of students and neighborhood denizens, I heard from all sorts of people who were "clearing" each other. Personally, I was amused, but figured that if anyone felt a need for psychoanalysis, they might as well use the do-it-yourself variety, because it was just as scientific as the official brand, and a lot cheaper.
Arguing with Freudian precepts, by the way, was at that time like arguing with -- oh, say global warming -- today. No only did all educated people believe in Freudian psychology, but they were offended if you expressed doubts. So it's not surprising that Dianetics found a following.
Two decades later, radical feminist therapists seized upon the same basic theme, in the form of "recovery of repressed memories".
Can somebody tell us, please, when a creation myth about Xenu got into the act?
The story of Xenu is not a creation myth. Scientology has a creation myth, known as Incident I. It's got something to do with chariots and took place a couple of billion, billion, billion, billion, billion years ago. Xenu, or Incident II, took place 75 million years ago and tells us why we are doomed as a human race and why we need Scientology. So it's equivalent to the story of the Garden of Eden.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, their belief as such do not matter. What does matter is that it is a dangerous group that has already endangered the well-being of tens of thousands of people.
The problem with "leaving people alone to believe whatever they want"- is that these same people vote
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfor candidates and laws that restrict the actions of others based on their "beliefs". Beliefs unfounded in fact or reason.
“Lester del Rey then said half-jokingly, ‘What you really ought to do is create a religion because it will be tax-free,’"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo circumvent that, I have a thought ...
Let's charge established religious a tax, rather than letting them garner a tax-free status.
"To be fair, Scientology’s Xenu story is no more scientifically untenable than other faiths’ origin myths. If there is no testable means of determining which creation cosmogony is correct, perhaps they are all astounding science fictions."
Granted, they're all 'scientifically untenable', but consider that given the large adherence to many of them, and the fact that seen through a kind of cosmic barrier, that man's perceptios are accordingly blurred, there may in fact be something on the other side of that barricade.
I mean, is it logical to rule them all out summarily, just because some have been shown to be for profit or population control? Surely, all religious or paranormal scenarios do not fit that descriptor. That leaves some room for credence.
A more tenable explanation would be that some are legit, that purported 'gods' are just spirit entities, and that the cosmos entails much more than what is carbon atom based. That said, investing in Scientology, or even another theological escapade micht not be a total waste of time ...
Lee Bowman
Funny that Harlan Ellison could have been at a Hydra Club meeting and heard my late friend Lester del Rey advise L. Ron Hubbard to start a religion. I have had it from both Sam Moskowitz and Lloyd Arthur Eshbach that Hubbard himself quipped that the way to get rich was start a religion -- in the 1940's. Dianetics was launched in 1950 and Scientology in 1952. Ellison was born in 1934 and, as far as I can tell, didn't move to New York until 1955. I don't think Hubbard was even a member of the Hydra Club, though I could be wrong on that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOrganized "religion" has, from the dawn of civilization, been a scam designed by someone who supposedly heard the voice of a burning bush, or some other improbable event, so that the commoners would feed them, build temples for them to live in, and allow them a measure of power that even the King didn't enjoy. Some one asks a question they can't answer? No problem, they wander out into the wilderness, eat a bunch of ergot, drink tainted water, lick a toad or two, and make something up that is so outrageous that it had to be true. Couple their close, personal chats with God up to some showmanship, predict an eclipse or two, and the people will follow like sheep. After all, God never came and visited the King just to reveal the secrets of the universe, but he sent a bush to talk to the priest, who would you believe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoseph Smith did it, Jerry Falwell, Robert Schuller, and a host of "religious men" going back to before they gave God a sex-change, leaving behind the concept of the Earth Mother and her priestesses, so only men could talk to God, usually to tell them to smite their neighbors, but always preserving the power for themselves.
Now if you will excuse me, I'm late for a meeting of the Elders of The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster whose noodley appendages are felt throughout creation, as long as you send me all, not some, not part, ALL of your money, NOW, so you too can experience his saucy blessings. Muhahahaha.
harlan ellison's account varies substantially from a.e. van vogt's account.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispaperwork shows that van vogt was there.
ellison may be looking for a way to claim royalties.
if sci-am finds something not subject to science, it might be willing to default to history rather than new age snark.
The church of scientology is funding, with the alcohol and tobacco industry, the 'Partnership for a Drug-Free America'. This is enough for me to disbelieve whatever they are saying. It is a false secret that the so-called drug problem is only a prohibition problem. It is nice to debunk Scientologist beliefs, but I think it is about time to debunk the myth of drug. That myth is still widespread, and it harms a lot of people, if not all, by the corruption it brings at the very roots of democracy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI lived next door to an early scientologist in the 1950s. He told me the real reason he had to become a minister (people actually called him "Rev") was that the law was coming down on the movement for practising medicine without a license. My observation of his practice was that he used it to hit on women. Since he was repulsive and had buzzard breath, he needed all the help he could get. We had a few idealogical disagreements since I was a Wilhelm Reich follower with my own orgone box. In the main, I think Reich's concept of memories being held in the body as well as in the mind has held up over time, orgonomy to the contrary not withstanding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn W. Campbell got a passing mention in this month's column, but he deserves a closer look.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCampbell was instrumental in the establishment of Dianetics as an alternative to psychiatry; an enterprise with numerous flaws of its own back in the late 40s and early 50s. Dianetics was Hubbard's and Campbell's answer to psychiatry, and that is how John say Dianetics till the day he died.
Note that Campbell never joined the Church of Scientology, seeing it as a betrayal of the ideals behind Dianetics. He publically denounced Hubbard's decision and disavowed any connection with the new religion.
There are still people alive who remember John W. Campbell, or who can get you in touch with them. Back issues of Astounding/Analog are also available, and reading John's editorials can provide much background on his involvement with Dianetics and Scientology. Happy hunting.
Essentially you are correct however, the test for the bigbang depends on assumptions that themselves have not been thoroughly proven. Most of our physics understanding is based on interpretations of observed phenomenon rather than the phenomenon themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must ask - since the majority of the Church of Scientology have been convicted of serious crimes, was Criminon developed to help them cure themselves of scummyness?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry, left out the word leaders where the phrase should be "majority of the leaders of the Church....."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm pretty sure that the average member isn't a criminal.
Scientology did evolve over time. The original article in Astounding, which I read when I was about 13, purported to be an attempt to reverse engineer the human brain. It was exactly the sort of article to appeal to Campbell, the presiding editor of the 'hard' science fiction school. Later I attempted to read the book of the same name and found it fool of 'new age' rubbish. I only remember something about multiple extra dimensions (or am I getting it mixed up with string theory?) I did not finish the book. Finally I encountered some sweetly spoken earnest young acolytes in a shop front in North London. This was in 1960. I took their e-meter test out of interest, but they were obvious cranks and I disregarded their subsequent letters pleading with me to return. It all seemed a waste to me, because Hubbard was a gifted writer of 'Space Opera', which then as now I found much more verisimilitude than Dianetics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI found the article on Scientology mildly interesting. However, a much more interesting study would be a similar analysis of the "origin myths" of all the world's major religions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo narrow down the field, the exercise could be limited to religions which originated in the United States. My expectation is that none of them is "scientifically tenable", and Scientology is not likely to be more "untenable" than average.
Anyway, South Park is funny. :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat fascinates me about creation myths versus scientific theory is that religious explanations are often seeking to elucidate different aspects of humanity's origins than are the lines of scientific inquiry. Taken in this light, the conflict between religion and science begins to look man-made. To cast the claims of any religion as "ridiculous" in the name of critical thinking simply reveals that he who casts that first stone is fundamentally insecure in his own beliefs. I'm not a believer in Scientology, but I am a believer that good science and traditional religion can be perfectly compatible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany biographers of the famous include anecdotes about something that was done or said by the famous person that seemed to be a presentiment of the future. The Religion and Money story is a bit malicious because it is not true to the known timeline and is very misleading. Dianetics came before Scientology and was materialistic. According to Mr. Hubbard himself, he was thinking of a health club type of model. I don't buy the claim that Mr. Hubbard was bent on creating a religion to make money. Statements made by Helen O'Brien and Mr. Hubbard regarding the adoption of the religious angle of Scientology due to findings in Dianetics research and statements made by Scientologists at the Washington organization are logical, and more plausible than the conspiratorial claim.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the 1920's, Jungian psychoanalysts looked at the possibility of using electrical apparatus that were very similar to the electropsychometers of Volney Mathison and Scientology. Mr. Jung had experimented with such devices and had some ideas about 'complexes' but no real overarching theory to explain how words and emotiomal reactions are connected with psychogalvanic reactions. Mr. Hubbard did not originally use such devices and came to use them and even repudiate them for a short time as he began from a completely different point than Mr. Jung.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisControversy regarding the character of Mr. Hubbard should not divert attention from investigation of auditing processes. Nor should the respect for specialization keep scientists in other areas from questioning psychoanalysis, Scientology auditing or any claim to be a science of the mind. Don't ridicule ideas you don't understand just because such ideas were not ladled out to you daily in high school. Unfortunately, a science of mind is a highly sought after goal of intelligence agencies as well as psychoanalysts and neuroscientists as Mr. Puthoff, Mr. Swann, Cleve Backster, Robert O. Becker, Dr. Brice Goldberg and others are aware. Freudian ideas are not currently regarded as the foundation of a science of the mind and for a while, psychiatrists were trying to portray a 'scientific' front with neurochemical/drug ideas. Now, they are trying to lay a foundation in neuroscience and are creating a lot of problems with DSM-5 where diagnosis can be used as a political weapon. They also have a bad record of mistreatimg patients especially in the 1950s and 1960s, immoral involvement with intelligence agencies and advocation of coercive interrogation methods that violate the hippocratic oath. Regrettably, U.S. Government agencies should not lie to their own citizens, classify information that would allow citizens to sue for damages and shred classified documents to prevent disclosure of criminal acts. Eventually the truth will out. I hope.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe you should watch the movie 'SPHERE' again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientific Researchers did a lot of complaining in the 1990s about the formal peer review system, grant applications, authoritative research politics, fraud and religious adherence to certain paradigms that stifled research. In his book, "The Body Electric" Dr. Robert O. Becker stated that he wrote his book partly to give people a glimpse of what really goes on in a field of research. It was not a complimentary picture. Dr. David Hestenes claimed to have submitted a paper for peer review as a sociological experiment and the serious doubts created by the SOKAL affair all make it difficult to figure out if something is 'scientific'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHas anyone been able to replicate the research of Dr. Michael Persinger? If someone was unable to do so, were they just not skilled enough? Should one accept a plausible explanation rather than test it? Why was there so much controversy regarding research into the possibility of health effects due to exposure to electromagnetic fields?
How does anyone know whether or not tobacco companies, or any other corporation or industrial-military complex has lied about research results?
"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right." -Hober Mallow, FOUNDATION by Isaac Asimov
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of suggesting the e-meter Ron L. Hubbard ahould have agreed to a polygraph test. If Scientology had any worth he could have given people reason to believe this through a valid scientific test.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this