I don't recall you asking, Marvin, (long)
but rather Rockfish1 two or more times. You're a sincere, down-to-earth guy, Marvin, and I would have happily responded in kind. Rockfish1 asked with his inimitable derisive ridicule, so rather than answer, each time I asked him, "What is Scientology?" I figured the erudite professor ought to know the meanings of the words he was using and I was curious how he defined the term he was using so condescendingly. I think I correctly recall that one of those times you followed my question with a link to Wikipedia. I don't recall you posing me the question, but my memory may fail me.
I never made any attempt to hide that I was a Scientologist. I had an open discussion on the WC with dlh once about some aspects of the science as related to business.
As for people taking medication for mental issues, I am disheartened when people unwittingly taking psychiatric medications for one simple reason: as a consequence, such people prove harder to help. Maybe I shouldn't give a hoot about them, but I can't seem to stop myself from caring.
Marvin, I know you're a science-oriented type, so I'll share with you an interesting experience I had about a year ago. I was talking with a renowned IU professor, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, about Scientology. His specialization is human memory and he related his conclusion, as he nears the end of his career, that human memory is incorrigibly fallible because there is simply too much "noise." Feeling a bit sorry for him, since he was basically admitting that his star-studded career (he "owned" two consecutive issues of Psych Review in the 70s, something never done before or since) ended in failure, I pointed out that through hypnosis* it was possible to access some sort of basic individual that had photographic perfect memory, easily provable in any manner one chooses. He showed no interest whatsoever. We talked for an hour or so and in the end he had no curiosity whatsoever for the possible clue reviving his hopes and dreams about his 50-year research endeavors. When I asked him where he got his skepticism about Scientology from, he said, "Newspapers."
Later I reflected. He had responded differently from my father, both deeply serious scientists. My father had shown curiosity, this guy, skepticism. I had an realization about science and the Scientific Method. There are two basics characteristics of an empirical scientist, following in the steps of Francis Bacon et al: 1) skepticism and 2) curiosity. The crux is when to apply which. One is skeptical of what is known and curious about what is not known. If one flips this, he shuts the door on new knowledge. "I'd rather err with Galen than be right with Harvey." is the classic example of skepticism shutting the door on new knowledge, and the reason is he got it backwards. He was skeptical of new knowledge rather than existing "knowledge."
The esteemed professor with whom I spoke was skeptical of the new possibility I suggested rather than skeptical of the "knowledge" he gleaned from the newspapers. Extraordinary. This is a scientist to the nth degree, but nonetheless he was vulnerable to dropping his scientific training and making the most fundamental mistake a scientist can make.
Enter HBO...bon voyage my friends...
*Scientology never uses hypnosis.
This post was edited on 4/2 10:27 PM by bb_3day_resurrection