Since Scientology is not only a religion, but also a "precise and exact science" (http://www.ronthephilosopher.org/page43.htm), where is the independent evidence? Where is the empirical proof of engrams, for example? It's been 50 years since Dianetics was published. Has a single original discovery by Hubbard been acknowledged by a credible, indpendent party?

It's not fair to challenge the religious or spiritual aspect of the Church of Scientology, but what about the scientific claims made by Hubbard and the Church? Real science stands up to (and even encourages) scrutiny. With real science, if a theory can't be indpendently replicated, or if it falls apart upon close inspection, it's not considered valid.

"I told you I'm going right after these guys. I'm going right after psychiatry and these false labels and this psuedo-science...Here is the thing: you have to understand, with psychiatry, there is no science behind it. And to pretend that there is a science behind it is criminal." Access Hollywood interview 5-26-05

Tom Cruise called psychiatry a psuedo-science. Is it not fair to hold the "science" of Scientology to the same standard as psychiatry? What criteria should we use to determine the safety and efficacy of psychiatry and Scientology/Dianetics? Should we use anecdotal evidence only? Or should we use the scientific metod? Or should we just believe the truth is whatever we decide it to be, because after all, "what's true for you is what you have experienced to be true" (a Scientology phrase). I guess that's why Brooke Shields believes it's true that anti-depression drugs are truly beneficial.

I challenge anyone to provide empirical evidence of the following:

- Engrams ("The word engram, in dianetics is used in its severely accurate sense as a "definite and permanent trace left by a stimulus on the protoplasm of a tissue. It is considered as a unit group of stimuli impinged solely on the cellular being." From "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health", p. 60 (4th printing)

- "An Operating Thetan (OT) is able to control matter, energy, space and time rather than being controlled by these things." (From the book, "What is Scientology," p. 461)

- "A theta being is capable of emitting a considerable electronic flow. This is not done by using facsimiles but is actually a creation of motion which we now know as "electricity." A theta being produces considerable voltage and amperage, enough to give somebody a very bad shock, to put out his eyes or cut him in half." (From the book, "Scientology: A History of Man," p. 42, 10th printing.)

- A drunk person can be made sober. (http://www.essentialauditing.org/page14.htm)

- "The migrations of a single cell throughout the body are very easy to track in this fashion and ordinarily check against standard suppositions in the field of physical biology. The pulp of a tooth, for instance, tracks back, cell by cell, to early engrams; when these are relieved a "toothache" in that tooth becomes almost impossible, no matter how many "nerves" are exposed, a matter which brings about quite a revolution in dentistry." (From the book, "Scientology: A History of Man", p. 13

- "But we can prove to anyone's satisfaction that the reactive mind bank is apparently inside the cells themselves, and is not part of the human mind banks which are composited of, we suppose, nerve cells." (From the book, "Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science," p. 82, 10th printing.

The California Department of Education evaluated Narconon, the Scientology-related drug treatment program, and found that Narconon was teaching inaccurate information. (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/at/narcononevaluation.asp) Has Narconon come forward with solid evidence to counter the CDE's findings?

Was Hubbard wrong about any of his scientific discoveries? If real evidence was provided, it would go a long way in improving the Church's reputation. Perhaps an OT could demonstrate his or her control over MEST on a TV show, perhaps Oprah?

>From a book review of "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health"
that appeared in Scientific American (1/1951) by I.I. Rabi, winner of the Nobel prize in physics: "This volume probably contains more promises and less evidence per page than has any publication since the invention of printing."

<p><hr><p> From: peter.charbonnier
Subject: Re: Science vs. Scientology (part 1)
Date: 27 Jun 2005 16:00:24 -0700
Message-ID: <1119913224.011448.319210@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>

The problem with your challenge is that Scientologists and Scientists don't speak the same language. A Scientologist might claim that Psychology is "pseudo-science", but the e-meter is real "science" - science you need to believe in order for it to be effective. Much like the 5% Nation of Islam, Scientologists use word-play and alternate definitions of English to obfuscate the absurdity of their claims.

If you're looking for real proof of Scientology technology, have someone prove how an e-meter works. The e-meter itself is a text-book example of pseudo-science. It's electrical, has wires and dials, and a meter which is clearly measuring something, similar to accepted scientific instruments. Problem is, what it's measuring is "actual mental mass (condensed energy)" [LRH, Understanding the E-Meter (1982)].

Since "mental mass" can only be measured by the e-meter, and not independently verified, arguing that mental mass doesn't exist is pointless. Scientology does this kind of thing a lot, throwing around scientific-sounding buzz words as a way to impress rubes. Just another group of 21st century snake-oil salesmen...

However, if there are any people who visit this group who are Scientologists, and would be willing to accept your challenge, I eagerly await the response. No doubt the evidence will be presented in logical, scientifically rigorous manner which will convince me to drop everything and sign-up for the sea org tomorrow...

<p><hr><p> From: "Noesis"
Subject: Re: Science vs. Scientology (part 1)
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:30:25 -0400
Message-ID: <f7016962f9352f8ebfc065730ceded70@localhost.talkaboutreligion.com>

In point of fact the E-meter is measuring palm sweat. As the palms sweat, conductivity between the soup cans and the skin improves, allowing a greater flow of eletrons which registers on the dial. This is what a skin galvanometer, which is very old technology that measures only one metric used in a modern polygraph, which measure several metrics, blood pressure, heart rate, pulse, respiration rate and perspiration and is still not completely reliable, even in the hands of a highly skilled examiner. A polygraph is subject to stinging (trained deception), and unable to distinguish whether the subject is reacting to something real or imagined. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1998, "There is simply no concensus that polygraph evidence is reliable." The E-Meter, which measure skin perspiration only, is even less likely to provide reliable results.

The question is, how do we establish through empirical testing what palm sweat signifies other than palm sweat? It does not and cannot indicate why the person's palm sweat increases or decreases in response to a question or even a series of questions, not can it establish that a biological response such as palm sweat is necessarily a response to something real or something imagined, or to a full bladder or the auditors body odor or whatever.

The answer is that Scientology has never attempted to establish anything through empirical testing as Hubbard's demented babblings are simply accepted without question.

Go Back