A number of Scientologists have posted here defending Scientology as "true for them" and otherwise compared it favorably to science and the scientific method.

This seems reasonable, so let us put Scientology method and scientific method side by side and examine them comparatively, to see what emerges from this fair and even-handed approach.

Scientific Method:

One first observes some aspect of the universe, then invents a tentative explanation, or hypothesis, which is consistent with the observed phenomenon. Then one makes a testable prediction based on the hypothesis, and constructs an experiment which will determine whether the prediction is accurate. Then, if the prediction is not borne out by the experimental evidence, one either modifies or throws out the working hypothesis and continues doing so until the predictions of the hypothesis match experimental results. For verification of the results, when a hypothesis appears to describe the observed phenomena accurately, have others perform experiments of a similar nature or attack the hypothesis from any number of angles, points of view and methodologies until the hypothesis is found wanting, or found to be workable. Continue this for generations, always honing and fine-tuning the working hypotheses until you arrive at theories which explain and predict the world's events in a manner consistent with repeated experimentation and attempted falsification.

This is of course foolishness. The Scientologist claims to have a superior method. Let us examine in an unbiased and objective manner this proposed superior method.

Scientology Method:

First, take a drunken, drug-addled madman. Then, add a double-fistfull of various amphetamines, barbiturates, opiates and other drugs. Pour a bottle of rum down his throat and shake, not stir. Then sit said drunken, drug-addled madman in the throes of amphetamine psychosis down at a manual keyboard and have him pound out reams of bizarre gibberish.

Then charge thousands of dollars to show it to people who sign an agreement beforehand that says they won't sue if they go insane or develop the blind staggers from applying the material in the now-profitable drug-frenzied ravings.

If anyone disagrees, call them at three in the morning and then hang up when they answer for the next twenty- five years.

Alternately, leave a dead cat on their front porch.

If experimental results do not verify the hypotheses of the crazed, drunken lunatic, report to Ethics immediately, you fucking psych indoctrinated pea brain mental midget!

-- Thank you for observing and comparing these two methodologies.

Have an unbiased day!

Go Back