Hello , I am an ex Scientologist , this blog is primarily about that but I may address other topics as the mood hits me to . I was in Scientology for 25 years and spent about 10,000 hours using the indoctrination and thought reform method "study tech " . I also spent time on staff and met hundreds of Scientologists and did hundreds of the cult practices . Many were the "ethics cycles and OW writeups " that really are an attempt to suppress or remove a person's identity and replace it with a mental pseudo clone of Ron Hubbard . To make a fanatical slave for the cult .

I looked outside the cult for answers in about January 2014 and left the cult in about March of 2014 . While in about 99% of members have no idea of the truth .

We are told we are in a mental therapy or spiritual enhancement or religion or science for helping people unlock potential . Or any of several other fronts that all pretend kind and humanitarian goals .

The truth is Scientology is a terrorist mind control cult and this blog is my attempt to understand and expose that . And try to state as clearly as possible the tools that I have found helpful in dealing with this .

Monday, February 23, 2015

CREDIBILITY - The Reddest Of Herrings.

 Image result for red herring fallacy examples   
Image result for red herring fallacy examples                                                                                         

Image result for genetic fallacy examples    Image result for genetic fallacy examples

Image result for genetic fallacy examplesImage result for genetic fallacy examples

Image result for red herring fallacy examplesImage result for appeal to authority fallacy examples

I  want to start this post off by saying of the over 800 posts or comments I have written at ESMB and other places under various aliases I have usually found the vast majority of people who respond to be polite and respectful. I cannot stress that enough or that many of these people are consistently considerate and have afforded me a great deal of courtesy and even encouragement. I have to say well over 90-95% of the responses are of a nature I find acceptable if not often downright enjoyable. I cannot thank people enough for that and really need to find more ways to show my gratitude and relief and enjoyment of that experience as a contributor.

There is a very, very small other aspect I will address here but it should never be seen out of its proper proportion. It is like getting 800+ pizzas from a pizza place over a year and about one in every fifty or so has...something not quite right. It can have anchovies when I said " No anchovies" or hot peppers ( which I do not like ) instead of sweet peppers.

So, instead of changing pizza places I will try to gently encourage more of the good interactions and make perfectly clear what some of the problems are with the bad pies.

Simply put I have "guests" who I share my "pies" with and they may incorrectly judge me based on the "pies" that are served.

Other people read my posts so a post questioning or subtly attacking my credibility may take attention away from where I think it should go - my claims. I make very detailed and specific claims about the nature of Scientology and how it is a fraud and harms people and more importantly how to use education to overcome the lies it is made of. I will not pretend to know everything about it or to always be right. I can be incorrect at any time and will simply try my best to be accurate. I make claims about Ron Hubbard's conduct, character and "technology". I make claims about the terrorist mind control cult Scientology and their crimes. 

I do not want attention to be diverted from the claims as they can be verified with evidence from many, many other sources. I often refer folks to them and simply examining the basic ideas from longstanding subjects I reference will give a point of entry to start  deciding for oneself about my claims. It is like if you are in a house and a person who has been called a "fool" says it is raining bring an umbrella when you go out. My being called a "fool" is irrelevant and a red herring. Just find out for yourself as it is easy to give yourself a little time and look outside. If it is raining you can get the umbrella - if not don't .

Sometimes you have to trust sources as you have to use credibility as a tiebreaker when you are in a time crunch and equally valid claims in other regards but must pick one over another or others.  That is where credibility should come in - to settle ties that cannot be further investigated for some reason. It is not perfect but better than nothing. As a lazy and poor way of thinking a person may always trust a source they like or not believe any claim by a source they dislike. Either is bluntly illogical and very , very poor reason. It is emotional and biased and not critical thinking.

We all have done it many times over . We usually blindly trust our parents on everything when we are quite little and gradually change then by our teens go through a period of rebellion and disillusionment as we realize they in fact have lied and been wrong at times. We still may trust them far more than strangers, especially if they are generally good and decent people.

For many activities this makes more sense than constantly testing all their claims about things like taking out the garbage or picking up dinner . We extend trust . But for some claims that is very poor reason . A good mom may know very little about vaccines or international law . A poor father may know a lot about physics or theories on how to treat children - even if he never follows them .

So , I want to get more to the issue of my credibility that is vary rarely questioned or even attacked with subtle ad hominem , often disguised as "concern ".  Hmm, how should I put this ...I have not met the vast majority of people who read my posts and am quite likely to never do so. I use several aliases and will continue to for now.

 Plainly you cannot investigate me thoroughly and to use proper analysis of my claims you will never need to. They are very well chosen,  in the vast majority, to be ones that can be "run with".  In other words taken from any source or an anonymous one and completely independently investigated and either verified or refuted. It is like a "note" given to the police saying "Joe Blow robbed the big bank last month , he makes 10$ an hour at his crappy job and bought a 250,000$ sports car with cash . He lives at 300 Pinecrest in Kenmore New York. The cash is in his house . " A Concerned Citizen

The police would probably run some records and if they found Joe Blow indeed fit that exact description and just bought that car despite never having had more than five hundred bucks in his bank account then they would look real close at him and work on getting a warrant and picking up Joe for questioning. Which would not require scouring the city for A Concerned Citizen. The claim can be verified or refuted , no wondering and looking other places. Especially if the money is found at Joe's house and he caves and confesses and admits bragging about the robbery for several drunken nights at a local brothel to anyone who would listen . And a local bar , and his job he quit .

My claims are often intentionally worded in a manner intended to encourage being investigated very carefully . That means looking at subjects like hypnosis and elements from psychology and rhetoric in fine detail .  I try to zero in often on exact terms and theories to help folks greatly shorten any needed inquiry - not everyone will need to do this but most exes , especially when first coming out , know very little about these subjects .

Now I want to get to the heart of the matter -  credibility . It is to me for my writing a red herring and subtle ad hominem ( also called the genetic fallacy ). It takes attention off claims and irrationally puts them on people . I have told people if a claim is valid who presented it is irrelevant . Mike and Virginia McClaughry as I wrote before make many claims I personally do not believe in Mike's blog Scientology Roots.

I read almost all of it and decided it is not for me . I also said that my opinion should be irrelevant to others and they should decide for themselves in a post at ESMB . I went on to tell how when I first looked outside the cult in about January 2014 I rejected Arnie Lerma's site and Jon Atack's articles as I was biased ( foolishly ) against anyone who doubted Ron Hubbard or his "technology". I was lucky to make myself look enough to see that may have been in error and then more impartially force myself to look at both sides and I then concluded by my own investigation they were very much on the right track on Hubbard and his con , particularly regarding hypnotism .

They had claims that are easy to look at as they often use Hubbard's own words in quotes to expose him . They also use simple ideas from books and basic psychology to build strong claims.  Jon uses the ideas from psychology and studies on influence and Arnie uses many independent documents. Together they build a very , very strong case and after investigating it for several hundred hours I concur on many major points. If they ever worked together I believe they could produce truly groundbreaking work.

Much of what I write , particularly in this first year , is based largely on checking their claims. So I know using credibility to avoid or disregard claims is poor reason. The other side of the coin is the appeal to authority fallacy. It is believing someone is an authority then seeing their claims as true with little or no examination. It is essential to Scientology and without committing it routinely one is very unlikely to be much of a Scientologist. I do not want it committed with me either - test all my claims please. Look at one , kick the tires , compare it to others on the same subject , use critical analysis , read books by experts you value or articles online or watch videos on the subject. I have no fear of being exposed. I want you to use your mind regarding these subjects and not either accept or reject my claims as a habit.

Now whether you object or agree I do not want personal attacks, and the genetic fallacy is a personal attack. I have had conversations in groups with indies ( independent Scientologists) who religiously use the genetic fallacy on critics and the appeal to authority to validate and deify Hubbard.  Not much room for reason there. This has a distinct undesirable pattern : they ask what courses I have done, I make claims about Hubbard and his "tech". They say I have never done anything. I tell them I was a Scientologist for 25 years and did the staff statuses, the five EPF courses, the Student Hat, the FSM Specialist Hat, the HDA, used "study tech" to be indoctrinated with about thirty Hubbard books ( back before the basics program ), and most of if not all of the  OEC Vol 0 , I and several of the others and countless bulletins and PLs and tapes while on staff.  I also say I really have found the Affirmations of Ron Hubbard and the "skipper" letter to be my  favorites. ( Sometimes to recover me they ask what my favorite Hubbard reference is - so I tell them! ) And I think I have about five or six folders of auditing. But that is also  a red herring to me.

But the point is even inquiring about  what I did on the bridge to claim it is relevant to my credibility is incredibly poor reason for an individual and may steer others on a similar path via persuasion. If someone makes such a claim it is quite likely I may try to point this out as undesirable to me. If they persist it is quite likely I could choose to not engage that person in the future as I am not here to be personally attacked, even subtly.

Remember, this probably applies to a half dozen or so individuals so if you are not one of them I apologize but please, please do not let their mistake cloud your vision . 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.