Commenter Mike Wynski linked to this article in a recent comment. I was unfamiliar with this term and found the article fascinating in light of my scientology experience. Especially in how scientology “defines” anyone who has escaped the bubble.
This is an abbreviated version of the article with all links and citations removed and focused on what is relevant to the scientology experience:
The No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when:
- during argument, after their favored group has been criticized, someone re-defines the group in order to deflect uncomfortable counter-examples and thus makes the group entirely praiseworthy;or
- before argument, someone preemptively defines the group such that the group definitionallymust be entirely praiseworthy, but said definition was created arbitrarily for this defensive purpose, rather than based on actual qualities of the group.
NTS can be thought of as a form of inverted cherry picking, where: instead of selecting favorable examples, you reject unfavorable ones.
The coining of the term is attributed to professor Antony Flew, who gave an example of a Scotsman who in his 1975 book, Thinking About Thinking, wrote:
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the “Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again”. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion, but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says: “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.
Thus, when McDonald is confronted with evidence of another Scotsman doing even worse acts, his response is that “no true Scotsman would do such a thing,” thus disavowing membership in the group “Scotsman” to the criminal on the basis that the commission of the crime is evidence for him not having been a Scotsman in the first place.
This reasoning is clearly fallacious, as there exists no premise in the definition of “Scotsman” which makes such acts impossible (or even unlikely).
In practice, application of the NTS fallacy is far more subtle than this, but the line of thinking always boils down to a denialistic attitude towards counterexamples.
Retroactive use
When used in the past tense, NTS can also be used to retroactively disqualify group membership based on future wrongdoing. In this scenario, the axiom becomes “having done something bad just proves how you never really were a member of this group in the first place”, a statement as comfortably shallow and devoid of meaning as answering a question regarding which sports team you’re rooting for in a game as “the team that wins”.
Exceptions
NTS is a fuzzily-defined fallacy, because the nature of “groups” themselves is fuzzy. It’s hard to definitively say where one group ends and another begins (think Catholics versus Protestants: how many Catholic traditions does one have to follow to be Catholic?). Thus, there are some notable exceptions to NTS.
Well-defined Scotsman
Noteworthy is that the fallacy does not occur if there is a clear and well understood definition of what membership in a group requires, and it is that definition which is broken (e.g., “no honest man would lie” or “no theist can be an atheist” and so on).
Examples in religion
No man can ever be opposed to Christianity who knows what it really is.
—Henry Drummond, the Scopes Trial
With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use NTS to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups (and vice versa), but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious — they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as “not true Muslims” as Islam is a “Religion of Peace.”
Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them “not true Christians,” even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book.
The NTS fallacy likewise occurs when believers attribute any and all good fortune to divine intervention on their behalf, yet insist that the same can never be true when things go awry.
The NTS fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don’t believe the extremist’s viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (i.e., Christians who support gay marriage are not “real Christians” or Muslims who support women’s rights are not “real Muslims”).
It’s a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and “What’s mine is mine” mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as “one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ”; there’s no rule saying they have to do it right.
Nice picture of a true Scot. No wonder the true Romans didn’t bother to try and conquer them! They built a wall but couldn’t persuade the Scots to pay for it like someone we all know and love is going to do to over the next four years. .
Great 2M post and great comments from all today. It reminds us how it is too easy and dangerous to use labels in defining individuals.and justifying keeping them in or out of one’s clan.
One of the bloggers was told he wasn’t qualified to comment on the ‘tech’ because he was a “no case gain type”. Does that mean he isn’t a True Scotsman? Presumably a TS would get case gain from the ‘tech’ in spite of the fact that when you analyze the ‘case gain’ concept you come up short of a tangible meaning.
‘Not a True Scotsman’ is a serviceable fallacy but like all logical fallacies it only works when thrown at a person who doesn’t know about them. If you can name the fallacy you’ve got it licked instantly. That’s the beauty of philosophy. It gives you the means by which to evaluate any argument. It set me free from false arguments and bullshit. That’s a ‘win’ that keeps on giving. I can describe that win and tell why it’s a win and explain how it continues to serve me. How many scientologists can do that with their scientology ‘wins’? I wonder.
Here is my definition of a “true Scientologist”, and the one LRH supported as judged by his many policies : “Someone who unquestionably believes in EVERYTHING I say/write”.
And let me point out to you, guys and gals, that just because someone uses Scn principles/procedures in his life, this does not immediately makes him a Scientologist any more than just because I use vitamins//supplements to improve my health, I am not immediately a Naturopath.
As an example, up to a few months ago, I still used Scn processes and procedures to ” improve” my life. But I never considered myself as a Scientologist AT ALL in any way, shape or form. As a matter of fact, I would have felt heavily insulted if someone would have called me a Scientologist.
Am I a “Christian” just because I believe and apply some principles from Christianity or the New Testament? Not necessarily so.
But a “true Scientologist” must follow by definition KSW #1 to the letter, if he is expected to be called a “Scientologist” by LRH.
Quite a few Indies are not Scientologists per se, but individuals who uses Scn as a psychotherapy to improve their lives and that of others.
I have a big issue with labels and categorization in groups according to their beliefs. That is a very silly human habit.
Ah, dinae fash yerself there lad, ina hundred years we’el all be daid, an new people will be debatin the same things all over. I’d be a potentially suppressive squirrel meself if I gave a shite.
HaHaHa…I could mentally hear a Scottish voice reading those lines. Good one.
Disconnection? No true Scientologist would do that, would they?
Hi everyone, not that anyone asked, but my husband just told me that “no true Scotsman’s wife would let him go hungry while she posts comments on internet sites”. I took that to mean he would like me to get offline now and go make him some banana nut muffins. When I asked, he confirmed this was the case. So I will say so long for now and wish you all a great weekend. Please defend my comments in my absence if some meany-head says something rude, thanks! 🙂 Love y’all, T.J.
And here I was thinking this post will be about how apparently every Scottish Scientologist is actually Hungarian.
😀 You are spot on there. I live in Scotland- the majority of HAPI Edinburgh scientologists are indeed Hungarian. Most Scots are too canny to be suckered in to scientology.
Not exactly on point but I am reminded of one of the first things I read as I got hooked into scientology. It was Hubbard’s essay in New Slant on Life. He described the fishermen on Lake Tanganyika using shadows to herd fish to shore and then gather them up. Looking back that is exactly what he did… used shadows to herd us toward his vision–“the bridge to total freedom”. It has taken a while to see they were only shadows that we were sure we had to heed. At least for me if it hadn’t been scientology it would have likely been something else;) I’m 70 now and it sometimes feels like I’m just growing up.
Mike, your guest posters are great.
That is a good insight – meaning I agree with you. 🙂
“I’m 70 now and it sometimes feels like I’m just growing up.”
I’m a few years younger but I feel exactly the same.
Actually it would worry me if I didn’t.
“I’m 70 now and it sometimes feels like I’m just growing up.” – Me three!
I’m having a ball though. I might even determine that this is the best age I’ve been – 71, going on 72!
Great post, Mike.
The no true Scotsman fallacy is definitely a mind-blower when you first learn it.
You can see people being fooled by it everywhere. When the Soviet Union fell, communists around the world said, “But the USSR was not really TRUE communism!”
And of course, whenever a pc went insane or an OT attempted a murder/suicide like Rex Fowler did while he was on OT 7, Scientologists said, “Obviously he had out-tech on his case.” Or “Miscavige’s squirrel Scientology is not true Scientology.”
When I was a Scientologist, it seemed totally impossible for me to accept that, all around me, Scientology is as Scientology does.
Alanzo
Good post Alanzo. I have a friend who is still ‘in’ and yet she discusses with me the reasons I’m ‘out’ and she can’t disagree with outpoints that she herself can see…like where is OT 9 now that Power has been relseased? I ask what about this or that, and she has no answer. Even the case about Debbie Cook didn’t seem to pull her away. She read what Debbie wrote, but all the awful stuff was left out on the general email, so I filled my friend in on horrific details. Her comment was ” but so and so are having fun on their objectives”.
She’s OT5 and she still refuses to look at the internet info or read a book from an ex-Scientologist. She is obviously afraid to look. She is also afraid to say anything to her husband because he is so gung ho. She still wants to complete her bridge. Yet, she always asks me what I think about the church. Weird. What can you do?
She has good reports from people who are in, and she herself thinks her auditing goes well, despite the fact that she has had cancer (handled), is severely overweight to the point of messing up her knees, so she had an operation but has to use a walker due to her other knee. Her pts rundown didn’t seem to change a thing in her life. I know it’s severe eval for me to say the pts rundown didn’t do her any good, but if all her auditing was improving her spiritually, I do expect some physical improvements or greater tone than chronic knee pain. In truth, anyone can find an SP on their track at anytime. Big deal. Of course, now-a-days it seems that nobody has true OT expectations. When I first got in, that is what I wanted. I’m sure I would be told that I had ‘hidden standards’, but that is just because there are no longer set expectations stated for the OT levels. Anyway, as you say, it’s the NTS all over in this organization in each person’s thinking.
Good one Alanzo,
Rex Fowler and Reed Slatkin all appeared as very polished examples
of Scientology till they hit the banana peel.
The No True Scotsman fallacy is also another example of the innate tautological nature of Scientology.
Once one attests to a particular “state’ (lol) then manifests some characteristic that is contradictory to the alleged EP of that state…the only possible explanation is that one did a false attest.
Do the above enough times in a row and one becomes a No Case Gain. Complain about not getting sufficient case gain and one becomes an SP.
See?
The tech always works!
Interesting article of which must discussion can be generated. For it is as individual as you can get when you start defining the phenomena of NTS. Yet in most group scenarios, common adherence to “what to believe” is often like a police action at a mental level.
Some of the toughest situations I’ve ever had to face is seeing what I would class as innocent people, especially young children coming to realize their beliefs in the sanctity of their own society as having a dark, evil or dirty side. The atrocities committed by some secret services, their own troops committing acts of torture or murder, innocent people framed by the police, political or business corruption etc rocks some people to their very core. Having to “grow up” isn’t all it’s cracked up to be!
The despicable acts Scientology engages in the name of freedom are well hidden from the bubble dwellers by all sorts of mechanisms, NTS is a good general term that heaps them all together.
What one shields or hides from others is nearly a full time job, honesty is such a touchy subject.
High five on that…honestly is such a ‘touchy’ subject. That reminds me of a comment by someone doing OT7 who said that she wasn’t progressing and yet everyday she would smile and say how good things were going to those around her, and later she found others had done the same.
Interesting article.
That is probably why the term “Scientologist” was trademarked.
I remember the policy ‘What We Expect of a Scientologist’ used in the No True Scotsman way.
Every time I heard a reference to “WhatWEOAS”, the question which popped into my mind was, “Who is ‘We'”? There was never an answer.
There is a great explanation of this logical fallacy and many others on the Youarenotsosmart.com website
Mike, that is a very thought provoking and insightful essay.
I would just like to add that while it is hard to accept that someone from your beloved group or extended family has done wrong, it is an inevitable fact of life that it will happen. It is not that your family or your group or political party is bad or good, addictive or supportive, sane or insane. It is just that humans do bad things. Some more than others of course but nobody around today has lived a perfect life.
Christians and others in the Judaeo-Christian tradition can look to Genesis 4, the story of Cain and Abel and the first murder. Over a religious dispute. I am sure other religions can point to similar stories.
The Enlightenment was 400 years ago. If Voltaire’s great idea that religion was what was wrong with the world, and all we had to do was get rid of it, really worked the world would be a different place. Voltaire was the one who said “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.” All well and good, but what about the millions of atrocities done by non-believers since then?
I once mentioned the atheist Stalin and the slaughter of millions of his people by sincere believing atheists. Another commenter piped up and said that Stalin studied to be a priest and his mind was poisoned by that when he was young. You can’t win the argument. Someone in the group whose member has committed a crime will always point the finger at some other group.
But the truth is there are sincere believing mass murderers and sincerely atheist mass murderers and every flavor in between. There are Democrat haters and Republican haters. There are capitalist criminals and anti-capitalist ones as well. By their works shall you know them. By extensive study and testing it has been found that ideology and beliefs have little to do with strongly aberrant behavior. See “The Anatomy of Evil” by Michael H Stone for example.
So it does little good to throw poo at those who don’t believe as you do, and make the other side out to be insane or criminal. It is a good propaganda tactic for those whose only contact with the truth is opposition research. We will hear it more and more as the election approaches. In the real world we are all humans and for the most part are just trying to get by.
We might make a minor exception in the case of Scientology, which arguably can be said to intentionally create narcissistic personalities in its followers. But I doubt if it is really that effective on people who do not already have that tendency. I say just encourage those still in to leave, accept those who leave on their own merits and do whatever you can to help them recover.
My two cents and worth every penny.
WELL SAID!!! Thanks Bruce.
Bruce,
Good comment.
Those who are fortunate enough to intellectually ‘graduate’ Scientology are significantly immunized against such oppressive belief systems. Some just go from one frying pan to another. Still gullible after all these years. Goethe dodged the question of whether he believed in God by saying that he hoped that those with whom he associated DID believe in God — to keep them honest and not criminal.
The good and evil / empathy and sociopathy spectrum seems to operate as a dynamic ‘human bell curve.’ Controversies (or elections or whatever) tend to hover near the 50% / 50% divisiveness range — almost as if the collective thought of the group tends to balance out; when one goes to the other side of the argument, another goes to the vacated side. Hubbard’s attempt to concentrate thought to his delusion created an equal and opposite effect. He failed to bend the ‘bell curve’.
Also worth every penny.
Mike, thanks for a great post.
Bruce, thanks for a great comment.
No true Scotsman is a term I’ve been hearing for years, but never knew what it meant until the other day when Mike Wynski posted that comment. Then I finally said to myself ‘what does that saying mean’ anyway? and looked it up. Just as you did, I was fascinated by the explanation, and you did a really good job of summarizing it and showing how it relates to Scientology. Thanks to the Mike’s – Mike Rinder and Mike Wynski. – T.J.
Excellent article.
Hubbard’s “help” subject, saying those people opposed to helping and opposed to humans becoming Hubbard Operating Thetan level spiritually improved people, fits right in.
If someone is opposed or skeptical of “OT” (Operating Thetan) then Hubbard pegs the opposing person as SP and PTS to SP ideas.
And if you are pro “OT” people, and if you fail to become an “OT” superperson, then it’s your fault and your “case” was in the way, and you need more of Hubbard’s spiritual therapy/exorcism steps.
—————–
The joke, saddest of all, if again the unappreciated final pages of Lawrence Wright’s “Going Clear…” book and the on camera interview with the late Sarge Steven Pfauth where Sarge tells Wright about Hubbard’s despair and mental troubles and doubt, at the end of Hubbard’s life (parallel to the TV show “The Path” where the cult leader at the end bows out admitting the cult was all bullshit, Scientology’s cult founder L. Ron Hubbard was in doubt to his own whole movement, at moments, as Sarge told Wright).
There always is so much tripping points to why one ought never to have been snared by Scientology.
Hubbard’s final admission at the end of his life of himself failing with all of Scientology, is about the biggest most important tripping point to emphasize I feel that is going untold today.
There are counters to going by what “Sarge said”. For one, Hubbard certainly would have observed and known what Sarge said he built. The thing “blew up”? I don’t think so.
“parallel to the TV show “The Path” where the cult leader at the end bows out admitting the cult was all bullshit, ”
No the Founder didn’t bow out. His main disciple in Peru Silas told the leader’s top lieutenant Cal it was all bullshit. The founder didn’t say that (as far as we know of yet.. and I won’t go further for those who haven’t seen it as I just finished watching it this weekend and that final scene was one I was not expecting)
NTS seems like it’s been written right into the Scientology conditions. The formula for the condition of enemy is “Find out who you really are.” Since a REAL Scientologist would never be so low, anyone in this condition is fair game.
AA does the same thing: first, you cannot disagree with AA if you have (never been a member, attended a meeting, etc. It varies.) second, you cannot have been an addict if you have (stayed abstinent, returned to social drinking…It also varies.) There are also a lot of other weird thought-stopping fallacies to it that I won’t get into here, only that people are more-or-less tolerant of AA and Scientology is evil.
But AA is good! Actually it doesn’t cure any more than 5% of the people it serves. Natural remission, which they do not accept as a fact, is also 5%. So, 5% and 5%, better than nothing, right? It’s 10%! No, since it doesn’t accept the fact of natural remission, then anyone helped is going to get better anyway, reducing the percentage to zero.
Funny how that works out.
“Natural Remission” is a fact?! Boy, are you all wet – or should I say dried out?
hmmm well I googled ‘natural remission’ and the top results were: natural remission from depression, from rheumatoid arthritis, from cancer, from leukemia, and then from alcoholism.
A little further searching showed that there have been many studies that conclude a number of alcoholics can and do recover on their own.
here is a link to an article on natural remission from alcoholism:
http://www.hamsnetwork.org/neuroscience.pdf
and according to this article in the Washington Post, the spontaneous or natural remission rate for alcoholics is 24.4%
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html
So, this isn’t really an area of great interest for me, but it spiked my curiosity when you guffawed at the poster who claimed at least 5% of people have a natural remission… you didn’t do your research before disagreeing, and furthermore, your comment was rude. ‘all wet or dried out’ ? what the heck was the reason for saying that? Present your viewpoint, your evidence, your opinion, fine.. but why be rude and condescending to someone? (especially if you are wrong).
Well, TJ, if you would have read Notclear2me’s comment just 2 posts above that one, you would have figured it out that he is one of those KSW Ronbots, and then you would have understood where he was coming from. 🙂
more confused now… teleny and thetaclear are the same poster? I did read the prior comment, if you are referring to the one where he said that Sarge didn’t really make a machine that blew up and I was thinking, how did he know… was he there? But, not wanting to post rude comments myself, I ignored that post. It’s a little harder to ignore an outright insult, even when not directed to me personally. Glad to see you seem to be able to take things in stride… unlike me, i’m kinda overly sensitive. lol. :p
When you pass away, thetaclear, would you want your great. great grandchildren to remember your final days by what one person said, which is at least debatable, and got endlessly passed around?
Maybe LRH just got old and sick. He walked away from scn leaving it to others. He kept his mind active by doing something he liked which is writing science fiction and walking around his ranch when he was able.
I don’t buy into Sarge’s story any more than I buy into LRH is doing OT research in the Void.
A lot of people say a lot of things when they get old, sick, and get dementia.
The problem with that “analysis” of yours, NotClear2me, is that you was NOT there, but many people who actually WERE THERE, like Sarge and many others, witnessed the same delusions and irrational behavior from LRH. People who seems quite ok with me.
You are “not buying” things that you have not even properly researched so as to have enough data to make a competent unbiased decision about it, but your “evaluation” of the situation is SOLELY based on your OWN confirmation bias and emotional response to the subject at hand.
It could be said w/out any risk of being wrong about it, that a Scientologist suffers from a very insidiously destructive disease; DENIAL. Fortunately there is a very simple remedy for it: the willingness to confront that which is.
“Teleny” Is just dead agenting AA or 12 step programs hoping it will drive more people to NarCONon.
He traps himself by saying – (AA) – “Actually it doesn’t cure any more than 5% of the people it serves.” “Actually”?? How does he know? AA keeps no statistics on the percentage of people it “cures” which is called “recovered” in AA.
The actual number of people who have recovered from alchoholism since its inception around 1930 can only be estimated in the millions.
Let him speak for himself if he dares.
All things are not nice on scn blogs, T.J.
Hi NotClear/me, I jumped in here to comment.Nice to meet you.Your last line ” All things are not nice on Scn blogs ” True same for life,but at least I and many others are out and we can change anything to make it better.Hope and light and love and caring for each other even when dis agreeing goes along long way. Ann B
I think this article encapsulates the reason why no one is seeing goldenrods anymore. If the cult starts making public the reasons for declares, any moderately adept person can turn a declare into Swiss cheese. It would expose the fact that the cult does not operate on a logical basis, and hasn’t done so for decades.
Scientology may not indulge in the pathetic fallacy, but they certainly are pathetic and their belief system a fallacy.
I agree with you on this one. The fact Scientology became a “belief system” is illogical in itself but is certainly practiced that way. Their delicate dispositions are offended greatly if they expose examples their day to day “systems and practices” for public scrutiny. No Goldenrods is a good example of something they cannot have as evidence of their behavior placed in the wrong hands ie the people they are throwing out! Abortions, disconnections, unbelievable demands for money and the extortion of it etc are all self denied/justified so any evidence presented by a non-believer cannot be credible. So, their cover ups are as reactive as their own technology states – compulsive but hidden from view or understanding, in other words, below there awareness.
Well articulated evaluation Esp,
Gave me a chuckle.
Dio
In the larger world of thought (outside of Scientology) there are so many, many useful concepts, ideas, philosophies, technologies (lol) that help one make good decisions, think matters through or otherwise live a richer life that it is not a wonder why Hubbard was so calculating in creating the Scientology thought bubble…so that folks would not even know they were trapped.
This example is one of many logical fallacies that when examined often caused a Scientologist (even an ex) cringe for having been duped for so long.
But it is a good cringe…because it a sign of becoming released from nonsense.
So what’s the definition of a “true Scientologist”? There seem to be differing opinions on this. What is a “true independent Scientologist”? What is a “true ex-Scientologist”? And what should we call those who aren’t applying KSW but are doing their best to continue research and development towards the fulfillment of the goals for which they originally got involved in Scientology?
What is “true Scientology?”
Whatever one’s viewpoint may be regarding the tech and its underlying philosophy, LRH’s motives, etc., is it better to battle and win against others who have a different viewpoint, or find a way to rise above opp-terming and work together to make something good happen?
I’d love to see a serious discussion of this.
There is no such thing. It is in the eye of the beholder.
But if you were to ask me who represents what I consider the best there is of scientology, I would say Dani and Tami are at the top of the list. What makes them stand out in my view is that they are devoted to delivering scientology but at the same time they are willing and able to communicate to anyone about anything without the fixed dedicated glare of “true believers.” They are, quite simply, genuinely nice people. Scientology does not define them.
+1! Those two are great!
+2! Hence the name, “Good People”!
I agree with your assessment, Mr. Rinder. They truly are nice people who with delivering honest help as their primary mission.
And because their help is honest, the technology they use works, whatever it may be called.
Ditto
Thanks Mike and others for your kinds words.
“What’s a good Scientologist?” one who defines himself as a Scientologist and honestly uses Scientology, to the best of his abilities, to help others.
I once quipped, “We all agree on ‘Standard Tech’. Trouble is, there’s a thousand versions of it.”
A Scientologist studies the Tech and then uses it as best he can. An “authority”, attempting to dictate “correct application”, turns into a Miscavigite tyranny, destroying all the good, leaving only the bad.
Is this contradictory of KSW? Not in my mind, only that KSW is a personal thing. I apply the Tech and uphold its purity based on my study and comprehension of it. You may apply it differently, and swear, like me, by KSW, because you have another viewpoint or understanding of the Tech.
Jim Logan, for example, and Max Hauri of Ron’s Org, are both very dedicated Scientologists and both are KSW zealots, yet they do very different things. Who’s right? Well, they both think of themselves as right and since the death of LRH I don’t know of anyone who can adjudicate as to who is ‘righter’.
Now that we are free of the Church, we can study and practice according to our conscience and our self-determined loyalty to Ron. This has proven to be great fun and very rewarding.
I must say, Dani, that unlike you, Logan consider the Ron’s Org practitioners as a bunch of “squirrels” who are just “damaging” their cases with a “squirrel” NOTs version. You, I respect a lot, even thought I would burn each and every Scn book as a totally worthless psychotherapy. But you are everything but a cultic individual. You respect divergence of viewpoints and have a great tolerance for those who are against Scn as a philosophy. Logan DOES NOT, and much less Lana. And I can quote you at least a dozen of their posts to prove my point. Please, do not compare yourself to them; you are NOTHING like them, believe me.
I do not even see you as a Scientologist per se, as you and your wife definitely do not act as most Scientologists (95% of them) do. For me you are not a Scientologist, but an individual who uses Scn to improve his life and that of others.
Yes. Using scientology doesn’t make you a scientologist. Like using psychoanalyse wouldn’t make you a member psychoanalyse religion which doesnt exist anyway.
Scientology is a subject. The concept of standard tech hold not as a dogmatic point but practical. Like don’t go over an FN, or don’t cut the comm of the PC, or go earlier similar if TA rise on a dianetic chain. This would be common to Max Hauri, Jim Logan and any auditor in the church.
Now Robertson is just a disciple of Hubbard therefore developped his bridge. You may think it’s work or not or being another bullshit like scientology if you are against it. But call it squirrel doesnt make sense. A squirrel is someone who willl do shit, make an unhappy PC/patient and still say he is right. Many of them exist in medical profession. They should all hang!
To receive or give auditing you don’t have to adhere to a zealot attitude. It’s actually extremely counter productive. But If you cannot listen for exemple, you cannot be an auditor, nor even any type of psychotherpist. Some data of Hubbard have universal value. But are obvious.
The proud beingness of scientologist is a complete additive, it’s a valenc. And my two cents that Hubbard would hait it.
Hubbard was annoyed by idiots. And there is a huge majority of them on this planet.
This is basic on the fascist tendency to abolish democaty.
He made scientology a dictatorship quite late on his career when he started to think that otherwise none would ever be able to do it right. But he was himself heavily sevice fac and became the authoritatian personnality he would denounce earlier.
R. Hubbard did say, better than 50% of the subject is HOW you apply it. Kill off the applicable expertise and there goes the subject into a zillion versions. The practice of it or anything for that matter will always boil down to different versions of it being created once it is taken away from the discipline of the creator. It’s the results and the cleanliness of the heart that applies what is interpreted of it that makes all the difference. Scientology will always present a pursuit of conscience imo.
Dani, I like what you said about two people being dedicated and using KSW but doing things diffferently. A beings viewpoint is everything. It’s like when staff or public are told to write up a condition formula of doubt and to use the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” as the formula says. There always seemed to be an assumption of what the greates good was, especially when staff are concerned about contracts or a public with money (with regges or IAS!). The philosophy, IMHO, is as LRH said: a workable one. However, it only works when one is freely using individual choice. It does require one to think and apply.
A true Scientologist keeps the points of KSW series 1 IN and yet does not operate outside the official church, quod erat demonstrandum no true Scientologist exist.
Which was my original point vis-a-vis the tech…
My 2 cents asked “What is “true Scientology?”
I would say the definitions range from what the CoS believes and practices to all the various ways it is viewed and practiced outside the CoS, as well as the ways critics describe it. With the more radical critics, if someone voices an opinion that scientology gets positive results, these fundamentalists in their own right quickly and vehemently protest and spout their own logical fallacies.
As an example, they say things like “If you thought you got a good result, it was hallucinatory, ” or “Any seemingly good result is just temporary,” or “If you did get a good result, it was not from scientology tech – because ‘no true scientology” gets positive, lasting results.”
In other words, it’s a pot/kettle situation much of the time.
You were getting to a very good point until you derailed it in order to mount your incredibly tall equine and, as usual, take an unprompted shot at us critics. But I’m going to be the mature one (FSM help us all) and ignore that. “True Scientology” has no definition, just as there’s no definition of “True Christianity”, “True Buddhism”, or “True Islam”. All of these religions have tendencies or factions based on different interpretations, self-contradictions, selective selection of source material, or historical events.
It could have been different. There is a definition of “True Confucianism”, namely following the literal precepts of Confucius. Here’s the difference: Confucius was consistent, clear, and never contradicted himself. L. Fraud was inconsistent, opaque, and totally contradictory, creating multiple lines of thought that were invariably abandoned (witness Creative Processing, Dianetic and Past Life Clears, and the abandonment of Original OT1, 4, 5, 6, and 7).
Scientology has undergone the same doctrinal split as Islam, and for the same reason: the proximate cause of the major split is who is the originator’s successor. You’ve got the cult as the Sunni, with the Toxic Dwarf playing the role of Abu Bakr. The Indies are the more disparate Shi’a, without an agreement on succession but with the same splitting into tendencies. The Scientology Sufis are definitely the Ron’s Orgers. All claim spiritual infallibility. None can say they represent “True Scientology”, because there’s no real “True Scientology” out there.
The fact that there’s no “True Scientology” was in there from the beginning. If Scientology, boiled down to basics, is the Bridge, then who was it who said to build a better Bridge, and when did he say it? Oh, yeah, it’s the last line in Dianetics, isn’t it?
Espiando: “You were getting to a very good point until you derailed it in order to mount your incredibly tall equine and, as usual, take an unprompted shot at us critics.”
Haven’t you just derailed my point that the logical fallacy described in the blog post applies to critics too? And didn’t you do so by getting on your own “incredibly tall equine”?
Thank you, Mr. Pot.
No. No, I haven’t. Tell me exactly how and where I’ve shown that critics apply No True Scotsman. If it’s because I insulted you, I’m not using a No True Scotsman fallacy. It’s because I think you’ve turned your brain into a slushie by letting too much Hubbard inside. That’s an inference that can easily be drawn by reading your posts.
You also have a mammoth case of butthurt because people aren’t bowing down to you for your “masterful interpretations” of L. Fraud’s “words of wisdom”. Boo hoo, sister. Cry me a river.
Geeze, Mike, why do you allow Espiando to dish it out but delete my reply that was much milder?
Because the endless back and forth name calling has to end. Oddly, when I trash his comments to try and end one of these silly back and forths he gets the message and moves on without complaining that he is not being treated fairly. You really need to get over acting like you are being persecuted.
Okay, Mike, I didn’t know you were trashing his or others’ comments, as I rarely get no reply from them. And I see now that I was getting the wrong idea of what you were doing. Plus, I don’t feel so persecuted now. 🙂
wackamole
Marildi : “With the more radical critics, if someone voices an opinion that scientology gets positive results, these fundamentalists in their own right quickly and vehemently protest and spout their own logical fallacies.”
LOL; here is pot calling the kettle black. The most fundamentalist Scientologist that I have ever known calling Scn critics “fundamentalists”. You are a TRULY work of art, Marildi!!!
That’s another logical fallacy of critics – that if you have positive things to say about scientology, “You are a fundamentalist!”
I’d have to agree with you there, Marildi. I was in for quite a few years, left in the early 80s with the many other thousands. Yet I cannot deny that I got a lot from it and was able to help others. I’ve been attacked (not on this blog) for stating that a lot of it worked for me. So? I surely would not defend what has happened since I left, that’s for damned sure! And I have continued my spiritual search ever since, finding good things, discarding others. For me, the journey never ends until that last breath. After that, the jury is still out. 🙂
thegman77, my experience was similar to yours, along with this part: “I have continued my spiritual search ever since, finding good things, discarding others.”
You also wrote: “For me, the journey never ends until that last breath. After that, the jury is still out. 🙂 ”
That’s a great attitude – including the humor. 😀
Thanks for your input.
Mike,this s an excellent article
Does apply to Scientology bubble dwellers.
NTS will remain in scientology. 🙂
“Being a member of a religious group, to the MINDS of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard behavior.”
This seems to be a key statement. Thus, it is a set state of mind one adopts to be part of that religion or group, with that goes behave properly (according to group’s standards).
But this possibly applies to any group – go to a new job or company and there will be standards to follow if you want to stay there (dress code, what is acceptable, company policies, etc).
There is nothing wrong with having common standards in your group as long as one does not adopts them as the ‘only ones’ or ‘the right ones’ as this will be the point when one will start judging others as ‘wrong ones’ to then attack them, reject them, criticize them and so on
Interesting article Mike, thank you
In the case of scientology, are the group standards defined in the writings of Hubbard, by the practices of Hubbard, in the revised writings of Hubbard as issued by Mr. Miscavige, by the utterances & practices of Mr. Miscavige or by a combination of those? Rhetorical question.
Perfect post, Mike, but could you be suggesting that the Church of Scientology would ever do such a thing?
See below a quote from the Suppressive Person declare issued on Tami and myself on June 23, 2012, but only now made available through the Tel Aviv District court:
“Dani and Tami are not Scientologists; they have been pretending to be Scientologists, but are turncoats and squirrels. Dani has sought out and studied anti-Scientology propaganda, false reports and rumors and has forwarded these to Scientologists in good standing in an attempt to divert them from The Bridge.”
This came after 32 years of dedicated service and countless commendations. Tami twice won the “Top International Field Auditor Award” and myself heading Dror Center, one of the world’s biggest Missions.
When truth fails, there is no alternative for the lunatic but to re-write history.
Hi Dani. Yes I was thinking of you and Tami as I read this. There may be no true Scotsman but you guys are true Israelis!
Absolutely! True Israelis that I am looking forward to meeting.
Hi Dani,I have followed your comments here and really liked them,so it is wonderful to meet you.Your last line is very profound and so true.Perfect as the lunatics are re-writing history as I type.Thank you for the work you do.XO Ann B.❤️
I would add that Dani and Tami represent what I always thought a True Scientologist would be and do. Having met Tami, I can say that she sets a standard that the cult could only dream of attaining.
And to you Dave this morning,
I hope as you read this with your morning coffee that you ponder what you may have been able to accomplish with your life were you not such a greedy and small little being …………….. and I’m not talking about your 5′-1″ stature.
I suggest you travel to Haifa and turn yourself in.
Dave,
Your buddy Lee Baca has been newly indicted for Obstruction. He is facing 20 years in the slammer. Do you think he will blab about you and Shelly, just because he can?
Just read the news article about Lee Baca. That was pretty bad. It looks like LAPD has deep-rooted problems. If no one thinks that law enforcement corruption is a problem, or cares much about prisoners civil rights and humane treatment, please remember the riots in L.A. after the Rodney King decision and the jurors who acquitted O.J. Simpson who gave interviews saying their decision was in part ‘payback’ for how LAPD acted towards people of color. So the mis-behavior of Sheriff Lee Baca is actually an issue that affects everyone, society as a whole, not just the inmates, and has far-reaching consequences. The authorities entrusted with upholding the law should not themselves be breaking the law. I wasn’t aware there was a Scientology-Lee Baca connection though. Thanks for the info and widening my knowledge base. – T.J.
LAPD has had deep rooted problems for well over a century. The same can be said for most large city police departments. My take on it is that they moved away from being an actual part of society. They have, more and more, assumed a full military viewpoint of “us and them”, calling non police “civilians”. And, of course, as Baca is a fine example, the uniform and the gun permitted his thinking to justify illegalities as the laws “didn’t apply to him”.
Lee Baca also lied on the witness stand in the OJ Simpson trial and they found taped phone conversations where Lee Baca makes many racial slurs and speaks with hatred about blacks and how they were going to make sure OJ was convicted.
This is almost always the case with SP declares. The person must be one or more of the following:
1) a criminal
2) a liar
3) a con man
So, we have highly classed auditors who were somehow (and inexplicably) never certified. Accomplishments weren’t really accomplishments, but some clever scam intended to deceive decent, honest parishioners out of their money. Their intentions are never what they appear to be, and under the surface lies some nefarious scheme to…deceive decent, honest parishioners out of their money.
Wait a minute – sorry, I was describing the church.
Excellent article. The church does this all the time. When they declare you, all your commendations and years of auditing the SO staff etc mean nothing and you were always “pretending to be a Scn while covertly destroying Scn.” And the KA drinker’s reactions to you when they find out you are declared is always, ‘I always suspected he/she was an SP.” This even after they have declared you as their undying friend or lover. “I always felt there was something off in so and so… I just felt it…” and then they make themselves right for their “OT knowingness and OT perception” of your having been an SP all along. It is the blinders of “he could never have been a true or real Scn or he wouldn’t have read the internet about Scn.”
Hehehe…spot on, Cindy. My personal fav is “there was something about his space…” Ah, the lies we tell ourselves…
@statpush Those points are exactly the ones emphasized in the policy “How to Write a Declare”.
It’s been a while since I had the pleasure of reading it. Probably worth a read now. Is it on the web?