Saturday, November 29, 2003

Scientology Logic 15

Logic 15 - The introduction of an arbitrary into a problem or solution invites the further introduction of arbitraries into problems and solutions.

An arbitrary is defined as "something which is introduced into a situation without regard to the data of the situation".

Unfortunately many laws are arbitraries. They are a solution which has little or nothing to do with the problem they are supposed to solve, so they cause more problems which then have to be solved with more laws.

Income tax is a prime example. Forced through to "tax the rich" it has never done this because the rich can pay for the tax attorneys to work out ways around the tax laws and can pay the lobbyists to get loop holes created.

The income tax actually penalizes the average man or woman and has little or no impact on the rich. Because it is an arbitrary it has meant that more and more laws have had to be passed to try and solve the "problem" of "tax the rich". It now takes CPAs and attorneys who are specialists in the field to figure it all out. We have specialists in personal income taxes, specialists in corporate taxes, specialists in partnership taxes, etc., etc.

And this is all because the law was an arbitrary in the first place and caused more arbitraries to be introduced to solve the problems it caused. A national sales tax would be a much simpler solution to the true problem which is "How to fund the government".

Friday, November 28, 2003

Happy Thanksgiving

I guess a billion bloggers today have probably sent out that message to a billion surfers, but hey, it is Thanksgiving and it's a time for celebrating what we have and being thankful to whatever we consider is the source of the many good things in our lives.

I had a great day and am stuffed full of turkey and pumpkin pie. I hope y'all had a great day too and are just as stuffed :)

Wednesday, November 26, 2003

Scientology Logic 14

Logic 14 - Factors introduced into a problem or solution which do not derive from natural law but only from authoritarian command aberrate that problem or solution.

Note: aberrate means to depart from rationality. See "aberration" for a full definition.

I guess the best known example of this was the Prohibition Law in 1920's America. Drinking alcohol was a normal part of life for many people and suddenly it was made illegal as a solution to the perception by a minority of the population that drinking alcohol caused crime and affected the efficiency of workers. In other words the banning of alcohol was not derived from the customs of the people (natural law of sorts) so it had to be enforced by authoritarian command which then aberrate things further: Organized crime expanded, people died from drinking contaminated liquor, law enforcement became very unpopular, the rule of law fell into disrepute because prominent citizens and politicians violated the Prohibition Law, etc., etc.

Enforcing a solution that violates natural law is going to get you, and anyone else involved, into big trouble.

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

Scientology Logic 13

Logic 13 - Problems are resolved by compartmenting them into areas of similar magnitude and data, comparing them to data already known or partially known, and resolving each area. Data which cannot be known immediately may be resolved by addressing what is known and using its solution to resolve the remainder.


There is a business that is not doing well. We want to help the owner improve things so he can be successful and bring prosperity to the town and his employees. So where do we start? Let's chop up the business into related areas and then analyze each area to find out what's going on.

How should we compartment it? Well, put related areas together (areas of similar magnitude and data). So for example, we would not put the sales force with the janitor, but we would probably put staff training with quality control because how well trained the staff are has a major impact on the quality of what is produced by the company.

The area that looks the worst is credit collections - they are very low. We look into the area and find that customers are refusing to pay because they claim that what they are receiving is defective. We contact some customers to make sure this is true and not just an excuse by collections. We find it is true and that the customers have sent in complaints. So the credit collection area is now resolved as far as our investigation is concerned - we have resolved it by comparing the data in the area (collections are low) to data known (customers are complaining).

Now we go to quality control to find out why they have not responded to the complaints and find that the complaints file is empty. How come? The head of QC claims he has never received any complaints. Whether this is true or not cannot be immediately known because there is an absence of proof (no complaint letters). But, based on past experience, we know that the head of QC is a truthful guy so, for the moment, we regard QC as resolved and now go to the communications department to see what happened to the letters.

We find that the communications department is a complete mess with correspondence and internal memos piled up all over the place. Suddenly a lot of other situations we have observed in the company make sense because they can be explained by a lack of internal and external communication (Logic 10 - The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment (relationship) it imparts to other data).

So we give our attention to fixing up the communications department and the company starts doing better.

Now that may seem simple and logical, but what happens in a normal company?

  • The credit collections are down - fire the credit collection clerks and hire some better people.
  • Customers are refusing to pay - sue 'em.
  • We hear that there are lots of complaints from customers - fire the head of manufacturing.
  • The company is doing poorly - take out a loan to get us through the lean period.

Not using Logic 13 would have failed to get to the core of the problem and things would have just gotten worse.

Monday, November 24, 2003

Evaluation of Data - Scientology Logics 7 through 12

Logics 7 through 12 are all about evaluating data so let's see them in action.

Mom observes that the apple pie is missing from the stove top and that the empty pie dish is lying by the dog's bowl.

She puts forth the hypothesis that the dog ate the apple pie. She attempts to apply Logic 10 to this: "The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment (relationship) it imparts to other data." It doesn't fit too well because another datum is: between the edge of the stove top and the pie was another pan which was not displaced. The dog hypothesis doesn't align with that because the dog would have knocked the other pan out of the way.

She now applies Logic 8 "A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude." A datum of comparable magnitude would be who has the capability to lift the pie dish from the stove and put it by the dog's bowl. Possibilities: husband or son.

Now she applies the 2nd corollary of Logic 7 "Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth." From her experience if husband had wanted to eat some of the pie he would have simply eaten it.

This leaves her with the hypothesis that son ate the pie and tried to frame the dog. She goes to son's room and finds crumbs under the bed. To gather more data she finds son and asks him if he'd like a sandwich because from her experience (2nd corollary of Logic 7) she knows that he is usually hungry at this time of day. He says no thanks, he's not hungry. She applies Logic 10 again and sees that the datum of the crumbs and the not being hungry align with the "son did it" hypothesis.

She asks him if he ate the pie. He denies it. She notes that he can't meet her eye-to-eye and, again, from experience knows that this is usually a sign of son not telling the truth.

Now she has to decide what to do. She uses Logic 11: "The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival" and Logic 7 "Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data." She evaluates that this is extremely serious and that son should be grounded for the rest of his life. Then she recalls Logic 12: "The value of a datum or a field of data is modified by the viewpoint of the observer" and realizes that her viewpoint is affecting her decision. She then re-evaluates and decides that the pie eating was bad, but not terrible, the lying was worse and the framing of poor Rover was the worst. On a scale of offences from 1 (minor) to 10 (severe) she decides that son's actions end up at about 7 and that his future survival (Logic 11) is endangered by him having the viewpoint that it's okay to do such things.

She assigns him menial house cleaning and trash disposal duties for a week and requires that he study "The Way to Happiness" so that he understands for himself why lying is not a good idea and what the consequences of unethical behavior are, not only to other but to him personally.

So there you have a very down-to-earth (and hopefully humorous) example of how to evaluate data and come up with logical solutions using Logics 7 through 12.

Friday, November 21, 2003

Scientology Logic 12

Logic 12 - The value of a datum or a field of data is modified by the viewpoint of the observer.

To a hunter a rifle is good, to a duck a rifle sucks.

When a new idea is first put forth, no matter how true or obvious it may seem, it's originator is usually vilified by his peers and others because their viewpoint is so fixed. When Copernicus had the nerve to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun, his theory was attacked as heresy and at one point his book was withdrawn from circulation by the Inquisition so it could be censored. When Galileo had the gall to not only forward these outlandish ideas but even claim to be able to prove them by observation the Catholic Church (after forcing him to recant his claims) put him under lifelong house arrest.

From the viewpoint of the Church "observers" the data was not, as Copernicus and Galileo saw it, something that could assist the survival of mankind but heresy that would condemn mankind to eternal damnation (i.e., it inhibited survival), which was a complete reversal of the value of the data.

See "Galileo - Church controversy" for an idea of just how "impossible" the theory was from their fixed viewpoint.

Thursday, November 20, 2003

Scientology Logic 11

Logic 11 - The value of a datum or field of data can be established by its degree of assistance in survival or its inhibition to survival.

This logic brings us back down to the practicalities of everyday existence. So you have data? So what? Does it help us survive or not?

Obviously data on diseases such as SARS has a high value because SARS kills.

Unfortunately for many Americans the antics of your favorite sitcom characters does not have much value and (don't tell them this) the evening news is also pretty low on the value scale. If you doubt it then next time you watch the news figure out how much assistance or inhibition to survival what you are being fed actually has. Perhaps all you'll come up with is that watching the news brings you down - that's inhibiting to survival.

Wednesday, November 19, 2003

Scientology Logic 10

Logic 10 - The value of a datum is established by the amount of alignment (relationship) it imparts to other data.

How many times in history has a nation been losing a war when low and behold a high up commander is found to be in the pay of the enemy? Suddenly a thousand seemingly incomprehensible occurrences - lost battles, spies captured by the enemy, etc. - are explained. Suddenly alignment is given to all that data.

Another example is the idea that psychiatrists are really trying to help people recover. If we attempt to align other data in the field around that theory then we have trouble. Example: Electro-convulsive therapy (ECT) causes brain damage and most patients die after a few years. Example: mind-altering stimulant drugs such as Ritalin have been shown to cause brain shrinkage after prolonged use and studies have shown that over 90% of children taking Ritalin move on to street drugs. Example: Two side-effects of drugs such as Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil are psychosis and suicide and thousands of apparently pointless acts of murder followed by suicide have been perpetrated by people on these drugs.

Now lets assume the datum "psychiatrists are in it for the money" is true. Suddenly we see these other data come into alignment. ECT is a big money maker - easy to administer and it can be billed against insurance. When retirees hit 65 their medicare coverage increases and the amount of ECT they are given vastly increases. If a psychiatrist can keep a patient on his list and see them regularly, even though all he does is prescribe more drugs, then he can continue to bill their insurance and continue to get kick-backs in the form of expense paid trips to luxury resorts (for seminars of course) from drug companies.

Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Scientology Logic 9

Logic 9 - A datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated.

The fact that things fall when you drop them was known to many generations of people but until Sir Isaac Newton evaluated it no one knew how valuable the datum (called "gravity") was. Once it was evaluated bridges and buildings could be better built and man could even figure out how to fly.

Another example - prior to Louis Pasteur if a limb was damaged then the only way to prevent it becoming infected and eventually killing the injured person was to hack it off. When Pasteur figured out that micro-organisms caused the infection and that the infection was spread by doctors with filthy hands, suddenly the value of cleanliness was realized because it could be evaluated with a datum of comparable magnitude: dirtiness spreads disease.

Monday, November 17, 2003

Scientology Logic 8

Logic 8 - A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.

Once you think up some examples this logic is "obvious" but like so many things it isn't actually "obvious" until you understand it.

Your friend has just been on a mountaineering trip. "So Joe, how big was that mountain you just climbed?" Which answer makes sense?
- Answer 1: "Well, see this grain of sand? The mountain was much much bigger."
- Answer 2: "Almost as high as the Matterhorn"

Answer 2 makes the most sense because the Matterhorn and Joe's mountain are of comparable magnitude, whereas a grain of sand and Joe's mountain are not of comparable magnitude.

A less obvious example would be this: Bill is extremely sick and has a temperature of 102F. The doctor tells him to take an aspirin. This makes no sense because an aspirin is an answer to something with the order of magnitude of a headache not a raging fever.

Thursday, November 13, 2003

Scientology Logic 7

Logic 7 - Gradient scales are necessary to the evaluation of problems and their data.

This is the tool of infinity-valued logic: Absolutes are unobtainable. Terms such as good and bad, alive and dead, right and wrong are used only in conjunction with gradient scales. On the scale of right and wrong, everything above zero or center would be more and more right, approaching an infinite rightness, and everything below center would be more and more wrong, approaching infinite wrongness. All things assisting the survival of the survivor are considered to be right for the survivor. All things inhibiting survival from the viewpoint of the survivor can be considered wrong for the survivor. The more a thing assists survival, the more it can be considered right for the survivor; the more a thing or action inhibits survival, the more it is wrong from the viewpoint of the intended survivor.

COROLLARY: Any datum has only relative truth.

COROLLARY: Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth.

This is one of the most important of the Logics. A gradient scale is a scale going from a theoretical minus infinity, through zero to a theoretical plus infinity. The scale is divided into small steps or gradients. An example would be if you were trying to decide which applicant to accept for a job. You would create a scale with perhaps -100 on the left, 0 in the middle and +100 on the right. You could divide the scale into steps of 1. The "absolutely perfect" applicant would be rated at +100 and the "absolutely unacceptable" applicant would be rated at -100. Now you evaluate the applicants giving them a number of positive points for attributes that you want and negative points for attributes you don't want. After doing this you will find your applicants somewhere on your scale and you'd choose the one with the highest rating.

Using such a method you avoid the errors of two-valued logic - "Is this applicant perfect for the job or not? No, then reject him." Using that method you will never find anyone because, as we learned from Logic 6, "Absolutes are unobtainable."

It also avoids the errors of single-valued logic - "Whoever we choose our fate is predetermined so it doesn't matter who we choose, Just pick anyone."

The two corollaries are also important. "Any datum has only relative truth." If I say "I live on planet Earth," that is true, and if I say, "I live in the USA," that is also true. Both statements have relative truth. How relatively true does a datum need to be? My answer would be look at the 2nd corollary, "Truth is relative to environments, experience and truth." If you want to visit me at home then, "I live in the USA" doesn't get the product, it's not relatively true enough for the environment it is being applied to.

Another example would be if you told me "I need six screws to fix this door." I give you six screws but they are all too small. So you say "I need six screws bigger than these to fix this door." So I give you six screws that are too big. Well, both requests were true but they were not relatively true enough to get the door fixed. Now you say, "I need six screws, two inches long and 3/8 inches in diameter." Now we have a fixed door.

Without infinity-valued logic and gradient scales decision making becomes more guesswork or luck than logic.

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

Scientology Logic 6

Logic 6 - Absolutes are unobtainable.

Everyday in the news, especially when one political party is attacking another, we are told that something is "absolutely" wrong. The Democrats/Republicans seem to think that everything the Republicans/Democrats say is absolutely wrong but to most people, when they stand back and don't take sides, it is clear that some of what both sides say makes sense and some doesn't. Neither is totally right nor totally wrong.

There seems to be a human tenancy to go to extremes, to see everything in terms of black and white when in fact there is no absolute black or absolute white but only (as we shall see while examining the next logic) shades of gray.

Tuesday, November 11, 2003

Scientology Logic 5 (continued)

To follow up on yesterday's post: Beware of a field of knowledge that doesn't have clear definitions for its terms. You will often find that such a field is purposely unclear and the reasons are often for control, power and/or money.

A prime example of this is the field of psychiatry. What is the definition of "schizophrenia"? Most people will say "split personality" but that is not the psychiatric definition. Wikipedia defines it as "Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis denoting a persistent, often chronic, mental illness variously affecting behavior, thinking, and emotion." It goes on to broaden the definition to such a degree that it can mean any type of behavior you want it to mean. This indefinite definition was routinely used in countries such as Communist Russia to labelled dissidents as mentally ill so they could be locked up and electro-shocked to help "cure" them.

In the modern United States and Europe children are labelled as having "Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder" but the definition is so general that it covers normal childhood behavior and indeed the definition even states that the condition will go away as the child gets older. The result is millions of children taking mind altering drugs with the pharmaceutical industry making billions of dollars every year out of them.

So a field with unclear, imprecise definitions can be very dangerous.

Demanding "Action Definitions" for terms in a field is the solution to this. Action definition: one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose.. An action definition demands that "cause" be clearly stated. So for example in the definition of a medical condition such as measles one can name the cause as the measles virus, one can state the effect that cause has upon the body (produces spots, fever, etc.) and one can then state what will change the condition (the vaccine) by its effect upon that cause. There is no question, ambiguity or uncertainty when an action definition is used.

Action definitions would destroy the field of psychiatry because there are no causes in psychiatry. To determine if a person is schizophrenic a psychiatrist subjectively evaluates the person's behavior. There is no objective test to find the cause. No blood is tested, no x-rays are taken, no medical tests of any kind are made because there is no cause for the condition. The same applies to the entire list of psychiatry's mental illnesses. Sometimes they make up a cause, such as "a chemical imbalance in the brain" but there are no tests to show that such a condition exists.

If you have measles a medical doctor can take a blood sample and detect the virus causing the condition, he can give you a shot and kill the virus so you recover and don't have the disease anymore. In other words the treatment ends because the cause has been handled.

In psychiatry there is no test (because there is no cause), the psychiatrist makes a subjective determination and then prescribes one or more drugs which don't handle the cause and therefore have to be taken forever to keep the "condition" at bay. But a lot of money is made from the never-ending treatment by both the psychiatrist and the drug company.

So the moral of the story is, "demand action definitions."

Monday, November 10, 2003

Scientology Logic 5

Logic 5 - A definition of terms is necessary to the alignment, statement and resolution of suppositions, observations, problems and solutions and their communication.

DEFINITION: Descriptive definition: one which classifies by characteristics, by describing existing states of being.

DEFINITION: Differentiative definition: one which compares unlikeness to existing states of being or not-being.

DEFINITION: Associative definition: one which declares likeness to existing states of being or not-being.

DEFINITION: Action definition: one which delineates cause and potential change of state of being by cause of existence, inexistence, action, inaction, purpose or lack of purpose.

The 18th Century French philosopher Voltaire said very wisely, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." Logic 5 not only agrees with Voltaire but goes on to define how to define your terms.

Let's start with the obvious. If we have fuzzy definitions of what we are trying to reason about or solve then we are going to come up with fuzzy conclusions. Example: if a mechanic doesn't know what a carburetor is then asking him to change the carburetor on your car is going to end up with some interesting results, but none of them are going to include a successfully changed carburetor.

It may seem obvious that we need to understand the words we use, hear or read but how many of us actually use a dictionary when we are studying? My work often requires me to figure out the business rules of a particular area of a company or even of the whole company. I'm constantly bombarded with new terms and I have to ask for definitions from the people I'm interviewing. It's amazing how often I find they don't really understand the words themselves.

The worst example of this was when I was designing the new deal entry software for a particular business group. The deals were complex with all the possible variations that their sales force and lawyers could dreamed up. I spent months working out the business, the business rules and designing the application, then we spent many more months building it and integrating it with the existing systems. About a month before we were due to go into production almost the entire group was fired and replaced because they were doing such a poor job. While working with the new people I realized that the fired people had actually not understood the words they were dealing with everyday in their jobs, because they'd given me wrong definitions.

What this meant was that the new application was about 30% usable. 70% of the requirements were wrong because the people giving the requirements did not understand the words describing the business they were in. This also explained why they got fired: they didn't understand what they were doing and so they were doing a lousy job.

Not having a definition or having the wrong definition for a word is actually the most important barrier to study. Not only does it kill your understanding of what you are reading but it produces physical reactions - well known to every student, but until now assumed to be a normal part of study. This is fully covered in the Hubbard Study Technology.

Study Trouble; Difficulty Learning and Retaining Things?
The Third - and Most Important - Barrier: The Misunderstood Word
The Basic Study Manual
Education & Learning
Applied Scholastics - Effective Education Solutions

As I said, it may seem obvious that you have to understand the words you are using. It may seem like common sense, but let me leave you with two thoughts: First from Voltaire: "Common sense is not so common." and second a question for you that (I hope) will bring about a new awareness of how important it is to fully understand the words we use - "What is the definition of the word 'is'?"

Friday, November 07, 2003

Scientology Logics - Part 4

Logic 4 - A datum is a symbol of matter, energy, space or time, or any combination thereof, in any universe, or the matter, energy, space or time itself, or any combination thereof, in any universe.

You'll remember from Logic 1 - "Knowledge is a whole group or subdivision of a group of data or speculations or conclusions on data or methods of gaining data.". Logic 4 now gives us the definition of data and you'll notice that it is not speculation or conclusions. Data is real, concrete, objective or a symbol for something real, concrete and objective. So once again Mr. Hubbard points out the difference between facts (data) and opinions (speculations or conclusions on data), which is an important distinction as I pointed out in the first part of this series of articles.

Logic 4 also clarifies what is meant by "methods of gaining data". These must be methods that deal with symbols of matter, energy, space or time, or any combination thereof, in any universe, or the matter, energy, space or time itself, or any combination thereof, in any universe. So simple observation would fit into this as would a technique that assisted memory (your memories are symbols of matter, energy, space and time). So whatever technique the philosopher Hegel used to determine that there could only be 7 planets going around the sun (this was at a time when an astronomer had just observed the 8th planet) can be thrown out as not a valid method of gaining data. His theory was perfectly acceptable under the definition of "knowledge" as it was "speculation" or maybe "conclusions", but it is important if you want to be able to think straight to realize that it was not "data."

Mathematics can now be seen to be a valid method of gaining data, and indeed has been used for centuries for just that. However, it must be said that it is only valid when its symbol are symbols of matter, energy, space or time, or any combination thereof, in any universe. If it starts getting into the area of speculation and conclusions then it may be knowledge but it may or may not be data.

This Logic also demonstrates that although the field of psychiatry is a body of knowledge, that knowledge is not "data" but "speculation" or "conclusions", in other words, "opinion". An example of this is the theory used to justify the use of highly profitable mind altering drugs. "There is a chemical imbalance in the brain that these drugs correct." is the theory. However, there are no actual objective tests to back this up. When brains are tested for the mythical "chemical imbalance" it is never found and people are prescribed these drugs without any objective physical test being done. The fraud of ADHD is a prime example of this.

One of the few objective tests ever done to show differences between "hyperactive brains" and "normal brains" only succeeded in showing that the brains of hyperactive patients who had been on psych drugs (like Ritalin) for some years had shrunk. The moral of this story is be very wary of bodies of knowledge that contains little or no "data" and a preponderance of "speculations and conclusions on data".

Thursday, November 06, 2003

Scientology Logics - Part 3

Logic 3 - Any knowledge which can be sensed, measured or experienced by any entity is capable of influencing that entity.

COROLLARY: That knowledge which cannot be sensed, measured or experienced by any entity or type of entity cannot influence that entity or type of entity.

With Logic 3 we get into the first of the intensely workable rules of logic. The corollary is rather a slap in the face for transcendental philosophy which puts forth the idea that something exists "independent of human experience of phenomena but within the range of knowledge." What I'd like to know is if it exists independent of human experience then how do the transcendentalists know it exists at all? The corollary to Logic 3 demonstrates the irrelevance of transcendentalism.

On a more practical basis let's say I look after the computer system that handles payroll (PR) at a large company. There is going to be an upgrade to the Accounts Receivable (AR) system. Will I need to make any changes to the PR system because of this? An easy way to answer this is to see if the PR system can sense, measure or experience the AR system in any way. Let's say that it cannot. Then the AR system can be changed without any impact on PR.

Now here is an example that impacts anyone living in the USA. When the Patriot Act was passed by Congress, "everyone knew" it was only going to be used to fight terrorism so of course ordinary citizens didn't have to worry about the curtailing of civil rights contained in it. But just yesterday I came across this article: -- News: PATRIOT ACT: Law's use causing concerns. Now you could say, "Well, it was used to catch criminals and I'm not a criminal so I'm okay." But the question you really have to answer is: "Can I sense, measure or experience the powers the Patriot Act gives to government agencies?" And if the answer is "yes" then it really doesn't matter if you are a criminal or an upstanding member of society, the act can be used against you.

Wednesday, November 05, 2003

Scientology Logics - Part 2

Logic 2 - A body of knowledge is a body of data, aligned or unaligned, or methods of gaining data.

Logic 2, like Logic 1, is a basic that simply defines what a body of knowledge is. The fact that the knowledge can be aligned or unaligned doesn't prevent it from being knowledge. For example, physics is an area where the data is aligned and people recognize it as a body of knowledge, but what about some relatively unaligned field such as art? There is a body of knowledge there, it contains some data, many, many speculations and many conclusions. Understanding this can be to your advantage if you want to invest in the area. If you realize that the value of a painting is almost purely based on opinion and you know whose opinion is the most valuable then you can determine which picture to buy and for how much.

Contrast that to buying a house where the body of knowledge (physics) is aligned. You will check known principles and laws to make sure the house is a sound investment: Does it follow the building codes? Is it structurally sound? You will use little or no opinion in deciding to buy the house because the body of knowledge is aligned.

You can also look at an apparently unaligned body of knowledge and look to see if it is aligned. For example the subject of psychiatry seems completely unaligned. It contains no science and even determines if a "mental illness" exists by vote of it's members - that's how their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which lists all the official mental illnesses, keeps getting bigger and bigger. In court case after court case psychiatrist A, working for the defense, says the accused is insane while psychiatrist B, working for the prosecution, says he's sane.

However if you realize that psychiatry is aligned around money then their practices make complete sense. Psychiatrist A says the guy is insane because the defense is paying him, psychiatrist B says he's sane because the prosecution is paying him.

Why do psychiatrists still use Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT) when it has been proven time and time again that it causes brain damage and that the majority of people who receive it die within a couple of years. If you are operating on the idea that psychiatry is aligned around the benefiting of mankind then it makes no sense, but if you realize that ECT is a big money maker then all is explained.

Again in this Logic we have "methods of gaining data" as being a body of knowledge in itself and, again, this makes knowledge a living, breathing, evolving entity.

Tuesday, November 04, 2003

The Scientology Logics

The Scientology Logics are a favorite of mine, probably because they are so useful in my job and I get to use them every day. You could call them "how to think" or "how to solve problems", things that we all need to be able to do effectively to succeed in life.

So I'm going to examine them one-by-one over the next several days.

Logic 1: Knowledge is a whole group or subdivision of a group of data or speculations or conclusions on data or methods of gaining data.

This is the first of the Logics because it is a basic to all logic. You are dealing with knowledge in thinking and problem solving so you have to know what it is. The fact that knowledge contains "data" and "speculations" is important to know because a fact (data) can lead to a solution whereas an opinion (speculation) usually only leads to more opinions and often to an impasse (argument).

So when you are examining a body of knowledge you should divide it up into data (facts), speculations (opinions) and conclusions (always evaluating how correct or incorrect the conclusion is and how it was evolved). Now you can think with it.

The inclusion of "methods of gaining data" in the definition of knowledge greatly expands the entire concept of knowledge and makes it into a living, breathing entity. So often we think of knowledge as something in dried up old books written down centuries ago by some mysterious savant. There are even philosophies founded on the idea that all worthwhile knowledge is beyond human comprehension. Well, if you have a method of gaining data you no longer have to blindly believe what was written by "authorities", because you can find out for yourself.

To me, a method of gaining data is of more value than the data itself, because if you forget some piece of data you can always find it again, but if you forget the method, you're back to accepting what "authority" tells you.

The simplest, but for many most difficult, method of gaining data is observation. The article "Personal Integrity" by L. Ron Hubbard contains vital data on how to observe.

Second hand observation adds the complexity of the reliability and accuracy of the source. Some of the later Logics provide methods for evaluating such.

The Logics themselves contain methods of gaining data so stay tuned. I'll be back with more tomorrow.

Monday, November 03, 2003

Scientology Yahoo Group

I just found out there is a Yahoo group about Scientology. This may be a place to find out more if you are interested.