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to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun, his theory was attacked as heresy and at one point his book was withdrawn from circulation by the Inquisition so it could be censored.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.
Friday, November 21, 2003
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)