Volume 2, Issue 5, page 3

If It WorVs, You Ion't \eed Proof
By 18-11-19, D.Scn.

HE WRITER who tries to sum up Scientology finds himself offering a
collection of flat statements with
very little "proof". This is spacesaving, but the "logical development" of
a scientific structure -- that is, the arguments and evidence offered to support
the thesis -- usually take up about 80 percent of the length of any work offering a
new theory or set of theories. But there
is another, more basic reason for leaving
them out -- there aren't any "acceptable"

Now, just what do we mean by "acceptable"? I am using it in the sense,
acceptable to the "orthodox sciences".
What is acceptable to these sciences?
Various things in various cases. The
physical scientists usually want an experiment that they can repeat to check the
outcome. The social sciences used to
follow the deductive logic type of proof.
"If you accept my premises, then it logically follows that..." Now, however, it
is becoming increasingly fashionable to
use inductive logic and statistical analysis; "In so-and-so many thousand cases,
x percent feel this way, and y percent
feel this way. Therefore, the general
trend seems to be..." This is not as neat
and concise as the old deductive way, but,
if properly handled, will probably give a
more accurate picture of the ray things axe. However,
statistics can be badly handled. and there are merry
things about which we do not bane masses of facts. So,
we than have to rely on deductive logic and what John
W. bell calls "ftunctiamal redundancy". If you
say. "I'm going dawn town. dawn the streets, over the
curbs. past cars, past build . etc.". you are being redundant; you are saar that your listener probably already knewfore you were much past
the word "town". If you say "I'm going dawn town".
you are using a redundancy of one; you've said about
all you need to say to get the idea over, and no
more. it humans have a tendency to form conclusions
on less information; you could probably may "I'm off"
and not be too badly misunderstood most of the time.

Jew.: if you - were ,tor. see semo gsean leaves an
branches showing over the top of a building, you'd
probably say "There's a tree over there", and you'd
probably be right. But if yin :anted to be sure.
you'd say. "lw. if no one is there just holding those
branches up . and if, and if, and if, then there probably is a tree over there". And no one could disprove
that. And so we find out why technical writers are
long-winded. They must be completely sure that they
aren't out on one of the afore-mentioned limbsSo, how do these various forms of proof pertain
to Scientology? Well, Ron has always said. "The proof
of this lies in its workability. You do things with
it and people get better". This is the type of proof,
actually, that the physical scientists use -- the heuristic approach that Dr. Winter made so much of in "A
Doctor's Report on Dianetice". For some reason, however, the other experimenters have never quite duplicated Hubbard's claims. And he has progressed gradually from the "An{y intelligent person can do it" of
the First Book to the current policy of copyrighting
everything and off with his head if he uses Scientology and doesn't have a license.

Now, the deductive approach can be quickly discarded for many people since they won't accept the
premises of the argument. You can start to explain
Scientology and a sharp person will begin to ask questions that will sooner or later lead to an answer to
which he will say flatly, "I don't believe that" --
such as pre-lives.

At present, Ron is using "the weight of evidence".
which is more inductive than anything else. The idea
is. "There are so many examples of what we've done
that now you'll be forced to accept my premises". The
only trouble has been that so far, most people haven't
accepted his examples as valid.

Nor, most of you who read The Affirm have seen,
or done, or in someway experienced something that
can't be explained by physical science. Therefore.
you may tend to agree with these examples. BLit FATS
Magasine bas been publishing hundreds of examples of
such things for years, without convinc anyone much
except those already convinced or hhlf-convinced.
Sister Emmy is an example of the overwhelming mass
of evidence that you must have to convince someone
who is convinced the other way.

Sc, whe does that leave us? Well, it leaves
decided to offer no "proof" except where it cant:
shown reasonably well that thinkingiotherwiseeb
ad can lasd
t an absurdity -- the famous "reduc f 'hose of
tee to icians and matheaticians. Those of you who
can at least "provisionally" accept the premises of
Scientology are invited to follow me through the
twists and turns of development to the present state
of the science -- or religion, if you prefer. Then, you
can, if you wish, do as Ron said in the book. "Modern
Scihnce of Mental Health": You can find out for yourself. HUbbard has recently declared that no one may
use or practice Scientology but those sanctioned by
HUI. If you wish to conravene this edict, it is up
to you. But the only ray to have Scientology roved
to you is to experience it. Tbon, after a fai- rial,
gurney draw bur own conclusions as to its efficacy.
Perhaps one of these days, there will be an overwhelming mass of evidence to support it -- evidence of a
ascttheo~t ythe pre mises of Scciientol gygy~rilllr~n
unreasonable to the mass of people so long indoctrinated in other ways of thirtrirg.
(HD. NOTE-ite asked one of the top auditors in
the field' for an article on Dianetics-Scientology, and
he sent us a series. But, before he agreed to write
for The ABo, he asked that his name be kept secret as he wants to keep his professional rating. So.
that is Scientology -- and this is the first of a series
on the same subject.)
The ABERREE, September, 1955 3