reality based community - scott pilutik: July 2008

« June 2008

main

August 2008 »

realitybasedcommunity.net - writings on establishment clause, free exercise, free speech, free press, copyright, trademark, right of publicity, media law, defamation, new media law. about scott pilutik.

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'' - Ron Suskind, Without a Doubt, NY Times, October 17, 2004

Archives for July 2008

July 12, 2008

Intelligent Design evolves into Academic Freedom

The Louisiana legislature passed an insidious bill that, according to NewScientist, seeks to "bestow on teachers the right to introduce non-scientific alternatives to evolution under the banner of 'academic freedom.'" While I'm not surprised that the Louisiana legislature is that stupid, the vote itself jarred me: it passed 94-3.

The passed bill, named the Louisiana Science Education Act, can be read here [pdf], but the relevant portion is below:

The State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, upon request of a city, parish, or other local public school board, shall allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.

The Act then schizophrenically goes on to say the following:

This Section shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.

That 93 out of 97 Louisiana legislators apparently believe that this disclaimer rinses the religious purpose from the Act is stunning. But then, we all saw this bill coming--this bill has effectively been in the works for nearly a century. Undercutting evolution was easy at first, when legislatures could simply prohibit it from being taught. But then the courts eventually stepped in and invalidated law after law that sought to insert creationism into public school systems on the basis that these laws violated the establishment clause.

With each judicial rebuke, creationism evolved, first into "creation science," and then into intelligent design, each incarnation stripping away the perceived legally problematic elements. After intelligent design was thoroughly savaged by Judge Jones in the Dover trial, another legally problematic element was shed... which now brings us to Louisiana and its Louisiana Science Education Act.

By itself and free from any context, the act promotes progressive, harmless sounding values; after all, who could possibly be against "critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories"? But the Act's faults don't lie its stated, admittedly neutral-sounding values, but in the implications that flow from the subjects the legislature sees as lacking sufficient objectivity, namely, "evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."

Taking evolution separately for the moment, the problem the legislature will have when this inevitably goes to federal court is that scientists do not view evolution as it is commonly taught in public schools as lacking objectivity. The court is going to ask why these particular subjects were targeted and from that inquiry will spill who--and who wants to target evolution? Biblical literalists and ... well, pretty much just biblical literalists, whose opposition to evolution is heavily documented. How can this be reconciled?

But this bill is not just the next evolved step in the secularization of creationism; when compared with the clumsy attempts by the school boards in Dover and Cobb County, it reveals a sophistication, deliberateness, and insidiousness that may indeed win the day, at least at the trial court level, and perhaps in the appeals court as well. I say this for two reasons.

First, the Act brilliantly targets not only evolution, but origins of life, human cloning, and global warming. This makes the Act harder to defeat as a whole, because while it's easy to find the religious purpose where evolution is attacked, it's less simple to trace back attacks on global warming and human cloning to religion (which is not to say that religious motivations don't also lie behind attacks on global warming and human cloning--they do--but unlike evolution, some varying degree of nonreligious opposition against them also exists). Thus, the Act could be successfully attacked on one front and survive on another. And this is why the presence of "origins of life," alongside evolution is especially scary because of how the two subjects overlap; its inclusion could possibly give Louisiana two bites at the same apple.

If the inclusion of other topics besides evolution is predicated on giving the Act multiple lives, the purpose of the aforementioned 'no-religion' paragraph is to bulletproof the Act. Where §285.1(B)(1) provides for a brand of "academic freedom" that can only be satisfied by maintaining a constitutionally impermissible religious purpose, and §285.1(D) expressly prohibits the promotion of religious doctrine, you don't have a bill so much as an unworkable paradox--a Mobius Loop. Thus, even if a court recognizes the loop, it may still find this section as a sufficient guard against unconstitutional activity, since that's precisely what it purports to do.

But this Act is even smarter yet. It seems possible, and even likely, that the type of religious activity that would naturally occur in the course of administering §285.1(B)(1) would be abstract and ambiguous--and not considered "religious doctrine," which, along with relgious discrimination, is all §285.1(D) prohibits.

I'll have a lot more to say on this particular Act because it seems destined for court, and if it does, many will be watching.

posted by scott pilutik at July 12, 2008 10:41 PM

digg | del.icio.us | reddit
permalink

July 03, 2008

grahame the scientologist and study tech disinformation

I posted a comment to the blog of a Scientologist named Grahame, refuting some of Grahame's claims that Study Tech is secular. Grahame didn't publish my comment, but nevertheless saw fit to edit my comments and respond to the edited comments on his blog, naming me in the process. While I don't mind my name being used on his site (I obviously wouldn't have commented using my full name otherwise), I believe that it's sleazy to name a commenter whose work you're responding to while simultaneously presenting a edited-down version of those comments.

While I understand why Grahame did this (Grahame probably considered portions of my comment "entheta," which basically translates to unpleasant information in Scientologese), I'm still annoyed, and so I'll post both of my comments in their entirety on my own blog, along with Grahame's responses for context. My comments will be in blue and Grahame's in yellow. Again, the original post is here.

It matters not for the strawmen you built and knocked down but because the school is *denying* that Study Tech is effectively Scientology. And while you, a Scientologist, may be able to parse slight differences, the public certainly deserves to know that, at the least, elements of Study Tech are cribbed directly from HCO Bulletins (which, as you know, form the Green Volumes, which are considered sacred inside Scientology).

For example, compare:

(a)
"Simple Words," HCO Bulletin of 4 September 1971 Issue III

You might suppose at once that it is the BIG words or the technical words which are most misunderstood.
This is NOT the case.
On actual test, it was English simple words and NOT Dianetics and Scientology words which prevented understanding.

(b)
"Understanding Words," chapter 3 of Basic Study Manual, p. 79

You might suppose at once that it is the BIG words or the technical words which are most misunderstood.
This is NOT the case.
On actual test, it was English simple words and NOT technical words which prevented understanding.

There are other examples of this and they can be found here. And if you don't believe the source, check them yourself.

While Study Tech obviously doesn't cover the aspects of Scientology that you, as a Scientologist, intuitively think of as religious, such as engrams, thetans, and the like, it doesn't really matter. None of Hubbard's theories were independently tested--on either the tech or admin side--and therefore require the same act of faith--religious faith--to accept them.

scott pilutik left a comment disputing my assertion that Study Technology is secular. He said:

For example, compare:

(a)
"Simple Words," HCO Bulletin of 4 September 1971 Issue III

You might suppose at once that it is the BIG words or the technical words which are most misunderstood. This is NOT the case. On actual test, it was English simple words and NOT Dianetics and Scientology words which prevented understanding.

&

(b)
"Understanding Words," chapter 3 of Basic Study Manual, p. 79

You might suppose at once that it is the BIG words or the technical words which are most misunderstood. This is NOT the case. On actual test, it was English simple words and NOT technical words which prevented understanding.

The first one comes from the writings of L. Ron Hubbard that are meant for Scientologists. The second is from a secular text with religious references removed.

Can anyone see anything religious in the second text? I welcome comments.

scott also said While Study Tech obviously doesn't cover the aspects of Scientology that you, as a Scientologist, intuitively think of as religious, such as engrams, thetans, and the like, it doesn't really matter. None of Hubbard's theories were independently tested--on either the tech or admin side--and therefore require the same act of faith--religious faith--to accept them.

Let me address this:

1) There is conflicting data here: You say Study Technology doesn't cover what we think of as religious and then you say that doesn't matter? Wait a minute. If you are saying it is somehow religious then give me an actual example of a secular Study Technology text that mentions something religious.

2) You are incorrect when you say that Study Technology has not been independently tested. Please follow the "Study Technology Results and Research Papers" link above and look at the examples there.

3) There is no faith involved in Study Technology. Any individual can try it and see if it works or not. Just make sure you understand what it is, apply it correctly and then make up your own mind. It either works or it doesn't. No act of faith is required.

First of all, why did you edit my comment and respond instead of simply publishing my comment in its entirety? That's a rather dishonest way of debating the topic, don't you think? If I'd emailed you my comment, perhaps selectively replying would be more fair, but I didn't email you, I commented on your otherwise publicly-available-to-everyone blog. You say you welcome comments but you don't have the courage of your convictions to let those comments stand on their own.

Regardless, I'll concede your point that nothing in the Hubbard HCOB 'seems' religious, so long as your definition of 'religious' is sufficiently narrow. But much of the nuts and bolts of Scientology would not seem religious to most people, yet is still regarded as religious by Scientology.

With that in mind, and in response to your first point, do the following concepts seem religious to you (each read for its specific ‘Scientological’ connotations)?

Mass
Reelingness
Blow
Doingness
Reality Factor
Senior Data

They don't seem "religious" to me, either, but they happen to be terms which, as applied, are used explicitly by Scientology--some aren't even real words, but were rather invented by Hubbard and have no application outside of a Scientology context.

These terms are also found in the Basic Study Manual, the principle source for Study Tech.

Whether or not a particular concept is regarded as "religious" under a generalized definition shared by a majority of the public is irrelevant if the terms and concepts are significant only to the Scientology religion, and have no application whatsoever.

As for your second point--your claim that Study Tech has been independently tested--the link you provide fails to provide a single independent source, but plenty of reports from interested parties, such as Applied Scholastics, which is affiliated with Scientology.

As for the links to papers by 'Educators' Sandra Chapman, David Kaup, George Ann Gregory, Rubik Atamian, Katharine Scarfe Beckett, Lady Hort, nowhere on the page does ASI disclose that EACH of those persons are Scientologists. While I'm not disputing that they're also educators, the fact that they're also Scientologists means that they're not independent, and ASI is dishonest for failing to mention this (and if you were aware of this fact). I can provide links to demonstrate that each of those persons are indeed Scientologists, if you like.

Your third point looks strangely familiar... where have I seen that before? Oh right: Scientology’s website.

You say Scientology techniques work, but how can I be sure?

Really the only way is to find out for yourself.
When you read a Scientology book, such as Scientology: The Fundamentals of Thought, look at your own life and see if what you have read applies to it. See if you can use the information. Try it out.

Also from the Scientology website:

Mr. Hubbard ran into this very problem when trying to train professional Scientology auditors, and this led him to researching the subject of study itself. He discovered an actual technology of study, and this is taught at Scientology churches.

Perhaps you don’t see the irony in the fact that your response to those skeptical of Study Tech’s claims of secularity is basically the same as the stock response Scientology provides in its FAQ on the Scientology religion?

posted by scott pilutik at July 3, 2008 05:27 PM

digg | del.icio.us | reddit
permalink