A Bite-Sized Discourse on Method

We are bombarded by so much information these days that it is sometimes difficult to remain levelheaded when evaluating that information. Studies are released, suggesting that this is good for us and that is bad for us, and the media that report these studies almost never follow up on them. Is supplemental vitamin E really linked to heart disease? Does echinacea really fight infection? Who knows?

The thing about studies is that they have to be replicated under identical conditions to really tell us anything, and even then, nothing is ever proved. You see, it is a common misconception that something can be proven scientifically. Something can be disproved in science, but never proved. In fact, mathematics is the only branch of science in which proof can be established, since mathematics relies solely on a logical framework instead of empirical observation. As such, I suppose mathematics is the most “meditative” science.

Anyway, all of this never stops companies from telling us that something is “clinically proven” to do something (although an acceptable meaning of prove is “to test”), nor does it stop throngs of suckers from believing that crap like Scientology (yes, this again) is based on scientific principles.

Science is a catchall term for a collection of disciplines, some of which deal with some very complicated material. Nonetheless, scientific principles are rather simple, in that they largely boil down to the scientific method. In simplified form, the scientific method looks like this:

1. Characterization: Quantify and measure observable phenomena.
2. Hypothesis: Create an explanation for that observation.
3. Prediction: Based on that explanation, form a generalization about previously unobserved phenomena.
4. Experimentation: Test that prediction. Rinse and repeat if necessary.

It’s a pretty good rubric to follow, but it doesn’t quite make science perfect. Why not? Well, scientists are human. Humans screw up. They neglect to take Variable A into account, or they neglect to consider the influence of Variable B. Sometimes, they fake their results. It happens, but it doesn’t really matter. Why? Because when attempts are made to replicate experimental results in cases of fakery, those results won’t be replicated. It gets trickier in cases in which a certain variable is neglected and results are ascribed to another variable. It’s the neglected variable that really makes the difference, but the results always turn out the same. This can cause confusion for a while, but a very careful experimenter can get past it and set us on a better track.

I hate to admit that the idea for this particular entry was once again stirred by Mr. Hubbard and his devoted cult. But I did want to shine an interesting light on the Scientology canon, based on the work of Sir Thomas Browne, a 17th-century English polymath who authored Pseudodoxia Epidemica, a treatise on the superstitions and misconceptions of his time. Sir Thomas employed a simple and interesting three-prong test of the validity of ideas. The criteria to consider go something like this:

1. The authority of the authors supporting those ideas
2. Logical analysis of the ideas themselves
3. Empirical experience

One might say that the first prong of the test is troublesome, since an “appeal to authority” is often used as a logical whitewash. Still, it has its use. After all, would you rather take medical advice from a licensed doctor or a used-car salesman? (For that matter, would you rather take used-car advice from a licensed doctor or a used-car salesman? But that’s another issue.)

While Browne’s miniature algorithm seems overly simple, it is important to note how rarely it—or any other test of validity—is actually employed by the lay community, and sometimes even by the scientific community. While I won’t necessarily advocate an attitude of suspicion toward everything one hears or reads, I would recommend a healthy level of skepticism, even toward information coming from seemingly authoritative sources.

Let’s take Browne’s test for a simple test drive, and let’s put our old friend L. Ron Hubbard under the microscope for a minute:

1. What is the authority of the author supporting the idea? L. Ron Hubbard became a science-fiction writer after dropping out of college after only two years, having managed only a D average during his time there. Though always a weak science student, Hubbard was clearly obsessed with being seen as someone with scientific aptitude, often signing his name with “C.E.” (for civil engineer) suffixing it and finally resorting to purchasing a bogus Ph.D. from a California degree mill, then “resigning” his doctorate in a newspaper’s editorial page only after his ruse was publicly revealed. In his lectures, he referred to himself as a “nuclear physicist” on several occasions, despite his utter lack of academic credentials or—as his lectures amply demonstrate—even basic knowledge of radiation.
2. Do Hubbard’s ideas stand up to logical analysis? While detailed examples abound for those willing to spend a few minutes researching the issue, suffice it to say that the ideas that make any sense in Hubbard’s writing are stolen from other sources, while those that originated with him are prime examples of speciousness and spuriousness. • Hubbard’s engrams, which form the core of the Dianetics theory, have never been detected in scientific studies. [It is interesting to note that the concept of the engram—and the term itself—came from the work of psychologist Karl Lashley, who posited that physical traces in neural tissue were responsible for memory. In such a context, the concept seems reasonable. Still, their actual physical existence has not been established.] • Hubbard further claimed that niacin (also known as nicotinic acid, which was derived from nicotine), a member of the B family of vitamins, is capable of “running out radiation” from the body, mistaking the so-called “niacin flush” for old sunburns being retriggered. Really it is just niacin’s role as a vasodilator in action: the capillaries near the skin are dilated, and a flush occurs. This effect disappears within minutes. • The chief “religious artifact” in Scientology is the “E-Meter,” which does nothing more than measure the galvanic skin response, one of the factors often measured on a polygraph machine. Hubbard’s idea was that the E-Meter would reveal the effect of engrams when certain questions were asked. As there is no evidence to support Hubbard’s concept of the engram, the central purpose of the E-Meter is also drawn into question. At any rate, the only thing an E-Meter can demonstrate is the change in electrical conductivity of the skin. Assigning a definitive cause to that change and preventing the questioning of that assignment is not science. It is cultist quackery. I encourage everyone to research the numerous other examples of Hubbard’s junk science. I also encourage that such research be objective and tempered by the application of Browne’s rules.
3. Is there any empirical evidence to support Hubbard’s claims? None. For instance, Hubbard’s supposedly secular theories are applied in educational settings under the guise of Applied Scholastics and the so-called “Study Technology.” Careful examination of these “educational” ideas suggests that their purpose is really for programming participants to be susceptible to propaganda. Look up information on the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis for more on how the structure of language is seen as a potential determinant of thought itself. Also, George Orwell’s 1984 provides an interesting example of the aims of restructuring language for mind control. At any rate, “Study Technology” has never been demonstrated to be effective, despite Applied Scholastics’ vague and unsubstantiated claims. Furthermore, Hubbard’s other ideas, whether scientific or psychological, have no grounding in empirical observation.

Above, I mentioned that anyone else’s research into Scientology—or anything, for that matter—should be objective and subject to Browne’s rules. After all, the only way to obtain worthwhile information scientifically is to study it dispassionately. The passion can come later. Let careful examination reveal bullshit for what it is.