Does science have anything to do with Scientology?

Answer 1

Scientology deals with all knowledge, and that includes all knowledge of the physical world. Science deals with knowledge of the physical world only, and then only a portion of what is observable. (What is provable and what is acceptable to others. Example: A man by the name of Aristarchus wrote about the Earth revolving around the Sun in 200 BC. He was punished by the state religion of his day and his works were nearly destroyed. See Archimedes' book 'The Sand Reckoner.' Galileo had the same problem with the Catholic Church in the 14th century. Nevertheless the Earth did rotate around the Sun in 200 BC, in 1400 and still does today.)

One definition of science goes like this: 'the study and knowledge of the physical world and its behavior that is based on experiments and facts that can be proved, and is organized into a system.' When one looks at science one sees very little of these topics: God, Spiritual Beings, the Humanities, Ethics, Aesthetics and any aspect of the mind that can be observed directly by the person as an individual. It is not that these areas of Life do not exist and cannot be observed, more likely, they are not currently popular with the powers that be.

To my knowledge, science does not address all the areas of Life that a philosophy, a religion, or that might be included in the Humanities. Scientology does address all these areas of Life, not just the physical world around us that is acceptable to a Science; Journal, an Association or an Institute or a Foundation.

So a key point here is that Scientology, as a body of knowledge, is free of influence from all such political, religious, social and monetary special interests. It is free. Science is not.

Some people consider that Francis Bacon is the Father of Science. He wrote down what it was for the first time and his book 'The New Atlantis' describes a field of knowledge that does include the Humanities. Somewhere between 1620 and now, something got left out of it.

In terms of Answers.com, it means anyone is also free to comment on it and express opposing views. Right? Example: one time I pointed out test results from a scientific study of Dianetics at Wikipedia. In Sept 1950 88 new people off the street read the Dianetics book for the first time, trained on it for 40 hours and then gave and received 40 hours of Dianetic processing. The result was an average of 10 points IQ gain, based on the certifications of three psychology professionals in such testing. The results were published in early editions of a book called 'Science of Survival.' This 'science' was shunned at Wikipedia (by people with a vested interest) and instead the 'research' of a boy attempting to satisfy his teaching degree, and a single doctor treating one patient was accepted as representing 'the proof' that was acceptable.