Scientology Logic™

I have often sarcastically referred to "Scientology Logic™" when discussing various statements and arguments made by the Church of Scientology and Scientology's true believers.  It is very true that Scientology's version of "logic" is very, very strange, but what you might not know is that Scientology Logic is deliberately built into the Scientology belief system itself by L. Ron Hubbard.

Note that I am not talking here about how logical or illogical Hubbard's actual "technology" is.  I am talking about the actual "logic" mechanisms themselves that exist and are used throughout Scientology.

Note, also, that this "logic" exists inside Scientology and only rarely shows up on the outside.  This is why discussing Scientology with a Scientologist can be so weird.

Technically, Scientology Logic is made up of a number of logical fallacies which Hubbard used extensively in his lectures and writings.
Here is a partial list:

Appeal to Authority
An appeal to authority is the argument that a person judged to be an authority verifies that the statement is true -- therefore it must be true.

In Scientology's case, the authority is, of course, L. Ron Hubbard.  Scientology claims that all their "solutions" are "highly effective".  What is the basis of their claims?  "Ron said so".

When the raw facts show their "solutions" are failures, it is quickly agreed by all Scientologists involved to cover the failures up, because "Ron said his solutions were highly effective".

They won't look any further for any facts or hard evidence because "they don't need to, Ron said it, so it's true".  This is the absolute, bedrock foundation of Scientology:  If L. Ron Hubbard said it, then it is completely true.

While this theme of "Hubbard's Infallibility" crops up in Hubbard's teachings from the very beginning, it became cast in stone with his infamous "Keeping Scientology Working" (KSW) policy letter.  In that policy, Hubbard denied that anyone else had contributed anything of value to Scientology and that he, and he alone, had created this "miraculous tech" that was "100% workable".  From then on, it became a High Crime for any Scientologist to deny Hubbard's perfection.

In any disagreement between Scientologists, the one who can find the best L. Ron Hubbard quote to support their side is automatically the winner.  No logic is ever applied.

As non-church Scientologists discover how many of Ron's statements have been irrefutably debunked, they struggle to fit that into Scientology's Absolutism.  The most popular approach is to label all of Ron's lies as "allegories, not to be taken literally." This, however, puts them on very shaky ground as more and more of Scientology's "truths" become "allegories".

In an odd and completely bizarre twist to this illogic, some Scientologists will insist that, if L. Ron Hubbard didn't say something, it isn't true.  So, for instance, because Hubbard never talked about the dangers and effects of asbestos, there is no danger or bad effects from breathing asbestos.

Ad Hominem
This logical fallacy attempts to use personal attacks to discredit the source of contrary evidence.

This was, by far, Hubbard's favorite and most effective logical fallacy and has become woven throughout Scientology's belief system.

In Scientology, anyone possessing and disseminating any facts that are contrary to Hubbard's words is automatically "evil".  This is one "truth" that is hammered into Scientologists again and again throughout their studies.

Even in its press releases, the Church of Scientology carefully refers to the Scientology whistle-blowers as "apostates" -- and they do intend all the negative connotations of that word: "traitor", "heretic", "untrustworthy", etc.  The outside Scientologists aren't much better, refering to critics as "haters" and worse.

Because they are labelled "evil" by Scientology, any source of contrary information is automatically "invalid" and any statements coming from that source must be automatically and quickly discarded lest one become "contaminated" by it.

This automatic, built-in ad hominem attack is marvellous to behold.  One "bad" word and the Scientologist immediately shuts down and runs away, never to accept any data from that source again.

Genetic Fallacy
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

In Scientology, this follows directly from both the ad hominem and the appeal to authority fallacies, above.

Hubbard has assured his faithful followers that anyone who dares to criticize him or Scientology is guilty of horrendous crimes "for which they could be arrested." Hubbard even instructed his secret police to dig up or manufacture evidence of crimes on every critic -- and they have done so with enthusiasm.  The church's attempts to frame their critics for crimes they did not commit are quite well documented.

Scientologists completely believe this characterization of Scientology critics.  Given the allegations of such crimes, Scientologists automatically reject all criticisms of Hubbard and Scientology from any source.  No logic required.

In a more generic form, Scientologists pretty much distrust any source that isn't L. Ron Hubbard (or, in the church, David Miscavige).

Straw Man Fallacy
A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted

Scientologists work very hard to pervert and obfuscate the very simple and clear messages that the Scientology critics and whistle-blowers present.

Any criticism of one of Scientology's "solutions" is misrepresented by Scientology as an attempt to halt all efforts to help anyone.  You will often find Scientologists claiming that critics' messages are "No one can be helped" and "All help is bad" -- but no serious Scientology critic ever said that.

Red Herring
The fallacy gets its name from fox hunting, specifically from the practice of sabotaging a fox hunt by using smoked herrings, which are red, to distract hounds from the scent of their quarry.  It is simply an attempt to distract one from the current subject.

Hubbard famously said, regarding attacks against himself or Scientology, "Make enough threat or clamor to cause the enemy to quail. Always find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Don't ever defend. Always attack."

Because of this policy, Scientologists work very hard to distract any discussion away from the lies, crimes and abuses of the Church of Scientology and onto anything else.  "Look over there!  Look how bad those other people are, over there!"

This is the primary motivation for the creation of many of Scientology's front groups such as CCHR, "Youth for Human Rights", etc.

As a bonus for Scientology, the general public tends to think that any organization "promoting Human Rights", for instance, is unlikely to be violating those exact same Human Rights.

Hasty Generalization Fallacy
A hasty generalisation draws a general rule from a single, perhaps atypical, case.

This is the most common response by a Scientologist when confronted with Scientology's consistent failure to deliver any of its promised results.  Scientologists will inevitably say, "I got wonderful gains from Scientology!" This ignores the primary point that none of these "wonderful gains" were what was actually promised -- or even expected.

This also ignores all the other times when Scientology didn't deliver any "gains" at all to the Scientologist.  It is very much like the compulsive gambler who remembers every time they won some money but ignores the huge amount of money they've lost.

After all that time, all that effort and all that money, instead of the promised miraculous results, the Scientologist once or twice got "wonderful gains" that are only a memory now.  From those few, fleeting moments, the Scientologist makes the very general statement that "Scientology works!"

---

The situation isn't necessarily that illogical people are drawn to Scientology.   The situation is that bad logic is intrinsic to the core teachings of Scientology and that not enough people are educated so as to recognize this when they run into it.  Once someone has accepted the core teachings of Scientology, they have automatically accepted all of Hubbard's illogics as well.

(Yes, such an education would help people as consumers and as voters.)
-

Scientology and the Amazing Psychiatric Conspiracy

My attention was drawn to Scientology's Amazing Psychiatric Conspiracy recently.   As a Scientologist, I had just accepted it.  As an ex-Scientologist, I had simply rejected it -- but I really hadn't thought about it.

Scientologists have been indoctrinated into a complete, fanatic hatred of all psychiatrists.  They have concocted a whole raft of "reasons why" they hate psychiatrists but those reasons don't really explain Scientologists' extreme, compulsive and absolute hatred.

They originally pointed to a number of reported abuses by psychiatrists and even created "Psych Busters" who would go out and dig up proof and have such psychiatrists put in prison.  I've noticed that they've quit that and it appears that, ironically, they quit it because they were cleaning up the profession and giving psychiatry a good name.

Then CCHR started rewriting history so that psychiatry was behind every evil that has ever existed on Earth.  Psychiatrists, in some mysterious way, have been behind every war, every mass murderer and every other horrible event.  Evidence was lacking -- you had to just believe.

That hasn't been persuasive except for the gullible who don't check facts.

The latest "reason" is that psychiatrists are "over-prescribing dangerous drugs for children!"

That's actually a good reason to hate those who over-prescribe dangerous drugs, but doesn't hold up as a reason for extreme hatred of all psychiatrists.  After all, some medical doctors are just as guilty, the psychiatric profession itself has condemned the practice and many doctors in both professions are not guilty of that at all.

And yet, Scientologists condemn ALL psychiatrists, the guilty and the innocent, and demand that the practice of psychiatry be banned.

I've asked Scientologists, "Given that some Scientologists are guilty of crimes and abuses, should we condemn ALL Scientologists and demand the practice of Scientology be banned?"  But they don't get the point.

Why don't they get the point?  Why are they unable to think logically and rationally on this subject?

Well, as you undoubtedly know, Scientologists believe that psychiatrists are the leaders of the Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy against L. Ron Hubbard and the Loyal Officers.

We all know that and we laugh and laugh.  But think about what that actually means for Scientologists.  For such a conspiracy to be true, for all psychiatrists to be part of such a conspiracy, the following must be true:

• All psychiatrists are in on this Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy.  Every single one.  That's what Hubbard said and that's what Scientologists are required to believe.  There are no good psychiatrists.
• This means that all psychiatrists can remember their "past lives" when they were battling the Forces of Good all over the galaxy for quadrillions of years.  You can't remember your past life.  Scientologists may pretend but they can't remember their past lives either.  But all psychiatrists must be able to so they know they must grow up and become psychiatrists, right?
• In addition, obviously, no "normal" person can be allowed to become a psychiatrist.  Apparently there is a review board in every psychiatric school that checks every applicant to ensure they are a card-carrying member of the Great Evil Galactic Conspiracy.  Anyone who isn't a member is rejected and cannot become a psychiatrist.
• And finally, psychiatrists, apparently, have extremely advanced communication technology so they can discuss their Evil Plans without ever being detected.  Otherwise they would be some evidence somewhere.

Scientologists seem to believe that we already have Evil Alien Beings living among us today.  They have phenomenal memory and technology.  And only Scientologists stand between all these Evil Alien Beings and their conquest of Earth.

This is what Scientologists have to believe or their Evil Galactic Conspiracy led by psychiatrists doesn't stand up to the briefest of thought.

It's another fine example of Scientology Logic™ in action.
-

Scientology's Logical Fallacies

You may recall, in Scientology Logic, that I thought that analyzing and listing all the logical fallacies that Scientologists use would be entertaining.  It has proven to be so.

As I discussed in that previous article, Scientology not only does not teach logic but it actively suppresses logical thinking.

What is even more interesting is how Scientology deliberately uses logical fallacies to justify its dogma and control Scientologists' thinking.

I've cribbed this list of logical fallacies from Wikipedia, which I find to be a wonderful source for many subjects, including Scientology.

Note that these aren't all the logical fallacies that Scientology uses, these are only a representative sample.

Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions

• Scientology example:

Argument: Anyone who opposes Good Works is Evil. Scientology does Good Works. Therefore, anyone who opposes Scientology is Evil.

Problem: While it may be true that some Scientologists do some Good Work, that is not necessarily true of Scientologists in general and definitely not true of the Church of Scientology.

The various programs that the church parades as examples of their "Good Works" have not held up under any independent inspection.  The claimed "good results" from these programs never materialized.

Scientologists who try to do good things via the Church of Scientology's programs such as "Volunteer Ministers" are effectively sabotaged by the church's greed and lack of support.

Converse Fallacy of Accident or Hasty Generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule

• Scientology example:

Argument: The other Scientologists I know are good people, so it must be true that all Scientologists are good people.

Problem: Most Scientologists have only met is a small subset of the entire group.

Specifically, most Scientologists have not worked in the Sea Org under David Miscavige, they have not experienced the pervasive criminal abuse in the Sea Org at his hands and at his orders.

In addition, most Scientologists have not had dealings with the various Scientologists who have been arrested for many crimes.  

Begging the question: demonstrates a conclusion by means of premises that assume that conclusion is true. "Beg" in this context means "dodge or avoid".

• Scientology example:

Argument: Scientology always works, I know this because, if it fails, it "wasn't Scientology".

Problem: The argument assumes that Scientology always works.

This is the classic and best-known Scientology logical fallacy.  Discuss Scientology's failures with any true believer, and their argument will inevitably beg the question.

Begging the question is also called Petitio Principii, Circulus in Probando, arguing in a circle, assuming the answer.

Scientology true believers cannot think their way out of this logical fallacy -- it is deeply embedded in their belief system.

Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow."

• Scientology example:

Argument: It's OK to go deeply into debt to pay for Scientology services, because Scientology will greatly increase your income.

Problem: There is no evidence that there is such an effect from Scientology.

Scientology registrars use this logical fallacy more than any other.

If one simply looks at the many, many Scientologists who have declared bankruptcy, who were forced to close their businesses and/or lost their homes through foreclosure, it is quite obvious that an increase in income does not happen as a matter of course for Scientologists.

Yet this sales pitch is still used.

Fallacy of False Cause - post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation.

• Scientology example:

Argument: After Sally completed Grade I, she got a new job, therefore Grade I resulted in a new job.

Problem: Since people get new jobs all the time, without any Scientology at all, such a direct correlation is unproven and highly unlikely.

Scientologists like this particular logical fallacy a lot.  Since they are not seeing the promised gains from their auditing, they attribute any good thing that happens to them to Scientology, no matter how far-fetched or disrelated.

Straw man: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

They must get training on this in Scientology.  When a Scientologist posts a comment on some blog or forum critical of Scientology, they often use the Straw man.

Anyone who has read the comment thread on my first article on Scientology Logic is well aware of how "Sylver" tried to do this.

• Scientology example:

Person A claims: While many Scientologists are good people who are trying to do good things, the Church of Scientology is run by criminals who must be brought to justice.

Argument Person B: You claim to like Scientologists, but you want to destroy their church.  You are a hypocrite!

Problem: Obviously, person A never said what person B claims.  Person B is creating a straw man so he can "win the argument".

There are more logical fallacies, and more that Scientologists either use or fall for (or both) but the logical fallacy that L. Ron Hubbard used most of all was this one:

Proof by verbosity, sometimes colloquially referred to as argumentum verbosium: a rhetorical technique that tries to persuade by overwhelming those considering an argument with such a volume of material that the argument sounds plausible, superficially appears to be well-researched, and it is so laborious to untangle and check supporting facts that the argument might be allowed to slide by unchallenged.

All of Dianetics and Scientology could be called Proof by verbosity. There is no real proof in all those millions of words, there is no research, there is no logic, there is nothing there -- but, boy, there sure is a lot of it.

Logical fallacies are embedded throughout the doctrine of Scientology.  If you remove the logical fallacies, you remove Scientology's foundation.
-

Scientology Logic

In a recent comment, a Scientology True Believer was absolutely convinced that when I criticized L. Ron Hubbard, it was exactly the same as saying I wished for the total destruction of the belief system of Scientology.  No amount of logical discussion could alter that bizarre thought process.

Anyone following along in the discussion thread would have thought the Scientologist to be very, very stupid.  There was no way the actual words written could mean what he interpreted them to mean.

But to the Scientologist, it was completely logical.

Let us explore, once again, a bit more into the strange world of Scientology.

For those who have never talked to a Scientologist, Scientology logic looks, to an outsider, like this:

• If A
• And if B
• Then: Tuesday!

It just doesn't seem to make any sense.  For instance, let's take a very common example:

Does Scientology work?

• L. Ron Hubbard proclaimed that his technology would and does produce a "Clear", who would have perfect memory, be able to do lightening fast calculations, be free of most diseases and mental upsets.
• On inspection, in the entire history of Dianetics and Scientology, with tens of thousands of people applying Hubbard's technology, not one person has attained this mythical state of Clear.
• Therefore, Scientology works!

This is exactly what happens when you try to discuss Scientology's failures with a Scientologist.  Of course this makes it impossible to have any reasonable discussion.  But how can they be so, so ... illogical?

Logic is not taught in Scientology, obviously.  In fact, logic is frowned upon.  They have a drill, called the "Obnosis Drill" which drills a Scientologist to not draw logical conclusions. (Ironically, "obnosis" is a bafflegab word created by Hubbard to mean "observing the obvious").  For example, the course supervisor brings in a person for the students to do the drill on.  The drill would go like this:

Supervisor: What do you see?
Student: I see an old man.
Supervisor: Flunk! Do you see "old"?  Do you see "man"?  What do you see?
Student: I see a person with wrinkles and short grey hair.
Supervisor: Where do you see wrinkles and grey hair?
Student: I see a person with wrinkles on this side of its face and on the one hand I can see, and grey hair on this side of its head.

Do you see?  Students are drilled not to think, not to draw obvious conclusions, not to assume the self-evident fact that there is an old man there.  As ridiculous as you may think my example is, it is essentially a verbatim quote from a real course room drill I witnessed.

And that is just one of a number of Scientology techniques that turns off logic.

Another technique is the constant repetition and enforcement that you may never question anything Hubbard says.  What you see, if it contradicts what Hubbard said, is wrong.  You must work at it until you can work out that what you saw actually validated what Hubbard said.

The final trick is the installation of certain "truths" that may never be questioned.  Some of these are:

• L. Ron Hubbard is always right.
• Scientology always works.
• Evil forces are fighting Scientology.
• Anyone who disagrees with this is Evil.
• ... and so on.

And now you have Scientology Logic.  Let's look at that example, above, but let's peek behind the scenes to see what is going on inside the Scientologist's mind:

Does Scientology work?

• L. Ron Hubbard proclaimed that his technology would and does produce a "Clear", who would have perfect memory, be able to do lightening fast calculations, be free of most diseases and mental upsets.
• L. Ron Hubbard is always right.
• On inspection, in the entire history of Dianetics and Scientology, with tens of thousands of people applying Hubbard's technology, not one person has attained this mythical state of Clear.
• That statement must be a lie because it contradicts what Ron said, and Ron is always right. 
• There must be Clears somewhere, even if I've never seen any, because Hubbard said that Scientology does produce Clears.
• L. Ron Hubbard said Scientology always works.
• Therefore, Scientology works!
  

Now you can see it.  Now you can see why, to a Scientologist, that whole "logic" sequence makes sense.  They have these additional, hidden, "truths" that color every thought -- and they can't think about or question these "truths", they must only believe and accept them.

Now you can see why, when I dared to criticize Hubbard, I was (to the Scientologist) actually saying that all of Scientology should be destroyed.  That's Scientology Logic!

And, until a Scientologist recovers their ability to think logically, to perceive what is really there and think about and draw obvious conclusions from what they actually see, they will continue to make the most bizarre statements and erroneous "leaps of logic".

But now you know why you can't reason with a True Believer.  Their "logic" is pure Scientology Logic.
-