# dianetics and facts **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 12, 2011, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641 "2011-05-12T12:00:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![scamartistry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@scamartistry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scamartistry)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/1 "2011-05-12T12:00:14Z")
Have only read parts of the infamous dianetics book, Are any of LRH’s theories proposed in the book accepted by the scientific community? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 12:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/2 "2011-05-12T12:13:21Z")
I’ll take “words that don’t belong in the same sentence” for $200, Alex. …I haven’t read it, but the goal of Dianetics is to get you to sign up for Scientology courses and pay money to the Scientology organization. It’s not a scientific text. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/3 "2011-05-12T12:37:07Z")
Some of their claims and observations about social motives and social reform might coincide with the accepted mainstream, but probably not to any very useful extent. Most of their claims aren’t even falsifiable, so there’s nothing there for the scientific community to even properly evaluate. ---
**Author:** ![BMalion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@BMalion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BMalion)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/4 "2011-05-13T14:12:01Z")
Xemu cries when you say that. ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/5 "2011-05-13T15:15:31Z")
To hear the answer of that question you have to pay more money and take more training. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/6 "2011-05-13T15:32:54Z")
You want I should change the title to “dianetics _or_ facts”? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/7 "2011-05-13T17:56:58Z")
I was not aware that there are any theories in _Dianetics_. Claims, yes. Ideas (mostly of the half-baked variety), certainly. It’s conceivable that there may even be a hypothesis or two in there. But theories? No. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/8 "2011-05-13T20:03:25Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I haven’t read it, but the goal of Dianetics is to get you to sign up for Scientology courses and pay money to the Scientology organization. But doesn’t Dianetics predate Scientology? ---
**Author:** ![boreilly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@boreilly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boreilly)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/9 "2011-05-13T20:44:51Z")
i was asked to be in a little informercial that happened to be for this. I had to pretend to be reading the dianetics book and look like I was having an epiphany. I asked one of the proselytisers about stuff coming from a science point of view and she showed me the page in the book that tells the account of hubbard separating the soul from a human body. He managed to take it it out of the patient and it floated several inches or something above the patients head. It turns out that it has NO mass and NO wavelength and NO charge and no other characteristics for us to observe it with and none of the characteristics any other waves or particles have to interact with any instruments we use. Talk about being snubbed when it came to the nobel prize in physics. it sounded so beautiful in its invisible visibility! It had to be true. I mean I read it in a book. And she read it in a book. “If it cant interact with anything how can it interact with the brain and how can it be observed by hubbard?” seemed like such stupid questions to the rational mind so naturally I gave them all my money and have been waiting 4 years and counting to hear more on how he did it. Then she took out the E-meter that can read my mind! It knew when I was thinking about things I didn’t like. “are you happy in your life?” “yes I am” \ “do you get on with all your friends?” “yes I do” \ “how is your love life?” “oh its fine. its fine” \ It could tell it hit a nerve! Hubbard built a device where the energy in your emotional signals interacts with receivers in the device. He explains it as follows. “For the meter to be read, the tiny flow of electrical energy through the preclear (person) has to remain steady. When this tiny flow is changed the needle of the E-Meter moves. This will happen if the preclear pulls in or releases mental mass. This mental mass (condensed energy), acts as an additional resistance or lack of resistance to the flow of electrical energy from the E-Meter.” If you wanna find out me just post your credit card numbers up here and other assorted details and I’ll tell you more scientific theories. But no proofs or citations. Thats just being selfish. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/10 "2011-05-14T07:36:00Z")
> [@boreilly](#): > > “If it cant interact with anything how can it interact with the brain and how can it be observed by hubbard?” He used his space telescope? ---
**Author:** ![scamartistry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@scamartistry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scamartistry)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/11 "2011-05-14T13:32:39Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I was not aware that there are any theories in _Dianetics_. Claims, yes. Ideas (mostly of the half-baked variety), certainly. It’s conceivable that there may even be a hypothesis or two in there. But theories? No. no reason to be a word-nazi. I was using “theory” in the colloquial sense. Don’t pretend you didn’t understand that. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/12 "2011-05-14T15:25:28Z")
> [@scamartistry](#): > > no reason to be a word-nazi. I was using “theory” in the colloquial sense. Don’t pretend you didn’t understand that. I wouldn’t take it personally. He was just pointing out that Dianetics (and the rest of Elron’s work) didn’t even take the form of a scientific thesis, let alone have the substance of a scientific thesis. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/13 "2011-05-14T15:29:29Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > But doesn’t Dianetics predate Scientology? Yes, Dianetics preceded Scientology by a couple of years, and was posited as a metaphysical work, whatever that means. Of course it had no supporters in the scientific community, so Hubbard decided to dub it a religion. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/14 "2011-05-14T15:36:48Z")
Keep in mind that Hubbard wrote science fiction books, and one of them was _Dianetics._ ---
**Author:** ![scamartistry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@scamartistry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scamartistry)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/15 "2011-05-14T15:50:12Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Keep in mind that Hubbard wrote science fiction books, and one of them was _Dianetics._ Dianetics was not meant to be a sci-fi book. It was published as a Self-help book. Now my question was if anything in the book is actually valid, is it at least falsifiable? or is it complete nonsense? ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/16 "2011-05-14T16:00:36Z")
> [@scamartistry](#): > > Dianetics was not meant to be a sci-fi book. It was published as a Self-help book. > Now my question was if anything in the book is actually valid, is it at least falsifiable? or is it complete nonsense? > **[Dianetics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics#Scientific_evaluation_and_criticisms)** > > Dianetics is a set of pseudoscientific ideas and practices regarding the human mind invented in 1950 by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard. Dianetics was originally conceived as a form of psychological treatment, but was rejected by the psychological and medical establishments as pseudoscientific and ineffective. It was the precursor to Scientology and has since been incorporated into it.: 106–107  It involves a process called "auditing", which uses an electrical resistance meter, ostensibl... ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/17 "2011-05-14T16:57:22Z")
> [@scamartistry](#): > > Dianetics was not meant to be a sci-fi book. It was published as a Self-help book. It was written by a writer whose only experience was science fiction writing, not psychology, history, anthropology, or astro-biology. Yet he made wild claims in all of those fields that are worshiped by today’s believers and used as the basis for classes and income from them. > [@](#): > > Now my question was if anything in the book is actually valid, is it at least falsifiable? or is it complete nonsense? Complete nonsense, just like his other books, but while science fiction can be excused or even elevated for fantasy nonsense because of its entertainment value, _Dianetics_ cannot. To sum up: Hubbard wrote science fiction, and one of his books was _Dianetics._ But I’m repeating myself. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/18 "2011-05-14T17:12:25Z")
> [@tnetennba](#): > > [Dianetics - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianetics#Scientific_evaluation_and_criticisms) I am not questioning the level of nonsense in Dianetics, but I love how we scoff at how far removed it is from real science and then cite Wikipedia to support this stance. mmm ---
**Author:** ![Hambil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hambil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hambil)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/19 "2011-05-14T17:28:13Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > I am not questioning the level of nonsense in Dianetics, but I love how we scoff at how far removed it is from real science and then cite Wikipedia to support this stance. > mmm Are you are referring to the very well debunked idea that wikipedia is not accurate? Numerous studies have been done to show it is as accurate or more accurate than any other source out there. You could Google those studies very easily, unless of course you are worried that Google isn’t accurate. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/20 "2011-05-14T17:31:02Z")
[Switching Channel] A volcano blowing its top appears on the screen.. > [@](#): > > **Joel** : It’s Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard!.. Why do I hurt inside? Page 78. > **Tom Servo** : When will this stupid movie end? Page 382. > **Crow T. Robot** : How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 98. - Mystery Science 3000 - Attack of the giant leeches. [/back to thread] What? Oh, yeah the facts, for more pointed criticism one should look at the dictionary in cases like this. No, not Websters, but the Skeptics Dictionary: > **[Dianetics - Scientology - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com](https://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html)** > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > The scientific fact, observed and tested, is that the organism, in the presence of physical pain, lets the analyzer get knocked out of circuit so that there is a limited quantity or no quantity at all of personal awareness as a unit organism (Hubbard, 71). > > > > ``` > > Hubbard asserts that these are scientific facts based on observations and tests, but the fact is there hasn’t been any real work done in this field. > [@](#): > > What is the evidence that engrams exist and that they are “hard-wired” into cells during physically or emotionally painful experiences? Hubbard doesn’t say that he’s done any laboratory studies, but he says that > > > [@](#): > > > > in dianetics, on the level of laboratory observation, we discover much to our astonishment that cells are evidently sentient in some currently inexplicable way. Unless we postulate a human soul entering the sperm and ovum at conception, there are things which no other postulate will embrace than that these cells are in some way sentient (Hubbard, 71). > > This explanation is not on the “level of laboratory observation” but is a false dilemma and begs the question. Furthermore, the theory of souls entering zygotes has at least one advantage over Hubbard’s own theory: it is not deceptive and is clearly metaphysical. Hubbard tries to clothe his metaphysical claims in scientific garb. > [@](#): > > There is no possible way to empirically test such claims. A “science” that consists of nothing but such claims is not a science, but a pseudoscience. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641.md?page=2)