# 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:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**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, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/21 "2011-05-14T17:31:25Z")
> [@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 The part I linked to had a nice summation in answer to the question the OP asked and cited its sources. I don’t know what your beef is. People (even scientists!) do cite secondary sources instead of doing original research. What am I going to do, hastily assemble a clinical trial dividing my cats into control groups and experimental groups? ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2011, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/22 "2011-05-14T17:44:58Z")
> [@tnetennba](#): > > What am I going to do, hastily assemble a clinical trial dividing my cats into control groups and experimental groups? This! I heartily endorse this idea! ---
**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, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/23 "2011-05-14T18:01:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > [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. > > [/back to thread] Whoops, that is actually from Mystery Science Theater 3000 _ **Hercules Against The Moon Men** _ ---
**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, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/24 "2011-05-14T18:12:42Z")
> [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > This! I heartily endorse this idea! Project is underway. Well, damn, the fat one just went clear. ---
**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 15, 2011, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/25 "2011-05-15T02:10:59Z")
> [@tnetennba](#): > > The part I linked to had a nice summation in answer to the question the OP asked and cited its sources. I don’t know what your beef is. People (even scientists!) do cite secondary sources instead of doing original research. What am I going to do, hastily assemble a clinical trial dividing my cats into control groups and experimental groups? Loosen up your bun there, Felix. I was merely bemused at the ironicality of it all: “It ain’t science! Look, Wikipedia says so!” mmm ---
**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 15, 2011, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/26 "2011-05-15T02:12:00Z")
> [@Hambil](#): > > 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. Cite? (other than Wikipedia :)) mmm ---
**Author:** ![robert\_columbia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e79b87/32.png) [@robert\_columbia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robert_columbia)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/27 "2011-05-15T02:21:23Z")
Well, as a computer programmer, I’ll say that Hubbard’s diagrams of human brain functioning are strikingly similar to the architecture of an electronic computer. It’s interesting to see the human brain modeled like this. No, I don’t follow that path, but it’s interesting. (Sorry, don’t have a cite. It’s been a while since I picked up Dianetics. I know I have a copy somewhere.) ---
**Author:** ![Hambil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hambil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hambil)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/28 "2011-05-15T02:21:43Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > Cite? (other than Wikipedia :)) > mmm [link](http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html) ---
**Author:** ![Hambil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hambil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hambil)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/29 "2011-05-15T02:37:57Z")
By the way, classic message board meme - you make a wild assertion with no links then demand I produce links to refute you. ---
**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 15, 2011, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/30 "2011-05-15T02:42:27Z")
> [@Hambil](#): > > Numerous studies have been done to show it is as accurate or more accurate than any other source out there. > [@Hambil](#): > > [link](http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html) From your link: > [@](#): > > They did, however, discover a series of factual errors, omissions or misleading statements. All told, Wikipedia had 162 such problems, while Britannica had 123. > > That averages out to 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia. > > “The (Nature) article is saying that Wikipedia has a third more errors” than Britannica, said Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica. Care to try again? mmm ETA: We have really hijacked the OP, which was not my intention. My assertion has not changed: Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference. To be honest, though, I’m really not that passionate about the topic to continue. So, agree to disagree, and all that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/31 "2011-05-15T02:50:10Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > Loosen up your bun there, Felix. I was merely bemused at the ironicality of it all: > > “It ain’t science! Look, Wikipedia says so!” > mmm The irony ain’t there, Scout. Someone asked a question and I linked to the answer. That’s all. It wasn’t “real science,” and it wasn’t an argument. It was a resource they might found useful. It cites other resources. That’s how people answer questions sometimes. With answers. But I’ll take your bemusement on your word. ---
**Author:** ![tnetennba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7993a0/32.png) [@tnetennba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tnetennba)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/32 "2011-05-15T02:52:53Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > We have really hijacked the OP, which was not my intention. My assertion has not changed: Wikipedia is not an authoritative reference. To be honest, though, I’m really not that passionate about the topic to continue. So, agree to disagree, and all that. 🙂 The Wikipedia article I linked to cited its sources, ones which I knew to be accurate because I’ve researched the topic myself. Sorry for not digging up the original articles and scanning them, but there’s copyrights to consider and it seemed like a pain in the ass. ---
**Author:** ![humanafterall](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/humanafterall/32/19654_2.png) [@humanafterall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humanafterall)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2011, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/33 "2011-05-15T03:51:47Z")
Meh. I’ve always considered Scientology to be a kind of joke, I don’t hate it, I just find it amusing… ---
**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 15, 2011, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641/34 "2011-05-15T05:52:17Z")
> [@tnetennba](#): > > 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. And this he did, if memory serves, just a few years after badmouthing religion as a scam perpetrated upon the gullible. mmm [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dianetics-and-facts/581641.md?page=1)