Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!sri-unix!amdahl!drivax!macleod From: macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) Newsgroups: sci.research Subject: How was Dianetics disproved? Message-ID: <2610@drivax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Oct-87 03:14:07 EDT Article-I.D.: drivax.2610 Posted: Mon Oct 19 03:14:07 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Oct-87 01:52:35 EDT References: Reply-To: macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) Organization: Digital Research, Monterey, CA Lines: 21 In article MINSKY@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes: (discussion of fallacies in Dean Drive mechanics) :...I wrote back (to John Campbell, who was championing the Dean Drive : through the science-fiction magazine "Amazing", later "Analog") :pointing out that every real scientist would sacrifice an :arm, leg, or gonad cheerfully to be able to PROVE that all the others :were wrong. It went on and one, with Ron Hubbard's Dianetics, too, :and a silly machine that work just as well when you replaced the :hardware by a circuit diagram of it. John Campbell had a lot of fringe science interests, but I thought that his involvement with L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics ended when he became disgusted with the way Hubbard was running the Dianetics organizations - as his personal fiefs, with no others allowed to contribute to Dianetic research. A recent biography of Hubbard quotes Campbell as saying that to the extent others can duplicate the results and perform useful research, that Dianetics would be a science; otherwise it would be a cult. Did he later come up with specific disproofs of Dianetic theory?