From: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (L GENE BATTIN)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Truth by Observation
Message-ID: <1991Jul27.201110.21196@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 27 Jul 91 18:43:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1991Jul27.201110.21196
References: <RBNSTEIN.91Jul24205734@bucsf.bu.edu>
Sender: news@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: battin@venus.iucf.indiana.edu
Distribution: alt
Organization: VENUS.IUCF.INDIANA.EDU
Lines: 125
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.3-4
Nntp-Posting-Host: venus.iucf.indiana.edu

In article <RBNSTEIN.91Jul24205734@bucsf.bu.edu>, rbnstein@bucsf.bu.edu 
(Michael Rubinstein) writes...
> 
>I observe the sun rising and falling in the sky.
>Scientists and teachers tell me that the sun is actually NOT moving, but
>that it is in fact the Earth that is moving around the sun. 

	Sorry, but no, Science does not really say that at all.
	What Science says is that the Earth and Sun mutually revolve
	around their common center of gravity (along with various
	other motions measured with respect to other reference
	frames, such as the Galaxy as a whole, etc., etc), which 
	motion can be considered as _either_ the Sun circling the 
	Earth, _or_ vice-versa, or any desired "combination", depending 
	on your preferred frame of reference.  Furthermore, Science
	backs up its assertions with very accurate formulae which
	it invites _anyone_ to use to predict or retrodict results
	of observations of this motion (for example future and past 
	eclipse observations, changes in the length of the day and year,
	etc.) and will even agree to any needed modifications of its 
	formulae if anyone succeeds in demonstrating that its predictions 
	are invalid.

>                                                             They provide
>reams of evidence to back this up, but it is challenging material.

(Sarcasm alert!)
	Well, if you're intelligent enough to learn how to post to
	the net, you're intelligent enough to master _that_ material.

>Who should I believe?

	Ah, but that's the point! You don't have to take anyone's
	"word" on the subject.  Go ahead and make your own observations,
	and I can guarantee you that if you can convincingly demonstrate
	that Science's teachings _don't_ work, Science will gladly
	accept whatever modifications are neccessary.  What do you
	think professional Scientists _do_ all day long in the lab,
	eh?
> 
>I observe myself to be human like everyone else.

	Who should I believe? :-)

>Scientists and teachers tell me that I am a member of an inferior and
>inherently corrupt race, 

	Oh, yeah?  Could you provide me with an accredited Science
	textbook that actually does make this bald statement?
	Or are you just forcing your own interpretation on some
	material that really says something else?  References,
	please.

>                         that I will therefore amount to no good, and
>that I deserve to be either enslaved or exterminated. 

	Again, please back this up with a reference, where you can
	prove to me that Science has _anything_ to say about your
	slavery or your extermination.  Science is _not_ in the business
	of making moral judgments on ethical issues!

>                                                       They provide no
>satisfactory evidence, 

	And have you stopped beating your wife yet? :-)
	Seriously, Science _couldn't_ provide any satisfactory evidence
	concerning your slavery or extermination, since it doesn't
	deal with such subjects.  Now, if you want evidence concerning
	the mutual motion of the Earth and the Sun, go to any good
	public library and check out some books on Astronomy, then
	come back and tell us there isn't any evidence! (I only mention
	this because you aren't clear about _what_ evidence you claim
	Science lacks.)

>                        but they are supported by many powerful, admired,
>and respected people.

	Maybe there's something to this.  After all, Einstein (the 
	quintessential 20th century Scientist) was admired, respected, and 
	powerful enough to have some influence with a certain American
	President when the Atom Bomb project was proposed.  Now, why
	do you suppose that was so?  Was it because he was a member of
	some secret society or "ruling class"?  Or was it because
	he had a brain, and actually used it to achieve something
	instead of sitting around whining about a situation he couldn't
	be bothered to think about?

>Who should I believe?

	Again, Science does _not_ ask for your "belief".  However,
	if you are unwilling to use your brain, or don't have the
	time or inclination to investigate something on your own, 
	and _have_ to have an opinion on some subject(s) covered by 
	Science, you can always _choose_ to buy its findings on faith.  
	You might ask yourself some simple questions when making
	this choice, like, "Does it work?", and "What's its 'track 
	record'?".

> 
>It's not easy using your brain all the time, is it?
> 

	Yeah, but it _is_ good for you!

	A good place to start, IMHO, is with any of the many educational
	books dealing with Science written by Issac Asimov, who is one
	of the best "explainers" of Science around.  Any public library
	has probably got scads of these (some may be in the Juvenile section,
	but adults can benefit from them anyway.)
	Judging by some of the claims you've made about what Science
	teaches, I really think you need to try again at the "ground floor"
	because I honestly believe that you have a very poor grasp of what
	Science is about, and I honestly believe that you can attain a better
	grasp all by yourself, if you want to.

>--
>Michael Rubinstein
>rbnstein@bucsf.bu.edu
>DISCLAIMER: The opinions above are solely mine, and I refuse to mark
>them with IMHO's. If you can't tell fact from opinion, you should be
>running for office instead of reading news.

	Battin
	at iucf.indiana.edu
	no .sig yet