How L Ron Hubbard Tricked You: Scientology Logic vs. Logic

socrates-statueThe key to understanding the true value of Scientology’s logic system called the Data Series lies in understanding the idea that there are many different types of logic. Each logic was built for a purpose, and each logic performs a particular function.

For instance, binary computer logic was created to turn off and on electricity in ever more creative ways via the programming written into your computer. This type of logic was built to run computers.

The data series, a series of essays that L Ron Hubbard wrote in the form of policy letters, was another type of logic. Its purpose was to make Scientology orgs run better by finding the “whys” for expansions and contractions, and thus remove what was causing the obstacles to expansion. That was the real purpose, and the real value, of the Data Series.

You would not use the Data Series to program computers, even though they are both logics. That would be a perversion of its purpose.

Classical logic – the logic created by Socrates and others, and which has been evolving for over 3,000 years now,  has the purpose of evaluating statements and arguments, and is used to preserve the truth through out the reasoning process. It is another form of logic, separate and distinct from computer logic, and Data Series logic. You would not use classical logic to program computers, either.

But Hubbard actually told Scientologists that the Data Series could be used for classical logic. In the second policy letter of the data series, Hubbard told you this:


“LOGIC means the subject of reasoning. Some in ages past have sought to label it a science. But that can be regarded as pretense and pompousness.’
“If there were such a science, men would be able to think. And they can’t.’
“The term itself is utterly forbidding. If you were to read a text on logic, you would go quite mad trying to figure it out, much less learn how to think.”
“Yet logic or the ability to reason is vital to an organizer or administrator. If he can not think clearly, he will not be able to reach the conclusions vital to make correct decisions.”

See how he mixes these two different kinds of logic together? I’ve read many books on logic, and did not go “quite mad” trying to figure it out. And who said “learning how to think” was ever the purpose of logic? And the other gem up there which should be questioned: “Man can’t think”. Huge advancements in every area of medicine, agriculture, space travel, etc – and “Man can’t think?”

There are lots of outpoints, and even falsehoods, in this writing from Hubbard.

So why would Hubbard want to make the subject of classical logic “utterly forbidding” to Scientologists?

Here’s why: By getting them to reject “Earth logic” and getting them to use the Data Series for critical thinking skills instead.

See? A logic that was developed to find the reasons for expansion and contraction in Scientology orgs is being “re-purposed” by Hubbard and used to supplant another logic, and set of thinking skills, that was developed to evaluate statements and arguments, and to preserve the truth throughout the reasoning process.

The Data Series doesn’t work for that. You can’t evaluate arguments, spot logical fallacies, and preserve truth through your reasoning process by using the Data Series. In adopting the Data Series to evaluate statements and arguments and to inspect reasoning you don’t even realize as a Scientologist that you aren’t getting the skills to do that. You don’t even know that you can’t do that with the Data Series.

For instance, the outpoint called “wrong target” in the data series is NOT the same thing as an “ad hominem attack” in classical logic. By only knowing the outpoint of “Wrong target”, you will never be able to spot the logical fallacy inherent in “ad hominem attack” because you have not studied classical logic.

And that was good for Hubbard. Because, as a Scientologist, if you were never able to spot an ad hominem attack, you would also never figure out that his whole PTS/SP technology is based upon the (classical) logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack.

It was a trick.

Why would he do that? Why would he distract you from the skills you need to inspect reasoning, evaluate arguments and claims, and preserve the truth throughout the reasoning process?

So all his other tricks would work on you, of course.