The cornerstone of the “Scientology lore” is Dianetics. If the notion of the engram is false, then no one can proceed to the OT levels, the whole Scientology building falls apart, there is no Salvation in the Scientology sense.
Some time ago I posted a thread on this website, The Dianetics Fiasco. At that thread I presented theoretical considerations showing that the engram idea is self-contradictory, and, therefore, there is no such thing as the engram. For some theoretical considerations are enough to conclude that the engram madness is a product of Hubbard’s overactive imagination. But not everyone accepts theoretical analysis of Dianetics, they want to see experimental research showing that engrams do not exist. Until recently I did not know that such experimental data exists. But, lo and behold, there is such research!
=================================

The purpose of the experiment was to provide an experimental test of Hubbard's engram hypothesis. Dianetics uses concepts and constructs which, for the most part, are gross over-simplifications of concepts and constructs culled from general semantics, cybernetics, dynamic psychologies, and academic psychology. The one construct that is new and seems crucial is the construct of the engram. This must not be confused with Koffka's or Semon's use of the term. Koffka (1935) understands by it a memory trace of a perceptual event, while Semon (1920) understands by it a relatively permanent change in the excitatory substance as a consequence of, and congruent with, an excitatory process. Hubbard means by it an automatic recording of events during states of unconsciousness of varying degrees. Koffka's engram, in Hubbard's scheme of things, is but a bit of information filed in the standard memory bank. While there are many superficial similarities between the concept of Hubbard and the concept of Semon, as for example in the congruence between excitation and engram, engram-chains (Hubbard, 1950) and homophony (Semon, 1920), there are vast differences in generality and the anlytical considerations of the engram properties and their consequences.
The difference between the concept of traditional psychology and those of Hubbard may be schematized as follows:
Traditional psychology
Unconsiousness Focal consciousness
increasing clarity of awareness
---------------------------------->
increasing clarity of memory image



Dianetics
increasing involvements of attention units
------------------------------------------------> Analytic Mind
increasing function of standard memory bank


increasing involvements of automatic recording
Reactive Mind <-------------------------------------------------
increasing pervasiveness of engram formation



Thus, in traditional psychology retention is a direct function of the degree of awareness, while in dianetics it is independent of awareness. What varies with the degree of awareness is not retention, but the mechanism by which retention is accomplished. The difference is the crux of the matter, lending itself well to experimental investigation. From these theoretical approaches two diametrically opposed hypotheses follow, only one of which can be verified. If an individual should be placed, by one means or another, into an unconscious state, then, according to traditional psychology, no retention of the events occurring about him should take place and consequently, no reports of such events can be elicited from the individual, no matter what methods of elicitation are employed (hypothesis I). According to dianetics, retention should take place with high fidelity and, therefore, an account of the events can be elicited by means of dianetics auditing (hypothesis II). Hubbard claims that he has recovered from surgical patients long conversations between doctors and nurses which took place while the patients were in deep anesthesia; this is in concordance with hypothesis II. The following procedure was evolved to test the above hypotheses.
Procedure
In the performance of this experiment the cooperation of the Dianetic Research Foundation, Los Angeles, California, was secured. This organization furnished the subject, an approximately 30 year old, male employee of the organization, and a number of certified auditors.
The subject reclined on a bed. Dr. A. Davis, M.D., administered intravenously 0.75 gram of sodium pentothal in the presence of the senior author and a representative of the Dianetic Research Foundation. When, after a number of appropriate tests, Dr. Davis indicated that the subject was unconscious, all those present left the room. Mr Lebovits then entered the room and read to the subject a 35-word passage from a physics text. Following a suggestion from a representative of the Dianetic Research Foundation, the passage was "anchored" by some pain. Mr. Lebovits produced pain during the reading of the last 18 words of the passage by exerting pressure upon the tissue between the subject's fingers. After reading the passage he left the room. The subject was left resting for over an hour, after which he was awakened.
The proceeding was recorded on a wire-recorder set up by the experimenters and on a tape-recorder set up by the representative of the Dianetic Research Foundation. These wire and tape recordings were placed in the custody of a co-worker of the experimenters. It was agreed that the tape would be returned to the representatives of the Dianetic Research Foundation when the passage will have been recovered from the subject.
In the selection of the subject and the passage, the following considerations were paramount. It was thought that, in order to increase the validity of the experiment, it must be conducted within the frame of reference of dianetics.
Thus, in order to avoid as much as possible conditions which might unnecessarily lengthen the auditing process by facilitiating the operation of what Hubbard calls "wild" variables, the connection of the event with the previous engram chains, we looked for a subject who had "sonic" and whose reactive bank was well on the way toward "clearance". The subject furnished by the Dianetic Foundation had "sonic", according to the Foundation's representatives, and was currently undergoing dianetic processing.
["Sonic" may be defined as vivid auditory imagery representing verbatim reproductions of past conversations which occurred during states of pain and/or unconsciousness and were recorded in engrams. "Clearance" is the end state; the reactive bank is empty, and the individual reacts in a purely natural fashion.]
The passage selected met the following criteria. It was free of all personal references, such as proper nouns, personal pronouns, and other parts of speech which might be construed in a personal way.
Two days after the implantation of the engram, the subject and the two auditors returned to the University. The subject was audited in the presence of two of the experimenters. During two hours of auditing nothing relevant was produced. It was then proposed by the dianetic auditors that the recovery might take a little time and that further auditing be done at the Foundation. It was further agreed that a report would be forwarded to the experimenters as soon as the engram was contacted, and that the subject and auditors would return to the University to record the "running" of the engram so that it may be compared with the wire which was made during the implantation.
Results
Approximately one and one-half months later the first report was received, covering 31 hours of auditing. Since the report is too long, only the summary covering the last few sessions will be quoted.
"The sessions following have been run in very much the same way. Additional phrases that have turned up are as follows:
'You can remember this.'
'To supplement the equation we need three additional factors.'
'Number one is the result of prime plus three.'
'Number two is that result put into prime again.'
'Number three is the combination of the other two.'
'Therefore where the equation is supplemented by additional factors, three components need to be considered.'
'Number one is the result of the prime plus three added to the original equation.'
'Number three is the combination of factors one and two.'
'Then to supplement the equation three additional factors must be considered.'
'Number one is the result of the prime plus three'.
'Number two is the............of the prime.'
'Then when the equation is supplemented by additional factors three factors need to be considered.'
'Number two is the..........'
'I don't care what you say to me.'
'I won't do it. Not for you or anybody else.' (Latched on to earlier engram which was run to reduction.)
It is not possible at this time to confirm any of the phrases which have been so far contacted to be the control phrases.
The sense of reality of the pre-clear is weak in that he experiences full sonic in the prenatal bank but has no sonic in the control engram."
To the above might be added that the subject as well as the auditors had ample opportunity observe that Mr Lebovits carried a physics text under his arm.
Comparison with the selected passage shows that none of the above-quoted phrases, nor any other phrases quoted in the report, bear any relationship at all to the selected passage.
Since the reception of the first interim report, in November 1950, the experimenter tried frequently and repeatedly to obtain further reports, but so far without success.

Discussion
Such results as these are contrary to hypothesis II, but they tend to confirm hypothesis I.
Although the negative results do not preclude success at another time and although the N in this case is only one, it is the opinion of the investigators that the negative results of the experiment are fairly conclusive since the experimental conditions were well controlled. Moreover, the nature of the experiment is not one that lends itself to the use of many subjects, as it involves careful selection of the subjects, medical administration of the anaesthetics, and medical supervision of the anaesthetized subject.

Summary
This paper formulates two hypotheses concerning the retention of events occurring during states of unconsciousness. It describes an experiment in which a passage selected from a physics text was read to a subject placed in an unconscious state by administration of sodium pentothal. During a period of almost six months, dianetic auditors were unable to recover the passage. Thus, the engram hypothesis was not substantiated by this experiment. “
Fox et al.

http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/engrams.html

It is also possible to conduct scientific research showing that implants do not exist. Anyone can do it; if I were a Scientologist I would be doing it right now.
Hubbard warned that a person will die if he tries to go OT solo, without the auditor’s help because his implants will be re-stimulated. I say this is bullshit -- anyone can do self-auditing to, say, OT III level without hurting himself in any way. But this experiment will show that the implants do not exist.
I am not a Scientologist, so I am not going to waste my time running this experiment. But people who still believe in Hubbard’s Tech could do it if they want to find the truth about the Tech.

What would it take to convince Scientologists that Hubbard’s Tech is a quackery? (Apparently, they reject any scientific research showing that engrams do not exist).
I think that there is a way of showing them that Hubbard erred, but at the moment I do not have the data to demonstrate that.
Hubbard wrote that he used Dianetics procedures to cure himself from severe body injuries that he had during the World War II. But his medical records show that he sustained no body injuries during his military service. However, the Scientologists chose to believe that military records showing Hubbard’s miraculous cure do exist because such records were manufactured by someone working for CoS.
At the moment we do not know the names of people who produced falsified records of Hubbard’s restored health. But at least we could establish a timeline of events that led to manufacture of Hubbard military records (it was a pre-Miscavige era).
CoS was established in 1954, so the false records were produced somewhere in early 1960. It seems to me that Pat Broeker knew about the manufactured records and, maybe, even participated in doctoring them. There were others, of course, but I am not a Scientology historian (the only other possible falsifier that I know of is Campbell, but he is dead).
Pat Broeker is nowhere to be found; probably, he is hiding from vindictive Miscavige. There may be others as well, it would be very helpful to know their names.

Demented LRH,

I understand that you've been hurt by Scn. I'd rather call it by misuse of it, but the point is I'm sorry you got hurt. A lot of people have been hurt by the Co$, and a lot of people state flat out that the Co$ is not just misusing but is actively abusing a technology. I do not mean to offend or upset you any further. I would like to see the Co$ come down, and I'd like to see people there who lied and cheated and stole and imprisoned people and tortured them, brought to trial.

I also would like to pursue what I see as correct Scientology as my private affair in conjunction with others who wish to do the same. I met some Seventh Day Adventists once and talked to them for a couple of hours. They came to my house, rang my doorbell, told me who they were, what they were there for, so I offered them coffee and we talked. They have some beliefs that seem odd to me (God is sending an apocalypse, and some will be chosen to live in Paradise, here on a cleansed Earth - if I got it right). I concluded I wouldn't fit in, and they wouldn't accept my views as I presented them, so we shook hands, wished each other well, and they never bothered me again. It was an experience. Nice guys. Cream and no sugar is just downright sacriligeous to me, but hey ....

I just want the same rights they have, and I treat people with at least the same respect they do. I don't go knocking on someone's door. If someone comes to me and asks me how I changed so much, and what I'm doing, if I'm going to a gym or taking vitamins or something, and I tell them and they think about it, or ask more, then I don't want a bad name associated with Scientology.

I believe your assertions - such as "... Hubbard's Tech is a quackery ..." are unsustainable. But I do not want to "make you wrong" personally. Neither do I want to argue like a lawyer with clever tricks to undermine what you assert. If I may, I'd like to try to point out some stuff, and offer some personal experience: not to make you wrong or undermine but to show some information that may improve and refine your own conclusions.

All scientific research is based on personal observations. Even when you get to physicists who take data showing invisible particles impacting on a screen (so by deduction, something must be there making an impact), it is a personal observation. The instruments are there recording data invisible to the eye, but some living being has to see the instruments, just like some living being had to built them.

Will you accept that as a valid premise?

Tenor.

P.S. I do not want to undermine or violate the stance of this forum either, so I offer this:

http://www.xenu.net/cb-faq.html#faq1

"Why do you hate Scientology?"

First of all we need to agree on the terms used. Scientology is the belief or the doctrine of the Scientology "technology" or "religion", while Church of Scientology is the organisation.

Hello Tenor,
I really appreciate your concern about my well-being; personally, I like you because you are very nice and supportive person.
I wrote a lot about my Scientology experiences; however, you are new to the group so you have not seen the descriptions of my encounter with Scientology.
I have not been hurt by CoS in any form in part because my encounter with Scientology was very short. I wanted to continue Hubbard’s Dianetics research because in his Dianetics book he wrote that more scientific discoveries are needed in this field. I reached Level 0 on the Bridge and after that joined Sea Org. I could not care less about the planet clearing. At that time I was working as a paralegal, which is far below the lawyer level, and I run out of money, so I could not continue moving up the Bridge. OSA promised to put me on a fast track, so I could reach Level V in 4-5 months. I was planning to leave Sea Org after that and start my own Dianetics research. OSA lied, as usual. I was not taking any Bridge courses and was not getting any auditing (I did not care much about personal auditing, but I wanted to audit the others, which I saw as a beginning of my research). I was attending the management courses only. After 6 months of slavering for OSA and not getting what I was promised, I got enough of it and left Sea Org. After that I was attending Scientology seminars only because I begun taking stock market broker courses at UCLA, and did not have time for Scientology classes. Soon after getting stock market broker license I moved to New York City and begun my new career as a stock broker. At that time I was not taking Scientology courses because I became interested in stock market analysis and begun working on my MS in Financial Engineering. Soon after competing the course of study I became a stock market analyst, which is my current occupation. At that time my friend, who was a former Scientologist, gave me Hubbard’s screenplay, Revolt in the Stars, which is based on OT III data. At that time there was no Internet Xenu data, so this was an eye-opening reading for me. I came to conclusion that Hubbard was either a conman or a madman.

Scientific research is objective, which means that its result does not depend on the person who does it. Several individuals might be observing a recording of an experiment, but they see the same numbers on the screen representing the measurements.

The research quoted in this post was done by New York University scientists in conjunction with the Dianetics Foundation of Los Angeles. Apparently, the Foundation representatives made no attempt to dispute the scientists’ conclusion.

“All scientific research is based on personal observations. Even when you get to physicists who take data showing invisible particles impacting on a screen (so by deduction, something must be there making an impact), it is a personal observation. The instruments are there recording data invisible to the eye, but some living being has to see the instruments, just like some living being had to built them.”
Tenor.

Yes, the interpretation of physics experiments that you provided does exist, it is the one based on philosophical system called scientific realism. But I am a positivist, and the positivists give a completely different interpretation of the same data. I’ll be short because at this moment I do not see how it relates to the tread’s article.

There is no such thing as invisible particles, but there are mathematical representations of what some call elementary particles (they are called “rotation groups“). You can observe macroscopic events only, which is what you see in the Wilson chamber or in a similar apparatus.

“If I may, I'd like to try to point out some stuff, and offer some personal experience: not to make you wrong or undermine but to show some information that may improve and refine your own conclusions.”
Tenor.

It’s an argument, Tenor. You have to make me wrong to prove your point. I am a fortunate one in a sense that Scientology turned out to be harmless for me, although completely useless. Because of that there is no passion and/or anguish in my anti-Scientology writings, they are ice cold, just like the logical deductions in the Whitehead- Russell famous book on logic.

Demented LRH,

Congrats on using your head and getting out when you saw how things were going. I have often wished more people had done the same thing, or formed up their own groups, or that the Mission Holders had used whichever choice words I imagine you may have used when you walked out. I admire your motivation to help others and to do research into a field such as Dianetics. I think the motivation is relatively clear: we'd all like a better world. No huge "Mother Teresa" statement. (Given your subsequent success and "ice-cold" approach, I really can't resist laughing a bit, "You joined the Sea Org?!!" Hoho. "Hey, did you "route out" properly?" "Did you get your money back, or are you paying your "freeloader debt" off?") (My laughter may serve a useful social purpose to any who may have doubts about how to walk out a door, that is before they get locked down. It's not hard: if you make up your mind to leave, then just don't show up! "Walk out the back, Jack! Make a new plan, Stan! Drop off the key, Lee, and set yourself free!" (Simon and Garfunkel.) Or call the cops, Pops! Or just run, son! The psychology of those who are still in is something worth a long and carefully interviewed book.)

The sad thing is that there are people who are still stuck in the mentality, or the "push" to make Scn a known name on a global basis. There is no question that Hubbard succeeded in making Scientology well-known. Thing is, so many people seem to have progressively missed the point that it is for the individual's betterment and personal freedom. The core of that is learning and using correct technology, and that is what you wanted to study (per the above) and were promised and then denied, and in my book, that promise followed by denial is very difficult to either excuse or forgive. It may not be a legal crime, but it is a personal moral crime. Maybe a Ranger would just hipcheck it into the boards, but many of us were lambs.

I've done some historical reading, and it seems the pizza really started to hit the fan around 1976, culminating in David Mayo's stomp out ca. 1982 (LRH personally trained Class XII Auditor and C/S - can't get any higher in technical knowledge). I've heard that he took a sizeable following of tech people with him, and over the next few years more than half the Scns left. He opened up a center of his own, with his people, which became an instant success because the quality was just incomparably higher than Co$ fare, but the Co$ sued the guy out of existence. The life of the organization took precedence over delivery of quality product. That progressively became the rule, and today there sits the Co$ with maybe 5% of its income from actual services, and 95% from book drives and fund-raising.

As for the argument, I will "argue" to try to arrive at a truth or truths, not for the sake of making someone wrong or making them look bad; and even less for the immense and pointless joy of throwing words around. I do not really care about experiments in physics and doctrines of scientific realism, nor positivism, nor distinctions between a group of individuals acting independently and one individual alone observing (not at this point), nor do I really care about fine points concerning invisible particles and elementary particles. I used the accepted science of physics as one of many possible examples, and I believe you must have understood what I meant. This is not a discussion of physics.

You managed to avoid answering my question: do you accept as a valid premise that all scientific research is based on personal observation?

Tenor.

Personal observation is important in science, but anecdotal evidence is not proof. For example, thousands of British people swear homeopathy is helping them, but homeopathy has never been proven, especially the part where the active ingredient is diluted to where it is zero molecules or a few molecules. The "wins" that CoS insist that students write, when they are still feeling euphoric over an auditing session, may be earnest descriptions of the student's perceptions, but they don't prove anything other than a placebo effect.

Don Carlo,

" ... but they don't prove anything other than a placebo effect."

(Man, I hate to argue, and I hate to do this, but ...) how do student success stories prove a placebo effect? (You see why I don't like arguments - it's just too easy to "sound smart". I don't mean to be that way. Maybe I misunderstand argument, but I think it derives from "to clarify". I hope you appreciate I didn't say "to make clear".) I'll grant you that many are perhaps "enthusiastic" at the time, but some express cumulative gains over time, and can be seen to grow increasingly perceptive, and increasingly considerate of those who may read them. Your perception and deduction is correct about what I was going to say next (stated gains experienced first hand). I'm watching the thread on Tommy Gorman as more important at the moment. That assault was ugly.

Tenor.

Tenor I addressed this line of thought when I referred to the "indifferent subject" in a posting I made to you a while back. Perhaps what I wrote wasn't very clear. (And it may well be wrong.)

Anyway, fwiw, the point was this.

Scientists often report results using language such as "it was observed ...", rather than "I saw ...". (Not always, but I believe that the practise is nevertheless significant.)

Everyone knows that whatever was observed was observed by a particular individual (or group of individuals) at a particular point in time and space (or particular points in space and time). Experiences are individual things, had by individual people. But the form of words "it was observed" is not therefore intended to mislead, making the experiencing appear (impossibly) impersonal. Rather it may be understood to express the claim that the personal features of the person or persons observing (and the particular features of their location in space and time) are not relevant: the individuals were observing simply as "one" would observe.

This implies a number of things.

One implication is the repeatability of the observation by different individuals suitably situated.

Another implication is that (where relevant) account has been taken of the possibility that personal features of the observers will have affected their observations. Results of a pharmaceutical trial, for example, may be examined without the researchers knowing whether they are looking at results relating to "cases" or results relating to "controls". This guards against their reported observations being consciously or unconsciously influenced by their beliefs/desires concerning the likely/desirable outcome of the trial.

In direct response to the question you ask DLRH. No, scientific research is not based on personal observation. It is, of course, based (in part) on observations made by people. But these observations are not personal in character. They are observations made in the capacity of (what I have been terming) the "indifferent subject".

[[ Personally I think the "indifferent subject" is problematic. It is an operating fiction of scientific practise, rather than a straightforward reality. Observation is not a simple passive opening of the senses -- it is a form of active engagement with the world, and complex scientific observation is something which is learned and which cannot in fact be practised by anyone (any "one"). What is observable to the trained eye, or indeed to the educated mind, is not observable to all. And the indifferentness of the "indifferent subject" is itself something which must be learned. However I don't think this complexity is relevant in the present context. The function of the "indifferent subject" really does structure scientific practise, even though the way it does so is more complex than would be expected by a person who had a naive faith that this subject was some really existing entity. ]]

Success stories do not prove placebo effect. But, placebo effect is a very real phenomenon that doesn't really need any more proving. Placebo effect phenomenon shows us that mere expectancy of results produces actual results. A scientologist doesn't care about this because any results at all are senior to everything else. But those who hold science in high regard, see placebo effect as a factor when analyzing the truthiness* of any claims of workability, especially from scientologists.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

For more info: see the book "The Biology of belief" by Bruce Lipton. It explains the science that underlies placebo effect.

Hello Tenor,
Let’s go over your question: “Do you accept as a valid premise that all scientific research is based on personal observation?”
I have never seen the term “personal observation” being used in scientific articles, so I am not quite sure what you mean by it. But I have seen the term “experimental data “ quite often. If “experimental data” is an equivalent of “personal observation”, then my answer to your question is YES.

You are absolutely right -- there is no need to discuss physics in general. So let’s turn our attention to the scientific article that I presented at this thread. To start with, I am going to ask you these questions:

1. Do you believe that the authors of the article truthfully described their experiment?
If your answer is NO, then we’ll stop right here and discuss why do you think that they falsified the data. If your answer is YES, then we will proceed to the next question.

2. Do you think that engrams could be artificially installed in a person?
I use the word “artificially” to indicate that a person was rendered unconscious on purpose, then certain phrases were uttered in the vicinity of his body to create the engrams in him.

3. Do you think that the authors of the article used a correct method to render the subject of study unconscious?

That’s all for now, we’ll see in what direction this discussion is going.

Almost forgot: I wanted to reply to your statement “First of all we need to agree on the terms used. Scientology is the belief or the doctrine of the Scientology "technology" or "religion", while Church of Scientology is the organisation“

Until recently I thought that Scientology is a religion. But Don Carlo convinced me that Scientology is not a religion; he produced an extremely interesting thread regarding this topic. I fully agree with him. He is much more qualified that I to discuss Scientology as a non-religion.
Don Carlo, perhaps you want to bring that thread back to give Tenor opportunity to respond to it.

Operatingwog,
Basically, I fully agree with your philosophical principles regarding the nature of personal observation. My only objection is that the article that I presented at this thread does not require such extensive analysis of the principles on which the experiments are based. The article is simple, so I am trying to keep a discussion of it as simplistic as possible.

^^ OK. Sounds sensible. I've been thinking more about what you said in the other thread about Hubbard, operant conditioning, etc. I think it's very interesting. I've been meaning to get back to you about it & will do so when I have a bit more time.

To isolate the placebo* effect, scientists would set up a group of newbies doing scientology auditing versus other groups doing different talk therapies with different devices. Before and after the therapy they have to be double-blind tested for "improvement" in IQ, eye tests, & susceptibility to colds. Double blind means the scientists don't know who was in what group. If, when the double-blind is lifted at the end, and the other groups had as much benefit, (or were equally unable to raise IQ, eyesight & immunity) as the scientology auditing group, that shows that there is no specific benefit to scientology auditing.

I wish a pro-Scientology person would fund such a double-blind study at a real university. Until then, all claims of "wins" are just anecdotal evidence and not "proof."

While CoS isn't science, the famous philosopher Sir James Frazer would say it's not religion either. See The Golden Bough: Me-the-Magician practices aren't religion
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=37805

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Don Carlo is correct. But this also points to the fact that the scientific study that the OP cites was not a double blind study either. And its just one study. In order to be conclusive, it would need to be a double blind study and it would need to be repeated by several dis-related scientists or organization.