Wikipedia: Dianetics/Talk

This article is totally biased. It does not present the subject of Dianetics in a form that any practioner or student of the subject could agree with.

I agree with the above, but I don't know how to change. It should not present the subject in a form that only practictioners or students could agree with; it should present the subject in a form that everyone could (if grudgingly) agree with. To learn how this is possible and desirable, see neutral point of view. --LMS

As it happens. I do. Being a practitioner (Auditor) for over 20 years, I have pretty good idea of what Dianetics is all about and what it does, and doesn't do.

OTOH, having been exposed to the rants (in writing and verbally) of many rabid opponents, I have a pretty good idea of what their counterclaims are.

Will be some weeks, probably, before I can have my version ready and posted. Meanwhile, if someone else can do a good job, that's fine. -- Jason Scribner

Jason, you'd better believe that any detailed article, particularly from an avowed practitioner, is going to be subjected to the harshest critical scrutiny as regards how fairly it presents facts. It should not be a presentation of Dianetics from the point of view of a practitioner, so you're going to have step out of your own skin for bit, or suffer people beating your work into proper submission. A good article would include facts about the history of Dianetics and its public reception, competing views as to whether it is just a sham, details about how professional psychologists view it, and so forth. --LMS

: Jason, you'd better believe that any detailed article, particularly from an avowed practitioner, is going to be subjected to the harshest critical scrutiny as regards how fairly it presents facts.

I understand and expect that. I also expect a similar treatment of Psychology, which currently (except for one weasel-worded paragraph) only presents their side. The Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis articles, as I write this, are trivial.

: It should not be a presentation of Dianetics from the point of view of a practitioner, so you're going to have step out of your own skin for bit, or suffer people beating your work into proper submission.

That Dianetics teaches certain things are facts that I intend to present (though not in fine detail). Whether or not those facts are true or that the practice is effective are presently matters of controversy which I will bring up.

: A good article would include facts about the history of Dianetics and its public reception, competing views as to whether it is just a sham, details about how professional psychologists view it, and so forth.

The professional psychs detest Dianetics and have been fighting it from its first announcement. I can present details about how they have been fighting it (this will require some research); the Psychs have never presented any evidence that refutes it (of which I am aware). All they have ever said is that it doesn't fit their theories, which is true. IMHO, it just so happens that their theories are wrong or incomplete; just as the Alchemists theories of phlogiston causing combustion were wrong and eventually disproved by Priestly?.

Public reception has been very good from the start, which is one reason the Psychs fear and detest it. What I intend to present in the article are the facts behind these assertions, not the opinions I stated above. It's quite fine by me to have readers present counterclaims, or add them directly to the article, of course. But then we get, eventually, into the problem of counter-counter...counter-claims. :)

BTW, it seems to be a matter of fact that Dianetics is more verifiable and better validated than any other field of mental health. The WikiPedia article on Psychology even states (if briefly) that their theories have not and cannot be rigorously proven. --Jason

I don't think the psychology article says precisely that, or if it does, it should be properly qualified.

Public reaction to Dianetics has largely been scorn and ridicule, as far as I was aware. I've never met a person whom I knew took it seriously. --LMS