whichphilosophy

Well I did say a subject like this is difficult to discuss amongst people on such posts. You would have to define the difference between self evident and intuitive.

It means reading up on some books applying this to life. Science is per the definition. A concensus as to how we conceive it will cause confusion rather than clarify things. It reminds me of a definition that a platypus is a duck made by a committee. (ie science could be the duck and platypus the consensus of what a duck is).



I do know you sent me some other posts but I will try to get time to answer these.

fließendes

self-evident
Requiring no proof or explanation.

etymology: self-evident
1690, from self + [/i]evident[/i] (q.v.). First attested in Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding."

some historical context

So, strictly speaking, very little in (non-LRH) "science" is self-evident except perhaps that we can depend on our senses for observation (cogito ergo sum).

intuition

• The act or faculty of knowing or sensing without the use of rational processes; immediate cognition.

• Knowledge gained by the use of this faculty; a perceptive insight.

• A sense of something not evident or deducible; an impression.

So, really calling something "self-evident" or "intuitive" is saying that no evidence is required--as with "what goes up must come down". The details of Newton's Law of Gravity, however, such as that all masses on earth fall with equal speed and acceleration, had to be tested via experiments. Since it's easy to test, and has never been proven wrong--it's a Law.Not LRH's definition. He loved etymology, but most of us don't live in a dictionary. We live in the world where science refers to many things, including: the "scientific method", the scientific body of knowledge acquired over the last 2+ millenia, and the consensus among scientists of what passes muster as scientifically valid. Yes, they argue all the time, but certain consensuses are reached.I'm afraid I disagree. LRH cannot sit in an auditing session and rewrite the laws of physics, and insist to everyone that his laws are on par with the "laws of physical science". Science, as most of us conceive it, does not live in a vacuum. One person can conduct an experiment, but it must be successfully repeated by someone else before it's really taken seriously. Furthermore, the methodology of the experiment is peer-reviewed.

The "physical sciences" are about empirical evidence observed and validated by more than one person. They are not possible without some consensus.

whichphilosophy

There is a difference between the definitions between self-evident and intuitivehowever. As the subject is precise so the definitions must be precise.

There were experiments but I don't even know if these have been written up (the lab results from the bacteria experiment).
Other scientists have already discovered that bacteria moves towards things they like and are repelled from things they don't like.

The only question one may have is why Hubbard used steam instead of tobacco smoke agains and noticed the same reaction. Since the lab results are not available as far as I know yet, why do you think he did this experiment?

It's difficult to make conclusions based on one axiom but without the other written data and application. These are reflected in practical applications and other tests.

The individual has to study the subject (if they choose to) to see if/how this relates in their life etc.

Nonetheless you were able to understand some of this at a first look.

Regards,

fließendes

I suppose it's my fault for bringing that word and that phrase into the discussion in the first place. There is no difference between intuitive and self-evident in that they both describe a conclusion of some kind without proof or explanation. So they're roughly equivalent.

The differences:

• An intuition is an event experienced by an individual. It's a "hunch" that may in fact have a rational basis, but not one that's apparent at the moment of intuition.

• Whereas self-evident describes an idea (belief, truth, etc.) rather than a personal mental event. The evidence is posited as inherent in the idea, e.g. We hold these truths to be self evident, that all Men are created Equal.

The difference is really one of quality--personal, subjective vs. public belief made "objective" via declaration. There's also different schools of thought and historical contexts here: self-evident is a phrase from the Enlightenment, so it insists on inherent rationality; conversely, intuition was very popular with the Romantics who rejected rationality for the personal and subjective.

whichphilosophy

Never apologise for being able to look and analyse things. You do have the ability to observe and illustrate being intuitive (more than you give yourself credit for).

IF one can see something that is there and has all their faculties it is difficult to prove it is not even if others may say so.

For my sins, I work for a Chinese company because they feel I'm good at reading people, plus have a sense of humour. This is because basically it is possible to be confident in what one sees (even if others doubt it). Use observation to support intuition.

fließendes

I don't know who brought bacteria into this thread, but I'm so not interested. Unless that experiment was some attempt to support axiom 1.So you're saying that this axiom, which is apparently not supported by experimentation, suddenly proves itself true in a training drill?But if what Hubbard is proposing is an ethic, why does he invoke "the physical sciences"?Why would I be interested in a physical phenomena that I can see but others can't? My own imagination interests me, sure, but "the sciences" thrive in an atmosphere of inquiry and cross-scrutiny. Yes, for it to qualify as science (as most of us define the word) more than one person has to observe it. Mutiple, observable results from experiments with the same criteria--that's what the "physical sciences" are about.

whichphilosophy

The bacteria belongs to another thread (Scn) but another introduced it.

The axiom is observable by self as it relates to self. There are courses and auditing sessions etc. The subject is not always addressed unless the subject brings it up. As we learn more about life and living life this can become more realistic.

You have to scrutinise this yourself, which is why the terminology and word definitions have to be as precise as possible. This doesn't need the consensus of others.

As the person gets more training in the study courses etc and through observations in life (from experience) this axiom become more logical.

The physical experiments on bacteria I am sure would be observed by others. Most of it has except the last point Using tobacco smoke and then using steam. To me that was pretty smart (as I've studied the subject in the past).

In practice science is observed by more than one but something to do with ourselves, why do we need the consensus of others, but instead a vehicle ie technology of being able to do this.

bocajeff

That makes about as much sense as the Time Cube site.

whichphilosophy

To some when first seeing this it would. Not an unfair comment.

fließendes

If it's just to do with ourselves it may be scientific in nature, but nothing becomes a "law of the physical sciences" until it is observed by others, with criteria based on the scientific method, in multiple experiments done by multiple people which always produces the same results.

Again, Newton's Law of Gravity is always proven (at human-scale level) with the only caveat being air-resistance (as with a feather)--but that was worked out by performing experiments in a vacuum.

My problem with Hubbard's "axioms" is that he is characteristically misleading and vague by saying that the axioms are "on the order of the physical sciences". Most of us know the "physical sciences" as physics, chemistry, biology, etc. LRH's axioms are not in the same rank as the Laws of physics. They are hypotheses at best--until he provides experimental data and they are reviewed by third parties not affiliated with Scientology. Then they might qualify as theories with some level of acceptance among the wider scientific community.