--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, "Tracy B. Harms"
<t_b_harms@y...> wrote:
> --- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, mirah@d... wrote:
> > I think it is probably not possible for an outsider to have an
> > informed opinion about Scientology. Such an opinion is per force
> > based on hearsay. ...
>
>
>
> Mira,
>
> I strongly disagree. Yes, we face limitations on the quality of
> our knowledge in such situations, but there are serious problems
> with quality of knowledge in any case. One could reasonably
> characterize the entire study of history as being based on
> hearsay. Such is our lot. Good understandings may emerge
> nevertheless.

> One problem with your opinion is that it is, itself, a claim
> regarding Scientology. Since you include it among the opinions
> that are not well informed, if this is a serious defect then your
> opinion marks itself as defective.

I would like to add:

Taking the idea to its logical conclusion, no one could properly
criticize psychiatry without being an "insider"
(ie. a psychiatrist).

Nor could one criticize astrologers, faith healers, mentalists, etc.
unless you spent considerable time and expense learning about their
methods.

While there is some merit in the claim that you shouldn't criticize
that which you haven't studied closely, I think it is pretty clear
the danger such a principle has for free inquiry and searching for
truth.

If an expert can't explain his methods to an intelligent, yet
skeptical observer, it is probable (but never certain), that
the "expert" is either deluding himself, others, or both.