>Objectivism can be objective but Scientology cannot be scientific.
>According to
>Objectivism, the subconscious mind does not distort sense perception,
>but
>according to Scientology the subconscious distorts sense perception.
>Scientology
>claims, therefore, the senses aren't valid and so it does not coincide
>with
>science which accepts the senses as valid.
Objectivism cannot be objective. Not even science can be fully
objective, and that's the closest approximation we've got.
I'm not sure what you think you know about science. Crack open a
behavioral psychology text if you think the subconscious doesn't distort
perception. A simple example: Many liquor advertismements have
airbrushed or painted pictures of erect male genitals embedded in them.
Experiments show that only 5% of Americans see them immediately, while
almost all of a pupolation of Inuits picked them out.
>
>Good summary of why things like objectivist axioms, which might be
>seemingly
>irrefutable, should at least be open to criticism and debate, like
>everything
>else.
They are of course not "seemingly irrefutable" to most people.
>
>