Is RC Based on Science?

by Jerry Maxwell

RC "theory" is presented in the forms and terms used in reporting scientific findings. Jackins discussed science frequently and said he "discovered" his core ideas by observation, the methodology of much of the scientific research in social sciences. (This claim was of doubtful veracity, since he was a Dianetics teacher at the time he claims to have observed Merle and the principles he "discovered" are seen to be largely rehashed ideas of that organization).

When I came into RC, I assumed RC claims were based on scientific observation because of the presentation. I don't recall whether Jackins ever directly claimed RC was science or not. Other people I have corresponded with have said he and other leaders have claimed scientific status, others don't remember.


WHAT CHARACTERIZES SOCIAL SCIENCE?

Theories and scholarly writings in the social sciences are developed by communities of independent and professionally trained peer scholars and researchers with a free flow of communication between the peers. Concepts and tenets are proposed and tested, based on observation of many cases by different researchers in various environments. They are subject to verification and review, and revision or rejection if contradicted by later findings. Although it is often difficult to set up blind experiments; where possible scientific works include rigorous definitions of terms, follow the scientific method of investigation and are based on reproducible observations. Ideally, the effectiveness of a method is verified by independent researchers to the extent possible. Outcomes are measured through such practices as self-assessment, observations and questionnaires. Results are interpreted taking the scientific base of information into consideration. The activities and tenets are reported to the rest of the
community in scientific journals which are open to the entire community.

"SCIENCE" IN RC

As illustrated above, much of the RC "theory" of co counseling can be traced back to Dianetics. Jackins adopted, adapted and modified many of the ideas to include his own political view, with an apparent aim of creating social revolution by developing a cadre of RC members through co counseling who would be equipped to change the world. Dianetics does not follow the scientific methodology I outlined here, although it sometimes incorporates some of the techniques and concepts from early work in psychoanalysis.

RC includes no community of scholars who exchange ideas and build on them. Few, if any, articles about RC are published in the wider social science literature. In fact, the RC literature contains only that which reinforces RC "theory." Results which are positive are publicized as demonstrating the "theory" is valid, while those that are contrary to RC doctrine are simply not acknowledged. Jackins asked members not to do academic research on the theories. No RC concepts are challenged in public. Negative results are sometimes blamed on the reporter; they are deemed attacks on leaders and the questioner is censored and often said to be in need of counseling to set him straight.

SO, IS RC SCIENCE?

In contrast to scientific theory, RC "theory" is a very rigid doctrine of largely unsupported ideas which were not subjected to challenge or change by anyone other than the founder, let alone analytical discussion within a wide community of peers.

Based on the criteria of science listed above, I conclude RC is not science. At best it could be called "pop psychology" or pseudo-science.

I personally felt deceived by the presentation of RC theory in the terms of scientific research.


Jerry Maxwell
Feb, 2002