THE DEGRADATION OF SCIENTOLOGY

The recent furore over the apocalyptic glacial meltdown in 2035 has caught the attention of the entire world.Frankly speaking it is not at all a pleasant sight when two groups of scientists are involved in a mud-slinging match and shouting hoarse over alleged scandals involving billions of dollars.While I am not a person fit enough to comment on the actual truth,one does feel concerned about two aspects of this unhealthy debate,a debate which is unfortunately forlorn of all the dignity and ethics which is expected of people of Knowledge and Wisdom.As a citizen of our planet,one would like to know whether the prediction is true,after all apocalypse seems to be just 25 years away.If one is relieved to know that the truth is an intentionally falsified one,a grave concern creeps into the mind regarding the short and long term fallouts of this entire episode.To a conscious,responsible citizen of the global village,it appears to be a matter of grave concern regarding the practical relevance of science as a whole.It creates a very unhealthy picture of contemporary science and has got the potential of degrading science as a wholesome in the mind of the common man,and it does foretell the development of a very dangerous mindset with which the common man might arm himself.

While the intentional falsification of scientific data regarding such a sensitive issue grossly demeans the philosophy of science in front of the entire world,the manner of confrontation with which the 2 opposing groups of scientists are going around each other gives a very unhealthy picture about scientists and their honest intentions. 

Debates are not uncommon in the history of science.There have been repeated clashes between the 'Reductionists' and the 'Holisticians' in the last century,where Einstein and Bohr had taken opposite sides when the theory of spatial relativity opened up a world of impossible possibilities,essentially pitting Science against Religion(namely Christianity).In such instances,both sides' arguments have commanded merit.However the debate,when taken to extremes where sobriety,ethics and propriety of Knowledge go for a wild toss,sometimes degrades into a battle of what Michio Kaku described as 'belligerent' and 'know-nothing' science(HYPERSPACE ,MICHIO KAKU,1995).While the former club seeks to win debates in succession by dry logic,the latter has often been attributed with qualities like preaching confused knowledge covering its alleged ignorance under the refuge of pseudo-scientific philosophical gibberish.

Here it would seem perfectly sensical to adopt the concepts which belligerent science preaches when it has always scored over its opposite in one-to-one situations.Yet the heavy and rigid view of the Truths of Nature by the parading of piled-up information under the guidance of learned doctorates can lead to its own destruction.The conceived arrogance with which it wins arguments of a debate,might not help it to win over the audience of the debate which might get alienated by its very approach.

I guess history witnessed the same conflict when the liberated generation of flower scientists of the mid 60s were apalled by the cold use of deadly scientific technology to win a war that the USA was fighting to subdue an agrarian nation.It was not only the dogged determination of the Vietcong guerillas that forced the United States to concede and leave.The clash of logistic and humanistic philosophies that went on during the Vietnam War in the corridors of power in the White House spilled over into the streets and homes treaded upon and run by the common man,and ultimately won over the United Nations Security Council which forced the American militia to withdraw from Nam. The disturbing aspect of this 'victory of humanism' was that the Vietnam veterans,on returning home,were given out a raw deal to negotiate by the government that had pushed them to fight a lost war on its behalf,and by the common man too whom the unsung heroes thought they were protecting.Humanism had won but not before it was mercilessly tortured for 6 years in Vietnam,at the cost of alienating an entire generation of patriotic soldiers that mostly ended in suicides and broken homes.

This type of warring debate has affected Health Care too,time and again.Back in the 1960s and '70s well-paid lobbyists for the powerful agri-business and food industry exerted ill-publicized pressure through belligerent scientists on governments and health establishments,preventing them from thoroughly re-examining potential side-effects of food additives,pesticides,cholesterol,tobacco on malignancy and cardiac diseases.The side-effects have been proved now by the philosopher-scientist but not before millions of lives have been lost during the intervening period whose precious time has been gobbled up by politicized scientific debates that have left the common man nowhere.

A fall-out of an exactly opposite nature was witnessed in the early 90s,again in the USA,when the issue of apples containing Alar pesticides attained scandalous proportions."Scrupulous" environmentalists at the National Resources Defense Council spread panic amongst concerned consumers(and strong indignation within the food industry)by announcing more than 7,000 children could be killed.Even though the scientists were denounced as alarmists,latter investigations revealed that the report had used vital statistical data,qualitative and numerical,from the dark offices of the Federal Government to arrive at the alarmist conclusions.The matter was left at that,and the actors in the bureacracy were meted out punishments(read inter-departmental transfers).I did not follow the entire episode when it had happened.Now in the backdrop of the 'glaciological crisis' which keeps throwing up allegations and counter-allegations every day,when I look back upon the Alar pesticide controversy, I feel alarmed at the 'conclusive' conclusion that shut the case closed.Did anyone,or does anyone think that the timid conclusion actually implied that the Food and Drug Administration was actually sacrificing 7,000 children in the interests of "acceptable risk"?

Scandalous revelations like these is only serving to lower the prestige of science in the mind of the consumer,the common man.The medical profession,the food and chemical industries,the pharmaceutical industry,in fact Science as a whole,are repeatedly earning the distrust of wide portions of our society.

We live in the age of automated emotions and artificial intelligence.Cybernetics and robotics have become essentially synonymous.Informations travel at the speed of light through the world-wide web.The holes in the ozone layer are becoming bigger and bigger.Sea-levels are rising,and melting of polar caps are seeming to be alarmingly imminent.Glaciers are melting with apocalyptic 'zeal' at incredibly fast rates which keep on accelerating every time a new paper gets released by environmentalists.We possess the emotional intelligence and an active conscience that can guide the destiny of our race in the right direction.We have got rich scientific knowledge which we can use as an apparatus to move away from self-destruction.The uncomfortable question that disturbs the security of the evolved human race is: Are we using the apparatus the correct way?

We do owe an exhaustive and conclusive answer of the scientific community,the credentials of which we still place on the highest of pedestals which stand on the firm foundations of Trust and Faith.Belligerent science cannot define these two words,instincts that are so deeply inherent to human nature.We do not expect it to do so because we know its qualitative limitations,and the insecurities it might possibly have.Does applied science understand our insecurities?We do not know but an unhealthy element of doubt is slowly creeping in.Politicization and commercialization of Scientology is the last thing one would want.I pray for conscience and good sense to prevail,and I am sure the whole world joins me in my prayer.
Let Truth Prevail.