Talk:Church of Scientology/Archive 2

Article Checklist for "Church of Scientology/Archive 2"

Workgroup category or categories	Religion Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	Larry Sanger 23:43, 22 May 2007 (CDT); David Martin 20:46, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

In its current form, this article is very difficult to understand. I would recommend writing to make it more accessible. --Peter A. Lipson 14:09, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I've rewritten what I think you might be referring to, but please post more comments if you would like. I've tried to present the reason why Hubbard called it "a study of knowledge". I've tried to be specific about what he was talking about re:knowledge, as specifically as possible. Terry E. Olsen 18:16, 1 May 2007 (CDT)

I think it is still quite difficult to understand. And philosophically it sounds a little incoherent - perhaps its terminological. I think the problem might be that it is not a good idea to write about a topic from the inside - if ones a Christian it might be hard to write about Christianity objectively, since it's the framework with which one approach the world. More seriously, though, it seems to be making assumptions about epistemology that are quite sweeping and a little ill-informed: this area of philosophy had, for example, ideas of knowledge more sophisticated than 'book learning' about 2500 years ago with Plato. There is also a long tradition of ideas of practical wisdom, know-how contra know that, and so forth which seems to be relevant, but unmentioned in the article. Hope this helps. Damien Storey 18:47, 22 May 2007 (CDT)

I'm inclined to think that this article should be deleted on grounds that it probably has little usable content, and its sole author has left CZ. It says virtually nothing about the body of doctrine that is called "scientology" and in its current form is extremely misleading precisely because it omits everything that is essential to scientology. The Wikipedia article at least has an account of things like "auditing" and "thetans" and the rest of it. --Larry Sanger 23:42, 22 May 2007 (CDT)