Notice: Fredric Rice may have removed segments of the replies given to
questions if they contained copyrighted materials. After a very short
while, Scientology "experts" refused to answer questions and
started cut-and-pasting copyrighted cult propaganda. Additionally I
removed URLs in some of the replies, and left them in others. And it's
also important to note that eventually the unfortunate "Greg
Churilov" cultist was ejected from
askme.com for his typical Scientological behavior.
FredricRice asked this question on 5/15/2000:
Greetings!
I have a question about L. Ron Hubbard's book "A History of Man." I
suspect that only current Scientologists would be able to help me with this
question but I'll toss it out for all the other experts, too, to see if they
might know.
The book starts out with Hubbard writing, "This is a cold-blooded and
factual account of your last sixty trillion years."
Since the age of the universe is something around 15 billion years, is it
possible that this is a type-o and that the editor of "A History of Man"
needs to fix it to read "million years" instead of "trillian years?"
I can't imagine that L. Ron Hubbard made such an obvious mistake in his
cosmology but one never knows.
Thanks!
Phobos1 gave this response on 5/15/2000:
You don't need to imagine it. He did it.
Hubbard wrote a lot about lots of different subjects, but there were
remarkably few about which he actually knew anything. One thing he
WAS good at was thinking up ambitious titles for his books. "All About
Radiation", "A History of Man", "Fundamentals of Thought" and so
forth.
Anyway, there are countless examples of his general ignorance of
science throughout HoM, from his placing bivalves in the direct lineage
of Homo sapiens (and his relation of the shell's hinge to the
vertebrate jaw) to the inclusion of Piltdown Man, there is no evidence
that Hubbard had Clue #1 about natural history.
To be fair, he was first and foremost a Sci Fi writer. Not hard science
fiction, but pulp Sci Fi. For that sort of writing, you don't need to know
anything more than a couple of impressive sounding words. You
allude to things your audience might have heard about in passing but
knows nothing about, and basically just bluff your way through a
ripping good yarn. It's fun, especially if the audience isn't particularly
well-read about science (or if the science you're talking about is still in
its infancy, so no one's the wiser), but it's not terribly serious.
Trouble was, he got away with bluffing too much. I think that when he
started hanging around with Scientologists exclusively, the people he
knew would believe everything he said, he simply stopped getting
appropriate feedback from independent thinkers. In the forties, other
SF writers would say, "Ron, that's crap." In the sixties and seventies,
no such luck. So he started to believe his own practical jokes.
Add a big, well-funded vanity press into the mix, and you get
nonsense like History of Man.
Further facts
about this criminal empire may be found at
Operation Clambake and FACTNet.
Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.
Subject: A question about "A History of Man" by L. Ron Hubbard Answered by:
Answered by: Phobos1
Asked By: FredricRice
This web page (and The Skeptic Tank) is in no way connected with
nor part of the Scientology crime syndicate. To review the crime syndicate's
absurdly idiotic web pages, check out www.scientology.org or any one of the
many secret front groups the cult attempts to hide behind.
The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.