Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2002, Page 39
Conclusions
Where does all this evidence leave us? Am I advocating that all research is ultimately
subjective and flawed, or that since everything is subjective, there exists a multitude of
constructed and equally valid realities? Hardly. Even the ―hard‖ sciences are not
completely objective, and periodically undergo radical paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1962).
Perhaps I am philosophically a positivist at heart, for I believe we are capable of gradually
drawing closer and closer to the truth in most matters, even in the most complicated and
illusive matter of human behavior and experience. And, I believe, the truth or falseness of
some things--like the existence of fairies or gnomes, or the validity of a Dianetics
personality test---are just downright demonstrable.
Science has rules, flawed as they may be, for adjudicating a theory ―mostly‖ or ―partially‖
true, or ―mostly‖ or ―partially‖ false. In science, three characteristics of a study, construct,
or theory--replicability, parsimony and predictability--are routinely assessed as a means of
judging overall validity. Thus, although (using standard scientific principles) nobody has yet
been able to explain Elsie‘s and Iris‘ first set of fairy photographs, the fact that nobody has
been able to replicate this feat without resorting to fraud has rendered the fairy construct
moot. The same has held true for a great many other extreme claims in science, from
reports of fantastic psi abilities to the now-debunked initial report of the successful
generation of power using cold fusion. On the other hand, we have a huge literature, with
studies that have been replicated utilizing broad assortments of subjects and situations, of
the relative ease with which even the most renowned scholars and scientists can be
influenced, manipulated, and fooled.
All the social sciences fall short in the realm of predictability. Here I will again remind you
of my antiauthoritarian bias. I admit that I do not know if any sociologists of religion have
ever predicted any of the heinous behaviors and tragic outcomes that have occurred among
some new religionists. On the other hand, I do know a number of NRM critics (―cult
experts‖) who, employing a totalist or ―mind control‖ paradigm, correctly predicted the
course ultimately taken by David Koresh during the Waco standoff. I know several early
ISKCON defectors who predicted the eventual discovery of rampant physical and sexual
abuse in the Krishnas‘ gurucula school system the same holds for Rajneeshpuram. And
prior to the tragic bombing of the MOVE compound I (along with Roberta Eisenberg and Dr.
Linda Dubrow) correctly predicted the course of the showdown with MOVE during a meeting
in City Hall with an aide to the Philadelphia Commissioner of Health. More recently, following
the Heaven‘s Gate suicides, a number of cult critics (my own group again included) sadly
and correctly predicted the eventual suicide of Wayne Cooke, who seemed shaky during
interviews and then killed himself following the initial mass suicide.
NRM apostates who have been deprogrammed or exit-counselled have been largely
discounted by scholars in the fields of religion and the sociology of religion. I submit that
this is a result of bias and is in effect throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is a fact
that the simplistic ―brainwashing‖ paradigm adopted by some deprogrammed or exit-
counselled apostates did not predict or explain the large number of voluntary defectors, or
the inability of NRMs to effectively recruit and retain new members. Eileen Barker is correct
when she states that (and I am paraphrasing), if cults are trying to brainwash people, they
are doing a lousy job of it.
But the fact--and I admit to this fact--that the majority of cultists do not appear to be
harmed by their involvement does not necessarily mean that their group is harmless, or
that they have not been exposed to harmful influence. History is replete with examples of
the poor judgment and even tyranny of majorities it is why we have checks and balances in
our republic. Perhaps we need to be more like biochemists and physicians in our research
strategies. When a drug works on 90% of patients, but seems to be associated with harmful
Conclusions
Where does all this evidence leave us? Am I advocating that all research is ultimately
subjective and flawed, or that since everything is subjective, there exists a multitude of
constructed and equally valid realities? Hardly. Even the ―hard‖ sciences are not
completely objective, and periodically undergo radical paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1962).
Perhaps I am philosophically a positivist at heart, for I believe we are capable of gradually
drawing closer and closer to the truth in most matters, even in the most complicated and
illusive matter of human behavior and experience. And, I believe, the truth or falseness of
some things--like the existence of fairies or gnomes, or the validity of a Dianetics
personality test---are just downright demonstrable.
Science has rules, flawed as they may be, for adjudicating a theory ―mostly‖ or ―partially‖
true, or ―mostly‖ or ―partially‖ false. In science, three characteristics of a study, construct,
or theory--replicability, parsimony and predictability--are routinely assessed as a means of
judging overall validity. Thus, although (using standard scientific principles) nobody has yet
been able to explain Elsie‘s and Iris‘ first set of fairy photographs, the fact that nobody has
been able to replicate this feat without resorting to fraud has rendered the fairy construct
moot. The same has held true for a great many other extreme claims in science, from
reports of fantastic psi abilities to the now-debunked initial report of the successful
generation of power using cold fusion. On the other hand, we have a huge literature, with
studies that have been replicated utilizing broad assortments of subjects and situations, of
the relative ease with which even the most renowned scholars and scientists can be
influenced, manipulated, and fooled.
All the social sciences fall short in the realm of predictability. Here I will again remind you
of my antiauthoritarian bias. I admit that I do not know if any sociologists of religion have
ever predicted any of the heinous behaviors and tragic outcomes that have occurred among
some new religionists. On the other hand, I do know a number of NRM critics (―cult
experts‖) who, employing a totalist or ―mind control‖ paradigm, correctly predicted the
course ultimately taken by David Koresh during the Waco standoff. I know several early
ISKCON defectors who predicted the eventual discovery of rampant physical and sexual
abuse in the Krishnas‘ gurucula school system the same holds for Rajneeshpuram. And
prior to the tragic bombing of the MOVE compound I (along with Roberta Eisenberg and Dr.
Linda Dubrow) correctly predicted the course of the showdown with MOVE during a meeting
in City Hall with an aide to the Philadelphia Commissioner of Health. More recently, following
the Heaven‘s Gate suicides, a number of cult critics (my own group again included) sadly
and correctly predicted the eventual suicide of Wayne Cooke, who seemed shaky during
interviews and then killed himself following the initial mass suicide.
NRM apostates who have been deprogrammed or exit-counselled have been largely
discounted by scholars in the fields of religion and the sociology of religion. I submit that
this is a result of bias and is in effect throwing the baby out with the bath water. It is a fact
that the simplistic ―brainwashing‖ paradigm adopted by some deprogrammed or exit-
counselled apostates did not predict or explain the large number of voluntary defectors, or
the inability of NRMs to effectively recruit and retain new members. Eileen Barker is correct
when she states that (and I am paraphrasing), if cults are trying to brainwash people, they
are doing a lousy job of it.
But the fact--and I admit to this fact--that the majority of cultists do not appear to be
harmed by their involvement does not necessarily mean that their group is harmless, or
that they have not been exposed to harmful influence. History is replete with examples of
the poor judgment and even tyranny of majorities it is why we have checks and balances in
our republic. Perhaps we need to be more like biochemists and physicians in our research
strategies. When a drug works on 90% of patients, but seems to be associated with harmful
