Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 66
The interested reader will have to examine, one by one, the 32 Anthony propositions that
fall into this free-will category to satisfy herself that none have succeeded in building this
isomorphism. Here, I will briefly mention one rather silly argument that Anthony relies on
heavily—his misconstruction of my use of the word ―free.‖ I use the term in the economic
sense to refer to the absence of structural costs imposed on an individual by society.
Virtually all of sociology accepts as axiomatic that social systems impose costs on individual
action and thereby constrain this action. Anthony does not seem to grasp that one can
discuss socially imposed constraints without declaring the overthrow of free will.
Legal Standards and Scientific Standards
The last of Anthony‘s errors that I wish to discuss briefly is his imposition of courtroom
standards on scientific discourse. In legal matters, one frequently cites one‘s ―authorities,‖
meaning the research experts that one is relying on for one‘s testimony. Anthony keeps
trying to identify my ―authorities,‖ never realizing that I rely on only three: my eyes, my
ears, and my nose. I do my own research, and I arrive at my theories, for better or worse,
inductively from my own observations. But Anthony will have none of this and instead
scours my citations and references under the erroneous (and sometimes ludicrous)
assumption that he is justified in treating any non-negative citations in my writing as my
―authorities‖ and, therefore, any criticism of the work of these supposed ―authorities‖ as a
successful attack on my own work. For example, Anthony finds that I include in my long list
of references one or two in which Margaret Singer (the writer whom he most loves to hate)
listed among them, acknowledging her prior work on some topic or other quite peripheral to
my argument. But, to Anthony, her very presence among the S‘s in my list of references
constitutes a fatal ―gotcha,‖ proving that Margaret Singer must be one of my authorities and
any discredit to her work successfully undermines my own. This assumption, of course, is
absurd and quite contrary to the norms of scholarly bibliography that encourage scholars to
be as inclusive as possible in their reference citations.
Conclusion
I have indicated only the three most common errors Dick Anthony has committed in
attempting to debunk my work. If my reasoning is correct, it follows that my contention that
the theory I have developed (which I include in the appendix to this paper for your
consideration) has successfully survived Anthony‘s attempt to debunk it. At the very
minimum, any attempt to revive Anthony‘s critique requires that at least one of his ninety-
eight propositions be successfully defended.
A Discussion of All Ninety-Eight Propositions Versus Zablocki Contained in
Chapter Six—Tactical Ambiguity and Brainwashing Formulations: Science
or Pseudoscience?
By Dick Anthony
Introduction: Zablocki’s Brainwashing Formulation
Proposition 1. (Page 215) Zablocki‘s recent brainwashing articles do not report concrete
research but rather attempt to clarify the conceptual outline of the brainwashing idea and to
defend its authentically scientific character.
disputational relevant correct
In fact, many of my books and papers report results of concrete research. In the
Misunderstanding Cults chapter in which I outline my theory, I report on the research that
supports the theory on pages 194-204. Whether or not I can point to research that supports
my theory, however, is irrelevant to the scientific validity of the theory itself.
The interested reader will have to examine, one by one, the 32 Anthony propositions that
fall into this free-will category to satisfy herself that none have succeeded in building this
isomorphism. Here, I will briefly mention one rather silly argument that Anthony relies on
heavily—his misconstruction of my use of the word ―free.‖ I use the term in the economic
sense to refer to the absence of structural costs imposed on an individual by society.
Virtually all of sociology accepts as axiomatic that social systems impose costs on individual
action and thereby constrain this action. Anthony does not seem to grasp that one can
discuss socially imposed constraints without declaring the overthrow of free will.
Legal Standards and Scientific Standards
The last of Anthony‘s errors that I wish to discuss briefly is his imposition of courtroom
standards on scientific discourse. In legal matters, one frequently cites one‘s ―authorities,‖
meaning the research experts that one is relying on for one‘s testimony. Anthony keeps
trying to identify my ―authorities,‖ never realizing that I rely on only three: my eyes, my
ears, and my nose. I do my own research, and I arrive at my theories, for better or worse,
inductively from my own observations. But Anthony will have none of this and instead
scours my citations and references under the erroneous (and sometimes ludicrous)
assumption that he is justified in treating any non-negative citations in my writing as my
―authorities‖ and, therefore, any criticism of the work of these supposed ―authorities‖ as a
successful attack on my own work. For example, Anthony finds that I include in my long list
of references one or two in which Margaret Singer (the writer whom he most loves to hate)
listed among them, acknowledging her prior work on some topic or other quite peripheral to
my argument. But, to Anthony, her very presence among the S‘s in my list of references
constitutes a fatal ―gotcha,‖ proving that Margaret Singer must be one of my authorities and
any discredit to her work successfully undermines my own. This assumption, of course, is
absurd and quite contrary to the norms of scholarly bibliography that encourage scholars to
be as inclusive as possible in their reference citations.
Conclusion
I have indicated only the three most common errors Dick Anthony has committed in
attempting to debunk my work. If my reasoning is correct, it follows that my contention that
the theory I have developed (which I include in the appendix to this paper for your
consideration) has successfully survived Anthony‘s attempt to debunk it. At the very
minimum, any attempt to revive Anthony‘s critique requires that at least one of his ninety-
eight propositions be successfully defended.
A Discussion of All Ninety-Eight Propositions Versus Zablocki Contained in
Chapter Six—Tactical Ambiguity and Brainwashing Formulations: Science
or Pseudoscience?
By Dick Anthony
Introduction: Zablocki’s Brainwashing Formulation
Proposition 1. (Page 215) Zablocki‘s recent brainwashing articles do not report concrete
research but rather attempt to clarify the conceptual outline of the brainwashing idea and to
defend its authentically scientific character.
disputational relevant correct
In fact, many of my books and papers report results of concrete research. In the
Misunderstanding Cults chapter in which I outline my theory, I report on the research that
supports the theory on pages 194-204. Whether or not I can point to research that supports
my theory, however, is irrelevant to the scientific validity of the theory itself.
