Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 71
15c) connotative rather than denotative use of language, i.e. the use of emotionally
charged buzz words rather than precisely defined terminology which is capable of
being operationalized.
X disputational X relevant correct
None of these charges is correct.
§ 15a) To establish this, Anthony would have to show at least one example of one of
the twelve hypotheses in my theory contradicting another. This he has not done.
§ 15b) This statement is meaningless as written. Neither variables nor predictions are,
by definition, falsifiable. Falsifiability is a characteristic of theories and hypotheses. In fact,
one of the criteria of a falsifiable theory is precisely its ability to make verifiable predictions.
But let us give Anthony maximum benefit of the doubt and assume that he was trying to
say in 15b) ―variables that are not operationally defined and hypotheses that do not lead to
verifiable predictions.‖ But each of the eight variables in my theory has been given an
operational definition. So the problem, if there is one, must lie with the hypotheses. For
Anthony to establish his charge, he must show at least one example of a hypothesis in my
theory that does not lead to verifiable predictions. This he has failed to do. Each of the
twelve hypotheses in the theory makes predictions that are in principle verifiable.
§ 15c) Even a brief examination of the definitional part of the theory will show this
assertion to be incorrect. Each of the concepts used in the theory has an operational
definition.
Proposition 16. (Page 224) Their artful ambiguity may tend to conceal their
pseudo-scientific character to non-specialists who review them in a variety of contexts.
X disputational relevant correct
This proposition, of course, is pure opinion.
Proposition 17. (Page 224) The most glaring source of ambiguity in cultic brainwashing
formulations develops from their attempt to simultaneously affirm the [CIA] brainwashing
argument and also to affirm the [Lifton, Schein] research on Communist coercive
persuasion which flatly contradicts it with respect to a number of core issues, e.g. the
presence or absence of predisposing motives, involuntary vs. voluntary influence, defective
cognition vs. full cognitive capacity, and so on. As I have documented elsewhere, (Anthony,
1990 Anthony and Robbins, 1995a Anthony, 1996), Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe,
who were until recently the most influential exponents of cultic brainwashing theory, switch
back and forth between the two traditions as the tactical requirements of particular contexts
demand.
X disputational relevant correct
This proposition is not relevant because there is nothing in my theory that attempts to
affirm either the CIA argument or the Lifton-Schein argument. My theory rests on its own
merits, although I do find interesting homologies between my findings in cults and Lifton‘s
findings about Chinese Communist thought reform. These homologies strengthen my own
confidence in the value of the theory, but they are irrelevant to the question of whether the
theory is well formulated. Of the three examples that Anthony gives, the first two are
arguments that I have shown above to be incorrect. Regarding the third, Anthony seems
unwilling to accept that the brainwashing process, as I have outlined it, produces cognitive
confusion while the process is going on but leads to the restoration of full cognitive capacity
as an end result. This scenario is identical to Schein‘s finding and is outlined more fully on
pages 177-179 of Misunderstanding Cults.
15c) connotative rather than denotative use of language, i.e. the use of emotionally
charged buzz words rather than precisely defined terminology which is capable of
being operationalized.
X disputational X relevant correct
None of these charges is correct.
§ 15a) To establish this, Anthony would have to show at least one example of one of
the twelve hypotheses in my theory contradicting another. This he has not done.
§ 15b) This statement is meaningless as written. Neither variables nor predictions are,
by definition, falsifiable. Falsifiability is a characteristic of theories and hypotheses. In fact,
one of the criteria of a falsifiable theory is precisely its ability to make verifiable predictions.
But let us give Anthony maximum benefit of the doubt and assume that he was trying to
say in 15b) ―variables that are not operationally defined and hypotheses that do not lead to
verifiable predictions.‖ But each of the eight variables in my theory has been given an
operational definition. So the problem, if there is one, must lie with the hypotheses. For
Anthony to establish his charge, he must show at least one example of a hypothesis in my
theory that does not lead to verifiable predictions. This he has failed to do. Each of the
twelve hypotheses in the theory makes predictions that are in principle verifiable.
§ 15c) Even a brief examination of the definitional part of the theory will show this
assertion to be incorrect. Each of the concepts used in the theory has an operational
definition.
Proposition 16. (Page 224) Their artful ambiguity may tend to conceal their
pseudo-scientific character to non-specialists who review them in a variety of contexts.
X disputational relevant correct
This proposition, of course, is pure opinion.
Proposition 17. (Page 224) The most glaring source of ambiguity in cultic brainwashing
formulations develops from their attempt to simultaneously affirm the [CIA] brainwashing
argument and also to affirm the [Lifton, Schein] research on Communist coercive
persuasion which flatly contradicts it with respect to a number of core issues, e.g. the
presence or absence of predisposing motives, involuntary vs. voluntary influence, defective
cognition vs. full cognitive capacity, and so on. As I have documented elsewhere, (Anthony,
1990 Anthony and Robbins, 1995a Anthony, 1996), Margaret Singer and Richard Ofshe,
who were until recently the most influential exponents of cultic brainwashing theory, switch
back and forth between the two traditions as the tactical requirements of particular contexts
demand.
X disputational relevant correct
This proposition is not relevant because there is nothing in my theory that attempts to
affirm either the CIA argument or the Lifton-Schein argument. My theory rests on its own
merits, although I do find interesting homologies between my findings in cults and Lifton‘s
findings about Chinese Communist thought reform. These homologies strengthen my own
confidence in the value of the theory, but they are irrelevant to the question of whether the
theory is well formulated. Of the three examples that Anthony gives, the first two are
arguments that I have shown above to be incorrect. Regarding the third, Anthony seems
unwilling to accept that the brainwashing process, as I have outlined it, produces cognitive
confusion while the process is going on but leads to the restoration of full cognitive capacity
as an end result. This scenario is identical to Schein‘s finding and is outlined more fully on
pages 177-179 of Misunderstanding Cults.
