Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 87
disputational relevant X correct
I‘ve given Anthony the benefit of the doubt with regard to his summary of the eight criteria
in Lifton‘s and Schein‘s research that disconfirm the CIA model. But none of this is relevant
to the theory I have presented. My theory stands alone, is not dependent on any previous
theories (although I am enormously intellectually indebted to them), and needs to be
evaluated on its own terms and in its own terminology. Anthony consistently refuses to even
begin such a project.
Proposition 65. (Page 264) The primary basis for Zablocki‘s ―exit costs‖ third stage
brainwashing perspective is the notion that the research of Lifton and Schein had
demonstrated that Communist thought reform could bring about a conversion to the
Communism world view.
disputational X relevant correct
It is not at all clear what Anthony means when he speaks of a ―perspective‖ having a
―basis.‖ If he means that a certain proposition about the efficacy of brainwashing for
producing political conversions is an unstated postulate of my theory, he is wrong. Since I
do not state this postulate, the burden of proof is on Anthony to show that my theory is
somehow, nonetheless, dependent of such a postulate—whether logically or in some other
way. Anthony has not undertaken this task, so his assertion is merely unfounded
speculation. For what it‘s worth, I don‘t believe that Communist thought reform could bring
about a ―conversion‖ (whatever that might be) to the Communist world view. My reading of
Lifton and Schein suggest that they did not believe this either.
Falsifiability/Testability of Zablocki’s Formulation: Demarcation of Science from
Pseudoscience
Proposition 66. (Page 265) It would seem that at the most he can claim that he has
developed a testable theory which in the future could serve as the basis for scientific
research. Surprisingly, when his brainwashing articles are read carefully, this turns out to be
all that he is really claiming. Consequently, the scientific status of Zablocki‘s exit costs
brainwashing model stands or falls upon its testability.
disputational X relevant X correct
Why does this ‗discovery‘ by Anthony of what I have always explicitly stated come as a
surprise to him? That is what social scientists do, Dr. Anthony. We propose carefully
constructed theories and then later do research to test them. If research produces findings
that contradict the results expected by the theory, we must then revise or discard the
theory. If anything about this approach is remarkable, it escapes me.
Proposition 67. (Page 265) Early in his brainwashing articles Zablocki boldly claims that
his brainwashing theory is falsifiable, i.e. testable.
disputational X relevant X correct
Certainly I claim that the theory I propose is falsifiable. I would not knowingly propose a
theory that didn‘t meet this minimal epistemological criterion. Why Anthony ascribes
boldness to this claim is unclear to me, although I‘m flattered, I suppose, in a Walter
Mittyan kind of way.
Proposition 68. (Page 266) It seems to me that in Zablocki‘s definition of them, neither
the independent variable (the coercive cause), nor the dependent variable (the involuntary
effect) of his brainwashing formulation are falsifiable. (sic) In other words, he has not
supplied criteria which clearly differentiate brainwashing techniques and their allegedly
involuntary effects from components of normal social influence, in particular from other
forms of religious conversions and commitments.
disputational relevant X correct
I‘ve given Anthony the benefit of the doubt with regard to his summary of the eight criteria
in Lifton‘s and Schein‘s research that disconfirm the CIA model. But none of this is relevant
to the theory I have presented. My theory stands alone, is not dependent on any previous
theories (although I am enormously intellectually indebted to them), and needs to be
evaluated on its own terms and in its own terminology. Anthony consistently refuses to even
begin such a project.
Proposition 65. (Page 264) The primary basis for Zablocki‘s ―exit costs‖ third stage
brainwashing perspective is the notion that the research of Lifton and Schein had
demonstrated that Communist thought reform could bring about a conversion to the
Communism world view.
disputational X relevant correct
It is not at all clear what Anthony means when he speaks of a ―perspective‖ having a
―basis.‖ If he means that a certain proposition about the efficacy of brainwashing for
producing political conversions is an unstated postulate of my theory, he is wrong. Since I
do not state this postulate, the burden of proof is on Anthony to show that my theory is
somehow, nonetheless, dependent of such a postulate—whether logically or in some other
way. Anthony has not undertaken this task, so his assertion is merely unfounded
speculation. For what it‘s worth, I don‘t believe that Communist thought reform could bring
about a ―conversion‖ (whatever that might be) to the Communist world view. My reading of
Lifton and Schein suggest that they did not believe this either.
Falsifiability/Testability of Zablocki’s Formulation: Demarcation of Science from
Pseudoscience
Proposition 66. (Page 265) It would seem that at the most he can claim that he has
developed a testable theory which in the future could serve as the basis for scientific
research. Surprisingly, when his brainwashing articles are read carefully, this turns out to be
all that he is really claiming. Consequently, the scientific status of Zablocki‘s exit costs
brainwashing model stands or falls upon its testability.
disputational X relevant X correct
Why does this ‗discovery‘ by Anthony of what I have always explicitly stated come as a
surprise to him? That is what social scientists do, Dr. Anthony. We propose carefully
constructed theories and then later do research to test them. If research produces findings
that contradict the results expected by the theory, we must then revise or discard the
theory. If anything about this approach is remarkable, it escapes me.
Proposition 67. (Page 265) Early in his brainwashing articles Zablocki boldly claims that
his brainwashing theory is falsifiable, i.e. testable.
disputational X relevant X correct
Certainly I claim that the theory I propose is falsifiable. I would not knowingly propose a
theory that didn‘t meet this minimal epistemological criterion. Why Anthony ascribes
boldness to this claim is unclear to me, although I‘m flattered, I suppose, in a Walter
Mittyan kind of way.
Proposition 68. (Page 266) It seems to me that in Zablocki‘s definition of them, neither
the independent variable (the coercive cause), nor the dependent variable (the involuntary
effect) of his brainwashing formulation are falsifiable. (sic) In other words, he has not
supplied criteria which clearly differentiate brainwashing techniques and their allegedly
involuntary effects from components of normal social influence, in particular from other
forms of religious conversions and commitments.
