Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 92
disputational relevant X correct
I take Anthony‘s word for it that he has been unable to find this term in Popper‘s works. So
what? As long as I clearly define what I mean by conjecture (and especially if this usage is
widespread in the scientific literature), who cares whether Popper ever used the term? Even
if Anthony wishes to insist on using Popper as the absolute arbiter of all things
epistemological, he would have to show, not that Popper never used the term, but that he
warns against using the term. This Anthony cannot do.
Proposition 79. (Page 274f) At any rate, Zablocki at several points in his 1998 article
acknowledges that his brainwashing theory, at least as currently formulated, is not
―testable.‖ (Zablocki, 1998, 216, 239-240, 244) In his last reference to this issue he states:
At some point in the future, brainwashing theory will be testable at the chemical
level of the brain. Until then, hopefully I have at least traced the outlines of a viable
agenda for theory building. (1998, 244)
X disputational relevant correct
See my comments on propositions 75 and 76. Here, Anthony is confounding my statement
that brain imaging is not currently adequate to determine whether there are neurological
changes in brainwashed subjects with my theoretical design. This confusion is what comes
of overusing keyword searches. Anthony finds the word ―testable‖ in my writings, and he
pounces on it without regard to whether the word is referring to a theory or a conjecture
about the theory.
Proposition 80. (Page 275) Zablocki is herein covertly admitting that his original aim to
demonstrate that brainwashing is a testable scientific concept has failed.
X disputational relevant correct
I resent Anthony‘s throwing around words such as ―covert,‖ which means concealed or
disguised. His confusion between theory and speculation in my writing does not justify the
charge of concealment. When I find something I believe I can test, I label it a theory. When
I find some explanation that seems plausible to me but that currently is not testable, I label
it a conjecture. Even if Anthony doesn‘t find this distinction sufficiently Popperian for his
tastes, he has to admit that I make it in an open and straightforward way with no attempt
at concealment.
Proposition 81. (Page 275) I am unaware of any credibly scientific research which
differentiates voluntary from involuntary forms of social influence on the basis of differential
neurophysiological variables, and I think that it is unlikely that such falsifiable differential
criteria with be discovered any time soon.
disputational relevant X correct
There is no research that differentiates voluntary from involuntary influence because
involuntary influence is not a well-defined scientific concept. Anthony and I agree on that
point, and I don‘t use this pseudoconcept in my work. As evidenced in my comments to
previous propositions, Anthony‘s attempts to find this pseudoconcept in my writings have
failed. So his comment is not relevant.
Conclusion—Brainwashing Versus Totalitarian Influence: Unfalsifiable
Brainwashing Formulations and Civil Liberties
Proposition 82. (Page 276) [Zablocki‘s] own [early] research (1971 1980) not only is
inconsistent with his more recent brainwashing formulation, but it actually disconfirms it in
central respects.
X disputational relevant correct
disputational relevant X correct
I take Anthony‘s word for it that he has been unable to find this term in Popper‘s works. So
what? As long as I clearly define what I mean by conjecture (and especially if this usage is
widespread in the scientific literature), who cares whether Popper ever used the term? Even
if Anthony wishes to insist on using Popper as the absolute arbiter of all things
epistemological, he would have to show, not that Popper never used the term, but that he
warns against using the term. This Anthony cannot do.
Proposition 79. (Page 274f) At any rate, Zablocki at several points in his 1998 article
acknowledges that his brainwashing theory, at least as currently formulated, is not
―testable.‖ (Zablocki, 1998, 216, 239-240, 244) In his last reference to this issue he states:
At some point in the future, brainwashing theory will be testable at the chemical
level of the brain. Until then, hopefully I have at least traced the outlines of a viable
agenda for theory building. (1998, 244)
X disputational relevant correct
See my comments on propositions 75 and 76. Here, Anthony is confounding my statement
that brain imaging is not currently adequate to determine whether there are neurological
changes in brainwashed subjects with my theoretical design. This confusion is what comes
of overusing keyword searches. Anthony finds the word ―testable‖ in my writings, and he
pounces on it without regard to whether the word is referring to a theory or a conjecture
about the theory.
Proposition 80. (Page 275) Zablocki is herein covertly admitting that his original aim to
demonstrate that brainwashing is a testable scientific concept has failed.
X disputational relevant correct
I resent Anthony‘s throwing around words such as ―covert,‖ which means concealed or
disguised. His confusion between theory and speculation in my writing does not justify the
charge of concealment. When I find something I believe I can test, I label it a theory. When
I find some explanation that seems plausible to me but that currently is not testable, I label
it a conjecture. Even if Anthony doesn‘t find this distinction sufficiently Popperian for his
tastes, he has to admit that I make it in an open and straightforward way with no attempt
at concealment.
Proposition 81. (Page 275) I am unaware of any credibly scientific research which
differentiates voluntary from involuntary forms of social influence on the basis of differential
neurophysiological variables, and I think that it is unlikely that such falsifiable differential
criteria with be discovered any time soon.
disputational relevant X correct
There is no research that differentiates voluntary from involuntary influence because
involuntary influence is not a well-defined scientific concept. Anthony and I agree on that
point, and I don‘t use this pseudoconcept in my work. As evidenced in my comments to
previous propositions, Anthony‘s attempts to find this pseudoconcept in my writings have
failed. So his comment is not relevant.
Conclusion—Brainwashing Versus Totalitarian Influence: Unfalsifiable
Brainwashing Formulations and Civil Liberties
Proposition 82. (Page 276) [Zablocki‘s] own [early] research (1971 1980) not only is
inconsistent with his more recent brainwashing formulation, but it actually disconfirms it in
central respects.
X disputational relevant correct
