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

Cultic Studies Review, Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Page 93
First, there would be nothing unusual or suspect in a person‘s 1971 writings being
inconsistent with his writings in 2001. I argued for many things as a kid that I no longer
would argue for as a grownup. But ironically, my approach to brainwashing is not one that
has changed very much in these thirty years. I think that my formulation has become more
careful and precise as I have responded to numerous criticisms, but that the basic model is
pretty much the same Liftonian model that I used to account for the strenuous
resocialization exercises I observed while I was studying the Bruderhof. I have, however,
become disenchanted with the psychoanalytic conjectures that were fashionable in my
youth, and I no longer use them. This change might be what Anthony has incorrectly seized
on as an ―inconsistency.‖
Proposition 83. (Page 276) Zablocki‘s formulation is stated very ambiguously, a
characteristic that results in its being impervious to definitive empirical disconfirmation.
X disputational relevant correct
This statement is pure opinion. Readers might disagree about the validity of the eight
definitions and twelve hypotheses that constitute my theory. But I don‘t think anyone could
argue that there is anything ambiguous about how they are stated. If Anthony disagrees, let
him cite chapter and verse, and I‘ll try to make myself clearer. Meanwhile, the interested
reader can look at these definitions and hypotheses himself and decide whether they are
stated ambiguously.
Civil Liberties and Scientists’ Duties As Citizens: Testimony
Proposition 84. (Page 279) To the extent that Zablocki is successful in reviving the
credibility of the brainwashing idea, ...his formulation will tend to encourage cultic
brainwashing trials and other forms of religious prejudice, and will serve as the theoretical
foundation for actual testimony in such trials...
disputational relevant correct
This commentary is totally irrelevant to the scientific question under discussion. Maybe
Anthony is wrong, but maybe he is right. In either case, the issue is political, not scientific.
Proposition 85. (Page 279f) Zablocki‘s criticism ...is another indication that his
viewpoint will, to the extent that it is influential, work in favor of further brainwashing trials.
disputational relevant correct
See my comments on proposition 84.
Research on Harm in NRMS General Research on Harm
Proposition 86. (Page 281) As Zablocki sees it, the brainwashing concept is the only
valid approach to evaluating why, or if, new religions have harmful social or psychological
consequences.
X disputational relevant correct
This interpretation is a total fabrication. I never say anything like this, and I don‘t believe it.
I will give $100 to Dick Anthony‘s favorite charity if he can come up with a quotation from
my work that supports this claim. It is telling that, although Anthony uses citations liberally,
he includes no citation for this accusation.
Totalitarian Influence and Research on Harm
Proposition 87. (Page 283) it seems to me that thus interpreted, the totalitarian
influence tradition has produced testable theories, e.g. Rokeach‘s dogmatism scales or
Adorno et al.‘s authoritarian personality measures.