Proving Science Wrong
Moderator: Moderators
Proving Science Wrong
I couldn't help but wonder if there was a connection between the 'Proving Science Wrong' series and Bree's religion. I did a bit of investigating, and I came up with a theory.
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was not one of Crowley's favorite people, it turns out.
Hubbard was connected to John W. Parsons, who headed Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis chapter in L.A.. He was an active member in this group for several months, and first met his second wife there. In a recorded lecture in 1952, Hubbard discussed occult magic of the middle ages, and recommended a book - "it's fascinating work in itself, and that's work written by Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend."
On wikipedia, the following information is contained in the profile on Hubbard:
The Church insists Hubbard was a US government intelligence agent on a mission to end Parsons' magickal activities and to "rescue" a girl Parsons was "using" for magickal purposes. Critics dismiss these claims as after-the-fact rationalizations. Crowley recorded in his notes that he considered Hubbard a "stupid lout" who made off with Parsons' money and girlfriend in an "ordinary confidence trick".[1]
So from what I've gathered, it sounds like Thelemites would naturally have a bit of an inherent vendetta against Scientologists; henceforth, the motive behind 'Proving Science Wrong'.
What does everyone else think?
L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, was not one of Crowley's favorite people, it turns out.
Hubbard was connected to John W. Parsons, who headed Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis chapter in L.A.. He was an active member in this group for several months, and first met his second wife there. In a recorded lecture in 1952, Hubbard discussed occult magic of the middle ages, and recommended a book - "it's fascinating work in itself, and that's work written by Aleister Crowley, the late Aleister Crowley, my very good friend."
On wikipedia, the following information is contained in the profile on Hubbard:
The Church insists Hubbard was a US government intelligence agent on a mission to end Parsons' magickal activities and to "rescue" a girl Parsons was "using" for magickal purposes. Critics dismiss these claims as after-the-fact rationalizations. Crowley recorded in his notes that he considered Hubbard a "stupid lout" who made off with Parsons' money and girlfriend in an "ordinary confidence trick".[1]
So from what I've gathered, it sounds like Thelemites would naturally have a bit of an inherent vendetta against Scientologists; henceforth, the motive behind 'Proving Science Wrong'.
What does everyone else think?
Last edited by skellykat on Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
there was also a theory where it assumes that bree's dad works as a scientist due to his "white lab coat".
and given bree's restrained life, she could be rebelling against what her dad does for a living, i.e. science, and starts her own "proving science wrong" almost as if she's "proving dad wrong".
and given bree's restrained life, she could be rebelling against what her dad does for a living, i.e. science, and starts her own "proving science wrong" almost as if she's "proving dad wrong".
i <3 LG15
- ViolinAddict
- Lonely Fan
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 3:52 pm
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
-
- Suspiciously Absent
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:20 pm
- Location: Baltimore, MD 21236
- Contact:
My take on her Proving Science Wrong segments isn't that the character actually rejects science in any real sense, and that she knows her arguments have holes in them. Take for instance the Poor Pluto edition. Her entire first half of the video was evidently tongue-in-cheek, as it personified Pluto as a "lonely teen"; and the second half noted that she had a strong interest in astronomy (in particularly stars), which is an accepted science. Her earlier Proving Science Wrong segments were equally silly and fun as the first half of the Poor Pluto edition.
So, she has her religion, which she believes in, and she has science she clearly also adores.
Yours,
Alex Peak
So, she has her religion, which she believes in, and she has science she clearly also adores.
Yours,
Alex Peak
[hr]
DownsizeDC.org
DownsizeDC.org
Great points!
I agree unwarranted iron shots by a regular doctor is not a likely scenerio. Further pointing to the possibility that her dad is the doctor, and 'knows what he's doing', so to speak.
I like your take Alex, perhaps I'm reading into it too much. Perhaps it isn't all that important and there is no association with her love for science and her steadfast faith in her religion.
But I still can't help but think there is some kind of connection...
I'm sure more will be revealed.
Anyone else have any Proving Science Wrong theories?
I agree unwarranted iron shots by a regular doctor is not a likely scenerio. Further pointing to the possibility that her dad is the doctor, and 'knows what he's doing', so to speak.
I like your take Alex, perhaps I'm reading into it too much. Perhaps it isn't all that important and there is no association with her love for science and her steadfast faith in her religion.
But I still can't help but think there is some kind of connection...
I'm sure more will be revealed.
Anyone else have any Proving Science Wrong theories?
-
- Suspiciously Absent
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:13 am
- Location: Illinois
I think allixpeeke is right on track. They are obviously portraying her as someone with a deep appreciation of science. A great example of this is how she tells two stories in the episode titled "Daniel Returns, and More Interesting Factoids (Yay!)" one story is from Stephen Hawking and the other is from Richard Feynman. Most 16 year old girls wouldn't even know who they are. She even refers to the Feynman book as "One of her favorites" then goes on to categorize him as "One of the smartest physicists ever" adding "he's really smart, like Einstein smart, like Newton smart, like professor calculus smart!"
Her "Proving Science Wrong" series is obviously tongue in cheek humor. The fact that she chooses science as the focal point for her humor only strengthens the impression that she is very interested in it.
I believe at they might use this fact later in the series as a catalyst for her to begin to pull away from her religion/parents. That is just a guess but I can't help but believe that her passion for science will play a role in her future actions and decisions.
Her "Proving Science Wrong" series is obviously tongue in cheek humor. The fact that she chooses science as the focal point for her humor only strengthens the impression that she is very interested in it.
I believe at they might use this fact later in the series as a catalyst for her to begin to pull away from her religion/parents. That is just a guess but I can't help but believe that her passion for science will play a role in her future actions and decisions.
- ravensgrace
- Moderator
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:59 am
- Location: Cyberspace
- Contact:
Iron pills, not a shot. The shot was a separate incident, and we have no hints of what it might have contained. My theory is that it was a blood sample, which would explain why she was taking iron pills.skellykat wrote:Great points!
I agree unwarranted iron shots by a regular doctor is not a likely scenerio.
[04:03] <lyriclyinclined> with the exception of a bad apple pucker incident
-
- Suspiciously Absent
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:13 am
- Location: Illinois
shot or blood sample...?
Blood samples are not taken from deltoid muscle area. Blood is usually taken from the inside bend at the elbow. The spot where she had tape and gauze on her arm would indicate an injection of some sort.
i don't know if somebody brought it up alreadym, but maybe this will help us:
http://www.gnosticteachings.org/the-tea ... icism.html
maybe the focus really is to much on crowleys thelma religion:
a wikipedia articel on the "thelema press" states:
this is from www.gnosticteachings.orgWe do not ask the students to believe in a particular dogma. Why believe when you could know? That is why it is said that the intimate Self-realization of the Being is our goal, but science is our method. We must be critical, attentive and determined if we are to reach such a lofty goal.
http://www.gnosticteachings.org/the-tea ... icism.html
maybe the focus really is to much on crowleys thelma religion:
a wikipedia articel on the "thelema press" states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelema_Press[/quote]While many contemporary movements associate this term exculsively with Aleister Crowley, the use of the term Thelema is actually derived from the Lord's Prayer (Pater Noster): "Thy will (Θελημα) be done, on earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:10).
"Thelema" is the motto of the Gnostic Movement.
Re: Proving Science Wrong
I think that Scientology has absolutely nothing to do with science other than sharing the same first five characters. The only thing scientific about Scientology is that it is pure science fiction. Hardly enough of a link to launch the Thelemites on an anti-science jihad.skellykat wrote:So from what I've gathered, it sounds like Thelemites would naturally have a bit of an inherent vendetta against Scientologists; henceforth, the motive behind 'Proving Science Wrong'.
What does everyone else think?
I continue to be intrigued about the innocence in which bree's charector is betrayed and outward devient sex practices crowley used in his religion. The writers seem to want to seperate themselvs from the Cassie story due to it's dark overtones. Yet, Crowley, sex and virgins are about as dark as it gets.
- Traegorn
- Casual Observer
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:19 am
- Location: Wisconsin, USA
- Contact:
Just because a faith has a relaxed or open morality regarding sex doesn't mean that a person wants to, or is drawn to it.
Just because your faith says it's okay or permissible to do something, doesn't make you want to do it.
It always drives me nuts when people make that assumption, y'know?
Just because your faith says it's okay or permissible to do something, doesn't make you want to do it.
It always drives me nuts when people make that assumption, y'know?
http://www.trhonline.com/ - Home of the Strange
-
- Casual Observer
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:26 pm
summoning demonic spirits through sex rituals isnt what i call "relaxed". To be permissible is one thing, totally throw out all morality is another. And yes, Crowley's teaching was to void ones self of all aspects of morality. LoL, he was a true demonic worshiper. A documentary is out on youtube, id suggest you not waste your time (as i already have) but if it interests you, check it out. He's pure evil.Traegorn wrote:Just because a faith has a relaxed or open morality regarding sex doesn't mean that a person wants to, or is drawn to it.
Just because your faith says it's okay or permissible to do something, doesn't make you want to do it.
It always drives me nuts when people make that assumption, y'know?