For some odd reason, I accidentally stumbled across a comment here on my blog from more than 2 years ago. Beyond the point regarding Scientology, Charles Bourke Wildbank made an excellent point about the retrospective nature of using statistics in business. While history and statistics do have their valuable uses, they can also stifle creativity. Interesting accidental dig, methinks 🙂
When I did art for Scientology many years ago, there was an enormous amount of micromanaging and stifling of creativity. I just said, “I’ve had it!” The problem with statistic hounding is that they are based upon YESTERDAY and OLD STUFF DONE, yet they wish to REPEAT those actions. That is NOT CREATIVITY. Every artist on staff I have known no longer work for Scientology today. Small wonder. We want pioneers and all artists are of the pioneering sort. There are others who pretend to be artists and paint “tradition”. That is their choice. It allows them to brush up more skill until they are ready to make that LEAP.
Geir Isene - uncut 
This hadn’t occurred to me before. “The problem with statistic hounding is that they are based upon YESTERDAY and OLD STUFF DONE, yet they wish to REPEAT those actions. That is NOT CREATIVITY. ”
I suppose ‘in a new period of time?” but then, stats are just stats.
sadistic and statistic rhyme.
I just want to differentiate that ‘Scientology statistics’ is not the same as a real scientific statistic, specially talking about significance level on statistical sample.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size_determination
The truth is that any serious statistical sample would smash Scientology as it does with parapsychology and any extraordinary claim that would require a statistical significance as undeniable proof. There are actual researches about many ESP phenomena, and there is no enough significance level so far. Interesting, but sad for those people who stubbornly believes and does not have respect for real science.