Astrology vs. Rationality

smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Astrology vs. Rationality

I've been watching a lot of videos on Dawkins' YouTube channel lately. Last night I watched the Four Horsemen. I was struck by how effortlessly they lumped astrology in with supernatural beliefs. I did have a roommate who got seriously into astrology for a while so I couldn't help but pick up an above-average amount of information on the subject. But let me just preface this by saying I put no serious store in it, I don't regularly check newspaper horoscopes, and if I happen to read one, it's more just for fun than anything else. I don't bestow any kind of "faith" onto it.

However, my position is this. I think we can all agree that the moon controls the tides (no small feat) and has a very strong effect on things like menstrual cycles. Yes? So why is it so huge a leap to suggest that different constellations of stars, with different patterns of gravitational pull, could have some more subtle effect on at least human physiology and perhaps therefore our psychology?

And if we can grant just for the sake of this argument that that might be true, since humans have been watching the skies likely from the beginning of human history, why is it so implausible that we could have discerned similarities in events over time that correspond with specific celestial phenomena?

Maybe I'm gullible, but to me, that sounds an awful lot like simply Science.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:Meta-analyses

neptewn wrote:

Meta-analyses of nearly 300 empirical studies
Putting astrology and astrologers to the test

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-meta2.htm

Well, if I read through that whole thing, I'm sure I'd find a couple of minor issues with their methodology. But I will assume they did it all above the table and gracefully concede this argument.

Thanks for sharing that study with me.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

Only the client himself can say if that was accurate and helpful, (which they say) and I don't know how much that's statistically valid.

 

It isn't.  That's our point.  OBJECTIVELY, astrology is bullshit.  Subjectively, it has whatever value the person practicing wants it to, just like religion.

Mmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. I strongly suspect there might be a way to safely design the study so it wouldn't need to depend upon subjective interpretation. It's not really important enough of a subject for me to try to devise one, but I can't imagine it'd be impossible. I'm not saying that I think the findings would be any different, but it is a weakness in their methodology.

 

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:What you're

Luminon wrote:

What you're telling me is to go for a lottery with zero statistical winning chance and no privacy if I fail.

This is really all I read in your post, because it is the only part that is true.

Randi's test is probably impossible to win, because you cannot produce real results and neither can your dad.

 

On the rest, I guess I should have guessed that you didn't mean light, you meant the unfalsifiable woo that you think bleeds off of stars.  *sigh*

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:Is really

Thomathy wrote:

Is really stupid!  No, you fucking moron!  NO!  Stop being stupid!  You're not this stupid!....So, no!  I don't agree!  Vehemently so!

Was this really necessary? Really?


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Why everyone's

Luminon wrote:

Why everyone's thinking that astrologic effect must be like gravity or magnetism? Obviously, in all these ages all humanity observed stars by their...light. And nowadays also by other kinds of electromagnetic radiation. This is what I say for quite a while, the influence of planets and stars is similar to light, not to gravity.

Well, I know why. It's a total nonsense, it can't possibly work. This is why skeptics choose the limits gravity as the easy and quick way to reject astrology, so they can go back to their wives and children and still come home soon enough for dinner.

If I itried to convence you that the Earth is flat, regardless of what science has indicated. I then called you a skeptic, assumed you are just taking the easy way out, and going along with the dogma of science. What would your responce be?

"Astronomy is the scientific study of everything in outer space. Astronomers and other scientists know that stars many light years* away have no effect on the ordinary activities of humans on Earth. No one has shown that astrology can be used to predict the future or describe what people are like based only on their birth date. Still, like reading fantasy stories, many people enjoy reading their "astrological forecast" or "horoscope" in the newspaper every day." - http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/st6starfinder/st6starfinder2.shtml

Disclaimer: I'm assuming you're not actually a flat-earther.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Mmm, I'm

smartypants wrote:

Mmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. I strongly suspect there might be a way to safely design the study so it wouldn't need to depend upon subjective interpretation. It's not really important enough of a subject for me to try to devise one, but I can't imagine it'd be impossible. I'm not saying that I think the findings would be any different, but it is a weakness in their methodology.

 

As I've tried to point out, any physical output from an extrasolar star has to travel such vast distances that the magnitude of effect becomes so small compared to the sun's effect that it is zero for any measurable or predictive reasons.  This is why there isn't objectivity to astrology.  If there were, it would strictly follow astronomy.  Since astronomy has found that planets' orbits have almost nothing to do with humans, astrology contradicts astronomy.  My point is that astronomy has discovered enough to that conclude astrology is useless.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Mmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. I strongly suspect there might be a way to safely design the study so it wouldn't need to depend upon subjective interpretation. It's not really important enough of a subject for me to try to devise one, but I can't imagine it'd be impossible. I'm not saying that I think the findings would be any different, but it is a weakness in their methodology.

 

As I've tried to point out, any physical output from an extrasolar star has to travel such vast distances that the magnitude of effect becomes so small compared to the sun's effect that it is zero for any measurable or predictive reasons.  This is why there isn't objectivity to astrology.  If there were, it would strictly follow astronomy.  Since astronomy has found that planets' orbits have almost nothing to do with humans, astrology contradicts astronomy.  My point is that astronomy has discovered enough to that conclude astrology is useless.

Well...maybe. And I've already retracted based on that study. But what you're saying here seems to be analogous to saying that if most all of psychology can be explained by neurology (which I believe it probably can), then psychology becomes useless (which I don't think is true). Psychology, in this example, could very well uncover things in a more philosophical direction that neurology never would. All I'm saying is, I'm 99% with you on this, but I just don't want to be too absolutist about it.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
smartypants

smartypants wrote:

Well...maybe. And I've already retracted based on that study. But what you're saying here seems to be analogous to saying that if most all of psychology can be explained by neurology (which I believe it probably can), then psychology becomes useless (which I don't think is true). Psychology, in this example, could very well uncover things in a more philosophical direction that neurology never would. All I'm saying is, I'm 99% with you on this, but I just don't want to be too absolutist about it.

 

Astrology isn't scientific, it makes positive claims that contradict astronomy.  For both psychology and neurology to be scientific, they can't posit opposite findings (the scientific community wouldn't accept contradicting scientific facts as facts.).  They already overlap and will likely continue to as neuroscience becomes more sophisticated.  Bob brought up some good points in a different thread, regarding scientific fields:

 

"It does not reduce to those processes, any more than the narrative in a printed book reduces to a collection of ink patterns on the pages of the book.

Biology is NOT reducible to Physics, although it is dependant on some of the entities and principles described by Physics, but it incorporates new principles and concepts not meaningfully ascribed to the entities that Physics describes. In principle most of Biology is not actually even dependent on Physics, it is a separate discipline studying the way certain categories of complex entities develop, grow, and interact. Those entities could, in principle, be ultimately composed of entirely different entities than atoms as we currently know them, as long as they supported the existence of a genetic system and cellular mechanisms, etc, entirely analogous to the ones we observe.

There are entire areas of study - Computer Science, Complex Non-linear Systems, - which are totally independent of Physics, and in fact Physics itself is themselves dependant on such disciplines, just as it is dependent on Math, but not 'reducible to' Math.

Chemistry is more closely linked to, and so dependent on, but NOT 'reducible to, Physics, than other areas of study."

 

"Nevertheless, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that involves other disciplines such as psychology, computer science, statistics, physics, philosophy, and medicine."  -wiki on nueroscience

 

There tends to be overlap in scientific fields.  Astrology just isn't one of them.  (I don't mean to beat the point to death, it's just that astrology is rather full of woo, so I don't like lending it much, if any, credence)


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Thomathy

smartypants wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Is really stupid!  No, you fucking moron!  NO!  Stop being stupid!  You're not this stupid!....So, no!  I don't agree!  Vehemently so!

Was this really necessary? Really?

Did you really write the OP?  The internet never was a place where tongue-in-cheek could be seen without explicitly pointing it out and, well, it defeats the purpose, doesn't it?.  There is a hint of seriousness to that, though.  That is, I'm sincere when I say that there's something stupid about entertaining the questions you did when very little reading could have answered them.  Perhaps you weren't being wholly serious, though that's not the impression I get.  But this is bothersome, so take it as you would a friend goading you for something you should feel just slightly embarrassed for saying and move on.  The main point is that astrology is bunk and I can barely believe that this conversation is actually happening.

I want to add that Luminon is just as insane as I've ever thought.

 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Well...maybe. And I've already retracted based on that study. But what you're saying here seems to be analogous to saying that if most all of psychology can be explained by neurology (which I believe it probably can), then psychology becomes useless (which I don't think is true). Psychology, in this example, could very well uncover things in a more philosophical direction that neurology never would. All I'm saying is, I'm 99% with you on this, but I just don't want to be too absolutist about it.

 

Astrology isn't scientific, it makes positive claims that contradict astronomy.  For both psychology and neurology to be scientific, they can't posit opposite findings (the scientific community wouldn't accept contradicting scientific facts as facts.).  They already overlap and will likely continue to as neuroscience becomes more sophisticated.  Bob brought up some good points in a different thread, regarding scientific fields:

 

"It does not reduce to those processes, any more than the narrative in a printed book reduces to a collection of ink patterns on the pages of the book.

Biology is NOT reducible to Physics, although it is dependant on some of the entities and principles described by Physics, but it incorporates new principles and concepts not meaningfully ascribed to the entities that Physics describes. In principle most of Biology is not actually even dependent on Physics, it is a separate discipline studying the way certain categories of complex entities develop, grow, and interact. Those entities could, in principle, be ultimately composed of entirely different entities than atoms as we currently know them, as long as they supported the existence of a genetic system and cellular mechanisms, etc, entirely analogous to the ones we observe.

There are entire areas of study - Computer Science, Complex Non-linear Systems, - which are totally independent of Physics, and in fact Physics itself is themselves dependant on such disciplines, just as it is dependent on Math, but not 'reducible to' Math.

Chemistry is more closely linked to, and so dependent on, but NOT 'reducible to, Physics, than other areas of study."

 

"Nevertheless, it is currently an interdisciplinary science that involves other disciplines such as psychology, computer science, statistics, physics, philosophy, and medicine."  -wiki on nueroscience

 

There tends to be overlap in scientific fields.  Astrology just isn't one of them.  (I don't mean to beat the point to death, it's just that astrology is rather full of woo, so I don't like lending it much, if any, credence)

Well, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to suggest astrology is a "science." Still, I found it fruitful (if only by negation) to explore the scientific possibilities of it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:smartypants

Thomathy wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Thomathy wrote:

Is really stupid!  No, you fucking moron!  NO!  Stop being stupid!  You're not this stupid!....So, no!  I don't agree!  Vehemently so!

Was this really necessary? Really?

Did you really write the OP?  The internet never was a place where tongue-in-cheek could be seen without explicitly pointing it out and, well, it defeats the purpose, doesn't it?.  There is a hint of seriousness to that, though.  That is, I'm sincere when I say that there's something stupid about entertaining the questions you did when very little reading could have answered them.  Perhaps you weren't being wholly serious, though that's not the impression I get.  But this is bothersome, so take it as you would a friend goading you for something you should feel just slightly embarrassed for saying and move on.  The main point is that astrology is bunk and I can barely believe that this conversation is actually happening.

I want to add that Luminon is just as insane as I've ever thought.

Seriously, when on this forum, outside of innocently holding to a popular misconception or two (as in this case) or to some beliefs uncommon amongst most RRS members, or being honestly uninformed about the specifics of a particular subject, have I ever shown myself to be a "fucking moron?" I'm sorry, but that was just nasty, rude, and unjustified.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Well, I

smartypants wrote:

Well, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to suggest astrology is a "science." Still, I found it fruitful (if only by negation) to explore the scientific possibilities of it.

 

Well, I hope I have shown what the scientific possibilities are... which is (effectively) nothing.  lol


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Well, I certainly wouldn't go so far as to suggest astrology is a "science." Still, I found it fruitful (if only by negation) to explore the scientific possibilities of it.

 

Well, I hope I have shown what the scientific possibilities are... which is (effectively) nothing.  lol

I was actually more strongly persuaded by the study neptewn linked to, sorry to disappoint you. =)


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:I was

smartypants wrote:

I was actually more strongly persuaded by the study neptewn linked to, sorry to disappoint you. =)

 

Damn.  Oh well.  Just remember, no gravitational pull from your car... lol


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

smartypants wrote:

I was actually more strongly persuaded by the study neptewn linked to, sorry to disappoint you. =)

 

Damn.  Oh well.  Just remember, no gravitational pull from your car... lol

I don't own a car, like most New Yorkers, so your argument remains valid.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:I don't

smartypants wrote:

I don't own a car, like most New Yorkers, so your argument remains valid.

 

Bicycle?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:If I itried to

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Quote:
Nobody proved to me the existence of protons, electrons and neutrons yet.

Dude, seriously?  You believe the dots in the sky are stars, but you don't know what it is that makes up atoms?  You believe planets have orbits, but will question whether electrons do?  Stop using science as you see fit.  It is what it is, not what you want it to be.

I mean, I know that, I've been educated about that, and it really seems like a good idea to me because it gives sense, but nobody ever gave me a proof. I only have to BELIEVE it's true. And yeah, electrons don't have orbits, but orbitals much unlike planets, that's another article of my faith in them.

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Your process has clearly led you in the wrong direction.
This process is much about developing the ability to hang out with people, interact socially, get friends quickly, communicate with people, and so on. It's not something you can evaluate through the internet, you'd have to know me personally. Weird ideas are not a problem, I can just shut my mouth and I'm safe.


neptewn wrote:

If I itried to convence you that the Earth is flat, regardless of what science has indicated. I then called you a skeptic, assumed you are just taking the easy way out, and going along with the dogma of science. What would your responce be?

I'd assume that you for some reason don't trust Google Earth, so I'd argue that none of the heavenly bodies are flat, so why should be Earth exception? I'd then try to contact some sailors, who can see in clear sea how the ships on the horizon are partially hidden below Earth's curve.

neptewn wrote:
"Astronomy is the scientific study of everything in outer space. Astronomers and other scientists know that stars many light years* away have no effect on the ordinary activities of humans on Earth. No one has shown that astrology can be used to predict the future or describe what people are like based only on their birth date. Still, like reading fantasy stories, many people enjoy reading their "astrological forecast" or "horoscope" in the newspaper every day." - http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/st6starfinder/st6starfinder2.shtml

Disclaimer: I'm assuming you're not actually a flat-earther.


Firstly, astronomers study stars, not human behavior. Secondly, astronomers admit that they discover new kinds of space radiation, and that 95% of the universe is probably filled with matter and energy that they can't yet analyze. Thirdly, the astrology I study is modern. It does not make claims that it can predict future or it can say what people will be like. It is focused on relatively small group in population, on people that achieved in life everything that consumer society can offer, like family, career, house, savings and so on, and they wonder what there is more for them to do, until they die. "Is that all that life is about?" they ask. Or people, who can ask that question earlier, that's even better. That is what the new astrology is about, in it's current stage, which is still in development. It's really not for everyone yet. Yes, it can make predictions, but there is so few
Fourthly, I refuse to call forecasts and "horoscopes" in magazines astrology. There is absolutely no astrology in that. Astrologic analysis must have client's date, place and time of birth, up to minute, otherwise it's useless. Such a precision as forecasts in magazine claim to have, can be only achieved by making a comparison of planets to their natal positions, through astrologic software, and that must be accustomed to the person's stage of development. Because, commoners perceive some diffcult constellations as great disasters, but for more advanced people it's a challenge and opportunity to grow, if recognized, and vice versa.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:Seriously,

smartypants wrote:

Seriously, when on this forum, outside of innocently holding to a popular misconception or two (as in this case) or to some beliefs uncommon amongst most RRS members, or being honestly uninformed about the specifics of a particular subject, have I ever shown myself to be a "fucking moron?" I'm sorry, but that was just nasty, rude, and unjustified.

Was the part where I explained it to be tongue-in-cheek lost on you?  In any case, I thought I had made it clear that I don't believe you to be a fucking moron anyhow.  I don't.  You aren't.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

smartypants wrote:

I don't own a car, like most New Yorkers, so your argument remains valid.

 

Bicycle?

No, but my shoes MUST be exerting a gravitational pull because they're keeping me on the ground.

 

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy wrote:smartypants

Thomathy wrote:

smartypants wrote:

Seriously, when on this forum, outside of innocently holding to a popular misconception or two (as in this case) or to some beliefs uncommon amongst most RRS members, or being honestly uninformed about the specifics of a particular subject, have I ever shown myself to be a "fucking moron?" I'm sorry, but that was just nasty, rude, and unjustified.

Was the part where I explained it to be tongue-in-cheek lost on you?  In any case, I thought I had made it clear that I don't believe you to be a fucking moron anyhow.  I don't.  You aren't.

No, I'm not. You need to think about what kinds of things might realistically be read as being tongue-and-cheek when posted to a forum. That little outburst wasn't one of them.


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Luminon, if your offer still

Luminon, if your offer still stands, you're welcome to give me a reading. I don't mind posting my time and place of birth. I don't want to sidetrack the thread any more, so you start a new topic or PM me if you're still willing to read a skeptic. I know the city and hour of my birth, but not the minute. I'll be as objective as possible.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Thirdly, the

Luminon wrote:
Thirdly, the astrology I study is modern. It does not make claims that it can predict future or it can say what people will be like. It is focused on relatively small group in population, on people that achieved in life everything that consumer society can offer, like family, career, house, savings and so on, and they wonder what there is more for them to do, until they die. "Is that all that life is about?" they ask.

 

OK, so your customer base is composed of people with far more cash than common sense. Got that.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:No, I'm

smartypants wrote:

No, I'm not. You need to think about what kinds of things might realistically be read as being tongue-and-cheek when posted to a forum. That little outburst wasn't one of them.

You're kidding. [/sarcasm]  I acknowledge what you've written and take your advice seriously.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Someone does a

Luminon wrote:
Someone does a test, that produces a paper, and everyone then take it as a fact, although they didn't see it working? For me, it's just a paper, backed by authority, money and public opinion.

 

So you that is your view of science? Really? So how is astrology actually better?

 

Seriously, you say that astrology does take new information into account. So what is the process to determine what new information needs to be taken seriously?

 

Just for grins, let's consider something that was discovered rather recently. The black hole in Sagittarius. We have only definitely known about that for a few years now.

 

So if some astrologer whom you are familiar with and have respect for was to post on wherever it is that astrologers share new information about what he thinks that object is connected to, how would you know that he has it right? Do you simply accept what he says as automatically correct as backed by his words (like you seem to think scientists do)? Or would you try to repeat his work and see if you come out to a similar understanding?

 

Alternatively, what would you do if two different astrologers whom you have great respect for come out with very different ideas and both of them can't be true? How would you decide which way to go? As above, might you want to try repeating the calculations that both of them made to see what you can get from them?

 

What if you did repeat both sets of calculations and you came out with yet a third idea (which may actually show elements of both of the earlier ideas but actually works out just a bit neater)? If you do come out with a way of doing things that, to your mind, seems to work better than the other two ways, don't you want to share it with the world?

 

Really, if your way is good, then sharing it ought to make the art of astrology better for everyone. And if you have made some mistake in your calculations, don't you want to know about it so that you can do them the right way in the future?

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Luminon wrote:
So as I said, for me the scientific evidence is a foreign concept, desirable and tempting, but strange, something I don't trust entirely yet. There must be some catch in there, something I overlooked, otherwise Randi's challenge would be already won, with that crowds of psychics I've seen so far. So I think.

 

Yah, there is a catch that you are missing. After some distinguished scientist publishes a paper, it is not automatically accepted simply because he knows his shit. Once the paper is out there, scientists do not trust each other just because. The want to repeat the work for themselves to see if they can come up with the same or at least similar results. Once in a while, they come up with very different results that contradict the first paper almost completely.

 

However, whatever the results from repeating the work are, much is learned from repeating it. When a few scientists get the exact same results, that is considered persuasive evidence that the first scientist did really careful and meticulous work and his results are probably good.

 

When the work is repeated and the results are completely different, then the work of the first scientist is shown to be off by enough that he has to go back and try again. Well, sure, the first guy messed up but he has learned about that and now he knows what he needs to do to get better results next time.

 

In the third case, where repeating the work comes up with results that show the original work to have been mostly good but with modifications, well then the whole world is a winner because the process of checking other scientists work has shown a deeper understanding of something that the first guy came up with.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:neptewn

Luminon wrote:


neptewn wrote:

If I itried to convence you that the Earth is flat, regardless of what science has indicated. I then called you a skeptic, assumed you are just taking the easy way out, and going along with the dogma of science. What would your responce be?

I'd assume that you for some reason don't trust Google Earth, so I'd argue that none of the heavenly bodies are flat, so why should be Earth exception? I'd then try to contact some sailors, who can see in clear sea how the ships on the horizon are partially hidden below Earth's curve.

So I consulted NASA (Astronomy is the scientific study of everything in outer space), as well as the output from hundreds of independant studies that indicate that the likely hood of prediction on behavior from astrology is no greater than chance. I have seen no evidence to support your claim. Your world of astrology is in fact flat.

Luminon wrote:


neptewn wrote:
"Astronomy is the scientific study of everything in outer space. Astronomers and other scientists know that stars many light years* away have no effect on the ordinary activities of humans on Earth. No one has shown that astrology can be used to predict the future or describe what people are like based only on their birth date. Still, like reading fantasy stories, many people enjoy reading their "astrological forecast" or "horoscope" in the newspaper every day." - http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/st6starfinder/st6starfinder2.shtml

Disclaimer: I'm assuming you're not actually a flat-earther.


Firstly, astronomers study stars, not human behavior. Secondly, astronomers admit that they discover new kinds of space radiation, and that 95% of the universe is probably filled with matter and energy that they can't yet analyze. Thirdly, the astrology I study is modern. It does not make claims that it can predict future or it can say what people will be like. It is focused on relatively small group in population, on people that achieved in life everything that consumer society can offer, like family, career, house, savings and so on, and they wonder what there is more for them to do, until they die. "Is that all that life is about?" they ask. Or people, who can ask that question earlier, that's even better. That is what the new astrology is about, in it's current stage, which is still in development. It's really not for everyone yet. Yes, it can make predictions, but there is so few

So science hasn't found your magic faerie dust? That sounds like a gap argument to me... and be careful not to drop the goal post as you move it. No matter where you hide the magic faerie dust, understand no field of science supports your claim.

Since you don't seem to like astronomers opinions perhaps an ethologist and biologist.

"Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should see it as an enemy of truth, says Richard Dawkins, author of 'The Selfish Gene'. Why, he asks, do so many of us indulge in these pre-Copernican dabblings which are nothing short of a wicked fraud? The real romance in the stars ."

I think the point here should be, that if in fact you do possess some actual proof on the validity of your claim, you should bring it forward, no you must to clear the name of astrology, and obviously clear up this mass confusion science has on so many fronts.

Luminon wrote:

Fourthly, I refuse to call forecasts and "horoscopes" in magazines astrology. There is absolutely no astrology in that. Astrologic analysis must have client's date, place and time of birth, up to minute, otherwise it's useless. Such a precision as forecasts in magazine claim to have, can be only achieved by making a comparison of planets to their natal positions, through astrologic software, and that must be accustomed to the person's stage of development. Because, commoners perceive some diffcult constellations as great disasters, but for more advanced people it's a challenge and opportunity to grow, if recognized, and vice versa.

"No true astrologer" So is this the scale that you measure the validity of astrological claims? Perhaps you need a method to control these claims, and scrutinize the information that is supported by your astrologocial community.

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:No, but my

smartypants wrote:

No, but my shoes MUST be exerting a gravitational pull because they're keeping me on the ground.

 

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

 

At first, I didn't see the last line, and almost facepalmed.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
So you that is your view of science? Really? So how is astrology actually better?
In astrology, the evidence is personal, eye to eye, hand to hand. You know what the astrologer said or didn't say, you know if his advices were good for your life or not. It's pretty much like taking a psychologist's counseling, a good astrologer will not bother clients with jargon, but will say what he sees as necessary in such a way that the client will understand. From all sciences, astrology is most similar to psychology, not astronomy.

As for the science in general, we here don't have good experience with local scientific authorities. I don't know exactly how to express it, but there seems to be diffcult relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, personal observation and scientific observation, controlled environment and real environment. We must live in real environment, observe things personally and subjectively, and survive. And it works. And suddenly here come big bad scientists and say, that what we see and work with are merely hallucinations, until it is done in a lab with white coats around, and unless they say otherwise, we're all crazy, and they have better things to do for next 20 years, than lose time with us. That's it, in a nutshell. Scientific autorities (not those who really work, but those in charge of them) seem to be self-appointed judges, treating people like shit. And they are well connected with media, politics and market, so they in fact represent specific worldviews, opinions and market tendencies. They are far from objectivity, though they should represent it. They can express an opinion at anybody in TV, but rarely there can be any reply from people. And when there is, then they're revealed with vast incompetence and gaps in knowledge of what they criticized, specially astrology. So it is in this country.

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Seriously, you say that astrology does take new information into account. So what is the process to determine what new information needs to be taken seriously?  
I say that the astrologic school I prefer and my dad invented  does take new information into account.
But this new school of astrology was created for the exact reason, that other schools of astrology did not take new information into account. Honestly, there are still astrologers, who believe that all planets, stars and even constellations of zodiac rotate around us! It's awful how primitive some astrologers are, our school and club is a lighthouse of reason, compared to them.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Just for grins, let's consider something that was discovered rather recently. The black hole in Sagittarius. We have only definitely known about that for a few years now.

So if some astrologer whom you are familiar with and have respect for was to post on wherever it is that astrologers share new information about what he thinks that object is connected to, how would you know that he has it right? Do you simply accept what he says as automatically correct as backed by his words (like you seem to think scientists do)? Or would you try to repeat his work and see if you come out to a similar understanding? 

Black hole in Saggitarius? Wow, on what degree is it on?
The problem is not with automatical accepting, but with non-accepting. There is too much of democracy, in my opinion. Democracy is the rule of the stupid, because dumb people are always majority. Anyone can say anything, but technically, nobody is obliged to accept it, even if it's true. Of course, people personally present on lecture will be convinced by reasonable arguments. But those who are not present, they likely won't hear about it, and even if yes, they have their own medieval schools that have no use for new discoveries.

The problem is, that an astrologer can't overstep his shadow. The quality of astrology is directly dependent on the person doing it. If it's a genius, then the analyses will be genial. If the astrologer is just some average or below-average guy, then he will not be interested in new stuff, he will have his own business aimed at similarly average people. This is what I envy on the science, there is order, standards and necessity to keep up to date with new discoveries.
 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Alternatively, what would you do if two different astrologers whom you have great respect for come out with very different ideas and both of them can't be true? How would you decide which way to go? As above, might you want to try repeating the calculations that both of them made to see what you can get from them?
When such a thing happens, then usually both astrologers cover two different aspects of the same thing. The question is, will they acknowledge that? One of them might, but other not. I didn't see enough of astrological discussions, we only discussed the ideas and discoveries of others among ourselves. I believe that good and intelligent people would recognize that both of their views can be applied only in a specific different contexts, although on the same subject. They will at the very least understand why they came to such a conclusion, though they disagree.

As for calculations, this is an area of objective truth. If someone has their calculations, data or historical facts wrong, deserves to be bitchslapped. For example, the idiots who started using the star of Aldebaran as 0th degree of zodiac, instead of Regulus. It's the worst choice ever, the imprecision of measuring is the greatest in that spot. Aldebaran is moving very fast, while Regulus is completely steady relatively to us. They just had some mania over bull symbolics back then, so just for fun they started measuring according to the star of the Taurus constellation.
 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
What if you did repeat both sets of calculations and you came out with yet a third idea (which may actually show elements of both of the earlier ideas but actually works out just a bit neater)? If you do come out with a way of doing things that, to your mind, seems to work better than the other two ways, don't you want to share it with the world?

Really, if your way is good, then sharing it ought to make the art of astrology better for everyone. And if you have made some mistake in your calculations, don't you want to know about it so that you can do them the right way in the future?

Sure, that's the best, I think everyone of good will and  wits would welcome such a new idea - and try if it works on them or not. But I can't speak for other schools. Those who hang out together in the same school have the same standards. We have very high standards, but some other schools not. Forcing them something that they don't even work with would be like herding cats. They can't overstep their shadow, so there is too little of inter-school discussion. What we can do, is to write the new ideas and discoveries in a book and publish that book. In this way we get a lot of feedback and new people for our group, people of the same standards.
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Yah, there is a catch that you are missing. After some distinguished scientist publishes a paper, it is not automatically accepted simply because he knows his shit. Once the paper is out there, scientists do not trust each other just because. The want to repeat the work for themselves to see if they can come up with the same or at least similar results. Once in a while, they come up with very different results that contradict the first paper almost completely.
Well, if that's the problem, then I don't know how to get around it. Because, as I said, nobody can overstep his shadow. If the subject of research are psychic abilities or astrology, or whatever rare social phenomenon, then it's impossible to come up with two the same samples. All people are different, so repeating the test is not repeating, it's doing the test anew. Even people change with time, environment and other people around them. It's very hard to pin down, it's the life itself. In real life there are phenomena that can't be scientifically studied, because they're too unique, subjective, diffcult to repeat, and so on, and yet perfectly real. There is a lot what scientific methodology can't yet cover, like in astrology, gathering many various observations on hundreds of clients for many years and putting them together to create a theory. But asking someone to track down these little data, or to repeat that work, that's impossible.

I'll be a bit generalizing now, but it's a thought of sudden enligtenment, that must get out.
In my opinion, the emphasis on objectivity, controlled environment, repeatable anything, and authority's opinion became such an obsession, that even a common sense of people is mistrusted. That doesn't reflect the needs of real world and people in it. What are the real needs? A lot of scientific research is politely said, otherworldly. Just like in astrology, there is a form of democracy that tolerates stupidity. Nobody can force a scientist to invent a new transport better in all respects, that will replace the stove for burning of petrol, that is principially the same for last 200 years and causes environmental and political catastrophes, just for fuel.
And I could apply that on pretty much all sides of life. We may understand physics, but we don't understand economy, ecology, sociology, politology, and all that, the sense of life, because the statistical 'global village' is a mess. I don't understand, why there is still not a scientific approach to these practical sides of life. I don't understand why skeptics are so angry towards snake oil, but not towards the the everyday catastrophes of politics, economy, work, environment, entertainment, industries, and war. As some middle-east carpenter said, first pull out a log from your eye, then try to pull a splinter from my eye.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

smartypants wrote:

No, but my shoes MUST be exerting a gravitational pull because they're keeping me on the ground.

 

 

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.

 

At first, I didn't see the last line, and almost facepalmed.

Thought you'd like that.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is onlineOnline
Luminon wrote:On the other

Luminon wrote:
On the other side, astrologer must never make absolute claims,

Yeah. They can't make any precise factual claims, period. Because then it'd be testable. Then, it'd be falsifiable. Then, they couldn't use ambiguous, woo-woo bullshit and ad hoc/post hoc everything. Then, it would almost certainly be proven wrong, but I would at least grant it an ounce of respect. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote: So I

neptewn wrote:
So I consulted NASA (Astronomy is the scientific study of everything in outer space), as well as the output from hundreds of independant studies that indicate that the likely hood of prediction on behavior from astrology is no greater than chance. I have seen no evidence to support your claim. Your world of astrology is in fact flat.
As I said, astrology is about psychology, there is no way how people from NASA could understand it. Unless they have a secret hobby. And astrology should not try to predict behavior! What's the purpose in that? This will help nobody. The true function of astrology is to point out client's behavior that is not optimal, and suggest what behavior is more correct for his situation, which will lead to solution of his problems.

neptewn wrote:

So science hasn't found your magic faerie dust? That sounds like a gap argument to me... and be careful not to drop the goal post as you move it. No matter where you hide the magic faerie dust, understand no field of science supports your claim.

Since you don't seem to like astronomers opinions perhaps an ethologist and biologist.

"Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should see it as an enemy of truth, says Richard Dawkins, author of 'The Selfish Gene'. Why, he asks, do so many of us indulge in these pre-Copernican dabblings which are nothing short of a wicked fraud? The real romance in the stars ."

I think the point here should be, that if in fact you do possess some actual proof on the validity of your claim, you should bring it forward, no you must to clear the name of astrology, and obviously clear up this mass confusion science has on so many fronts.

The 'faerie dust' as you call it, is in my opinion the dark matter and energy, which also correlates with string theory. These areas in science are most obviously related to esoteric disciplines, like astrology. In my opinion, there is an esoteric worldview of these parts of science, that could bring new inspiration to open-minded scientists.

But I can agree that majority of astrology today is outdated and not suited to needs of modern people. This medieval astrology was done by astrologers for kings. We are not kings, we don't have armies that we could lead, so we must find out different reactions to threats. We also can be judged by worldly justice system, that is another great difference. No wonder that intelligent people of today know astrology only marginally, and in it's outdated form. Perhaps when my dad's book will come out in USA, they will have chance to make their opinion more informed.

neptewn wrote:
"No true astrologer" So is this the scale that you measure the validity of astrological claims? Perhaps you need a method to control these claims, and scrutinize the information that is supported by your astrologocial community.
Well, and would you agree that a true scotsman should at least have a scottish ID card? Really, the claims in magazines can't be called astrological, because they are related to no particular person, date, time and place on Earth. Nobody can do astrology (or science) without precise data. Those who do it nonetheless, are conmen and should be kicked in the ass.

 

 

butterbattle wrote:

Luminon wrote:
On the other side, astrologer must never make absolute claims,

Yeah. They can't make any precise factual claims, period. Because then it'd be testable. Then, it'd be falsifiable. Then, they couldn't use ambiguous, woo-woo bullshit and ad hoc/post hoc everything. Then, it would almost certainly be proven wrong, but I would at least grant it an ounce of respect. 

If you look at an astrologer, you will see that he's a human being. If you will look at the client, you will see the same thing. The client is not to be claimed, tested and falsified! How that's any good for him? The client must have a good will to take responsibility over himself and astrologer can tell how to do that.
We are all fallible and not omniscient. And not even the best astrologer can take the responsibility from the client for his own life. We are used to go to doctors and let them take responsibility over our health. This is not good. If everyone could take care of themselves, the world would be beautiful. Client must know that, astrologer must not make an infallible authority of himself.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Lumie

 

Can you give me a reading, too? I was born on March 14, 1967 at 10.20pm. It was raining. I'd like to stipulate that any reading include wealth and health - possibly a hot car and general 4 beer contentment for the rest of my life. Maybe five beer contentment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
 I'd just like to add one

 I'd just like to add one last little tidbit, and you can make of it what you will. After getting to know a person for a good amount of time, I've been able to accurately identify their sign on the first try. It's happened a few times.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Can

Atheistextremist wrote:

Can you give me a reading, too? I was born on March 14, 1967 at 10.20pm. It was raining. I'd like to stipulate that any reading include wealth and health - possibly a hot car and general 4 beer contentment for the rest of my life. Maybe five beer contentment.

Hey, Jonathan was first and he's a really tough one. Also, you didn't say your town of birth, should I make a horoscope for Earth's geographical core, or what?  Anyway, I can only add you as a material to my database, and watch you on the forum how you behave, because I don't know you much. Marquis would be a decent material for study, his personality is..... significant even through the obstacle of internet anonymity. Just like mine.

No offense, I'm sure you're a wonderful and distinguished person, but through the anonymity of internet all the american atheists oppressed by religion sort of merge together into one universal american internet atheist.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: Can

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Can you give me a reading, too? I was born on March 14, 1967 at 10.20pm. It was raining. I'd like to stipulate that any reading include wealth and health - possibly a hot car and general 4 beer contentment for the rest of my life. Maybe five beer contentment.

 

 

Well, he has all but admitted that what he does is really pop-psychology and has nothing to do with what is in the sky.  So he is probably going to go off of his awareness of your forum posts. 

 

That much being said, here are my stats:

 

Born May 2, 1963

2:30 PM (I have also heard 2:33)

40.75628194 North

86.08301159 West

 

Caveat on the location:  That is from a current sattelite pic of the area.  The hospital may have been across town back then.

 

I would be curious to see what you come up with for me.

 

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
Well, he has all but admitted that what he does is really pop-psychology and has nothing to do with what is in the sky.  So he is probably going to go off of his awareness of your forum posts. 

That much being said, here are my stats:

 Heey, you all stop that! Or do you want a bill with a hefty price coming at your adress? I didn't write that I will give astrologic reading on any number of curious people I know nothing about. It will be good to have some samples of people, but Jonathan asked first, and he has a real problem. As for others, I don't know what problems you have, certainly you didn't ask me about them, so I have nothing to tell you. You know what an astrologer can do to a person who's completely fine and has no problems? Congratulate him.

And yes, astrology has relation to the sky. Today I listened to the podcast Sketpic's guide to the universe #238 and there was a certain guest, an evolutionary biologist. Later the topic he said his idea, that brain is essentially an antenna for the consciousness, it doesn't create the mind, only gets attuned to it.
So this is perfectly in harmony with esoteric information on this topic. There are cosmic currents of energy that modulate thoughts, ideas, emotions, and everything that the brain affects. These streams of cosmic energy are transmitted, ampiflied and modulated by stars, planets, asteroids, and so on. What we need in astrology, is symbolic representation of these currents of energy, and a potential tension that is between them, in relationship to exact place on Earth.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Can you give me a reading, too? I was born on March 14, 1967 at 10.20pm. It was raining. I'd like to stipulate that any reading include wealth and health - possibly a hot car and general 4 beer contentment for the rest of my life. Maybe five beer contentment.

 

 

Well, he has all but admitted that what he does is really pop-psychology and has nothing to do with what is in the sky.  So he is probably going to go off of his awareness of your forum posts. 

 

That much being said, here are my stats:

 

Born May 2, 1963

2:30 PM (I have also heard 2:33)

40.75628194 North

86.08301159 West

 

Caveat on the location:  That is from a current sattelite pic of the area.  The hospital may have been across town back then.

 

I would be curious to see what you come up with for me.

 

 

 

I'm really curious what you'll say if it turns out to be surprisingly accurate. Would you admit it to him/ us? If you would, how would you explain it being so accurate? "Lum knows enough about me to make educated guesses," for instance?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
What I am curious about is

What I am curious about is what the use is if Luminon wants to know the person's character before he does a reading.  If he is using his own judgement of a person's character, why bother with stars?  He would have to show knowledge of something beyond what a decent social services major would be able to glean in the years of watching someone post on this forum.

Hint: You could learn a massive amount by reading posts for the period of time Luminon has been here.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
smartypants wrote:I'm really

smartypants wrote:
I'm really curious what you'll say if it turns out to be surprisingly accurate. Would you admit it to him/ us? If you would, how would you explain it being so accurate? "Lum knows enough about me to make educated guesses," for instance?

 

Well, I suppose that that would depend on just how accurate he is. If all that he can produce is pretty vague stuff that would apply to anyone, then that is what it is. However, if he can tell from my stars some real data about me, then I will freely admit to it.

 

I tell you what, you come up with a list of a bunch of things that really do apply somewhat specifically to me. In order to make sure that the test is fair, it has to be enough items that we can tell mathematically if he is guessing, so like 15 to 20 things that could be somewhat specific to me. Things that he would not be able to know from reading my forum posts and are fairly personal.

 

After that, you pick 5 of the other moderators and I will send each of them the answers. That way, you will know that we are not in collusion. Heck but pick as many of the theists as you want and I will try to get the info out to them as well. Pick stuff that you think might come up like “what is your favorite color?” and so on. Post the list in this thread. If Luminon is willing to take the challenge then we can go from there.

 

mellestad wrote:
What I am curious about is what the use is if Luminon wants to know the person's character before he does a reading. If he is using his own judgement of a person's character, why bother with stars? He would have to show knowledge of something beyond what a decent social services major would be able to glean in the years of watching someone post on this forum.

 

Hint: You could learn a massive amount by reading posts for the period of time Luminon has been here.

 

Well, I have already said it, so this is no risk to the test. I have been a psychiatric social worker for 25 years. If Luminon tries to do an amateur job of what I do professionally, then I am the perfect person to call shens on him.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


smartypants
Superfan
smartypants's picture
Posts: 598
Joined: 2009-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

smartypants wrote:
I'm really curious what you'll say if it turns out to be surprisingly accurate. Would you admit it to him/ us? If you would, how would you explain it being so accurate? "Lum knows enough about me to make educated guesses," for instance?

 

Well, I suppose that that would depend on just how accurate he is. If all that he can produce is pretty vague stuff that would apply to anyone, then that is what it is. However, if he can tell from my stars some real data about me, then I will freely admit to it.

 

I tell you what, you come up with a list of a bunch of things that really do apply somewhat specifically to me. In order to make sure that the test is fair, it has to be enough items that we can tell mathematically if he is guessing, so like 15 to 20 things that could be somewhat specific to me. Things that he would not be able to know from reading my forum posts and are fairly personal.

 

After that, you pick 5 of the other moderators and I will send each of them the answers. That way, you will know that we are not in collusion. Heck but pick as many of the theists as you want and I will try to get the info out to them as well. Pick stuff that you think might come up like “what is your favorite color?” and so on. Post the list in this thread. If Luminon is willing to take the challenge then we can go from there.

 

mellestad wrote:
What I am curious about is what the use is if Luminon wants to know the person's character before he does a reading. If he is using his own judgement of a person's character, why bother with stars? He would have to show knowledge of something beyond what a decent social services major would be able to glean in the years of watching someone post on this forum.

 

Hint: You could learn a massive amount by reading posts for the period of time Luminon has been here.

 

Well, I have already said it, so this is no risk to the test. I have been a psychiatric social worker for 25 years. If Luminon tries to do an amateur job of what I do professionally, then I am the perfect person to call shens on him.

 

The interesting thing about poor ol' friendless astrology is that I suspect most theists are as against it as atheists seem to be. My mom probably thinks it's some kind of satanic occult thing. Certainly the God Warrior on Wife Swap didn't think too highly of such things. =)


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Heey, you all

Luminon wrote:
Heey, you all stop that! Or do you want a bill with a hefty price coming at your adress?

There you have it folks. Astrology is about selling people stupid bullshit.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:What I am

mellestad wrote:

What I am curious about is what the use is if Luminon wants to know the person's character before he does a reading.  If he is using his own judgement of a person's character, why bother with stars?  He would have to show knowledge of something beyond what a decent social services major would be able to glean in the years of watching someone post on this forum.

Hint: You could learn a massive amount by reading posts for the period of time Luminon has been here.

Technically, I don't have to. The stars will tell what sort of challenge will the life bring to that person. And horoscope to a great degree influences the character. But inborn quality of a person's character will decide, if he will become a victim of his horoscope and destiny, or his master.
 

For example, I might see that someone is in great danger of being irrationally addicted to gambling, because money and excitement is for him like dynamite and flame. But that person would be theoretically a good scientist. (I use a real example here, and not JonathanBC ) Then of course, it depends on character of that person, if he can understand  that all casino games are made to lose more than you win, and if he is smart enough to go studying for a scientist. That particular case was not a very smart person, the horoscope was made on demand of his father. And his father was pretty amazed, when the astrologer immediately and independently guessed the obsession with gambling. (something badly aspected in Aries 2nd house, if I remember)

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
After a long reading

Ok, first of all greetings to everybody.

I know this post could be a little old because the one before mine was created by Luminon a long time ago. However I was interested to learn more about the discussion because as I am an atheist, it is impossible to believe in horoscopes and astrology. Although there is a lot of scientific evidence that can make us conclude astrology is fake, before to became atheist I was moving among different beliefs and I learned something about stars and all that.

In my opinion, astrology was a "proto science" , the first effort of mankind to classify the human behavior. With the develop through the history, astrology took the category of myth, and was replaced by psychology, which is a humanistic discipline. In such case, astrology can be considered in the same rank of alchemy. We all know it is impossible to create the philoshopher's stone. However that was the first attempt to develop the modern and scientific chemistry.

Then, it is impossible to consider we can predict the future according to horoscopes. Anyway, meanwhile I explored this esoteric field, I realized -due a ilussion or to a relationship between psychology and astrology concepts- most of the comparison that both zodiacs did with animals and humans are almost right. The true is you can figure out how a person it is going to act, to think and even feel. But as I stated some lines above, it won't be right to believe in such a crap. However I need to call the attention of all the posters in this topic to ask the following: It is possible to consider astrology as a proto science surrounded by myths in ancient times or it is only a bullshit?

 

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
ManuAndres44 wrote:Then, it

ManuAndres44 wrote:

Then, it is impossible to consider we can predict the future according to horoscopes. Anyway, meanwhile I explored this esoteric field, I realized -due a ilussion or to a relationship between psychology and astrology concepts- most of the comparison that both zodiacs did with animals and humans are almost right. The true is you can figure out how a person it is going to act, to think and even feel. But as I stated some lines above, it won't be right to believe in such a crap. However I need to call the attention of all the posters in this topic to ask the following: It is possible to consider astrology as a proto science surrounded by myths in ancient times or it is only a bullshit?

Astrology is quite a serious attempt at psychology. I heard there were found ancient horoscopes with eight or four sections, instead of today's twelve. The basic idea in astrology are four elements, that are popularly known even today: sanguinic (air), melancholic (water), phlegmatic (earth) and choleric (fire). Today we only have finer distinction into 12 signs, three per element.


These signs reflect the journey of soul through 12 stages of development. They represent the ability of self-centered action (aries), stabilization (taurus), communication (gemini), self-awareness (cancer), playfulness (leo), work and service (virgo), relationships (libra), insight into others (scorpio), planning and achieving (saggitarius), individual freedom (capricorn), collective freedom (aquarius) and cosmic freedom. (pisces)
Furthermore, we have 12 houses which are equivalent to areas in our life, in which we perform the mentioned abilities. Houses can have various size and position. There are also +- 12 planets, asteroids and computed points, which each have their resonances and dissonances with a particular house and sign. They of course also interact among themselves.

We see the system is quite complex. Now the question is whether the astrological influences have any effect on a particular person. To determine that it is necessary to know (which even many astrologers don't know) that a person is NOT completely identic with his horoscope. Everyone reacts differently. For a primitive person transits of Saturn are times of great distress and punishment. An advanced person will simply adjust by paying a greater attention and responsibility to the area of life where the saturn transits and may even benefit from the feared transit. 
Transit of Jupiter is considered a "great luck" but again it is a simple principle of expansion. A weak person will overdo it and end up with wasted resources, but an advanced person will stop just in time to not overdo that particular activity.
Majority of astrologers are traditional, that means royal + medieval. Today there are many types of people who react differently, but they still use rules and observations from the time when people were simplier and astrology was mainly applied on kings.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


ManuAndres44
atheist
ManuAndres44's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2010-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Astrology is quite a

Quote:

Astrology is quite a serious attempt at psychology. I heard there were found ancient horoscopes with eight or four sections, instead of today's twelve. The basic idea in astrology are four elements, that are popularly known even today: sanguinic (air), melancholic (water), phlegmatic (earth) and choleric (fire). Today we only have finer distinction into 12 signs, three per element.

According to this information I can make a contrast and then confirm what I had stated in my previous post. Due to the mythical thinking the humanity had in its first stages, sciences and religions where combined. Therefore, the four humours where understood through the philosophy of the four basic natural elements. After the human thought evolved, it started to separate the concepts. Then Hippocrates appeared and defined the four humours. Thus the division between psychology and astrology started.

It seems this discpline is evolving from medieval stages. However, how can people be assured about what are they reading in the western zodiac if they can find another description in the Chinese one? Luminon, as you posted before in one of your earliest comments, you know a lot of astrology. So, I suppose you should know the Chinese Zodiac is older than the western. Then, how can people feel confident toward just one description? That's why I consider you could not trust in the astrology. And even more, if you consider the astrology from Persia, Babylon, Egypt and even the Mayan one, how can you be completely sure you have found the truth? In consequence, psychology will give much and better answers to the problem of the personality and human behavior.

Debate is the best way to share the knowledge


Desdenova
atheist
Desdenova's picture
Posts: 410
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
What I have learned about

What I have learned about astrology so far.

1. It is akin to light.

2. It is like psychology, only the kind of psychology that is akin to light and not affected by gravity. Except that light is affected by gravity.

3. It is like psychology composed of light that takes into account odd coincidences and outdated Lamarkian evolution theory of Paul Kammerer, and dark matter.

4. It is the art of capitalistic swine who claim they do it to help people, but will only 'help' them for a hefty price.

I think I have the gist of it now, and am ready to start helping people myself. Gene, you are an intellectual but with a less serious side. You are often cold and logical but can be slapstick and comedic when it suits you to be. You like reading and some music, and I sense a fondness of the band KISS because your house is in Aquarius and the singularity is exerting a distinct photonic psychological coincidence on your left mid chakra. Dark matter has clouded your financial outlook, but I sense that you sometimes have money issues. In fact I am sensing one of those monetary worries right this moment despite the Lamarckian growth prospect of the U. S. Treasury.

That will be $500 US dollars, please. Thanks, and lets schedule another reading on your next payday.

 

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.

Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
LOL

Desdenova wrote:

What I have learned about astrology so far.

1. It is akin to light.

2. It is like psychology, only the kind of psychology that is akin to light and not affected by gravity. Except that light is affected by gravity.

3. It is like psychology composed of light that takes into account odd coincidences and outdated Lamarkian evolution theory of Paul Kammerer, and dark matter.

4. It is the art of capitalistic swine who claim they do it to help people, but will only 'help' them for a hefty price.

I think I have the gist of it now, and am ready to start helping people myself. Gene, you are an intellectual but with a less serious side. You are often cold and logical but can be slapstick and comedic when it suits you to be. You like reading and some music, and I sense a fondness of the band KISS because your house is in Aquarius and the singularity is exerting a distinct photonic psychological coincidence on your left mid chakra. Dark matter has clouded your financial outlook, but I sense that you sometimes have money issues. In fact I am sensing one of those monetary worries right this moment despite the Lamarckian growth prospect of the U. S. Treasury.

That will be $500 US dollars, please. Thanks, and lets schedule another reading on your next payday.

 

 

LOL. That is a good one.

I lived with my grandmother, many years ago, who had bad eyesight and would often ask me to read her certain headlines from the newspaper early in the morning. The first thing that she always wanted me to do was read the horoscopes. I would read hers and then read mine and we would both marvel over how close this stuff came to actually describing our current situations.  Then one day, just on a whim, I decided to read ALL of the horoscopes. Oddly enough, any one of these things could have applied to me or my grandmother and any one of them could have been used. Just to prove my point, rather than read mine (Scorpio) for a whole week I read a different one, and they all could apply.

Reminds me of this co-worker that loaned me this Dan Millman book about adding up your birthdays and coming up with this number. You then flip ahead to the chapter and WOW, your birth number says ALL THAT THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT YOU. Only problem is, you can select any chapter and any number and it applies. (Supposedly, Dan Millman claimed that this number system came from some sort of ANCIENT SPIRITUAL SYSTEM). I never understood why so many of these people that sell this stuff to the masses convinces people that it must be somehow authentic because it is "ANCIENT". Notice they always use that term, ancient. Hmm, ancient superstition to me would be just as invalid as modern superstition, but that could be because I am just one of those evil atheists that believes in nothing and lives without purpose, hehe.

Now, I am aware that this type of "trendy" astrology is not what the OP and others are referring to on here. As far as if there could be any valdity to actually being affected by the planets or stars, I am sure that there could be some sort of a possibility. But, I am probably going to be very, very, very, very skeptical of it until I see any proof.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Nobody proved to me

Quote:

Nobody proved to me the existence of protons, electrons and neutrons yet.

You never watched an old tube television? You know what is being scanned across the screen to make it light up?

A beam of tiny negatively charged particles, that's what. AKA 'electrons'. Pretty hard to explain what was really going on there if there were no such things.

It was just such an observation using a very simple pre-cursor to the 'cathode ray tube' that provided evidence for electrons. I have seen it, Crooke's Tube, in the Science Museum in London, although it was not running at the time.

And once you have electrons, some positively charged things have to be around in equal numbers or we would have other problems, and the other stuff has to have mass, 'cause electrons don't have nearly enough to account for the weight of things.

Neutrons are not as obvious, it was a while before they were proposed, initially it was thought the nucleus of atoms was a mix of enough protons to account for the mass, with enough electrons in there to make the overall atom neutral. But eventually the theory and math assuming just electrons and protons just could not be made to work everywhere, and a neutral particle was the neatest solution.

That is how science works.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Math Attack

Okay, it's math time.

 

The average distance to the moon is 225,622 miles (http://www.universetoday.com/19426/distance-to-the-moon/).  This is a little less than 1 light second, so lets say the moon is about 1 light second away.

 

Google calculator says the mass of the moon is 7.36 x 10^22 kilograms, while the mass of the sun is 1.98892 x 10^30 kilograms.  So the moon is about 2.78 x 10^-9 solar masses.

 

The nearest star (besides the sun) is Alpha Centauri (http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/extra/nearest.html).  Its distance from Earth is about 4 lightyears.  Let's assume it has 1 solar mass.  1 year is 60*60*25*365.25 = 2.3*10^7 seconds, so 4 lightyears is about 9.2 * 10^7 light seconds.

 

Gravity from moon = Constants * Mass of Moon / distance squared = Constants * 2.8*10^-9 Solar masses per (light second)^2

 

Gravity from Star = Same Constants * Mass of Star / distance squared = Constants * 1.2*10^-16 Solar masses per (light second)^2

 

So the gravity from the closest (non-Sun) star is bout 4 * 10^-8 times the gravity from the moon, or about 4 (hundred millionths) (as in 4 out of a hundred million) of the gravity from the moon.

 

Hence the effects of Alpha Centauri's gravity are negligible in comparison to the effects of the moon's gravity.  Other stars are even further away.

 

This doesn't take into account the fact that the stars are pretty randomly scattered in terms of direction.  You have to do a vector sum over the gravity from the stars, not a scalar sum, so 100 million stars will only result in 4 times the effect of the moon if every one of those stars is in the same direction, roughly 4 lightyears away, and only provided there are not 100 million similarly situated stars in the opposite direction.  Simply put, any affect the stars would have on the tides (or anything else on earth) is drowned out by the much larger effect of the moon.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5904
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The actual measurable effect

The actual measurable effect of a body like the moon on a body on the earth is really a tidal force, since the straight gravitationally attractive force is almost identically acting on everything around us, so has no detectable effect within our environment.

The tidal force is the gradient of the gravitational field, the difference in strength of the field on those parts of a body closest to the object in question, in this case the moon, and those further from the moon.

In the case of tides, it is the differences between the gravitational attraction on the bulk of the ocean facing the moon, and on the earth itself, effectively on its center of mass, and then on the bulk of the ocean on the far side of the earth, that causes the ocean to on each side to get a bit further away from the center of the earth.

The important mathematical point about the tidal force is that it falls off as the inverse cube of the distance, not the square.

This has the consequence that for a bodies of a given density and shape, their tidal effect is the same if they appear the same size. And that it is proportional to the cube of their apparent diameter.

This is why the tidal effect of the far more massive sun is comparable to that of the moon, but smaller because it is of lower density.

So when we consider the potential effect of the stars, it is even more insignificant than the previous calculations suggest.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology