Challenge to Paul and other cynics (97)
Edmond Wollmann
Subject: Challenge to Paul (and other cynics)
From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
Date: 1996/11/10
Message-Id: <32869C...@mail.sdsu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.astrology,alt.paranormal,alt.astrology.asian
[More Headers]
Notable repost from June 1996-
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Darlene McKay <sco...@westworld.com> wrote:
> > Beside the use of twenty six letters, nothing of substance
> > has been used or presented to prove astrology isn't a viable study
> > or practice. To the contrary, anyone whom has seriously undertaken the
> > study of astrology has become an astrologer.
Paul Schlyter wrote;
> Depends on how you define "seriously undertaken the study of
> astrology". It seems like you, as well as many other astrologers,
> requires the student to become an astrology believer, or else you'll
> claim he's not studied the subject "seriously". Which of course makes
> you "right", but through a circular definition.
Paul, (and other cynics so inclined)
Prove that you have a working knowledge of the mechanics of delineation
of the horoscope. This will in effect remove any doubts from my mind
that
you are an objective observer, and allow status as peer reveiwers-as
they
say, and as several scientist types have argued. Because this will show
that you have studied it thoroughly and your opinions are construed from
logical premise to the best of your ability with integrity, honesty and
true skepticism.
Comparing anything you have no knowledge of-is not possible.This is
called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
premesis includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which is
all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then the
argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we have
no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included in
the argument that definately would lead us to different conclusions
(most definately on your part of course)-therefore please state your
status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to ignorance"
(Argumentum ad ignorantum) When the premises state that nothing has BEEN
PROVED one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then
makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits "an
appeal to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is
incapable of being proved. (At least at the present moment). Example:
"People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeeded. Therefore,
we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." Logic, 4th
Edition Hurley, University of San Diego, Wadworth Publishing, 1991, page
128, "Informal Fallacies".
Any one in the academic community would require MUCH more than this to
allow anyone to PUBLISH their works let alone debate it with those
knowledgable in their own fields.
Otherwise your statement above has serious complications. You and other
skeptics argue the "basis in fact" premise day in and day out. If you
cannot prove that you have a working knowledge of astrology then any
further statements you or any other cynic make are fallacious and
misleading based on the this defect. A fallacy is a defect in an
argument. Your conclusion is not supported by the premises. You commit
the fallacy of argument against the person (tu quoque) often. I have
demonstrated some (a little) knowledge of other disciplines. You have
demonstrated none of astrology. You attempt to make the astrology
arguers appear to be hypocritical or arguing in bad faith.
Here is the chart you must delineate;
Male
March 14, 1879
11:26 am lmt
010E00
48N24
Explain the reigning psychological need of the identity and how this was
internalized through the parental structure. Explain how needs are
reflected through identity/status, worth/extension and
thinking/perspective profiles based on aspect patterns and networks.
Demonstrate (when you get to projection techniques) how these needs and
beliefs are brought forward and reflected in actual reality experiences
(you may reference any of my works on newsnet if you need help).
Please name these patterns and what sort of schema they relfect. Please
give us your evaluation of the elemental count and how this reflects
balance psychologically. Incorporate the Sun/Moon blend in this backdrop
and explain how it affects this blend. Then tie in aspect patterns,
house
rulers and dispositors from this basis.
Define the greatest fears of the identity and what type of attachment
schema ie.,
(F)-autonomous, (DS)- dismissing, (E)- preoccupied and the
extent of resolution (U) possibilities (optional). Describe the
identity's energy application mode, need to prove the self, find
personal and social reflection, needs for opportunity and reward,
strategic application of the self to avoid fears through the superego
construct. Explain through planetary structures, patterns and trees how
it is reflected whether the individual inclines to extroversion or
introversion patterns and how this would be reflected on the Kiersey
Temperament sorter by the patterns seen. (optional if you are brave).
Define needs for individuation and self sacrifice and the whole law of
momentum flow as articulated throughout the self's particular
perspective. If your inclination is spiritual or karmic you may include
these ideas, but they must be tied to actual reality experiences for
verification. Explain how these deductions would be reflected in what
types of behavior. Explain how at least 5 asteroid bodies add nuance to
these initial deductions and your plan or recommendations for
remediation and further or greater articulation of this identity's self
fulfillment within the 40th year of life.
Please include major arcs, progressions and other phenonmena that you
feel to be critical periods of the identity's fulfillment of self
actualization (or defeat) and explain how you have come to these
conclusions. Tie these to the current reality experience suggested at
the 40th year.
This reflects some of the initial or basic work to be done on this
client
prior to meeting with the astrologer. I will not ask you for full
workups
that are asked for in such tests as I took just this, although I
was not allowed to use a computer, you can. Again although I had a time
limit, there is no time limit for you (within reason).
Please identify;
Tropical or sidereal or whatever, aspect orbs, house systems, dispositor
mechanics and other pertinant
mathematical measurements so there will be no discrepency between
comparisons when your work is checked. Refer to interpretation models
that you are using so we speak the same language. In other words the
philosophical orientation of the specific astrologer or astrologers that
you are using in this delineation, i.e. humanistic, Jungian, esoteric
etc.
If any part of this task is beyond your scope of understanding (or any
other cynic foolish enough to continue this debate) I suggest that when
you come to this newsgroup it will be for an education, to ask questions
of the many qualified astrologers who post here off and on,
or to inquire as to information to assist you in the learning of some of
the above- not for ego gratification to trash those you think
superstitious.
----
"Hillmen are sworn to allegiance,
Living a life of silent dignity Oh Oh,
for your protection, only so you don't worry,
your pretty little head!" Paul McCartney "Pretty Little Head"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
A.Czajkowska
(an excellent answer snipped)
I rarely comment when I have nothing contructive to add, but really,
Edmond, I couldn't keep silent. This is one of the best answers
to "de-bunkers" I have read in a long time. Kudos to you! :)
Anka
******************************************************************
* http://nest.imm.org.pl/bird/worldatb.htm *
******************************************************************
Brant Watson
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997 08:57:05 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>Subject: Challenge to Paul (and other cynics)
>From: Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
>Date: 1996/11/10
>Message-Id: <32869C...@mail.sdsu.edu>
>Newsgroups: alt.astrology,alt.paranormal,alt.astrology.asian
>[More Headers]
>
>Notable repost from June 1996-
>
>Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> Darlene McKay <sco...@westworld.com> wrote:
>
>> > Beside the use of twenty six letters, nothing of substance
>> > has been used or presented to prove astrology isn't a viable study
>> > or practice. To the contrary, anyone whom has seriously undertaken the
>> > study of astrology has become an astrologer.
Now *there's* a novel approach! Scientists and skeptics beware: no
disproof of astrology's viability will be considered if it uses only
the 26 letters of the alphabet. Evidently others must be invented to
accomplish this task.
>Paul Schlyter wrote;
>
>> Depends on how you define "seriously undertaken the study of
>> astrology". It seems like you, as well as many other astrologers,
>> requires the student to become an astrology believer, or else you'll
>> claim he's not studied the subject "seriously". Which of course makes
>> you "right", but through a circular definition.
<about 130 lines of evasion snipped>
(It was basically one long demonstration of what Paul just said.)
Jesus, Wollmann, you are one helluva shitslinger! How many years
did it take you to accumulate (or invent) such an enormous amount of
pure garbage? I suppose I'm beginning to see how you avoid
accountability for being a practitioner of this ancient religious
claptrap. Your post was devoted entirely to demanding that Paul
perform utterly bogus astrological "operations" and "assessments." If
he is unable to demonstrate competence in your made-up pseudoscience,
then he doesn't qualify to challenge you. Cute trick.
I noticed the ".edu" at the end of your address. Are you associated
with an academic institution? If so, do you teach astrology there?
Would you be willing to tell us which institution this is? Or do I
not qualify to ask such questions?
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
What does P.M.A.F.A. stand for?
Brant
Edmond Wollmann
> bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
> > There was a time when rational scholars believed the motions and
> >positions of celestial bodies might have profound effects on the human
> >experience. This is now known *not* to be the case. In addition to
> >the well-established scientifically validated and obvious effects of
> >the moon and sun, astrology offers *nothing* to our understanding of
> >man's place in the cosmos or its effect on us. It will never become
> >a part of science, nor will any aspect of it. It is fundamentally
> >UN-scientific and irrational. Science rejects it because it is wrong.
> >It is a lie. It doesn't work and is fundamentally based in ignorance
> >and superstition. It depends on salesmanship of its practitioners and
> >the gullibility of its victims.
> > Why beat around the bush?
> > Brant
Nothing like unbaised objectivity eh? And all without a scrap of
investigation. For those truly aware of current academia and of a
skeptical rather than cynical bent, I offer the following from current
studies.
For those so inclined, precepts and the inclination to ENCODE or to
categorize perceptions is a common observational bias that enters into
the scienctific OR astrological practice and method (any investigative
process).
The fact that everyone maintains and holds certain beliefs about reality
and subjective value judgments-NECESSARILY subjectively assigns
perceptive falculties with encoded (meaning given to "things" in the
multiverse that have no built-in meaning) meaning that intrudes into
implicit causal analysis.
The "Reason"(s) that we create these experiential reality constructs is
because they reinforce our beliefs ABOUT reality to assign meaning to
locus of causation that justifies and rationalizes our own bias. Each
system of belief has its own reinforcing logic in other words.
In experiements done with cardboard circulars, subjects were asked to
cut the circulars to match the size of coins. In another test they were
asked to cut the circulars in reference to NUETRAL circulars the same
size as coins. Which do you think were more accurately cut? Thats right,
the non coin circulars. The beliefs and subjective value judgements of
the observer were found to intrude on the spatial ability of the subject
with regard to the encoding assigned to the coin.
In another example, children (ages 6-7) were asked to draw Santa on Dec
5, Dec 21, and Dec 31, (for those with Netscape the drawings are
attached). It was found that as Christmas approached Santa got bigger
and pictures more explicit. After Christmas passed, the drawings of
Santa became miniscule by comparison to the Santas on the 21st. The
"prevailing factors" such as Christmas' approach etc., obviously intrude
upon the veridicality (accuracy) of every and any observer. Theories are
drawn from observations.
These are examples of how perceptual categorizations intrude on the
observer and create bias and faulty attributions. Bias creates
hypervigilance in interpreting data, situations, people, and "things"
within the multiverse with this built-in meaning. Therefore as an
example of how we create our experiential reality, these tests
demonstrate that the consciousness of the observer and the observed
together form the "act" of observation. And will be found to be very
difficult to separate without discernment (please see my posts on
projection and discernment and accompanying references to Jung.).
Therefore these observations and studies being done corraborate and
support the general theories of integrity and reality creation asserted
by Bashar, Seth and myself in regard to vibrational frequency
orientation being related to experiential reality. This is pretty well
known in the psychological community but would be an enhancement to
anyone not only in the counseling and astrological fields, but can
assist the scientifically oriented in better understanding their own
bias and subjective interjection of encoded belief structures into their
own work.
So when these egos go off on these grandiose tangents of "I know", it is
a sure sign that they don't. I find science and other paradigms, when
viewed in a balanced light, to be very helpful and instructive-but when
made the God, it is simply another science of following (like orthodox
religious habitual rituals) promoted for agenda and control instead of a
search for meaning and truth.
--
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
mind
about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
select party." John Keats
Roger L. Satterlee
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> So when these egos go off on these grandiose tangents of "I know", it is
> a sure sign that they don't. I find science and other paradigms, when
> viewed in a balanced light, to be very helpful and instructive-but when
> made the God, it is simply another science of following (like orthodox
> religious habitual rituals) promoted for agenda and control instead of a
> search for meaning and truth.
So, you are saying that you have chosen the life of a bi-pedal metaphor,
that your "chosing" your birthtime and walking about "hallways" selecting your
path to "phisicality" is simply an irrational expression, but a personal "truth"
and not in the least reflective of another's "reality". And though it is not
required, perhaps we would benefit from pretending to be Ed Wollman--if we so
choose, of course. Has it not occurred to you that you are still wrestling we a
very self-centered and ego motivated desire to have and control that which you may
not have?...that which nature denies human beings. Now, how is it that your
intellect is still dominated by a childish stamping of the feet and the pouting or
bellowing behavior which signifies no more than you are frustrated in your attempt
to make people say what you want them to say.
Ed, in all probability you did not have any existence before
birth...the "hallways" you cite are probably a projection of images closely
associated to the traumatic experience you cite concerning your childhood
hospitalization--this waking dream, or nightmare seems to recur in your writing
and forms the basis of your first experiences with an awareness that we are all
given to the art of personal mythology as a means to artistic self expression--a
purely symbolic route to self affimation--to "existence". The occassions of pain
and or disfigurement are not "fair", they just "exist", and not even you may take
credit for an ill-fated life experience--you did not chose it--life nearly ate you
as impersonally as if one becoming emmeshed in the gears of factory machinery--a
working out of natural laws which gives rise to both Newtonian and Mystical
"physics".
We may never have a working knowledge of how our bodies give rise to our
human consciousness, but it is certain that any significant change in the physical
body has significant psychological equivalents. You may not have the "power" to
either alter Nature, or even possess the mythical power of the *Eveready
Bunny*.....:) This is no doubt as it should be.
How about, "I am a Taurus", "I like to own things", "I like to create my
own boundaries and I have Saturn in the sign Scorpio opposite my egocentric Sun--I
like to ejaculate Forms and build a large collection of Neptune forms because this
behavior is currently my best means or path of least resistence to saying "Here I
am!", "This is me!" "I am Ed Wollmann, and you are not!"
Rog
> --
> "The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
> mind
> about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
> select party." John Keats
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
--
rog...@ix.netcom.com
11:53pm EDT 26Jul50 Elmira, NY 076W48 42N06
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406
Edmond Wollmann
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> very self-centered and ego motivated desire to have and control...
> intellect is still dominated by a childish stamping of the feet and the pouting or
> bellowing behavior which signifies no more than you are frustrated ...
> waking dream, or nightmare seems to recur ...
> as impersonally as if one becoming emmeshed in the gears of factory machinery--
> We may never have a working knowledge of how our bodies give rise ...
> significant change in the physical
> body ...
>I
> like to ejaculate Forms and build a large collection of Neptune forms
Roger, there are many ways that one can resolve sexual difficulties and
frustration. I would suggest seeing a counselor for recommendations and
remediation as this conflictive perspective is obviously creating bias
in your responses and appears to be confusing your ability to think
logically and state your case in a clear way.
Hope you take this as a positive suggestion and do not feel you need to
lash out in defense of these difficulties.
Edmond Wollmann
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> The occassions of pain
> and or disfigurement are not "fair", they just "exist",
All pain is separation and all pain is resistance to growth.
> and not even you may take
> credit for an ill-fated life experience--you did not chose it--life nearly ate you
> as impersonally as if one becoming emmeshed in the gears of factory machinery--a
> working out of natural laws which gives rise to both Newtonian and Mystical
> "physics".
My, my-quite a powerless scenario there. I rest my case. I have faith in
you to create the reality YOU prefer Roger-no matter how miserable you
insist you must be. I will not try to stop you however from believing
whatever limitations you wish to adhere to-they are perfectly reflecting
the idea you are being now.
> We may never have a working knowledge of how our bodies give rise to our
> human consciousness, but it is certain that any significant change in the physical
> body has significant psychological equivalents. You may not have the "power" to
> either alter Nature, or even possess the mythical power of the *Eveready
> Bunny*.....:) This is no doubt as it should be.
There are no shoulds-your subjective value judgments are showing again-a
perfect example of the meaning of my thread-thank you.
These have no place in a multiverse of infinite love, light, and
limitless expression, they are simply self created versions of it. How
do they serve you?
--
"Argue for your limitations, and sure enough, they're yours." Richard
Bach "Illusions"
Roger L. Satterlee
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Roger, there are many ways that one can resolve sexual difficulties and
> frustration. I would suggest seeing a counselor for recommendations and
> remediation as this conflictive perspective is obviously creating bias
> in your responses and appears to be confusing your ability to think
> logically and state your case in a clear way.
> Hope you take this as a positive suggestion and do not feel you need to
> lash out in defense of these difficulties.
> --
> Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> © 1997 Altair Publications
> http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Shame on you Ed, you of all people chopping quotes to fit your agenda...do I detect
the spin doctroring I hear you complain about so often?
Your cleverness will ever be your defense, I assume...Now, show me some
astrology. I'm aware that any fool can immitate a poor Freudian/Lacanian analyst...but
perhaps you have some real talent for symbolism...In fact, I'm rather betting on that...:)
Rog
Steve
Hi everyone!
Take a break from all this astrological debate - *I'm* not going to get
involved! Why not instead make a crop circle, or go Hay Bale Rolling!
Check out my favourite site at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2500/
Personally, Beach Bombing is my favourite.
Stephen Hawking.
Mountain Man
>> There was a time when rational scholars believed the motions and
>> positions of celestial bodies might have profound effects on the human
>> experience. This is now known *not* to be the case.
Most incorrect - see below.
>> In addition to
>> the well-established scientifically validated and obvious effects of
>> the moon and sun, astrology offers *nothing* to our understanding of
>> man's place in the cosmos or its effect on us. It will never become
>> a part of science, nor will any aspect of it. It is fundamentally
>> UN-scientific and irrational. Science rejects it because it is wrong.
>> It is a lie. It doesn't work and is fundamentally based in ignorance
>> and superstition. It depends on salesmanship of its practitioners and
>> the gullibility of its victims.
> Nothing like unbaised objectivity eh? And all without a scrap of
> investigation.
... [snip] ...
Clearly Mr Watson is not an adherent to the scientific tradition,
or he would not make such unratified statements. I personally do
not subscribe to the astrologic tradition, so this response is not
in the defence of the same, but addresses the scientific
perspective of the above claims.
The relativity of the celestial mechanics of the spinning
earth and the sun provides the quantisation of our experience into
days and nights by which yardstick every living being on this
planet measures its life. From the perspective of environmental
science, the sun is the engine of the global ecosystem - there
would exist no life without it. The seasonal cycles that each of
knows only too well are encoded - in some manner - into the living
forms and motions of the kingdom of plants. Ecological science
tells us that the seasons play an important role in the activities
of most - if not all - members of any ecology.
Now the above statement has been prepared on the basis that
the picture painted by science is unequivocably correct. However
no respected scientist would subscribe to such a position. Science
is - and always has been - an evolving discipline, the program of
which is determined by the combination of hypothesis, theory and
experiment. We are not in possession of any final "theory".
In chemical systems (such as the Bernard Cell) which are far from
equibrium, the effect of contributary forces which would otherwise
be considered far too small to play any part in the process - such
as the gravitational field - are seen to be able to influence the
changes of systems at critical points in their evolution. For
those who wish substantiation of this claim I would suggest that
they get hold of some popular books written by Ilya Prigogone,
who in 1977 received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work
on systems which were far from equilbrium.
The life processes, as revealed by microbiological chemistry,
are consistent - far more as the rule than the exception - of
systems which are nonlinear, and far from equilbrium. Therefore,
it would not be at all surprising to discover that indeed the
gravitational systematics of - in the first instance - the earth,
and the moon and the sun, play some foundational role in the
emergent substrate of systematics which - over a period of some
four billion years (and that is a long long time) - has lead to
the evolution of life, and - consequently - of our inner life.
Therefore, there are a number of reasons why it is not an open
and closed case of whether the celestial bodies effect the human
experience. Most assuredly, the celestial chariot of the system
of the sun, the earth and the moon has been the housing place
in the cosmos for the emergence of this terrestrial life, of
which man is - supposedly - the most evolved.
This response is not made on behalf of the defence of astrology,
but moreso in defence of proper scientific understandings, and
the avoidance of observational bias, as per the topic change
by Ed.
Pete Brown
--------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Newport Beach, {OZ}
Thematic Threading: Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay: "A skillful soldier is not violent;
An able fighter does not rage;
A mighty conqueror does not give battle;
A great commander is a humble man.
You may call this pacific virtue;
Or say that it is mastery of men;
Or that it is rising to the measure of God,
Or to the stature of the ancients.
- Lao Tzu (about 300BC) - The Way of Life
http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/tao_7_9.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Wollmann
Mountain Man wrote:
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >> bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
> >> There was a time when rational scholars believed the motions and
> >> positions of celestial bodies might have profound effects on the human
> >> experience. This is now known *not* to be the case.
> Most incorrect - see below.
> >> In addition to
> >> the well-established scientifically validated and obvious effects of
> >> the moon and sun, astrology offers *nothing* to our understanding of
> >> man's place in the cosmos or its effect on us. It will never become
> >> a part of science, nor will any aspect of it. It is fundamentally
> >> UN-scientific and irrational. Science rejects it because it is wrong.
> >> It is a lie. It doesn't work and is fundamentally based in ignorance
> >> and superstition. It depends on salesmanship of its practitioners and
> >> the gullibility of its victims.
> > Nothing like unbaised objectivity eh? And all without a scrap of
> > investigation.
> ... [snip] ...
> Clearly Mr Watson is not an adherent to the scientific tradition,
> or he would not make such unratified statements. I personally do
> not subscribe to the astrologic tradition, so this response is not
> in the defence of the same, but addresses the scientific
> perspective of the above claims.
Yes, but on the other hand science is the handmaiden of intuition and
perception and observation-wherein the science is a tool to confirm or
deny theoretical precepts. The cynical mind makes the science a god and
loses the perspective that imagination fuels the science and that
science serves the search-it doesn't necessarily define the
search-although by results it often can.
> The relativity of the celestial mechanics of the spinning
> earth and the sun provides the quantisation of our experience into
> days and nights by which yardstick every living being on this
> planet measures its life. From the perspective of environmental
> science, the sun is the engine of the global ecosystem - there
Actually the engine of the Solar system. The solar system is a system of
life as far as I am concerned-and of consciousness-the collective
combined consciousness of all archetypes within it-sometimes referred to
as the christ (the annointed one) or buddha (the awakened one)
consciousness.
> would exist no life without it. The seasonal cycles that each of
> knows only too well are encoded - in some manner - into the living
> forms and motions of the kingdom of plants. Ecological science
> tells us that the seasons play an important role in the activities
> of most - if not all - members of any ecology.
And therefore-to extend this analogy and explanation, the system-solar
would then be a logical candidate as the "cyclic encoder" of the ENTIRE
form(s) of consciousness within it-correct? (astrology). That in the
same way we have circadian cycles and trees have dormancy cycles-the
planet itself can reflect "Jupiter" cycles or "Pluto" cycles-this in my
mind is not a particularly lengthy stretch.
> Now the above statement has been prepared on the basis that
> the picture painted by science is unequivocably correct. However
> no respected scientist would subscribe to such a position.
Praise the lord for real scientists:-)
> Science
> is - and always has been - an evolving discipline,
As is any other truly worthwhile paradigm.
> the program of
> which is determined by the combination of hypothesis, theory and
> experiment. We are not in possession of any final "theory".
Correct. Nor are astrologers. This is because all persons are
self-actualiZING --therefore all theories, postulates, and life
explorations pursued by them must- by definition be as well. There is no
state of perfection-except that everything as it is-is the perfect
unfoldment of how it needs to unfold at any given moment.
> In chemical systems (such as the Bernard Cell) which are far from
> equibrium, the effect of contributary forces which would otherwise
> be considered far too small to play any part in the process - such
> as the gravitational field - are seen to be able to influence the
> changes of systems at critical points in their evolution. For
> those who wish substantiation of this claim I would suggest that
> they get hold of some popular books written by Ilya Prigogone,
> who in 1977 received the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work
> on systems which were far from equilbrium.
Interesting, I will find the studies and review them.
> The life processes, as revealed by microbiological chemistry,
> are consistent - far more as the rule than the exception - of
> systems which are nonlinear, and far from equilbrium. Therefore,
> it would not be at all surprising to discover that indeed the
> gravitational systematics of - in the first instance - the earth,
> and the moon and the sun, play some foundational role in the
> emergent substrate of systematics which - over a period of some
> four billion years (and that is a long long time) - has lead to
> the evolution of life, and - consequently - of our inner life.
It is my theory that they are one and the same manifesting in two
different ways. One internal persona-and one the extrapolated life
experience.
> Therefore, there are a number of reasons why it is not an open
> and closed case of whether the celestial bodies effect the human
> experience. Most assuredly, the celestial chariot of the system
> of the sun, the earth and the moon has been the housing place
> in the cosmos for the emergence of this terrestrial life, of
> which man is - supposedly - the most evolved.
More than this I fear-and can be extended to the "sea" of "All That Is"
or the entire multiverse (multiverse being inclusive of dimensional
levels as well as physical Universe).
> This response is not made on behalf of the defence of astrology,
> but moreso in defence of proper scientific understandings, and
> the avoidance of observational bias, as per the topic change
> by Ed.
Which we all know can only be in degrees.
Thank you, and a very constructive and always enjoyable response it is.
Ed
--
"It is wise to agree that all things are one." Heraclitus
David Jones
Dear Dr. Stephen Hawking.
My name is David Jones. I am an amature scientist and have recently
witten an essay entitle Temporal Gravidic Theory. A Friend of mine Dr.
Alvin Swimmer (a Ph.D. mathematician), was sufficently impressed by the
ideas in my essay to being willing to work on a join paper for the
proffesional academic community.
The basic ideas are one, from electromagnetic theory, consider the left
hand rule used to illustrate the magnetic field induced by an electric
current. The two forces are oriented in two dimensions at a given point
in space. What if the third dimension is gravity. Might it be posible to
induce a gravity force by rotating the electric and magnetic fields 90
degrees out of phase and perpendicular to the axis along which you wish
to induce a gravity force? I will go out on a limb and predict that when
a gravity effect is finally observed that the very geometry I have
described will be found.
The second idea is that photons travel through space but not through
time (a consequence of time dialation), and yet it is clear that photons
say from the cosmic background radiation have traveled through billions
of years of time, might time be a two dimensional quality?
I have a friend that is an x-army ranger. One of the things that he has
said to is "I love it when people scream in my face".
Tell me I'm completely wrong, have no idea what I'm talking about, and
go away forever. It will be a pleasure to hear from you.
Sincerely David Jones
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 1997 15:41:38 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >Yes, but on the other hand science is the handmaiden of intuition and
> >perception and observation-wherein the science is a tool to confirm or
> >deny theoretical precepts. The cynical mind makes the science a god and
> >loses the perspective that imagination fuels the science and that
> >science serves the search-it doesn't necessarily define the
> >search-although by results it often can.
> Interesting departure from previous sentiments. Now why don't you
> name a few "real" scientist who believe astrology works. Perhaps I
> could start you off by mentioning the survey of over 100 Nobel
> laureates who *unanimously* rejected astrology. Yeah,
> brother...praise the lord!
I'll save you thre trouble, here's Carl Sagan's reply;
Several years ago, at the instigation of astronomer Bart J. Bok, the
HUMANIST circulated it's famous anti-astrology manifesto. This document
wound up being signed by some 200 scientists and university professors,
some Nobel Prize winners. The idea being to put an end, once and for
all,
to public interest and belief in the nebulous pseudo-science. After all,
these are scientists; objective students of observation, right? Wrong!
The only one I have read (although I would like to think there are
others) that made an intelligent response to the HUMANIST, was Carl
Sagan. In his letter to the editor, he stated:
"I find myself unable to endorse the "Objections to Astrology"
statement,
not because I feel that astrology has any validity whatsoever, but
because I felt and still feel that the tone of the statement is
authoritarian. The fundamental point is not that the origins of
astrology are shrouded in superstition. This is true as well for
chemistry, medicine, and astronomy, to mention only three. To discuss
the psychological motivation of those who believe in astrology seems to
me quite peripheral to the issue of its validity. That we can think of
no mechanism for astrology is relevant but unconvincing. No mechanism
was known, for example, for continental drift when it was proposed by
Wegener. Nevertheless, we see that Wegener was right, and those who
objected on the grounds of unavailable mechanism were wrong.
Statements...that appear to have an authoritarian tone...confirm the
impression that scientists are rigid and closed-minded."
--
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without
integrity is dangerous and dreadful" Samuel Johnson
Skeptic=One who doubts the truth of any principle or system of
principles
or doctrines. Questioning in the search for truth.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
and
sarcasm.
"Knowledge is proud that he has learned so much;
Wisdom is humble that he knows no more"
William Cowper "The Task bk vi"
"The Winter Walk at Noon"
Brant Watson
>Mountain Man wrote:
>
>> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>> >> bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
>Yes, but on the other hand science is the handmaiden of intuition and
>perception and observation-wherein the science is a tool to confirm or
>deny theoretical precepts. The cynical mind makes the science a god and
>loses the perspective that imagination fuels the science and that
>science serves the search-it doesn't necessarily define the
>search-although by results it often can.
So that I don't have to keep reading this repeated bit of purple
prose let me say that no one argues that imagination, intuition,
creativity don't all have something to do with scientific revelation.
So what? You seem to propose that imagination of any sort is
therefore worthy of serious consideration. Science also involves
discipline and rigor, concepts utterly alien to astrology. Oh yeah,
that's right...these are only *tools*. Tools for what?... Building
knowledge and understanding and a perspective of our place in the
cosmos. You, on the other hand, can construct an entirely
contradictory edifice without being burdened with these tools of
reason and rational inquiry. By divine insight and imagination alone,
you become personally aware of the deepest mysteries of the universe,
most of which have not yet even been intimated by 400 years of good
science. Bully for you!
>> The relativity of the celestial mechanics of the spinning
>> earth and the sun provides the quantisation of our experience into
>> days and nights by which yardstick every living being on this
>> planet measures its life. From the perspective of environmental
>> science, the sun is the engine of the global ecosystem - there
>
>Actually the engine of the Solar system. The solar system is a system of
>life as far as I am concerned-and of consciousness-the collective
>combined consciousness of all archetypes within it-sometimes referred to
>as the christ (the annointed one) or buddha (the awakened one)
>consciousness.
The solar system is a collection of planets and assorted natural
objects in orbital relationship with the sun. The earth houses life
and intelligence and may be unique in the solar system in that
respect. Where do you come up with this collective consciousness
garbage? And where do you come up with it being represented as christ
or buddha?
>> would exist no life without it. The seasonal cycles that each of
>> knows only too well are encoded - in some manner - into the living
>> forms and motions of the kingdom of plants. Ecological science
>> tells us that the seasons play an important role in the activities
>> of most - if not all - members of any ecology.
>
>And therefore-to extend this analogy and explanation, the system-solar
>would then be a logical candidate as the "cyclic encoder" of the ENTIRE
>form(s) of consciousness within it-correct? (astrology).
Most emphatically *incorrect.* There is absolutely nothing
"logical" about your statement.
>That in the
>same way we have circadian cycles and trees have dormancy cycles-the
>planet itself can reflect "Jupiter" cycles or "Pluto" cycles-this in my
>mind is not a particularly lengthy stretch.
The cycles which effect trees and any other life systems which you
care to mention can be completely explained by what is known about the
physical world. The causalities are very well established and have
nothing to do with astrology. So your argument fails for two reasons:
1) The cycles you compare most demonstrably do *not* operate "in the
same way," and
2) There has not been any planetary/human cyclical effect observed.
Nor has any mechanism by which such effects could occur ever been
observed. Even if such a mechanism was discovered, (and I feel
certain it will not be), astrology has been operating for thousands of
years without having one iota of data on *how* these cycles affect us.
No mechanism, no correlations, no causalities, no observed
effects...and yet astrology persists.
>> Now the above statement has been prepared on the basis that
>> the picture painted by science is unequivocably correct. However
>> no respected scientist would subscribe to such a position.
>
>Praise the lord for real scientists:-)
Interesting departure from previous sentiments. Now why don't you
name a few "real" scientist who believe astrology works. Perhaps I
could start you off by mentioning the survey of over 100 Nobel
laureates who *unanimously* rejected astrology. Yeah,
brother...praise the lord!
Oh wait...that would have been the *old* astrology, not yours, right?
>> Science
>> is - and always has been - an evolving discipline,
>
>As is any other truly worthwhile paradigm.
>
>> the program of
>> which is determined by the combination of hypothesis, theory and
>> experiment. We are not in possession of any final "theory".
>
>Correct. Nor are astrologers. This is because all persons are
>self-actualiZING --therefore all theories, postulates, and life
>explorations pursued by them must- by definition be as well. There is no
>state of perfection-except that everything as it is-is the perfect
>unfoldment of how it needs to unfold at any given moment.
Actually, there is perfection. Astrology is perfectly invalid. It
is utterly and seamlessly insupportable by any logical, rational,
sensible, or honest standards.
Brant
Brant Watson
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>> bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
>
>>> There was a time when rational scholars believed the motions and
>>> positions of celestial bodies might have profound effects on the human
>>> experience. This is now known *not* to be the case.
>
>
> Most incorrect - see below.
Yes, perhaps you *should* see below...immediately below. The very
next lines of your post, written by me, are:
>
>>> In addition to
>>> the well-established scientifically validated and obvious effects of
>>> the moon and sun, astrology offers *nothing* to our understanding of
>>> man's place in the cosmos or its effect on us.
So it seems that your long post defending the importance of what I
am referring to as "well-established scientifically verified and
obvious effects" was unnecessary. For those who wish for me to be
more specific, those effects include:
1) the gravitational effect of the earth,
2) the effect of the moon (primarily) on earth tides,
3) the *profound* effect of the sun's energy on all life on earth
And the various effects of the sun include the important diurnal
cycle, the seasons, the heat and the effects of weather, the light for
photosynthesis, and certain amounts of radiation which are known to
cause cellular mutations.
The moon, because of its frequent and bright appearance at night,
has its own effect on the human psyche as a result of cultural
conditioning...lovers romancing under the moonlight, for example.
These are some of the generally known and obvious effects of the
celestial bodies mentioned. You actually think that because I didn't
specify all these things in my first post, that I don't believe the
sun and moon have any effect on us?
But none of these are effects which distinguish astrology, as I have
pointed out. At every juncture of new discovery about the natural
world, astrology has jumped at the opportunity to claim it as the
basis of astrology: gravity and tidal effects, electromagnetism,
radiation, relativity, quantum mechanics and the concept of
synchronicity. When these subjects became better understood,
astrology has had to abandon them. They have each been shown to be of
no detectable consequence on human behavior or characteristics.
Again, APART FROM the obvious scientifically recognized effects of the
sun and moon. And even if radiation from Jupiter or tidal effects of
the moon are shown to have any physical effect on humans, they will be
exceedingly small and inconsequential, in addition to being utterly
uncorrelatable to specific events or characteristics depending on
their relative positions to the earth.
Science does something that astrology doesn't seem to realize
exists. It quantifies things. All observed effects, once regarded so
hopefully by astrologers, have been shown to be so weak as to be
inconsiderable as effects in our lives. Except (again) the obvious
effects of the sun and moon, and astrology has not shown how any of
the aforementioned effects have any predictive value with regard to
human affairs.
>>>It will never become
>>> a part of science, nor will any aspect of it. It is fundamentally
>>> UN-scientific and irrational. Science rejects it because it is wrong.
>>> It is a lie. It doesn't work and is fundamentally based in ignorance
>>> and superstition. It depends on salesmanship of its practitioners and
>>> the gullibility of its victims.
>
>
>> Nothing like unbaised objectivity eh? And all without a scrap of
>> investigation.
>
As I said in another post, I don't beat around the bush. My comment
stands and if you don't believe it is true, you are welcome to state
why. I see nothing disputable in my comment. "Unbiased objectivity"
leaves us with no conclusions but the ones I have suggested.
(I know, Ed wrote that part, not you.)
> ... [snip] ...
>
>
> Clearly Mr Watson is not an adherent to the scientific tradition,
> or he would not make such unratified statements.
Which of my statements is what you would call "unratified." You
seem to imply that some sort of democratic consensus is necessary to
determine the truth or that some sort of compromise is in order.
Facts are uniquely undemocratic.
> I personally do
> not subscribe to the astrologic tradition, so this response is not
> in the defence of the same, but addresses the scientific
> perspective of the above claims.
>
The scientific perspective is that astrology is fundamentally
unscientific...except, (and credit is given where due), in the days
before what we call modern science when astrologers studied the
heavens and recorded their observations with great care. Their
efforts along these lines provided the data which allowed the early
scientific thinkers to reveal the true nature of the cosmos. But
then, that's when astronomy and astrology became two separate
disciplines...one scientific, the other not.
<snipped your conscientious description of what I have already
described as the "scientifically validated and obvious effects," which
are not the foundation of astrology and therefore irrelevant to my
statements...sorry if I was not clear enough on this>
Brant
I H Spedding
On Sun, 18 May 1997 22:42:31 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 May 1997 15:41:38 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> >Yes, but on the other hand science is the handmaiden of intuition and
>> >perception and observation-wherein the science is a tool to confirm or
>> >deny theoretical precepts. The cynical mind makes the science a god and
>> >loses the perspective that imagination fuels the science and that
>> >science serves the search-it doesn't necessarily define the
>> >search-although by results it often can.
>
>> >Praise the lord for real scientists:-)
>
>Brant wrote:
>
>> Interesting departure from previous sentiments. Now why don't you
>> name a few "real" scientist who believe astrology works. Perhaps I
>> could start you off by mentioning the survey of over 100 Nobel
>> laureates who *unanimously* rejected astrology. Yeah,
>> brother...praise the lord!
>
Quite true, and I agree with what Sagan wrote, noting that he did not
in any way endorse astrology. In fact, in "The Demon-Haunted World"
he went on to write:
What I would have signed is a statement describing and
refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief. Such a
statement would have been far more persuasive than what was
actually circulated and published.
(Sagan, p286)
Ian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian H Spedding (sped...@mognet.u-net.com)
There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in
UFO's. But on the grounds of probability it should be kept as an
explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than
routinely weak evidence to support it.
Richard Dawkins: Richard Dimbleby Lecture (12 November 1996)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Edmond Wollmann
I H Spedding wrote:
On Sagan;
> Quite true, and I agree with what Sagan wrote, noting that he did not
> in any way endorse astrology. In fact, in "The Demon-Haunted World"
> he went on to write:
> What I would have signed is a statement describing and
> refuting the principal tenets of astrological belief. Such a
> statement would have been far more persuasive than what was
> actually circulated and published.
> (Sagan, p286)
To which for the last time I will reiterate is fallacious unless the
"refuters" are aware that the subject is not something to believe in but
something to know, and have functional knowledge to then dispute or
refute those aspects they believe to be functionally inadequate to the
task at hand-which is psychological and not necessarily thrown out
because of a lack of empirical evidence of its viability.
Please try to read this this time and come up with real refutatation not
more cynicism.
Comparing anything you have no knowledge of-is not possible.This is
called the "Fallacy of suppressed evidence" The requirement of a true
premises includes the proviso that the premises not ignore some
important piece of evidence that outweighs the presented evidence and
entails a very different conclusion. If an inductive argument (which is
all that anyone has here) does indeed ignore such evidence, then the
argument commits the fallacy of suppressed evidence. Now since we have
no evidence of yours or any other "arguers of science's" knowledge of
astrology-this fallacy is committed until this knowledge is included in
the argument that definately would lead us to different conclusions
(most definately on your part of course)-therefore please state your
status as far as astrological knowledge before I proceed.
Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
This in logic is known as the fallacy of "Appeal to ignorance"
(Argumentum ad ignorantum) When the premises state that nothing has BEEN
PROVED one way or the other about something, and the conclusion then
makes a definite assertion about that thing, the argument commits "an
appeal to ignorance". The issue usually involves something that is
incapable of being proved. (At least at the present moment). Example:
"People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeeded. Therefore,
we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." (This is the
EXACT EXAMPLE used from my logic textbook!). Logic, 4th Edition Hurley,
University of San Diego, Wadworth Publishing, 1991, page 128, "Informal
Fallacies".
"A final word about science"
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is...
Theories that fail to meet criteria well will be subjected to
appropriate criticism-so will more scientific theories that are flawed
in other ways. But no theories will be dismissed soley on the basis of
failure to meet scientific criteria. There are good reasons to include
theories that do not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths
in the non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than
some more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
science' point of view."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
--
"All you backwoods schemers-power-trip-dreamers better find something
new to say, cause its the same old story and the same old crime and you
got some heavy dues to pay!!!! I'm a space cowboy, bet you weren't ready
for that! I'm a space cowboy, I know you know where its at, yeah, yeah,
yeah, yeah!!!! Steve Miller "Space Cowboy"
knarf
In article <3380e0d5...@news.u-net.com>, sped...@mognet.u-net.com (I H Spedding) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 May 1997 22:42:31 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
><woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>>Brant Watson wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 13 May 1997 15:41:38 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
>>> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >Yes, but on the other hand science is the handmaiden of intuition and
>>> >perception and observation-wherein the science is a tool to confirm or
>>> >deny theoretical precepts. The cynical mind makes the science a god and
>>> >loses the perspective that imagination fuels the science and that
>>> >science serves the search-it doesn't necessarily define the
>>> >search-although by results it often can.
>>
>>
Great discussion! Carl Sagan was a devote scientist. Right? Well, what else
could he say? That is no proof of anything. What if do not need proof? Do you
need proof that your going to live this whole day through? Why not?
Much of life, in fact most of life has nothing at all to do with science.
Even for the scientist. Einstein was an example of a scientist that would not
venture into the mytic world and then critisize it. To be truthful I think
that that most all scientist are the same. For some reason, probably
insecurity :), they won't talk about the "unexplained mass" that they face
each day. Or maybe to become a good scientist you have repress 3/4 of your
life.? :)
Frank
Mountain Man
> Brant Watson wrote:
>> Mountain Man <prfb...@magna.com.au> wrote:
>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>> bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
> Which of my statements is what you would call "unratified." You
> seem to imply that some sort of democratic consensus is necessary to
> determine the truth or that some sort of compromise is in order.
> Facts are uniquely undemocratic.
Facts have a habit of evolving in the face of time.
The very first opening statement, to which I responsed,
set out below:
>>>> There was a time when rational scholars believed the motions and
>>>> positions of celestial bodies might have profound effects on the human
>>>> experience. This is now known *not* to be the case.
It is as though you are asserting only folk who are rational
scholars are entitled to possess any form of intelligence.
You have since provided the scientific influences which are today
accepted to be contributary to the human experience, to which
I would also agree, and since I have backtracked to view certain
of your other posts, I can now understand the postion you are taking
here ....
> 1) the gravitational effect of the earth,
> 2) the effect of the moon (primarily) on earth tides,
> 3) the *profound* effect of the sun's energy on all life on earth
... [snip] ...
> But none of these are effects which distinguish astrology, as I have
> pointed out. At every juncture of new discovery about the natural
> world, astrology has jumped at the opportunity to claim it as the
> basis of astrology: gravity and tidal effects, electromagnetism,
> radiation, relativity, quantum mechanics and the concept of
> synchronicity. When these subjects became better understood,
> astrology has had to abandon them. They have each been shown to be of
> no detectable consequence on human behavior or characteristics.
> Again, APART FROM the obvious scientifically recognized effects of the
> sun and moon. And even if radiation from Jupiter or tidal effects of
> the moon are shown to have any physical effect on humans, they will be
> exceedingly small and inconsequential, in addition to being utterly
> uncorrelatable to specific events or characteristics depending on
> their relative positions to the earth.
The above is not at all correct.
It has recently been well documented that influences which are
exceeding small, and which in normal circumstances are completely
ignored can - in other circumstances - lead to influence the evolution
of dynamic systems. The circumstances in which this occurs relate
to systems which are far-from-equilbrium, and the characteristics
of living systems are more closely related to this type than they
are to systems which are in, or close to, equilbrium. References
to this may be found in the work of Ilya Prigogine, in the area
of chemistry, or check the specifications of the reactions produced
in the Benard Cell, where the influce of gravity can be distinguished
within a layer of the order of millimeters.
> Science does something that astrology doesn't seem to realize
> exists. It quantifies things. All observed effects, once regarded so
> hopefully by astrologers, have been shown to be so weak as to be
> inconsiderable as effects in our lives. Except (again) the obvious
> effects of the sun and moon, and astrology has not shown how any of
> the aforementioned effects have any predictive value with regard to
> human affairs.
The domain of science is exceeding narrow. Its restricts its enquiry
to cerain considerations. In particular, the physical sciences do not
consider the "more complex phenomena of nature such as those found in
living beings"
[Clerk Maxwell] http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/maxwell1.html
> > I personally do
> > not subscribe to the astrologic tradition, so this response is not
> > in the defence of the same, but addresses the scientific
> > perspective of the above claims.
> The scientific perspective is that astrology is fundamentally
> unscientific...except, (and credit is given where due), in the days
> before what we call modern science when astrologers studied the
> heavens and recorded their observations with great care.
.... [snip] ....
By the sounds of things, you have donned the white capes of the
popular scientific pundits, and have gone off to "do justice" to
- in this instance - the discipline of astrology, based upon what
you believe the scientific tradition "popularly speaks".
I guess this must be the charter of the skeptics.
Are you not at all skeptical of anything scientific?
Or is science beyond skepticism?
Pete Brown
----------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
Thematics: Publications of Peace and Of Great Souls
Webulous Coordinates: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/welcome.html
QuoteForTheDay: "All things are Connected" - Chief Seattle (1854)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Rogers
If you liked the beach bombing, you'll love where the picture came from.
See:
http://www.xmission.com/~grue/whale/
Jim
I H Spedding
On Tue, 20 May 97 10:48:00 GMT, fra...@digmo.org (knarf) wrote:
>
>Great discussion! Carl Sagan was a devote scientist. Right? Well, what else
>could he say? That is no proof of anything. What if do not need proof? Do you
>need proof that your going to live this whole day through? Why not?
> Much of life, in fact most of life has nothing at all to do with science.
>Even for the scientist. Einstein was an example of a scientist that would not
>venture into the mytic world and then critisize it. To be truthful I think
>that that most all scientist are the same. For some reason, probably
>insecurity :), they won't talk about the "unexplained mass" that they face
>each day. Or maybe to become a good scientist you have repress 3/4 of your
>life.? :)
>Frank
No, the only thing a scientist has to repress is excessive credulity.
petejanR...@spamblockc-zone.net
Pete Stapleton comments: brant sent this anti astro
clone tirade to 16 new age usenets. This is pure
anti astro spam -and brant is a usenet spammer
blowing smoke - must be a fundamentalist christian
in charge of saving his inner morphine factory fix.
Hermital
On Sat 5/17/97 19:20 -0700 David Jones wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Stephen Hawking.
<snip>
>
> Tell me I'm completely wrong, have no idea what I'm talking about, and
> go away forever. It will be a pleasure to hear from you.
>
> Sincerely David Jones
>
> http://www.goodnet.com/~amlight/amlight.htm
Hello, David:
I don't want to crumble your cookie; however, the
Steve Hawking who wrote the referenced message is
a poseur, a pretender, not the renowned physicist,
Stephen Hawking, of international fame.
Perhaps you would do well to post your article in
the alt.sci.physics.new-theories and sci.physics
newsgroups.
I hope this helps.
--
Alan
Transcendent distributed nonlocal conscious information devolves and
directs the evolution of all animate and inanimate matter in our local
sub-light-speed spacetime continuum.
Physics, Metaphysics and the Holographic Paradigm:
http://www.livingston.net/hermital/intro.htm
Brant Watson
On Mon, 19 May 1997 16:59:58 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
<snip>
>To which for the last time I will reiterate is fallacious unless the
>"refuters" are aware that the subject is not something to believe in but
>something to know, and have functional knowledge to then dispute or
>refute those aspects they believe to be functionally inadequate to the
>task at hand-which is psychological and not necessarily thrown out
>because of a lack of empirical evidence of its viability.
It seems to me that "empiracal evidence of its viability" is the
only way someone can "know" if it works. If not, then one has to
wonder how *you* "know" about the viability of astrology.
<two oft-reposted quotes snipped>
But I kept this one:
>"People have been trying for centuries to provide conclusive evidence
>for the claims of astrology, and no one has ever succeeeded. Therefore,
>we must conclude that astrology is a lot of nonsense." (This is the
>EXACT EXAMPLE used from my logic textbook!). Logic, 4th Edition Hurley,
>University of San Diego, Wadworth Publishing, 1991, page 128, "Informal
>Fallacies".
The vagueness of this quote is its only salvation. What is meant
by "claims of astrology?" One claim is that there are correspondences
or influences between celestial configurations and individual or
collective human affairs, suggesting a mystical connectedness between
humans and celestial bodies and aggregates. The failure to find
evidence of this claim is not, in itself, proof that the claim is
invalid.
BUT, another claim of astrology is that it can be used to make
predictions and characterizations. If true, then examination of such
claims would show them to be correct. When consistently shown to be
incorrect (or no better than chance), then it *is* evidence that
astrology has no predictive capability. This would not be correctly
judged as "absence of evidence." I believe the evidence is very much
present and it shows astrology cannot be used to do what astrologers
claim. When scrutinizing the data, failure to find any clear case of
astrologically-based predictive success more than adequately
discredits astrology.
<snippage of more out-of-context quotes, selectively offered to give
the impression that there is any defense of astrology>
Brant
Brant Watson
On Sun, 18 May 1997 22:42:31 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 May 1997 15:41:38 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> >Yes, but on the other hand science is the handmaiden of intuition and
>> >perception and observation-wherein the science is a tool to confirm or
>> >deny theoretical precepts. The cynical mind makes the science a god and
>> >loses the perspective that imagination fuels the science and that
>> >science serves the search-it doesn't necessarily define the
>> >search-although by results it often can.
>
>> >Praise the lord for real scientists:-)
>
>Brant wrote:
>
>> Interesting departure from previous sentiments. Now why don't you
>> name a few "real" scientist who believe astrology works. Perhaps I
>> could start you off by mentioning the survey of over 100 Nobel
>> laureates who *unanimously* rejected astrology. Yeah,
>> brother...praise the lord!
>
>--
<quotable quotes snipped>
I have read Sagan's response before. As you are proceeding from a
totally authoritarian perspective, I felt it would resonate for you.
I also mentioned the survey because of your comment about "real
scientists," and as long as you brought it up, I thought I'd mention
what some real scientists have said.
What Sagan would like to have seen was a systematic study of
astrology and the claimed abilities of astrologers. It might have
also been Sagan who pointed out that it is not important to point out
why astrology *can't* work, but rather simply, that it *doesn't*.
However, I intend to use both approaches here because of the nature of
the medium. People can argue endlessly about the results of tests
which determine whether astrology *does* work, but it might be easier
to communicate a healthy skepticism by pointing out several reasons
why it *can't* or *shouldn't* work.
I do not believe in argument by authority, but mentioning a poll of
scientific opinion does serve a purpose when there are those who
believe in astrology because they think there are a significant number
of scientists who have found it to be valid. I have no doubt that
many of the scientists polled were largely unaware of any of the
research that has been done on the subject. It dose say that the
scientific community has not been presented with evidence which would
cause its members to regard astrology as something of value.
In considering the criticism of the survey as being authoritarian,
it should be mentioned how utterly authoritarian astrology is. You,
for example, not only allow yourself the luxury of creating whatever
reality you wish, but you pompously exempt your practice from any kind
of critical examination. You claim, without any supporting evidence
whatsoever, the existence of multiple universes, other "dimensions,"
and special cosmic insight which evidently only you are qualified to
evaluate.
As long as I am writing to you, let me ask your opinion of prophetic
readings done on the basis of tea leaves, entrails, tarot cards,
phrenology, and numerology.
Brant
Brant Watson
>Great discussion! Carl Sagan was a devote scientist. Right? Well, what else
>could he say? That is no proof of anything. What if do not need proof? Do you
>need proof that your going to live this whole day through? Why not?
> Much of life, in fact most of life has nothing at all to do with science.
This is the view of someone who knows little about science, life,
or both.
>Einstein was an example of a scientist that would not
>venture into the mytic world and then critisize it. To be truthful I think
>that that most all scientist are the same. For some reason, probably
>insecurity :), they won't talk about the "unexplained mass" that they face
>each day. Or maybe to become a good scientist you have repress 3/4 of your
>life.? :)
>Frank
Now what "unexplained mass" are we talking about here?
Brant
Brant Watson
On Thu, 22 May 1997 20:18:41 GMT,
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote:
>Pete Stapleton comments: brant sent this anti astro
>clone tirade to 16 new age usenets. This is pure
>anti astro spam -and brant is a usenet spammer
>blowing smoke - must be a fundamentalist christian
>in charge of saving his inner morphine factory fix.
Well, as I have said before, I will send my responses to whatever
newsgroups were included in the post to which I am responding. Except
where you have removed alt.astrology from some of these posts in order
to keep me from being posted there, I have not added any NGs to my
messages.
The remaining quoted messages were retained in your post, despite
the fact that that you make no comments relevant to them...again.
Normally I would cut all of it out of courtesy to others since I am
not commenting on them either, but it needs to be pointed out that
this is *your* game, not mine.
Brant Watson
>> Brant Watson wrote:
>>> Mountain Man <prfb...@magna.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>>> bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
>
>
>> Which of my statements is what you would call "unratified." You
>> seem to imply that some sort of democratic consensus is necessary to
>> determine the truth or that some sort of compromise is in order.
>> Facts are uniquely undemocratic.
>
> Facts have a habit of evolving in the face of time.
> The very first opening statement, to which I responsed,
> set out below:
>
>
>>>>> There was a time when rational scholars believed the motions and
>>>>> positions of celestial bodies might have profound effects on the human
>>>>> experience. This is now known *not* to be the case.
>
>
> It is as though you are asserting only folk who are rational
> scholars are entitled to possess any form of intelligence.
Okay then...there was a time when *everybody* believed the
motions...etc. No biggie.
I will not dispute the fact that extremely tiny influences can
severely alter the outcomes of non-linear, chaotic systems. But if
you wish to use this argument, you have to take the good with the bad.
Unpredictability is the nature of such systems, with or without tiny
specific influences. *And* to whatever degree you assert such systems
are affected by weak cosmic influences, they are still much more
greatly affected by innumerable other tiny events as well as stronger,
more local influences, most of which have no relevance to astrology.
In other words, you could argue that dropping a BB into the
Atlantic Ocean could set off a chain of events which could lead to a
man being poisoned to death in Japan. But this chain of events is
also dependent upon an incomprehensibly large number of other
undetected events which led to the outcome. It would be utterly
impossible to predict the death from the dropping of the BB. The same
argument would hold true for astrology...it cannot account for all the
other factors which affect outcomes. So my original argument that the
vanishingly small cosmic influences in which astrology invests its
last attempt at physical causalities are of no significance, still
stands, as long as there is no predictive value.
>
>> Science does something that astrology doesn't seem to realize
>> exists. It quantifies things. All observed effects, once regarded so
>> hopefully by astrologers, have been shown to be so weak as to be
>> inconsiderable as effects in our lives. Except (again) the obvious
>> effects of the sun and moon, and astrology has not shown how any of
>> the aforementioned effects have any predictive value with regard to
>> human affairs.
>
> The domain of science is exceeding narrow. Its restricts its enquiry
> to cerain considerations. In particular, the physical sciences do not
> consider the "more complex phenomena of nature such as those found in
> living beings"
> [Clerk Maxwell] http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/maxwell1.html
>
That's a rather old quote. Many of the "complex phenomena of nature
such as those found in living beings" have, in fact become understood
quite admirably since that time. But granting your general premise
that there will always be some aspect of nature that science can't
completely explain, I will add that science will be much closer to
explaining it that any other endeavor. Astrology offers no method or
perception which would illuminate these "mysteries" any better.
Again, we are talking about tiny details, which are much less
understandable by analysis of planetary configurations than they are
by say, a CAT scan.
>
>> > I personally do
>> > not subscribe to the astrologic tradition, so this response is not
>> > in the defence of the same, but addresses the scientific
>> > perspective of the above claims.
>
>
>> The scientific perspective is that astrology is fundamentally
>> unscientific...except, (and credit is given where due), in the days
>> before what we call modern science when astrologers studied the
>> heavens and recorded their observations with great care.
>
> .... [snip] ....
>
>
> By the sounds of things, you have donned the white capes of the
> popular scientific pundits, and have gone off to "do justice" to
> - in this instance - the discipline of astrology, based upon what
> you believe the scientific tradition "popularly speaks".
> I guess this must be the charter of the skeptics.
I do not believe astrology can be disciplined...that's my whole point.
I would prefer that it simply disappear from our culture altogether.
> Are you not at all skeptical of anything scientific?
> Or is science beyond skepticism?
That's a good question. I'll have to give it some thought, but my
first reaction is to say that time and volume of evidence have a lot
to do with it. There are some things which one would call scientific,
but I would tend to be skeptical of. I will also admit that there
have been very legitimate sounding scientific claims which I believed,
only to find out that they were incorrect. But I hasten to point out
that in all these cases, the ideas were new and not fully
investigated. They were also based on premises which were plausible,
though. I do not believe this applies to astrology.
Thanks for the refreshing debate. I expect it will continue.
Brant
JeffMo
David Jones <aml...@pop.goodnet.com> wrote:
>Dear Dr. Stephen Hawking.
<snip first idea, no comment>
>The second idea is that photons travel through space but not through
>time (a consequence of time dialation), and yet it is clear that photons
>say from the cosmic background radiation have traveled through billions
>of years of time, might time be a two dimensional quality?
I thought that standard relativity predicts that time is different for
each relatively-moving observer, and this would simply account for
your apparent paradox here. In other words, the photons do not travel
through time (in their own frame) but they can travel through
arbitrary amounts of time (as measured in OUR frame or frames.)
>I have a friend that is an x-army ranger. One of the things that he has
>said to is "I love it when people scream in my face".
I didn't get what this part had to do with anything, but here goes:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
How was that, maggot? ;-) (Tongue severely in cheek)
>Tell me I'm completely wrong, have no idea what I'm talking about, and
>go away forever. It will be a pleasure to hear from you.
Interesting post, anyway. Let us know how it goes with the bit about
the orthogonal E/M/G axes; it seems that idea should be quite readily
testable.
JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by ignorance." -JeffMo
"A valid argument is not formed solely by assertion." -JeffMo
Religion : Science :: Methamphetamine : Exercise
For email replies, remove the "dipstick." from my eddress.
It should be self-evident that I am not a dipstick. ;-)
user
Its threads like this that make me question the value of newsgroups.
What possible value is there in debunking Astrology? This is the oldest
study in cultural history. If you don't believe in it, then leave it for
others who do. And those of you who do believe in it certainly have more
interesting things to discuss here than its defense.
The more I explore the internet the more I find this kind of pointless
bickering. The only other thing more predominant is porno being
inappropriately posted to newsgroups that have nothing to do with porno.
Cheers friends,
-Brian Myers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tad Perry
In article <338B90...@acm.org> user <bmy...@acm.org> writes:
>Its threads like this that make me question the value of newsgroups.
>What possible value is there in debunking Astrology? This is the oldest
>study in cultural history. If you don't believe in it, then leave it for
>others who do. And those of you who do believe in it certainly have more
>interesting things to discuss here than its defense.
>
>The more I explore the internet the more I find this kind of pointless
>bickering. The only other thing more predominant is porno being
>inappropriately posted to newsgroups that have nothing to do with porno.
You're absolutely right. Just think about the structure of Usenet.
Then consider that it's people "discussing" things with each other.
It becomes pretty clear that "newsgroups" really just represent the
headings under which we are going to drag out our tired old arguments
and disagreements. There is very little being discussed that is new or
imaginative anywhere on Usenet, except maybe newsgroups into research.
Everything seems to all boil down to discussions such as the
following, which are highly representational of the whole IMO:
Macs v. PCs
The US was Right/Wrong to bomb Japan
Women do/don't have a right to an abortion
<paranormal subject> is/isn't real
You're stupid/I'm not
This has been going on for years and is actually worsening as the
ruts we all travel in wear even deeper with time.
Tad Perry t...@eskimo.com
Edmond Wollmann
> >Its threads like this that make me question the value of newsgroups.
> >What possible value is there in debunking Astrology? This is the oldest
> >study in cultural history. If you don't believe in it, then leave it for
> >others who do. And those of you who do believe in it certainly have more
> >interesting things to discuss here than its defense.
> >The more I explore the internet the more I find this kind of pointless
> >bickering. The only other thing more predominant is porno being
> >inappropriately posted to newsgroups that have nothing to do with porno.
> You're absolutely right. Just think about the structure of Usenet.
> Then consider that it's people "discussing" things with each other.
> It becomes pretty clear that "newsgroups" really just represent the
> headings under which we are going to drag out our tired old arguments
> and disagreements. There is very little being discussed that is new or
> imaginative anywhere on Usenet, except maybe newsgroups into research.
> Everything seems to all boil down to discussions such as the
> following, which are highly representational of the whole IMO:
> Macs v. PCs
> The US was Right/Wrong to bomb Japan
> Women do/don't have a right to an abortion
> <paranormal subject> is/isn't real
> You're stupid/I'm not
> This has been going on for years and is actually worsening as the
> ruts we all travel in wear even deeper with time.
You forgot;
Trying to appear so wise as to be above it all.
There are no inherently boring, negative, or wasteful situations, since
the Multiverse has no built-in meaning. Only bored, negative and
wasteful minds and perspectives.
We give it meaning by what we believe or have been taught to believe is
true. Choose preference and act on it with positivism and conviction.
Whining and complaining in a negative way about how terrible things are
only creates a thread that you say you wish wasn't there.
I have trust that what I do serves someone in someway, and have faith
that others can do the same and see it the same if they so desire-no
matter how cynical, miserable, or negative they insist they must be.
--
"There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so."
Hamlet-Shakespeare
Reality= "Will simply be an idea being expressed and experienced."
Bashar Darryl Anka, "The New Metaphysics", Light and Sound
Communications, Beverly Hills CA., 1987
"There are only two ways to live your life. One as though nothing is a
miracle. The other is though everything is a miracle."
Albert Einstein
"I know and am persuaded by the lord Jesus that nothing is unclean of
itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is unclean." Romans
14:14
Tad Perry
In article <338C40...@aznet.net> woll...@aznet.net writes:
>Tad Perry wrote:
>
>> In article <338B90...@acm.org> user <bmy...@acm.org> writes:
>
>> >What possible value is there in debunking Astrology? This is the oldest
>> >study in cultural history. If you don't believe in it, then leave it for
>> >others who do. And those of you who do believe in it certainly have more
>> >interesting things to discuss here than its defense.
>
>> >The more I explore the internet the more I find this kind of pointless
>> >bickering. The only other thing more predominant is porno being
>> >inappropriately posted to newsgroups that have nothing to do with porno.
>
>> Then consider that it's people "discussing" things with each other.
>> It becomes pretty clear that "newsgroups" really just represent the
>> headings under which we are going to drag out our tired old arguments
>> and disagreements. There is very little being discussed that is new or
>> imaginative anywhere on Usenet, except maybe newsgroups into research.
>
>> Everything seems to all boil down to discussions such as the
>> following, which are highly representational of the whole IMO:
>
>> Macs v. PCs
>> The US was Right/Wrong to bomb Japan
>> Women do/don't have a right to an abortion
>> <paranormal subject> is/isn't real
>> You're stupid/I'm not
>
>> This has been going on for years and is actually worsening as the
>> ruts we all travel in wear even deeper with time.
>
>You forgot;
>
>Trying to appear so wise as to be above it all.
I am guilty of all of it. I even said "we" and that included me.
>Whining and complaining in a negative way about how terrible things are
>only creates a thread that you say you wish wasn't there.
I think it was more of an observation with overtones of lament than an
outright whine or complaint. Plus a thread about the state of Usenet
is almost refreshing. At least it's not me challenging someone to
repeat a tired old argument one more time.
>I have trust that what I do serves someone in someway, and have faith
>that others can do the same and see it the same if they so desire-no
>matter how cynical, miserable, or negative they insist they must be.
Although my participation in this thread comes about due to a thread
you have been involved in, I was only making a statement on what
Usenet really *is* and that it *is* that way by the very nature of its
organization and function. I have no problem with your posts, I enjoy
them. In fact, they probably fall in that group of posts that relate
to "research" that I talked about--where something new or original is
put into circulation.
The well-worn ruts appear when the new idea gets trampled on or
supported in very predictable ways.
I guess that's why I usually enjoy the initial post in most threads
and don't usually find many of the followups very interesting at all.
But that's just me and that's okay, too.
Tad Perry t...@eskimo.com
Edmond Wollmann
> >> In article <338B90...@acm.org> user <bmy...@acm.org> writes:
> >> >Its threads like this that make me question the value of newsgroups.
> >> >What possible value is there in debunking Astrology? This is the oldest
> >> >study in cultural history. If you don't believe in it, then leave it for
> >> >others who do. And those of you who do believe in it certainly have more
> >> >interesting things to discuss here than its defense.
> >> >The more I explore the internet the more I find this kind of pointless
> >> >bickering. The only other thing more predominant is porno being
> >> >inappropriately posted to newsgroups that have nothing to do with porno.
> >> You're absolutely right. Just think about the structure of Usenet.
> >> Then consider that it's people "discussing" things with each other.
> >> It becomes pretty clear that "newsgroups" really just represent the
> >> headings under which we are going to drag out our tired old arguments
> >> and disagreements. There is very little being discussed that is new or
> >> imaginative anywhere on Usenet, except maybe newsgroups into research.
> >> Everything seems to all boil down to discussions such as the
> >> following, which are highly representational of the whole IMO:
> >> Macs v. PCs
> >> The US was Right/Wrong to bomb Japan
> >> Women do/don't have a right to an abortion
> >> <paranormal subject> is/isn't real
> >> You're stupid/I'm not
> >> This has been going on for years and is actually worsening as the
> >> ruts we all travel in wear even deeper with time.
> >You forgot;
> >Trying to appear so wise as to be above it all.
> I am guilty of all of it. I even said "we" and that included me.
Yes, we all do it. I get so inundated with rebuttles that I forget there
are people who like them-but I get alot of private mail thanking me, so
I think it is worth it. I wish I had some of this informnation when I
was starting out thats why I post it.
> >Whining and complaining in a negative way about how terrible things are
> >only creates a thread that you say you wish wasn't there.
> I think it was more of an observation with overtones of lament than an
> outright whine or complaint. Plus a thread about the state of Usenet
> is almost refreshing. At least it's not me challenging someone to
> repeat a tired old argument one more time.
Thanks, I save alot of responses as people have probably noticed as I
hear the same arguments over and over and no one (cynical) ever answers
them with a new idea-they say the same thing over and over like you
never rebutted it-even when it was their premise to begin with!:-) They
say "science we need science" so I answser them with science from
current stuff in academia and they say "no, thats not what we
meant"-well its because what they are arguing is not acdcepted by anyone
with half a brain. They are not arguing science they are arguing things
they have HEARD from someone might be science:-)))
> >I have trust that what I do serves someone in someway, and have faith
> >that others can do the same and see it the same if they so desire-no
> >matter how cynical, miserable, or negative they insist they must be.
> Although my participation in this thread comes about due to a thread
> you have been involved in, I was only making a statement on what
> Usenet really *is* and that it *is* that way by the very nature of its
> organization and function. I have no problem with your posts, I enjoy
> them. In fact, they probably fall in that group of posts that relate
> to "research" that I talked about--where something new or original is
> put into circulation.
Sorry:-(( Too much complaining from me.
> The well-worn ruts appear when the new idea gets trampled on or
> supported in very predictable ways.
Yes, like I said cause they never answer the support or anything-any
book you buy in a bookstore just about has the kinds of things I
argue-the only stuff I have seen that cynics argue is in the Skeptical
enquierer I run across when researching articles at the University-but
no one pays any attention to those there either. They sit on the shelves
and collect dust.
> I guess that's why I usually enjoy the initial post in most threads
> and don't usually find many of the followups very interesting at all.
> But that's just me and that's okay, too.
I understand, sorry I was so curt.
> Tad Perry t...@eskimo.com
Ed
--
"I used to be bad, but I don't have to be bad no more....people I
learned my lesson a long long time ago, you're gonna reap just what you
sow." Paul McCartney & Steve Miller, "Used To Be Bad" "Flaming Pie"
Edmond Wollmann
Bosse Omhav wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 1997, Mountain Man <prfb...@magna.com.au> wrote:
> > The domain of science is exceeding narrow. Its restricts its enquiry
> > to cerain considerations. In particular, the physical sciences do not
> > consider the "more complex phenomena of nature such as those found in
> > living beings"
> > [Clerk Maxwell] http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/maxwell1.html
> Later Years" published in 1950 you can read . .
> "To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a
> phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases
> fails us". ..."Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of
> exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not
> because of any lack of order in nature".
> Bosse Omhav
Thank you Bosse, you are a dear. I am borrowing this K?:-)
.,-*~'`^`'~*-,..,-*~'`^`~*-,..,-*~'`^'`~*-,..,-*~'`^`'~*-,..,-*~'`^`'~*-,..,-*~'`^`~*
"We should like to know the wave on which we drift in the ocean
but we are ourselves the wave"
Jacob Burckhardt
--
"We don't need anyone else to tell us what is real..inside each one of
us is love, and we know how it feels. Sometimes I cry, I cry for those
who live in fear." Paul McCartney "Somedays" from "Flaming Pie"
jo...@johnone.softnet.co.uk
The whole history of religion is a continuous
attempt to reconcile old custom with new reason,
to find sound theory for absurd practices ...
I thought the above was a good posting from another subscriber.
Dave Rees
On Mon, 12 May 1997 11:54:03 +0100, Steve <Haw...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>Hi everyone!
>
>Take a break from all this astrological debate - *I'm* not going to get
>involved! Why not instead make a crop circle, or go Hay Bale Rolling!
>Check out my favourite site at
>
>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/2500/
>
>Personally, Beach Bombing is my favourite.
>
> Stephen Hawking.
You lower yourself to posting a message on the usenet to us
knuckleheads and this is the extent of the wisdom you impart to
us?????
Really, I expected more.