Astrology Has No Basis in Fact
Michael Everett
If astrology had any basis in fact, imagine the ways in which
entrepreneurs might have put this so-called science to work.
Personnel specialists, who make their living by predicting which
individuals will be most productive at their jobs, would have long ago
adjusted their hiring recommendations to astrological data. Insurance
underwriters would have detected different risk factors based on birth
date. DMV records would show different driving habits based on date
of birth. Stock speculators would calculate risk based on the
astrological signs of CEO's. Gamblers might beat the race track by
factoring in the astrology of the jockey. Of course none of this has
happened because astrology has zero validity as a predictor of human
behavior and absolutely no basis in science.
Surely, no one actually believes in this hocus-pocus?
ME
Edmond Wollmann
Many of these things have been done and are being done. I for instance am
working with a HR specialist to develop employee selection programs using
astrology. There are problems. It is against the law to ask for birth
data as a selection criteria, let alone get the time of birth (which I
can see you had no idea we would need for further work because of your
sun sign reference). Henry Weingarten uses astrology sucessfully for
stock investment and has many sucessful clients. So, the bottom line is
you tell us more about your knowledge of the subject and your
unwillingness and predjudice regarding it that keeps you from knowing it,
rather than anything about the subject itself. It would behoove you to
have more reverence and info for other valid subjects before you post
your level of understanding about them in front of everyone.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
--
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Trudy Sensat
> ----------------------------------------
> To: /news/alt/astrology/articles Msg #: 85577 Size: 852/0
> From: ia...@primenet.com (Michael Everett) On: 06/07/96 16:29
> Header: 518/7 Subject: Astrology Has No Basis in Fact
>
-Major Snip-
> Surely, no one actually believes in this hocus-pocus?
>
> ME
Obviously we do, or there wouldn't be an astrology newsgroup.
Andrea
Bettyjane Nilsson
Astrology is not meant to be a predictive tool. If your daily horoscope
said that you would be lucky does that mean that you could win the lotto?
Or could this mean that you may have a happy and productive day with
family and friends. Casting an astrological chart is very beneficial in
showing a person what their characteristics are. Most folks don't admit
to their bad traits. With astrology you can see that you may have certain
tendencies that may not be to your liking and you have a definite choice
to do something about them. For instance a person born with Mercury
conjunct the Ascendent should have a natural gift for communication but
if that Mercury is conjunct from the 12th house then there can be a
definite commincation problem because that person will keep most of their
gift of communication to themself. If this person is aware that this is a
problem they could make an effort to open themselves up. This is only a
small example. Astrology tells a whole lot about the human psyche. An
exact time and place of birth have to be known to get a correct reading.
The newspapers and magazines are so general that a lot of us could go by
at least 3 of the signs printed. 1 for the Sun sign, 1 for the Moon sign
and 1 for the Rising sign.
Jonathan C Dunn
As far as 'imagine how wonderfully it could be used if it were true, and
thus it must be false' goes, I often think of the examples of weather- and
economical forecasting. Not always as effective as what one would expect
from a true 'science' but with enought successes to keep people
interested...
-jon dunn, seattle washington
http://nsccux.sccd.ctc.edu/~jondunn
altavoz
"I have studied it, you have not " Newton to Haley
______________alt...@azstarnet.com says above________
Michael Everett
>Michael Everett wrote:
>
>> If astrology had any basis in fact, imagine the ways in which
>> entrepreneurs might have put this so-called science to work.
>> Personnel specialists, who make their living by predicting which
>> individuals will be most productive at their jobs, would have long ago
>> adjusted their hiring recommendations to astrological data. Insurance
>> underwriters would have detected different risk factors based on birth
>> date. DMV records would show different driving habits based on date
>> of birth. Stock speculators would calculate risk based on the
>> astrological signs of CEO's. Gamblers might beat the race track by
>> factoring in the astrology of the jockey. Of course none of this has
>> happened because astrology has zero validity as a predictor of human
>> behavior and absolutely no basis in science.
>> Surely, no one actually believes in this hocus-pocus?
>> ME
>
>Many of these things have been done and are being done. I for instance am
>working with a HR specialist to develop employee selection programs using
>astrology. There are problems. It is against the law to ask for birth
>data as a selection criteria, let alone get the time of birth (which I
>can see you had no idea we would need for further work because of your
>sun sign reference). Henry Weingarten uses astrology sucessfully for
>stock investment and has many sucessful clients. So, the bottom line is
>you tell us more about your knowledge of the subject and your
>unwillingness and predjudice regarding it that keeps you from knowing it,
>rather than anything about the subject itself. It would behoove you to
>have more reverence and info for other valid subjects before you post
>your level of understanding about them in front of everyone.
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>--
>© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
>http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
>(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
Yeah, well astrology's been around for thousands of years. If
astrologers can predict things or have an insight others don't, then
why don't they and their doctrine dominate and direct our economy?
Wouldn't some greedy capitalist have discovered by now that by using
astrology he could gain advantage over a competitor who didn't? If
astrology had any validity whatsoever, it would have been confirmed
with the use of computers years ago. And if it were valid, we would
see private industries and other countries shifting to astrological
guidance.
Put simply, astrology has no relevance to reality other than as
folklore or as a commercial commodity for the gullible.
Please offer one reproducable experiment to demonstrate proof of
astrology.
ME (Pisces)
Edmond Wollmann
> Yeah, well astrology's been around for thousands of years. If astrologers can predict things or have an insight others don't, then
why don't they and their doctrine dominate and direct our economy?
Wouldn't some greedy capitalist have discovered by now that by using
astrology he could gain advantage over a competitor who didn't? If
astrology had any validity whatsoever, it would have been confirmed
with the use of computers years ago. And if it were valid, we would
see private industries and other countries shifting to astrological
guidance.
Put simply, astrology has no relevance to reality other than as
folklore or as a commercial commodity for the gullible.
Please offer one reproducable experiment to demonstrate proof of
> astrology.
> ME (Pisces)
Nothing is ever proven. Theories are made of consctructs. Theories
generate hypothesis. Hypothesis generate data to look at. Theories exist
within paradigms.Paradigms are sets of belief assumptions. Absence of
evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the above
connections have different sets of propositions to explain results.
Philosophers have for centuries tried to propose a way to prove their own
existance. "I think therefore I am" is as close as we can get. Please
provide proof that you exist so that I feel there is enough data for me
to continue to discuss this with you.
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
....
> Many of these things have been done and are being done. ...
> ... Henry Weingarten uses astrology sucessfully for
> stock investment and has many sucessful clients. ...
Depending on your definition of "successful," very simple stock
market trading algorithms can be "successful." Just buy a broad
spectrum of issues across the market, or even simpler, index
funds, and you're likely to return in the ballpark of 10%/year
over the long term. The market as a whole grows at an average rate
comparable to that. The question is whether Mr. Weingarten's
service consistently out-performs the market. And if it does, one
should look into his general stock market acumen (which may be
very good) before crediting his success to astrology.
Jim
Edmond Wollmann
Your straining at gnats Jim he was asking why people didn't use astrology
for all these things and I was explaining that they did.
Robert Roosen
Michael Everett (ia...@primenet.com) wrote:
: Wouldn't some greedy capitalist have discovered by now that by using
: astrology he could gain advantage over a competitor who didn't?
You are not doing your homework. Such a greedy capitalist did indeed use
astrology to gain advantage. His name? Ronald Reagan.
Read the book, "What Does Joan Say?" for the whole story.
Robert
PS For a reproducible proof of astrology, send e-mail to jam...@ax.com
Ask for a copy of the "Seven Faces of Man". Again, YOU will have to do
some work in order to understand it.
Eowynn
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Wouldn't some greedy capitalist have discovered by now that by using
> astrology he could gain advantage over a competitor who didn't? If
> astrology had any validity whatsoever, it would have been confirmed
> with the use of computers years ago. And if it were valid, we would
> see private industries and other countries shifting to astrological
> guidance.
> Put simply, astrology has no relevance to reality other than as
> folklore or as a commercial commodity for the gullible.
> Please offer one reproducable experiment to demonstrate proof of
>> astrology.
>> ME (Pisces)
>Nothing is ever proven. Theories are made of consctructs. Theories
>generate hypothesis. Hypothesis generate data to look at. Theories exist
>within paradigms.Paradigms are sets of belief assumptions. Absence of
>evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the above
>connections have different sets of propositions to explain results.
>Philosophers have for centuries tried to propose a way to prove their own
>existance. "I think therefore I am" is as close as we can get. Please
>provide proof that you exist so that I feel there is enough data for me
>to continue to discuss this with you.
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Rofl *Cheer* for Edmond
-Eowynn
>Š 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
gary higgins
In <31b95a06....@news.primenet.com> ia...@primenet.com (Michael
Everett) writes:
>
> If astrology had any basis in fact, imagine the ways in which
>entrepreneurs might have put this so-called science to work.
>Personnel specialists, who make their living by predicting which
>individuals will be most productive at their jobs, would have long ago
>adjusted their hiring recommendations to astrological data. Insurance
>underwriters would have detected different risk factors based on birth
>date. DMV records would show different driving habits based on date
>of birth. Stock speculators would calculate risk based on the
>astrological signs of CEO's. Gamblers might beat the race track by
>factoring in the astrology of the jockey. Of course none of this has
>happened because astrology has zero validity as a predictor of human
>behavior and absolutely no basis in science.
> Surely, no one actually believes in this hocus-pocus?
>
>ME
Mike,
Lighten up. Have fun. Ease up.
Gary
John M. VerBurg
Michael Everett (ia...@primenet.com) wrote:
: If astrology had any basis in fact, imagine the ways in which
: entrepreneurs might have put this so-called science to work.
: Personnel specialists, who make their living by predicting which
: individuals will be most productive at their jobs, would have long ago
: adjusted their hiring recommendations to astrological data. Insurance
: underwriters would have detected different risk factors based on birth
: date. DMV records would show different driving habits based on date
: of birth. Stock speculators would calculate risk based on the
: astrological signs of CEO's. Gamblers might beat the race track by
: factoring in the astrology of the jockey. Of course none of this has
: happened because astrology has zero validity as a predictor of human
: behavior and absolutely no basis in science.
: Surely, no one actually believes in this hocus-pocus?
I believe there is something to astrology, based on empirical data.
Just as everything we agree to be fact is based on empirical data. Some
empircal data can be reinforced by a theory, but much cannot. I am
currently researching ionic conductivity in solids. In my research there
is no theory that explains all the data, but everyone agrees ionic
conductivity occurs in soilds.
Science cannot explain everything. Ask a scientist, myself included
and they will tell you the same thing. There is more to this universe than
particles, waves and energy. Science is not the panacia for all the
mysteries of the universe.
Science is no better at explaining or predicting human behavior than
astrology. There are studies that use the scientific method to predict
human behavior, but there is no scientific theory as to why some humans
are extroverted, while others shun large crowds. Scientists check for
hormone levels, chemical imbalnces and what not, but human behavior falls
in an area not governed by classical nor quantum machanics, nor
biochemistry, nor thermodynamics. Can you think of a scientific study that
predicted what choice a person would make based soley on the chemsitry of
the individual?
How much reading on astrology have you done? And have you put it to the
test (An empirical study)? Or are you discarding it out of ignorance, like
those who chastized Gallileo for his idea that the earth revolved around
the sun. They never bothered to question their own beliefs, b/c it was a
FACT that the center of the universe was the earth.
You can keep believing astrology is nonsense, while the rest of us will
keep the upper hand *grin*
BTW, I am a scientist (physical chemist).
My thoughts,
John VerBurg
"A million experiments may prove me right, but it only takes one to prove
me wrong." - Albert Einstein
Paul Schlyter
In article <31BC23...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Nothing is ever proven. Theories are made of consctructs. Theories
> generate hypothesis. Hypothesis generate data to look at.
observations and/or experiments can generate data. Now, the data
generates a hypothesis (unless the hypothesis is a complete fantasy,
with no basis whatsoever in the real world). The hypothesis may
generate a more careful analysis, with available data or with new
data. If successful the analysis will generate a theory.
> Theories exist within paradigms.
Usually, but not always. A successful theory that goes against the
current paradigm will generate a paradigm shift.
> Paradigms are sets of belief assumptions.
able to co-exist. Thus paradigms are something MORE than merely
beliefs (or opinions).
Consider for instance the paradigm "the Earth is flat": that paradigm
was useful at those times whem people rarely travelled very far. It's
still useful in several circumstances - for instance when you buy a
city map, you get it in a flat sheet of paper and you need not worry
about the fact that you don't get it in a small part of a globe....
> Absence of evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the
> above connections have different sets of propositions to explain results.
possible to decide, from empirical observations, which paradigm is
correct and which is not.
The astrological paradigm has failed a large number of such tests.
Of course the determined astrologer may evade this uncomfortable fact
by repeating the mantra "a paradigm is just a set of beliefs, and all
paradigms have uncertainties, none is perfect. Therefore the
astrological paradigm is as good as any other" .... this is merely
the so very common fallacy by astrologers: the inability (or
unwillingness?) to distinguish the significant from the insignificant.
All numbers larger than zera aren't equally large....
> Philosophers have for centuries tried to propose a way to prove their own
> existance. "I think therefore I am" is as close as we can get.
as valid as the hypothesis "the Earth is round" ????
> Please provide proof that you exist so that I feel there is enough
> data for me to continue to discuss this with you.
exist! So my proof may be directed to a non-existant entity, and I
certainly don't want to risk that! :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se p...@home.ausys.se
Edmond Wollmann
Thanks for your sharing-I can see you are a true scientist, I don't see
them often on here.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
--
© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
Edmond Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <31BC23...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Nothing is ever proven. Theories are made of consctructs. Theories
> > generate hypothesis. Hypothesis generate data to look at.
>
> You got it backwards. Hypothesis never generates data, only
> observations and/or experiments can generate data. Now, the data
> generates a hypothesis
<subjective value judgements deleted>
Science is a METHOD of aquisition of information & evaluation of data.
The goal is to advance a theory to explain data to reinforce hypothesis,
the hypothsis creates the search for data based on the assumptions of the
paradigm's premise. It is a belief system that like all belief systems
has its own reinforcing logic. Empirical research EVALUATES theories,
which guide the collection of data, which generate hypothesis, which
leads to the generation of more data searching in order to reinforce the
logic of the paradigm.
> > Theories exist within paradigms.
>
> Usually, but not always. A successful theory that goes against the
> current paradigm will generate a paradigm shift.
Now you have it backwards. A paradigm shift is only promoted if anamoly
is so great that it is warranted by it. But this is rare. The norm is
paradigm articulation. Unless the awareness of the person creating the
revolution is great enough to break up the academic reiforcement of logic
to continued articulation of the paradigm (such as Einstein or Bohr) and
it doesn't usually create a shift it creates another belief system or
paradigm that then has ITS own system of reinforcing logic.
> > Paradigms are sets of belief assumptions.
>
> No -- paradigms are a collection of theories and experiences that are
> able to co-exist. Thus paradigms are something MORE than merely
> beliefs (or opinions).
This is just plain incorrect. Please read "The nature of scientific
revolutions" Thomas Kuhn, what you are describing is a BELIEF sytem, and
all belief systems begin with assumptions.
> Consider for instance the paradigm "the Earth is flat": that paradigm
> was useful at those time
The earth is flat is not a paradigm, and the earth is flat and round, it
is relative to size, position and location of the observer as to in which
way it is percieved, AND MEASURED. Do they build houses on flat ground or
round earth??? Which is it? IT IS BOTH!!
whem people rarely travelled very far. It's
> still useful in several circumstances - for instance when you buy a
> city map, you get it in a flat sheet of paper and you need not worry
> about the fact that you don't get it in a small part of a globe....
>
> > Absence of evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the
> > above connections have different sets of propositions to explain results.
>
> And here empirical observations enters the scene: in many cases it is
> possible to decide, from empirical observations, which paradigm is
> correct and which is not.
If you think this is a clear cut premise, you are a dreamer not a
scientist. I am trying to help you be realistic, but we won't get
anywhere with these types of fallacies of relevance.
> The astrological paradigm has failed a large number of such tests.
Astrology is not a science so it doesn't have to pass this test, it is
more than science and cannot be limited to such a small frame of belief
system reinforcing logic. Apples and oranges. I don't invalidate the
apples because my perspective is no so limited.
> Of course the determined astrologer may evade this uncomfortable fact
> by repeating the mantra "a paradigm is just a set of beliefs, and all
> paradigms have uncertainties, none is perfect. Therefore the
> astrological paradigm is as good as any other" .... this is merely
> the so very common fallacy by astrologers: the inability (or
> unwillingness?) to distinguish the significant from the insignificant.
> All numbers larger than zera aren't equally large....
You tell us much about yourself in the above. Please exercise your free
will to avail yourself of the psychological paradigm, which is another
valid construct. Everything is significant or is not. I thought you
agreed the universe did not contain built-in meaning? If so we are here
presented with a tremendous contradiction in belief sets. Significance is
determined by PREFERENCE nothing else.
> > Philosophers have for centuries tried to propose a way to prove their own
> > existance. "I think therefore I am" is as close as we can get.
>
> Does this mean that you think the hypothesis "the Earth is flat" is
> as valid as the hypothesis "the Earth is round" ????
Yes, see the above.
> > Please provide proof that you exist so that I feel there is enough
> > data for me to continue to discuss this with you.
>
> Why should I? I have no absolutely 100% certain proof that YOU
> exist! So my proof may be directed to a non-existant entity, and I
> certainly don't want to risk that! :-)
It is not possible to prove it and you know it, which proves that there
are things that even you know are self evident that don't require
empirical data or falsification for you to act on and use:-)
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Paul Schlyter
In article <4pihhc$t...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
John M. VerBurg <jver...@ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> I believe there is something to astrology, based on empirical data.
Please present your empirical data to us.
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > ....
> > > Many of these things have been done and are being done. ...
> > > ... Henry Weingarten uses astrology sucessfully for
> > > stock investment and has many sucessful clients. ...
> >
> > Depending on your definition of "successful," very simple stock
> > market trading algorithms can be "successful." Just buy a broad
> > spectrum of issues across the market, or even simpler, index
> > funds, and you're likely to return in the ballpark of 10%/year
> > over the long term. The market as a whole grows at an average rate
> > comparable to that. The question is whether Mr. Weingarten's
> > service consistently out-performs the market. And if it does, one
> > should look into his general stock market acumen (which may be
> > very good) before crediting his success to astrology.
>
> for all these things and I was explaining that they did.
In pointing out Everett's error, you're correct. But it's not exactly
"straining at gnats" to point out that "being used" has nothing
whatsoever to do with correctness (implying the one from the other was
Everett's real error). It is a slightly different issue, yes.
People continue to play the lottery and blow money at casinos far beyond
its entertainment value, too, but that doesn't mean such behavior leads
to "success" by any reasonable measure. People do a lot of stupid things.
Jim
Jim Rogers
John M. VerBurg wrote:
....
> Science is no better at explaining or predicting human behavior than
> astrology. There are studies that use the scientific method to predict
> human behavior, but there is no scientific theory as to why some humans
> are extroverted, while others shun large crowds. Scientists check for
> hormone levels, chemical imbalnces and what not, but human behavior falls
> in an area not governed by classical nor quantum machanics, nor
> biochemistry, nor thermodynamics. Can you think of a scientific study that
> predicted what choice a person would make based soley on the chemsitry of
> the individual?
So if human's are so hard to reckon biochemically, what makes you think the
orbits of the planets would have any connection whatsoever? Why not just
throw dice or flip coins?
....
> BTW, I am a scientist (physical chemist).
Egads.
Jim
Edmond Wollmann
Jim Rogers wrote:
Henry,
These gentlemen seem to think I need to prove your statistical track
record before I can say that you "sucessfully incorporate" astrology into
stock investing etc.. Since I don't have any data on it I thought I would
let you defend yourself. I wouldn't want to profess things I don't know
about someone elses competancy and field.
Best to you,
Ed Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
> JimEdmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
--
Michael Everett
On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:26:33 -0600, Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>(Big Snip)
>In pointing out Everett's error, you're correct. But it's not exactly
>"straining at gnats" to point out that "being used" has nothing
>whatsoever to do with correctness (implying the one from the other was
>Everett's real error). It is a slightly different issue, yes.
>
>People continue to play the lottery and blow money at casinos far beyond
>its entertainment value, too, but that doesn't mean such behavior leads
>to "success" by any reasonable measure. People do a lot of stupid things.
>
>Jim
I'm not so sure what "Everett's error" is. I certainly didn't mean
to imply that no one has tried to incorporate astrology into economic
decision making, nor that some may have been quite successful while
doing so. I use the example of business because of the widely known
propensity of profit making activity to relentlessly seek out every
possible market advantage no matter how outlandish or speculative. If
astrology truely offered even the slightest advantage in predicting
human behavior or offering special insight, those businesses which
utilized it would have an advantage over those who didn't, until it's
use finally became universal just like the telephone.
This of course is only one argument against the factual basis of
astrology. It's interesting to note that after some 20 posts in this
thread, we have still to be presented with a single verifiable bit of
evidence that might lead a reasonable person to believe astrology has
any basis in reality.
The more interesting question is why do so many otherwise rational
people believe in it? Of course, one could just as well ask the
question about religions which also have no factual basis. Clearly
the human brain has the ability to contain such contradictions in
belief systems. My own speculation is that astrology is a rich and
highly evolved body of folklore. As it was altered in the retelling
over the centuries it assumed a form that contained just enough
intuitive knowledge of human character to seem valid, yet was just
vague enough and contained enough variables to escape being pinned
down as inaccurate. Most astrological assessments are either vague
enough to seem accurate, or if patently inaccurate, can always be
attributed to a sloppy astrologer, a variable not calculated, an
inaccurate recording of birth date, etc.
Astrology is a body of folklore turned into a commercial
enterprise. It has absolutely no basis in fact.
ME (Pisces)
Edmond Wollmann
Michael Everett wrote:
...The bottom line here is that I have hundreds of hard file copies-and
articles coming out continually that do prove astrology has a verifyable
application-these kinds of arguments are far more dillusory than
projected..but I don't have time nor would it be practical or realistic
for me to continually argue every point with everyone. If these people
really want verification, they will find it. I haven't spent 26 years
verifying it for nothing. I believed exactly as these people when I first
discovered it and can understand their lack of awareness. But I made my
own effort to understand it. You can lead a horse to water....
> down as inaccurate. Most astrological assessments are either vague
> enough to seem accurate, or if patently inaccurate, can always be
> attributed to a sloppy astrologer, a variable not calculated, an
> inaccurate recording of birth date, etc.
> Astrology is a body of folklore turned into a commercial
> enterprise. It has absolutely no basis in fact.
And your perception of whether these things are accurate are subject to
the same verification that you propose we must provide, please provide
it, this is just a vague belief about what you have experienced which
really tells us nothing, nor would an academic study that had
presupposed outcomes as they usually do. I have already provided client
confirmations of actual events determined astrologically. They are
written into works I have published. If you really are seeking evidence
these things can be found. Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> Michael Everett wrote:
> ...The bottom line here is that I have hundreds of hard file copies-and
> articles coming out continually that do prove astrology has a verifyable
> application-these kinds of arguments are far more dillusory than
> projected..but I don't have time nor would it be practical or realistic
> for me to continually argue every point with everyone. If these people
> really want verification, they will find it. I haven't spent 26 years
> verifying it for nothing. I believed exactly as these people when I first
> discovered it and can understand their lack of awareness. But I made my
> own effort to understand it. You can lead a horse to water....
Excuse the French, but merde alors! If you've invested so much effort in
"verifying" it, why the blazes haven't you published anything on it,
preferably in peer-reviewed journals? If these people really want
verification (and I can assure you, "these people" do), these people will
look to published scientific studies. Knowledge doesn't advance by telling
every questioner to "spend years of your life looking into it like I have,
and you will become convinced."
I've already spent years of my life looking into a number of "profound"
questions in life only to come up empty-handed. There are far more
efficient modes to verify and communicate discovered truths. Scientific
disciplines seem to be the only ones that bother to take advantage of them,
which is why science actually makes *progress* over the years while things
like astrology are still stuck in ancient Babylonia. Life is far too short
to waste on every wild-goose chase some starry-eyed believer throws in your
path. If you have "proof," then you owe it to the world to publish it and
subject it to scientific scrutiny; otherwise all your claims about "proof"
amount to farting in a windstorm.
> > down as inaccurate. Most astrological assessments are either vague
> > enough to seem accurate, or if patently inaccurate, can always be
> > attributed to a sloppy astrologer, a variable not calculated, an
> > inaccurate recording of birth date, etc.
> > Astrology is a body of folklore turned into a commercial
> > enterprise. It has absolutely no basis in fact.
>
> And your perception of whether these things are accurate are subject to
> the same verification that you propose we must provide, please provide
> it, this is just a vague belief about what you have experienced which
> really tells us nothing, nor would an academic study that had
> presupposed outcomes as they usually do. I have already provided client
> confirmations of actual events determined astrologically. They are
> written into works I have published. If you really are seeking evidence
> these things can be found. Absence of evidence is not evidence of
> absence.
You're the one making the claims of accuracy here. You provide the proof.
I've posed this before: suppose I were to claim that my dog, Archimedes,
was a mystic channeller for the spirit of Einstein, but just has this
little communication problem (he only speaks 'dog'). Would you consider
it reasonable for me to demand that you accept it at my word, and for
you to prove it isn't so? Of course not, you'd want *me* to back up my
own claims about this remarkable happening. Thus *you* must fess up here.
Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list of research showing the error of
astrology. This has been done. Please elucidate what exactly is wrong
with such research.
Jim
Jim Rogers
Michael Everett wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:26:33 -0600, Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
> >(Big Snip)
> >In pointing out Everett's error, you're correct. But it's not exactly
> >"straining at gnats" to point out that "being used" has nothing
> >whatsoever to do with correctness (implying the one from the other was
> >Everett's real error). It is a slightly different issue, yes.
> >
> >People continue to play the lottery and blow money at casinos far beyond
> >its entertainment value, too, but that doesn't mean such behavior leads
> >to "success" by any reasonable measure. People do a lot of stupid things.
>
> to imply that no one has tried to incorporate astrology into economic
> decision making, nor that some may have been quite successful while
> doing so. I use the example of business because of the widely known
> propensity of profit making activity to relentlessly seek out every
> possible market advantage no matter how outlandish or speculative. If
> astrology truely offered even the slightest advantage in predicting
> human behavior or offering special insight, those businesses which
> utilized it would have an advantage over those who didn't, until it's
> use finally became universal just like the telephone.
Ah yes. In that light, nor do I know what "Everett's error" is. Sorry. This
is a matter of whether astrology presents an ESS (evolutionarily successful
strategy), which, if it did, we would see it in a somewhat dominant position.
Its limited presence today is about on par with other forms of chicanery.
> This of course is only one argument against the factual basis of
> astrology. It's interesting to note that after some 20 posts in this
> thread, we have still to be presented with a single verifiable bit of
> evidence that might lead a reasonable person to believe astrology has
> any basis in reality.
> The more interesting question is why do so many otherwise rational
> people believe in it? Of course, one could just as well ask the
> question about religions which also have no factual basis. Clearly
> the human brain has the ability to contain such contradictions in
> belief systems. My own speculation is that astrology is a rich and
> highly evolved body of folklore. As it was altered in the retelling
> over the centuries it assumed a form that contained just enough
> intuitive knowledge of human character to seem valid, yet was just
> vague enough and contained enough variables to escape being pinned
> down as inaccurate. Most astrological assessments are either vague
> enough to seem accurate, or if patently inaccurate, can always be
> attributed to a sloppy astrologer, a variable not calculated, an
> inaccurate recording of birth date, etc.
> Astrology is a body of folklore turned into a commercial
> enterprise. It has absolutely no basis in fact.
>
> ME (Pisces)
I concur with your general questions and tentative conclusions.
Jim (signs withheld; still waiting for Sheila to guess within 3)
Edmond Wollmann
Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > ...The bottom line here is that I have hundreds of hard file copies-and
> > articles coming out continually that do prove astrology has a verifyable
> > application-these kinds of arguments are far more dillusory than
> > projected..but I don't have time nor would it be practical or realistic
> > for me to continually argue every point with everyone. If these people
> > really want verification, they will find it. I haven't spent 26 years
> > verifying it for nothing. I believed exactly as these people when I first
> > discovered it and can understand their lack of awareness. But I made my
> > own effort to understand it. You can lead a horse to water.... Absence of evidence is not evidence of
> > absence.
> You're the one making the claims of accuracy here. You provide the proof.
My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
> I've posed this before: suppose I were to claim that my dog, Archimedes,
> was a mystic channeller for the spirit of Einstein, but just has this
> little communication problem (he only speaks 'dog'). Would you consider
> it reasonable for me to demand that you accept it at my word, and for
> you to prove it isn't so? Of course not, you'd want *me* to back up my
> own claims about this remarkable happening. Thus *you* must fess up here.
Frankly I wouldn't care what your dog or could or could not do, this is
typical skeptobabble. And it reflects the psychological perspective I
have pointed out on several occasions, the fact that someone such as
yourself feels so powerless and inadequate in what ever it is he does
that he must move over to a field he knows nothing about but knows is
widely rejected and ask people he doesn't know to do things with a
subject they're not going to do because he doesn't understand how the
subject serves. How does it serve you to believe that you can protect
people from themselves? This is utterly unrealistic, the thing which
person's such as yourself try to fool the rest of us that you are.
> Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list of research showing the error of
> astrology. This has been done. Please elucidate what exactly is wrong
> with such research.
> Jim
Lets see this post is one of those "been there done that", here is a
simple version.
1)They are academically biased. 2) No "I" don't "have" to do
anything-you're trying to use psychology on the psychologically aware, I
answer these obviously if I so desire and I have time from my delusionary
work in astrology and academia. 3)Astrology is not a pure science. 4)
Since you refer to Paul, I refer you to the debates in our posts, this
way the both of you can learn the most current postulates of real
scientists that know the basic premise that everything is a belief system
and/or Paradigm of articulated thoughts and rests on the most current
philosophical recognition that there is no one truth and that
consciousness and matter are inextricably intertwined as evidenced in
subatomic models. (Just today 6/12/96 evidence has been discovered
astronomically which calls into question the long accepted age of the
universe). Nothing is set in stone.
Edmond Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> Bohr didn't attempt any paradigm shift. Instead he attempted to
> adjust the current paradigm (classical physics) to make it produce a
> good model of the atom (Bohr's "solar system" model of the atom).
> But this failed, and a paradigm shift (from classical physics to
> quantum physics) was needed to creat an accurate model of the atom.
>
> > and it doesn't usually create a shift it creates another belief
> > system or paradigm that then has ITS own system of reinforcing logic.
>
> "another belief system" -- isn't that precisely a paradigm shift?
It doesn't replace it is the point, another paradigm along with the
present model because the present model still has reinforcing logic, like
QM along with gravitation both are valid. Nobody "attempts" a paradigm
shift, this is irrelevant.
> The difference is that science, as opposed to other belief systems,
> relies heavily on empiric observations.
Which is still just another form of investigating the universe. It is not
"better" just different.
That's why science have proved
> much more successful than any other belief system in producing new
> knowledge.
>
> >> Consider for instance the paradigm "the Earth is flat": that paradigm
> >> was useful at those time
> >
> > The earth is flat is not a paradigm,
>
> To Flat Earth freaks it's a paradigm.
>
> > and the earth is flat and round,
>
> It can't be both at the same time.....
>
> > it is relative to size, position and location of the observer as to
> > in which way it is percieved, AND MEASURED. Do they build houses on
> > flat ground or round earth??? Which is it? IT IS BOTH!!
>
> The ground curves just as much as the earth.....
But when a house is built the ground is leveled, and from that foundation
and that perspective it is flat.
> Are you claiming we cannot decide whether the Earth is flat or round,
> or whether the Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth?
From the relational and psychological perspective of the psyche the Sun
goes around the Earth regardless of empiricism. How can I be accurate in
psychological application of astrological principles if this is not true?
I have been restricting myself more and more in feedback at the beginning
of sessions, for example today I presented the cllient with a profile
and date of an occurance that solidified the belief profile and this was
the exact day that this person experienced a crisis with the subject
matter at hand! Are you saying they are dreaming or me? This was an
actual event and I said nothing to "prep" the person for it-just deduced
from birth data and the progression and transit positions of planet data.
Of course you have to understand human nature psychologically to predict
behavior. Maybe this is where you skeptics don't get it- needs,
overcompensation, defense mechanisms-these are all "real" things, but
most of them are barely measurable at best and expressed differently at
different times. This is where we will continue to have difficulty
communicating. Because there are subject matter and paradigms that are
used in astrology that you just plain a) aren't aware are used and b)
don't know enough about.
> > Astrology is not a science so it doesn't have to pass this test,
>
> Good that you admit this!
Your assumption that I believed it was has wasted alot of argument. You
should follow your own advice and eliminate variables first.
> > I thought you agreed the universe did not contain built-in meaning? If
> > so we are here presented with a tremendous contradiction in belief sets.
> > Significance is determined by PREFERENCE nothing else.
>
> It seems we're speaking different langauges here. To me "singificance"
> has nothing to do with "meaning", instead "significance" has much more to
> do with "magnitude".
Well this is another of your assumptions.The language I use is English.
You are speaking of statistical or other "significance" but this in no
way detracts from "real or implied meaning" which is what significance
is. I cannot be responsible for your lack of definitional clarity.
> Suppose you were running a company. Suppose you dropped a pencil so
> it broke - this means your company loses perhaps $0.10. Also suppose
> your competition robbed you of parts of your market, which made
> your company lose $10,000. Which one of these two losses should you
> worry most about -- the $0.10 loss due to the dropped pencil, or the
> $10,000 loss due to the competition? If you followed common astrological
> pracrice you would put a lot of effort in interpreting the $0.10 loss
> due to the dropped pencil, and ignore that $10,000 loss.....
This is irrelevant because you are not taking into consideration the
belief or paradigm of significance to the observer of experiencer in the
above analogy. It applies only to the business paradigm you are
discussing, as soon as we step out of it, it no longer applies.
> Something doesn't gain significance just because you would prefer it
> to be significant!
>
> >>> Philosophers have for centuries tried to propose a way to prove their own
> >>> existance. "I think therefore I am" is as close as we can get.
> >>
> >> Does this mean that you think the hypothesis "the Earth is flat" is
> >> as valid as the hypothesis "the Earth is round" ????
> >
> > Yes, see the above.
>
> Then you're a crank, a crackpot, a weirdo. You ignore empirical evidence
Please reread the above this is how Einsteins theory's express things IT
IS RELATIVE. And perhaps from another dimensional perspective the world
may even be inverted!!! it depends on where you are-the size you are, the
vibrational frequency you are at-and on and on...
> just to play your own little philosophical games. Sure, this may be
> entertaining, or even create some subjective "meaning of life", but one
> thing it will NOT do: it will not help you gain any new knowledge.
You forgot my philosophy post already-my, my. The goal of philosophy is
wisdom. Wisdom requires questioning everything because everything is
questionable. So if you believe questioning is just entertaining you are
not as intelligent as I first thought. Because this is the ONLY way
anyone gains in any new knowledge.
>
> Of course, with such a philosophy it's quite natural that you fall prey
> to astrology....
I notice that you fall prey to this slippery slope fallacious thinking
quite often, along with the downing of other disciplines which are the
basis for the one you promote. I find this less than noble. You really
need to study psychology and/or astrology so that you can gain some
insight into these powerless tactics because they really don't address
these basic questions. All I have ever said is that there is no one
truth. That all disciplines have their place and are valid. Is your
perspective so insecure that all other forms of academia would be
erradicated should you take power? This certainly would not lead to new
knowledge that you say you are for, your actions reflect different
beliefs than you profess.
> >>> Please provide proof that you exist so that I feel there is enough
> >>> data for me to continue to discuss this with you.
> >>
> >> Why should I? I have no absolutely 100% certain proof that YOU
> >> exist! So my proof may be directed to a non-existant entity, and I
> >> certainly don't want to risk that! :-)
> >
> > It is not possible to prove it and you know it, which proves that there
> > are things that even you know are self evident that don't require
> > empirical data or falsification for you to act on and use:-)
>
> But what if I don't exist as a human, and you're really discussing
> with some AI computer program???? It's not impossible -- remember
> the computer program Eliza, which was a quite simple "psychology"
> program, nevertheless several people have been known to have entered
> into very intimate discussions with Eliza, and all Eliza did was to
> respond like "Tell me more about your family", "Are you afraid of
> computers?" etc -- and when Eliza didn't know what to respond, the
> default response was "I see" .....
Again irrelevant, because whether you were a person or a computer-neither
of you could ever prove you exist, this is an esoteric point that you
don't get simply because of your rigid adherence to skeptical thinking.
And greater minds than you and I can't either, does this mean we all fall
prey to the illusion of physicality? Astrology is operationally obvious
and you don't know how to operate with it, that is all.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
--
Paul Schlyter
In article <31BD8D...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>
>> In article <31BC23...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
>> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing is ever proven. Theories are made of consctructs. Theories
>>> generate hypothesis. Hypothesis generate data to look at.
>>
>> You got it backwards. Hypothesis never generates data, only
>> observations and/or experiments can generate data. Now, the data
>> generates a hypothesis
>
> <subjective value judgements deleted>
>
> Science is a METHOD of aquisition of information & evaluation of data.
You don't need to tell ME that....
> The goal is to advance a theory to explain data to reinforce hypothesis,
No ... the goal is to find the simplest explanation that explains the
available data. This may mean to reinforce a hypothesis, but it may
also mean to falsify a hypothesis. I.e. one should weed out the
false hypotheses from the correct ones. One should NOT reinforce
some particular hypothesis that one cherishes for some nin-scientific
reason, becuse that's unscientific (and it's a very common practice
among cranks and crackpots: they do all they can to try to reinforce
their own hypothesis).
> the hypothesis creates the search for data based on the assumptions
> of the paradigm's premise. It is a belief system that like all belief
> systems has its own reinforcing logic.
WHat you describe here is not science but pseudo-science.
> Empirical research EVALUATES theories, which guide the collection of
> data, which generate hypothesis, which leads to the generation of more
> data searching in order to reinforce the logic of the paradigm.
It doesn't work that way. New data quite often contradicts previous
theories, which then need re-evaluation. If any new data we
encountered just confirmed what we already believed, there would be
no need to search for these new data, would it?
>>> Theories exist within paradigms.
>>
>> Usually, but not always. A successful theory that goes against the
>> current paradigm will generate a paradigm shift.
>
> Now you have it backwards. A paradigm shift is only promoted if anamoly
> is so great that it is warranted by it. But this is rare.
Of course it's rare but it's nevertheless important. One cannot
attempt to build a brand new paradigm for each small anomaly that
arises, for one very simple reason: it takes a lot of time and effort
to build a new paradigm, at least if you want it to be coherent and
not just some random collection of quite unrelated ideas (like e.g.
"the new age").
Also, many anomalies can be accounted for by small adjustments to the
current paradigm. One need not overthrow e.g. Newton's gravtational
theory just because one finds out e.g. that the mass of Venus is
somewhat different from what was previously believed.
> The norm is paradigm articulation.
Of course -- as long as the paradigm is useful, one should try to refine
it instead of overthrowing it.
> Unless the awareness of the person creating the revolution is great
> enough to break up the academic reiforcement of logic to continued
> articulation of the paradigm (such as Einstein or Bohr)
Bohr didn't attempt any paradigm shift. Instead he attempted to
adjust the current paradigm (classical physics) to make it produce a
good model of the atom (Bohr's "solar system" model of the atom).
But this failed, and a paradigm shift (from classical physics to
quantum physics) was needed to creat an accurate model of the atom.
> and it doesn't usually create a shift it creates another belief
> system or paradigm that then has ITS own system of reinforcing logic.
"another belief system" -- isn't that precisely a paradigm shift?
>>> Paradigms are sets of belief assumptions.
>>
>> No -- paradigms are a collection of theories and experiences that are
>> able to co-exist. Thus paradigms are something MORE than merely
>> beliefs (or opinions).
>
> This is just plain incorrect. Please read "The nature of scientific
> revolutions" Thomas Kuhn, what you are describing is a BELIEF sytem,
> and all belief systems begin with assumptions.
The difference is that science, as opposed to other belief systems,
relies heavily on empiric observations. That's why science have proved
much more successful than any other belief system in producing new
knowledge.
>> Consider for instance the paradigm "the Earth is flat": that paradigm
>> was useful at those time
>
> The earth is flat is not a paradigm,
To Flat Earth freaks it's a paradigm.
> and the earth is flat and round,
It can't be both at the same time.....
> it is relative to size, position and location of the observer as to
> in which way it is percieved, AND MEASURED. Do they build houses on
> flat ground or round earth??? Which is it? IT IS BOTH!!
The ground curves just as much as the earth.....
>> whem people rarely travelled very far. It's
>> still useful in several circumstances - for instance when you buy a
>> city map, you get it in a flat sheet of paper and you need not worry
>> about the fact that you don't get it in a small part of a globe....
>>
>>> Absence of evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the
>>> above connections have different sets of propositions to explain results.
>>
>> And here empirical observations enters the scene: in many cases it is
>> possible to decide, from empirical observations, which paradigm is
>> correct and which is not.
>
> If you think this is a clear cut premise, you are a dreamer not a
> scientist.
In many cases it is clear cut. The Earth is round, not flat. The Earth
goes around the Sun instead of the Sun going around the Earth. As soon
as there's enough knowledge available, there's no ambiguity here. And
I'm not a dreamer -- this is FACT!
> I am trying to help you be realistic, but we won't get anywhere with
> these types of fallacies of relevance.
Are you claiming we cannot decide whether the Earth is flat or round,
or whether the Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth?
It appears YOU are the dreamer here.... wake up! Medieval times are
since long gone!
>> The astrological paradigm has failed a large number of such tests.
>
> Astrology is not a science so it doesn't have to pass this test,
Good that you admit this!
> it is more than science and cannot be limited to such a small frame
> of belief system reinforcing logic.
If astrology is "more than a science" it cannot be "not a science"!!!
Then it'll have to fulfill all scientific requirements -- plus a lot
more since it's supposed to be "more than a science"....
If you claim that "astrology need not pass the scientific tests",
then this implies that astrology is "less than science" -- which it
indeed is.
> Apples and oranges. I don't invalidate the apples because my
> perspective is no so limited.
Do you claim that "apples are more than oranges" or "oranges are more
than apples"? If not, why do you claim "astrology is more than
science"?
>> Of course the determined astrologer may evade this uncomfortable fact
>> by repeating the mantra "a paradigm is just a set of beliefs, and all
>> paradigms have uncertainties, none is perfect. Therefore the
>> astrological paradigm is as good as any other" .... this is merely
>> the so very common fallacy by astrologers: the inability (or
>> unwillingness?) to distinguish the significant from the insignificant.
>> All numbers larger than zera aren't equally large....
>
> You tell us much about yourself in the above. Please exercise your free
> will to avail yourself of the psychological paradigm, which is another
> valid construct. Everything is significant or is not.
No it's not!!!
> I thought you agreed the universe did not contain built-in meaning? If
> so we are here presented with a tremendous contradiction in belief sets.
> Significance is determined by PREFERENCE nothing else.
It seems we're speaking different langauges here. To me "singificance"
has nothing to do with "meaning", instead "significance" has much more to
do with "magnitude".
Suppose you were running a company. Suppose you dropped a pencil so
it broke - this means your company loses perhaps $0.10. Also suppose
your competition robbed you of parts of your market, which made
your company lose $10,000. Which one of these two losses should you
worry most about -- the $0.10 loss due to the dropped pencil, or the
$10,000 loss due to the competition? If you followed common astrological
pracrice you would put a lot of effort in interpreting the $0.10 loss
due to the dropped pencil, and ignore that $10,000 loss.....
Something doesn't gain significance just because you would prefer it
to be significant!
>>> Philosophers have for centuries tried to propose a way to prove their own
>>> existance. "I think therefore I am" is as close as we can get.
>>
>> Does this mean that you think the hypothesis "the Earth is flat" is
>> as valid as the hypothesis "the Earth is round" ????
>
> Yes, see the above.
Then you're a crank, a crackpot, a weirdo. You ignore empirical evidence
just to play your own little philosophical games. Sure, this may be
entertaining, or even create some subjective "meaning of life", but one
thing it will NOT do: it will not help you gain any new knowledge.
Of course, with such a philosophy it's quite natural that you fall prey
to astrology....
>>> Please provide proof that you exist so that I feel there is enough
>>> data for me to continue to discuss this with you.
>>
>> Why should I? I have no absolutely 100% certain proof that YOU
>> exist! So my proof may be directed to a non-existant entity, and I
>> certainly don't want to risk that! :-)
>
> It is not possible to prove it and you know it, which proves that there
> are things that even you know are self evident that don't require
> empirical data or falsification for you to act on and use:-)
But what if I don't exist as a human, and you're really discussing
with some AI computer program???? It's not impossible -- remember
the computer program Eliza, which was a quite simple "psychology"
program, nevertheless several people have been known to have entered
into very intimate discussions with Eliza, and all Eliza did was to
respond like "Tell me more about your family", "Are you afraid of
computers?" etc -- and when Eliza didn't know what to respond, the
default response was "I see" .....
--
Paul Schlyter
In article <roosenDs...@netcom.com>,
Robert Roosen <roo...@netcom.com> wrote:
> Michael Everett (ia...@primenet.com) wrote:
> : Wouldn't some greedy capitalist have discovered by now that by using
> : astrology he could gain advantage over a competitor who didn't?
>
> You are not doing your homework. Such a greedy capitalist did indeed use
> astrology to gain advantage. His name? Ronald Reagan.
> Read the book, "What Does Joan Say?" for the whole story.
And how do you know Ronald Reagan just wasn't lucky?
If astrology really worked that well, there should be plenty of rich
bitches out there who've gotten rich thanks to astrology, instead of
just one....
> Robert
> PS For a reproducible proof of astrology, send e-mail to jam...@ax.com
> Ask for a copy of the "Seven Faces of Man". Again, YOU will have to do
> some work in order to understand it.
I.e. the author is a bad writer.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Reagan and Premier Gorbachev are sitting at the table to
have a meeting. Gorbachev is dressed as usual (suit etc), while
Reagan wears a magicians dress. In front of him Reagan puts down an
astrological chart. One of Reagan's advisors walks up to Reagan and
whispers in his ear:
"Mr President! I don't think this is what Gorbachev meant when he
suggested you should explore Mars together....."
Robert Roosen
Edmond Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
<snip>
: like
: those who chastized Gallileo for his idea that the earth revolved around
: the sun. They never bothered to question their own beliefs, b/c it was a
: FACT that the center of the universe was the earth.
The center of the universe IS the earth. Or to be more correct,
the individual who is contemplating the universe. The revolutionary
theory was fun for a few hundred years. However, in the 1920s, all sorts
of other galaxies were discovered. Then whe found that we can only see
to the event horizon, and that there is NO observable center to the universe.
So astrology was right all along (the horoscope puts the
individual at the center of the universe). Astronomy, the little
daughter, wandered away for a moment.
Robert
Paul Schlyter
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> Michael Everett wrote:
>> ...The bottom line here is that I have hundreds of hard file copies-and
>> articles coming out continually that do prove astrology has a verifyable
>> application-these kinds of arguments are far more dillusory than
>> projected..but I don't have time nor would it be practical or realistic
>> for me to continually argue every point with everyone. If these people
>> really want verification, they will find it. I haven't spent 26 years
>> verifying it for nothing. I believed exactly as these people when I first
>> discovered it and can understand their lack of awareness. But I made my
>> own effort to understand it. You can lead a horse to water....
>
> Excuse the French, but merde alors! If you've invested so much effort in
> "verifying" it, why the blazes haven't you published anything on it,
> preferably in peer-reviewed journals?
Because if he did try to do this, it wouldn't be accepted for the
very good reason that it doesn't present any real evidence. Anecdotal
evidence does not count in the scientific world.
> Knowledge doesn't advance by telling every questioner to "spend years
> of your life looking into it like I have, and you will become convinced."
Quite correct. Requiring everyone to reinvent the wheel for
themselves, instead of building upon the work of others, is a very
effective method to retard knowledge. Because astrologers commonly
require skeptics to reinvent their own wheels, astrology today is not
much different from what it was at medieval times and earlier.
> I've already spent years of my life looking into a number of "profound"
> questions in life only to come up empty-handed.
"That's because you didn't look enough -- you need to spend yet
another 10-20 years, or more...." (astrologer's response)
> There are far more efficient modes to verify and communicate discovered
> truths.
Indeed very true, however astrologers aren't interested in truths.
They're interested in the comfort an imagined "link to the skies"
will bring them. When facing the truth they'll consider it "cold",
"mechanical", or something else that's negative. They don't want
the truth - they want their own fantasy.
> Scientific disciplines seem to be the only ones that bother to take
> advantage of them, which is why science actually makes *progress*
> over the years while things like astrology are still stuck in ancient
> Babylonia. Life is far too short to waste on every wild-goose chase
> some starry-eyed believer throws in your path. If you have "proof,"
> then you owe it to the world to publish it and subject it to
> scientific scrutiny; otherwise all your claims about "proof" amount
> to farting in a windstorm.
He doesn't have proofs. If he did, he would of course present them...
> You're the one making the claims of accuracy here. You provide the proof.
> I've posed this before: suppose I were to claim that my dog, Archimedes,
> was a mystic channeller for the spirit of Einstein, but just has this
> little communication problem (he only speaks 'dog'). Would you consider
> it reasonable for me to demand that you accept it at my word, and for
> you to prove it isn't so? Of course not, you'd want *me* to back up my
> own claims about this remarkable happening. Thus *you* must fess up here.
>
> Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list of research showing the error of
> astrology. This has been done. Please elucidate what exactly is wrong
> with such research.
He should perhaps discuss this with Ken "Gadfly" Perlow who admitted
that this research was correct and that from a scientific point of
view the claims by astrology cannot be verified. Ken admitted that the
"astrological truths" are purely subjective.
Of course Ken also made his mental lapse, by requiring that the
correct planetary positions be used and refusing to admit that if the
planetary positions were replaced by random numbers when interpreting
a chart, astrology would work just as fine, as long as the astrologer
just BELIEVED the planetary positions were correct. One example of
this is when Rusty Sheila, perhaps 2-3 months ago, interpreted what
she thought was my natal chart but it was based on an erroneous birth
date (off by about 2 years). Nevertheless she still though she found
many interesting things there. When she later learnt that this birth
date was in error, she lost interest in what she found in that chart.
Paul Schlyter
In article <31BF55...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>>> ...The bottom line here is that I have hundreds of hard file copies-and
>>> articles coming out continually that do prove astrology has a verifyable
>>> application-these kinds of arguments are far more dillusory than
>>> projected..but I don't have time nor would it be practical or realistic
>>> for me to continually argue every point with everyone. If these people
>>> really want verification, they will find it. I haven't spent 26 years
>>> verifying it for nothing. I believed exactly as these people when I first
>>> discovered it and can understand their lack of awareness. But I made my
>>> own effort to understand it. You can lead a horse to water.... Absence
>>> of evidence is not evidence of absence.
>>
>> You're the one making the claims of accuracy here. You provide the proof.
>
> My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
So why are you so keen to claim that astrology works in a public forum?
Why not instad silently go on running your a$trological bu$ine$$? AS
you said above, the incoming cash flow is all you need....
By the same argument one can claim that e.g. hard drugs are very good
for people, since drug dealers will always have a continued flow of
customers.....
Your continued flow of clients only shows that your business is
successful. In no way does it prove that the claims by astrology is
correct. Anyone skilled in telling people pleasant lies will have
an equally strong continued flow of clients as you do.
>> I've posed this before: suppose I were to claim that my dog, Archimedes,
>> was a mystic channeller for the spirit of Einstein, but just has this
>> little communication problem (he only speaks 'dog'). Would you consider
>> it reasonable for me to demand that you accept it at my word, and for
>> you to prove it isn't so? Of course not, you'd want *me* to back up my
>> own claims about this remarkable happening. Thus *you* must fess up here.
>
> Frankly I wouldn't care what your dog or could or could not do, this is
> typical skeptobabble.
I believe you. It appears you care for nothing outside your own little
fantasy world....
>> Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list of research showing the error of
>> astrology. This has been done. Please elucidate what exactly is wrong
>> with such research.
>
> Lets see this post is one of those "been there done that", here is a
> simple version.
> 1) They are academically biased.
And how could they NOT be? The very purpose of academia is to obtain
as accurate information as possible -- and here you claim that it's
"biased" to try to get correct information. Yes, it's "biased" towards
facts and against fantasies and hoaxes, that's true. You say a lot about
yourself when declaring you think this is a disadvantage: we now know
that you're not interested in the truth.
Of course you have personal interests in trying to avoid the truth: it
might he harmful to your a$trological bu$ine$$....
> 2) No "I" don't "have" to do anything-you're trying to use psychology
> on the psychologically aware, I answer these obviously if I so desire
> and I have time from my delusionary work in astrology and academia.
In what way does this relate to this reference list I post from time to
time?
> 3) Astrology is not a pure science.
It's not even an applied science -- it's plain superstition.
> 4) Since you refer to Paul, I refer you to the debates in our posts,
You're trying to avoid Jim's question about what's exactly wrong with
the investigations I repeatedly post a reference list to -- why? If
you have no argument, why not instead be honest enough to admit it?
> this way the both of you can learn the most current postulates of real
> scientists that know the basic premise that everything is a belief system
> and/or Paradigm of articulated thoughts and rests on the most current
> philosophical recognition that there is no one truth and that
> consciousness and matter are inextricably intertwined as evidenced in
> subatomic models.
That's sci-babble and you probably don't even understand half of it!
> (Just today 6/12/96 evidence has been discovered astronomically which
> calls into question the long accepted age of the universe).
You're not keeping up to date - that discovery is over one year
old!!!! Basically what happened is that the computed age of some
very old stars was larger than the computed age of the universe.
Anyone realizes this is not possible - so what does it mean? It
means there's an error somewhere in our models of either these stars,
or the universe, or possibly both. It does NOT mean that astonomers
are wrong about everything, or that astrology works!!!!!
In time (this may take years) the models will probably be corrected
to account for these observations in such a way that one does not get
stars that are older than the universe. Such adjustments to models
happens all the time -- the atmospheric probe that entered Jupiter's
atmosphere last December, for instance, found abundances of some gases
that disagreed with previous models -- which of course indicates that
there are errors in these models.
Scientists are used to data that disagrees with their models. And
they consider it more interesting when the data disagree than when it
agree, because then they learn something new.
> Nothing is set in stone.
Of course not, and nobody ever claimed it was!!! Therefore the day
you, or any other astrologer, really will provide solid evidence for
astrology, then it will be re-evaluated and -- if the evidence hold
for careful scruinty -- astrology will become an accepted science.
So far this hasn't happened though, and it's not considered likely to
happen, neither by scientists nor by astrologers.
Edmond Wollmann
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
> What's good enough for you isn't the question.
No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and stay
satisfied 10 years later- who do you guys think you are the alt.astrology
police? Any one who doesn't believe in chiropractic work doesn't go to
chiropractors, if you don't think counseling will help you don't go to
counselors, if you don't like the weather forecast on one channel you
change it, if you guys are so convinced of what you say what the hell are
you doing here? Idiots can see through that. If my clients think I'm not
serving they can go to someone else-something which you guys don't seem
to understand, which proves you have nothing better to do, you're a joke
not a scientist.
> How can anyone else tell that
Why are you looking for a good astrologer? Well you found one and you can
waste bandwiths of the net from now till eternity, because you don't know
enough astrology to disprove that-which is the only thing that will do
it.
> you are not doing a disservice to these clients by pretending to tell them
You sure are arrogant in assuming my clients need protection from you!
> > > I've posed this before: suppose I were to claim that my dog, Archimedes,
> > > was a mystic channeller for the spirit of Einstein, but just has this
> > > little communication problem (he only speaks 'dog'). Would you consider
> > > it reasonable for me to demand that you accept it at my word, and for
> > > you to prove it isn't so? Of course not, you'd want *me* to back up my
> > > own claims about this remarkable happening. Thus *you* must fess up here.
> >
> > Frankly I wouldn't care what your dog or could or could not do, this is
> > typical skeptobabble. And it reflects the psychological perspective I
> > have pointed out on several occasions, the fact that someone such as
> > yourself feels so powerless and inadequate in what ever it is he does
> > that he must move over to a field he knows nothing about but knows is
> > widely rejected and ask people he doesn't know to do things with a
> > subject they're not going to do because he doesn't understand how the
> > subject serves. How does it serve you to believe that you can protect
> > people from themselves? This is utterly unrealistic, the thing which
> > person's such as yourself try to fool the rest of us that you are.
> So you don't like having the shoe on the other foot. Why am I not surprised?
I never came to wherever it is you nuts come from and tryed to prove
anything, I'm here because I wish someone like me was here when I was
learning astrology, that is all, you are insignificant.
> > > Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list
I could come up with a list through my University of master's thesis and
doctoral thesis that would lean the other way. What for?
>of research showing the error of
> > > astrology. This has been done. Please elucidate what exactly is wrong
> > > with such research.
> > Lets see this post is one of those "been there done that", here is a
> > simple version.
> > 1)They are academically biased. 2) No "I" don't "have" to do
> > anything-you're trying to use psychology on the psychologically aware, I
> > answer these obviously if I so desire and I have time from my delusionary
> > work in astrology and academia. 3)Astrology is not a pure science. 4)
> > Since you refer to Paul, I refer you to the debates in our posts, this
> > way the both of you can learn the most current postulates of real
> > scientists that know the basic premise that everything is a belief system
> > and/or Paradigm of articulated thoughts and rests on the most current
> > philosophical recognition that there is no one truth and that
> > consciousness and matter are inextricably intertwined as evidenced in
> > subatomic models. (Just today 6/12/96 evidence has been discovered
> > astronomically which calls into question the long accepted age of the
> > universe). Nothing is set in stone.
> Babble, babble, babble. You *claim* that these things are ineextricably
> linked in a manner that let's you predict human psychological effects from
I don't claim them physics has proved it which tells us that you are
simply wasting my time-you have nothing to offer.....
<major defensive rhetoric deleted>
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > articles coming out continually that do prove astrology has a verifyable
> > > application-these kinds of arguments are far more dillusory than
> > > projected..but I don't have time nor would it be practical or realistic
> > > for me to continually argue every point with everyone. If these people
> > > really want verification, they will find it. I haven't spent 26 years
> > > verifying it for nothing. I believed exactly as these people when I first
> > > discovered it and can understand their lack of awareness. But I made my
> > > own effort to understand it. You can lead a horse to water.... Absence of evidence is not evidence of
> > > absence.
> > You're the one making the claims of accuracy here. You provide the proof.
>
What's good enough for you isn't the question. How can anyone else tell that
you are not doing a disservice to these clients by pretending to tell them
profound things that they find believable? Why is your service superior to
any other fortune-teller? Because you do calculations and shroud it in a
detailed "analysis"?
> > I've posed this before: suppose I were to claim that my dog, Archimedes,
> > was a mystic channeller for the spirit of Einstein, but just has this
> > little communication problem (he only speaks 'dog'). Would you consider
> > it reasonable for me to demand that you accept it at my word, and for
> > you to prove it isn't so? Of course not, you'd want *me* to back up my
> > own claims about this remarkable happening. Thus *you* must fess up here.
>
> Frankly I wouldn't care what your dog or could or could not do, this is
> typical skeptobabble. And it reflects the psychological perspective I
> have pointed out on several occasions, the fact that someone such as
> yourself feels so powerless and inadequate in what ever it is he does
> that he must move over to a field he knows nothing about but knows is
> widely rejected and ask people he doesn't know to do things with a
> subject they're not going to do because he doesn't understand how the
> subject serves. How does it serve you to believe that you can protect
> people from themselves? This is utterly unrealistic, the thing which
> person's such as yourself try to fool the rest of us that you are.
So you don't like having the shoe on the other foot. Why am I not surprised?
> > Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list of research showing the error of
> > astrology. This has been done. Please elucidate what exactly is wrong
> > with such research.
>
> Lets see this post is one of those "been there done that", here is a
> simple version.
> 1)They are academically biased. 2) No "I" don't "have" to do
> anything-you're trying to use psychology on the psychologically aware, I
> answer these obviously if I so desire and I have time from my delusionary
> work in astrology and academia. 3)Astrology is not a pure science. 4)
> Since you refer to Paul, I refer you to the debates in our posts, this
> way the both of you can learn the most current postulates of real
> scientists that know the basic premise that everything is a belief system
> and/or Paradigm of articulated thoughts and rests on the most current
> philosophical recognition that there is no one truth and that
> consciousness and matter are inextricably intertwined as evidenced in
> subatomic models. (Just today 6/12/96 evidence has been discovered
> astronomically which calls into question the long accepted age of the
> universe). Nothing is set in stone.
Babble, babble, babble. You *claim* that these things are ineextricably
linked in a manner that let's you predict human psychological effects from
a study of planetary aspects. and yet *deny* that that is a scientifically
testable claim. Your mind is a muddle of contradictions.
"Been there, done that," indeed. Careful studies have been there, and
proven to any rational person's satisfaction that astrology is completely
arbitrary, and has no worthwhile predictive value, about *anything* for
which it has been studied.
Of *course* nothing (in science) is set in stone. That's why science
exists. Knowledge changes; old beliefs are discarded when they are
proven wrong. When does that ever happen in astrology?
Jim
Edmond Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
nothing is set in stone, including this coversation.
Good luck in your studies, and I hope you purchase my book when it comes
out:-) You really should get off this futile crusade! I will still accept
you as a client:-)
>
> Of course not, and nobody ever claimed it was!!! Therefore the day
> you, or any other astrologer, really will provide solid evidence for
> astrology, then it will be re-evaluated and -- if the evidence hold
> for careful scruinty -- astrology will become an accepted science.
> So far this hasn't happened though, and it's not considered likely to
> happen, neither by scientists nor by astrologers.
Paul Schlyter
In article <31BF72...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> Bohr didn't attempt any paradigm shift. Instead he attempted to
>> adjust the current paradigm (classical physics) to make it produce a
>> good model of the atom (Bohr's "solar system" model of the atom).
>> But this failed, and a paradigm shift (from classical physics to
>> quantum physics) was needed to creat an accurate model of the atom.
>>
>>> and it doesn't usually create a shift it creates another belief
>>> system or paradigm that then has ITS own system of reinforcing logic.
>>
>> "another belief system" -- isn't that precisely a paradigm shift?
>
> It doesn't replace it is the point, another paradigm along with the
> present model because the present model still has reinforcing logic, like
> QM along with gravitation both are valid. Nobody "attempts" a paradigm
> shift, this is irrelevant.
QM and GR is the holy grail of today's physics. No, they're not there
yet, but they want to get there.
>> The difference is that science, as opposed to other belief systems,
>> relies heavily on empiric observations.
>
> Which is still just another form of investigating the universe. It is
> not "better" just different.
judgement. Those who value ignorance will of course consider more
knowledge as "worse"....
>> That's why science have proved much more successful than any other
>> belief system in producing new knowledge.
>>
>>>> Consider for instance the paradigm "the Earth is flat": that paradigm
>>>> was useful at those time
>>>
>>> The earth is flat is not a paradigm,
>>
>> To Flat Earth freaks it's a paradigm.
>>
>>> and the earth is flat and round,
>>
>> It can't be both at the same time.....
>>
>>> it is relative to size, position and location of the observer as to
>>> in which way it is percieved, AND MEASURED. Do they build houses on
>>> flat ground or round earth??? Which is it? IT IS BOTH!!
>>
>> The ground curves just as much as the earth.....
>
> But when a house is built the ground is leveled, and from that foundation
> and that perspective it is flat.
Even along a big house, say 50 meters long, the curvature of the
Earth will only cause a deviation from a flat surface of some 0.02
millimeters! Any "levelling of the ground" done when building houses
will have deviations much larger than that (1 millimeter will probably
be considered very good, and 10 millileters acceptable). Any need to
"level the ground" will arise from local topography and NOT from the
curvature of the Earth!
>> Are you claiming we cannot decide whether the Earth is flat or round,
>> or whether the Earth goes around the Sun or the Sun around the Earth?
>
> From the relational and psychological perspective of the psyche the Sun
> goes around the Earth regardless of empiricism.
person on a spaceship outside the solar system and he'll get a different
view.
Once again, you ignore reality in favor of apparent views.
> How can I be accurate in
> psychological application of astrological principles if this is not true?
> I have been restricting myself more and more in feedback at the beginning
> of sessions, for example today I presented the cllient with a profile
> and date of an occurance that solidified the belief profile and this was
> the exact day that this person experienced a crisis with the subject
> matter at hand! Are you saying they are dreaming or me? This was an
> actual event and I said nothing to "prep" the person for it-just deduced
> from birth data and the progression and transit positions of planet data.
> Of course you have to understand human nature psychologically to predict
> behavior. Maybe this is where you skeptics don't get it- needs,
> overcompensation, defense mechanisms-these are all "real" things, but
> most of them are barely measurable at best and expressed differently at
> different times. This is where we will continue to have difficulty
> communicating. Because there are subject matter and paradigms that are
> used in astrology that you just plain a) aren't aware are used and b)
> don't know enough about.
should be described in the astrological literature, right? You don't
know what I've read and not read, so there.
But once again your point of view is that astrology is subjective.
Fine with me -- anyone is allowed to have any fairytale they like --
but then there'll be no need to use the real planets for chart
readings.
>>> Astrology is not a science so it doesn't have to pass this test,
>>
>> Good that you admit this!
>
> Your assumption that I believed it was has wasted alot of argument. You
> should follow your own advice and eliminate variables first.
claims, e.g. that personal properties are dependent on natal planetary
positions. THe controvercy originates from these claims by astrology,
claims astrology is unable to produce any evidence for.
>>> I thought you agreed the universe did not contain built-in meaning? If
>>> so we are here presented with a tremendous contradiction in belief sets.
>>> Significance is determined by PREFERENCE nothing else.
>>
>> It seems we're speaking different langauges here. To me "singificance"
>> has nothing to do with "meaning", instead "significance" has much more to
>> do with "magnitude".
>
There are many different kinds of English.
> You are speaking of statistical or other "significance" but this in no
> way detracts from "real or implied meaning" which is what significance
> is.
too, for instance the "statistical" definition you select to ignore.
> I cannot be responsible for your lack of definitional clarity.
you has wasted alot of argument. You should follow your own advice
and eliminate variables first.
>> Suppose you were running a company. Suppose you dropped a pencil so
>> it broke - this means your company loses perhaps $0.10. Also suppose
>> your competition robbed you of parts of your market, which made
>> your company lose $10,000. Which one of these two losses should you
>> worry most about -- the $0.10 loss due to the dropped pencil, or the
>> $10,000 loss due to the competition? If you followed common astrological
>> pracrice you would put a lot of effort in interpreting the $0.10 loss
>> due to the dropped pencil, and ignore that $10,000 loss.....
>
> This is irrelevant
focused too much on the insignificant while ignoring the significant.
But ok, you're a coward and don't want to answer questions you find
uncomfortable.
> because you are not taking into consideration the belief or paradigm
> of significance to the observer of experiencer in the above analogy.
'the one running the company -- if it goes bankrupt it does, no matter
how much he'd wish otherwise.
> It applies only to the business paradigm you are discussing,
> as soon as we step out of it, it no longer applies.
semantics, not yours, on these words) applies to many areas outside
business, for instance in science.
But of course significance/insignificance does not apply to the fairy-tale
astrology, since if it did, astrology would crumple to little pieces...
>> Something doesn't gain significance just because you would prefer it
>> to be significant!
>>
>>>>> Philosophers have for centuries tried to propose a way to prove their own
>>>>> existance. "I think therefore I am" is as close as we can get.
>>>>
>>>> Does this mean that you think the hypothesis "the Earth is flat" is
>>>> as valid as the hypothesis "the Earth is round" ????
>>>
>>> Yes, see the above.
>>
>> Then you're a crank, a crackpot, a weirdo. You ignore empirical evidence
>
> Please reread the above this is how Einsteins theory's express things IT
> IS RELATIVE.
but of equal value". You need to re-read your Einstein, since you've
misunderstood him grossly!!!
> And perhaps from another dimensional perspective the world may even
> be inverted!!!
constantly divert into various fantasies. Do you have any real evidence
that the world may be inverted ???? If not, don't bring this up, because
it'll lead nowhere.
> it depends on where you are-the size you are, the vibrational
> frequency you are at-and on and on...
>> just to play your own little philosophical games. Sure, this may be
>> entertaining, or even create some subjective "meaning of life", but one
>> thing it will NOT do: it will not help you gain any new knowledge.
>
> You forgot my philosophy post already-my, my. The goal of philosophy is
> wisdom. Wisdom requires questioning everything because everything is
> questionable. So if you believe questioning is just entertaining you are
> not as intelligent as I first thought. Because this is the ONLY way
> anyone gains in any new knowledge.
your definition of "wisdom", as well as your questioning of everything...
<evil grin>
(be careful with your sloppy definitions -- they may bite back sooner
than you expect!!!)
>> Of course, with such a philosophy it's quite natural that you fall prey
>> to astrology....
>
> I notice that you fall prey to this slippery slope fallacious thinking
> quite often, along with the downing of other disciplines which are the
> basis for the one you promote. I find this less than noble. You really
> need to study psychology and/or astrology so that you can gain some
> insight into these powerless tactics because they really don't address
> these basic questions. All I have ever said is that there is no one
> truth.
course our knowledge of this truth is always imperfect, nevertheless
it's there.
> That all disciplines have their place and are valid.
homocide? In what way are they "valid"? If not, please specify
carefully what disciplines are "valid" and which are not, and why.
> Is your perspective so insecure that all other forms of academia would be
> erradicated should you take power?
choose not to do even if I was offered the possibility btw). It has its
value as part of our old cultures, and as entertainment value, therefore
it should not be eradicated. But it should not make claims it's unable
to fullfill.
> This certainly would not lead to new knowledge that you say you are
> for, your actions reflect different beliefs than you profess.
conclusions about my actions are completely irrelevant.
In short: you live in your own little fantasy world, and you refuse
to realize it.
>> But what if I don't exist as a human, and you're really discussing
>> with some AI computer program???? It's not impossible -- remember
>
> of you could ever prove you exist, this is an esoteric point that you
> don't get simply because of your rigid adherence to skeptical thinking.
nobody ever posted, since to you it's irrelevant whether it exists or
not....
> And greater minds than you and I can't either, does this mean we all fall
> prey to the illusion of physicality? Astrology is operationally obvious
> and you don't know how to operate with it, that is all.
common knowledge that the stage magician produces an illusion and not
real magic.
Likewise an "astrology operator" will be successful as an illusionist.
Michael Sims
Once before, I suggested the Paul Schlyter post his birth data. Edmond
Wollmann might then do and post an analysis to whatever depth will begin
to persuade Mr. Schlyter.
Mr. Wollmann responded and agreed. No response came from Mr. Schlyter. I
again place the same challenge before them both.
Since they are honorable men, I am sure that Mr. Schlyter will
acknowledge that Mr. Wollmann is correct if he is. Mr. Wollmann will
likewise apologize to Mr. Schlyter if he is wrong.
What do you say gentlemen? Will you put it to the test openly and
honorably?
Michael Sims
Bryan, TX
Jim Rogers
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
> > > My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
>
> > What's good enough for you isn't the question.
>
> No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and stay
> satisfied 10 years later-
Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay satisfied"
and continue to return to buy more. A "satisfied" customer set does nothing
to establish the validity of what you're selling. All it establishes is its
marketability, and the gullibility of many in the general public. Now what
was it P.T. Barnum used to say?
> who do you guys think you are the alt.astrology
> police? Any one who doesn't believe in chiropractic work doesn't go to
> chiropractors, if you don't think counseling will help you don't go to
> counselors, if you don't like the weather forecast on one channel you
> change it, if you guys are so convinced of what you say what the hell are
> you doing here? Idiots can see through that. If my clients think I'm not
> serving they can go to someone else-something which you guys don't seem
> to understand, which proves you have nothing better to do, you're a joke
> not a scientist.
And don't mind me trumpeting the failures of astrology, then. Do you also
oppose consumer watch-dog organizations? Is Ralph Nader public enemy #1? Why
do you fear the truth being publicized?
Yes, perhaps it takes an "idiot" to "see through me." Proud accomplishment!
> > How can anyone else tell that
>
> Why are you looking for a good astrologer? Well you found one and you can
> waste bandwiths of the net from now till eternity, because you don't know
> enough astrology to disprove that-which is the only thing that will do
> it.
I found one, eh? But with only your word to support it (and maybe a handful
of testimonials from "satisfied" suckers).
> > you are not doing a disservice to these clients by pretending to tell them
>
> You sure are arrogant in assuming my clients need protection from you!
Perhaps gullible idiots deserve to be fleeced. Natural selection, and all.
....
>> So you don't like having the shoe on the other foot. Why am I not surprised?
> I never came to wherever it is you nuts come from and tryed to prove
> anything, I'm here because I wish someone like me was here when I was
> learning astrology, that is all, you are insignificant.
If all you're trying to do is mentor on methodology, stop making unsupportable
scientific-sounding claims about the accuracy of astrological analyses. You
will get no argument from me on the aesthetics of the art of astrology (such
is purely a matter of taste), just on the testable claims you make.
> > > > Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list
>
> I could come up with a list through my University of master's thesis and
> doctoral thesis that would lean the other way. What for?
Terrific! Please do so. Perhaps some of them have already been refuted by
others on Paul's list. What for? Why, so we can see your case proven, of
course.
....
> > Babble, babble, babble. You *claim* that these things are ineextricably
> > linked in a manner that let's you predict human psychological effects from
>
> I don't claim them physics has proved it which tells us that you are
> simply wasting my time-you have nothing to offer.....
> <major defensive rhetoric deleted>
Let's see what "major offensive rhetoric" you snipped:
> > a study of planetary aspects. and yet *deny* that that is a scientifically
> > testable claim. Your mind is a muddle of contradictions.
I guess this was the "offensive" part. I'm sorry you find it offensive to
have your blatant contradictions pointed out, but such is the nature of
debate. Is the remainder offensive rhetoric?:
> > "Been there, done that," indeed. Careful studies have been there, and
> > proven to any rational person's satisfaction that astrology is completely
> > arbitrary, and has no worthwhile predictive value, about *anything* for
> > which it has been studied.
This is no more than a frank, accurate summary of published research. You
are offended by the truth?
> > Of *course* nothing (in science) is set in stone. That's why science
> > exists. Knowledge changes; old beliefs are discarded when they are
> > proven wrong. When does that ever happen in astrology?
And this merely challenges astrology to challenge itself. When does it ever?
You are offended by the notion of discarding false ideas?
Jim
Jim Rogers
How will you remove subjectivity from such a test? If Paul says the results
don't match him significantly, what will be the astrologers' opinion? Why,
that Paul was biased, of course. Therefore this can't be much of a "test," as
interesting as it may be.
Jim
Edmond H. Wollmann
Jim Rogers wrote:
>
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
> >
> > > What's good enough for you isn't the question.
> >
> > No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and stay
> > satisfied 10 years later-
>
> Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay satisfied"
Let me ask a simple question. If through my service the satisfaction of
my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
"told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
newsnet format hold?
Jim Rogers
Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > > My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
> > >
> > > > What's good enough for you isn't the question.
> > >
> > > No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and stay
> > > satisfied 10 years later-
> >
> > Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay satisfied"
>
> my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
> consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
> "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
> who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
> newsnet format hold?
Well here's a free clue: look at the subject of this thread you chose to
participate in.
Jim
Edmond H. Wollmann
Jim Rogers wrote:
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> > Jim Rogers wrote:
> > > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > > > > > My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
> > > > > What's good enough for you isn't the question.
> > > > No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and stay
> > > > satisfied 10 years later-
> > > Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay satisfied"
> > Let me ask a simple question. If through my service the satisfaction of
> > my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
> > consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
> > "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
> > who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
> > newsnet format hold?
> Well here's a free clue: look at the subject of this thread you chose to
> participate in.
> Jim
From that perspective it indeed then has a basis in fact as a valid
application like all others to the human experience, experiment and
condition, as evidenced through my application of it to those issues.
There is no one truth, now or at the end of this exceedingly monotonous
thread. Except that THE truth is the composition of all truths, because
"All That Is" is all one unseparated, homogenous, idea manifesting itself
in all the ways it can-ETERNALLY. So I have plenty of time in that sense
to deal with any of your rejections of this basis in fact.
Paul Schlyter
> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>>if you don't like the weather forecast on one channel you change it,
forecasts on those channels where you don't like it?
It appears that if you were running these weather forecasts, you'd
probably always forecast beautiful weather, because then people would
like your weather forecasts ("...accuracy, what's that? Any forecast
is just as good as any other, so I select the forecast people will
like to hear...") <evil grin>
One particularly bad thing about weather forecasts in U.S. TV (whenever
I've had the opportunity to watch them) are that they quite often
disagree with each other! This indicates that their general quality
is quite low. Selecting the weather forecast that I, for one reason
or another, "like", seems pointless: what I want are accurate weather
forecasts, even if they forecast weather I don't like!!!
>> if you guys are so convinced of what you say what the hell are you
>> doing here?
to worldviews from the dark ages..... but it surely seems to be a
hopeless undertaking.... <evil grin>
>> Idiots can see through that. If my clients think I'm not serving they
>> can go to someone else-something which you guys don't seem to
>> understand, which proves you have nothing better to do, you're a joke
>> not a scientist.
>>>>> Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list
>>
>> I could come up with a list through my University of master's thesis and
>> doctoral thesis that would lean the other way. What for?
>>> Babble, babble, babble. You *claim* that these things are ineextricably
>>> linked in a manner that let's you predict human psychological effects from
>>
>> I don't claim them physics has proved it which tells us that you are
>> simply wasting my time-you have nothing to offer.....
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C19D...@ix.netcom.com>,
Michael Sims <tms...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Once before, I suggested the Paul Schlyter post his birth data.
I've posted these data about half-a-dozen times already! The last
time was only about two months ago, as a correction to the erroneous
birth data used by Rusty Sheila....
> Edmond Wollmann might then do and post an analysis to whatever depth
> will begin to persuade Mr. Schlyter.
>
> Mr. Wollmann responded and agreed. No response came from Mr. Schlyter. I
> again place the same challenge before them both.
I did respond, but perhaps you missed my response? Anyway, don't
assume something doesn't exist just because you didn't see it...
My birth data is common knowledge among participants in a.a, except
for perhaps some newbies.
(to Maggie McPherson: since people so often ask about my birth data
here, perhaps it's time to put them in the Astrology FAQ? <grin> )
> Since they are honorable men, I am sure that Mr. Schlyter will
> acknowledge that Mr. Wollmann is correct if he is. Mr. Wollmann will
> likewise apologize to Mr. Schlyter if he is wrong.
>
> What do you say gentlemen? Will you put it to the test openly and
> honorably?
I don't mind, although this test already has been done several times
by others. I've even interpreted my own chart myself once here, about
2 years ago. The result? I pointed out that the interpretation of
my chart disagreed significantly from my real person -- and astrologers
here claimed this was because "I don't know myself well enough" (as if
they would know me any better!!!!)
But if Wollmann wants to redo what others already have done, he can
feel free to do it.
My birth data, posted here for perhaps the 7th time:
1949-07-30 12:30 UT, Gothenburgh, Sweden
Have fun!
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C1BF...@fc.hp.com>, Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>Michael Sims wrote:
> Michael Sims wrote:
>>
>> Once before, I suggested the Paul Schlyter post his birth data. Edmond
>> Wollmann might then do and post an analysis to whatever depth will begin
>> to persuade Mr. Schlyter.
>>
>> Mr. Wollmann responded and agreed. No response came from Mr. Schlyter. I
>> again place the same challenge before them both.
>>
>> Since they are honorable men, I am sure that Mr. Schlyter will
>> acknowledge that Mr. Wollmann is correct if he is. Mr. Wollmann will
>> likewise apologize to Mr. Schlyter if he is wrong.
>>
>> What do you say gentlemen? Will you put it to the test openly and
>> honorably?
>
> How will you remove subjectivity from such a test?
They can't -- and they won't even try.
And - more importantly - how can you obtain a result with any
statistical significance from just one single case?
> If Paul says the results don't match him significantly, what will be
> the astrologers' opinion? Why, that Paul was biased, of course.
This has already been done a few times here, some years ago. Some
astrologers responded that I was biased, but another, more common,
response was that my opinion that the chart reading didn't match me
significantly was sincere, but the reason was that "I didn't know
myself well enough". As if they would know me any better!!!
But of course, if you've already made up your mind beforehand to
trust the map more than the terrain, any discrepancy between the map
and the terrain must of course be due to errors in the terrain!!!!
> Therefore this can't be much of a "test," as interesting as it may be.
Quite correct, nevertheless I posted my birth data here so let them
have their fun....
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C1FE...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>>> My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
>>>
>>>> What's good enough for you isn't the question.
>>>
>>> No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and stay
>>> satisfied 10 years later-
>>
>> Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay satisfied"
>
> my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
> consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
> "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
> who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
> newsnet format hold?
dealer, the satisfaction of the drug addict in their belief that
something positive has occurred through drug use, is not the
"important issue" as we've have been so eloquently "told", then what
position of importance in this issue do the attacker's of drug
misuse, who have no real intimate knowledge of drug addiction, or
their opinons of it on this newsnet format hold?
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C234...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
>>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>>>>> My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that
>>>>>>> I need.
>
>>>>>> What's good enough for you isn't the question.
>
>>>>> No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and
>>>>> stay satisfied 10 years later-
>
>>>> Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay
>>>> satisfied"
>
>>> Let me ask a simple question. If through my service the satisfaction of
>>> my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
>>> consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
>>> "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
>>> who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
>>> newsnet format hold?
>>
>> participate in.
>> Jim
>
> From that perspective it indeed then has a basis in fact as a valid
> application like all others to the human experience, experiment and
> condition, as evidenced through my application of it to those issues.
majority of the people would think the Earth is flat (as they
probably did in medieval times), would this change the shape of the
real Earth?
> There is no one truth, now or at the end of this exceedingly monotonous
> thread.
> Except that THE truth is the composition of all truths, because
> "All That Is" is all one unseparated, homogenous, idea manifesting itself
> in all the ways it can-ETERNALLY.
It's just amazing that you contradict yourself in two passages just a
few lines apart from each other....
Edmond H. Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> > Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >
> >>if you don't like the weather forecast on one channel you change it,
>
> forecasts on those channels where you don't like it?
I see you still have a reading and comprehension problem. the channel not
the weather.
> >> if you guys are so convinced of what you say what the hell are you
> >> doing here?
>
> We're trying to educate those ignorant pepole who still try to cling
> to worldviews from the dark ages..... but it surely seems to be a
> hopeless undertaking.... <evil grin>
Well yes that is true, and it would help if you reread my posts so that
you will be more up to date, I listed Authors who have an agreement of
postulates and theories that I believe are correct, you asked for them
and then said putting names up there was not the point, they were just
SOME of the current thinking in these subjects. Especially the
psychological parts which it appears you (and every other naysayer I have
seen) have absolutely no inkling of-and you are correct about the
hopeless thing, and it goes both ways!:-) I cannot spend all my time
doing reseach to convince people of things they are never going to be
convinced about which is proven by their unwillingness to investigate the
proof I do give.
> >> not a scientist.
>
> Then what about YOU? Are YOU a scientist or a joke?
It is not a goal nor am I impressed with the "scientist" definition, this
is the assumption of you true believers. This is not always the best nor
most logical definition to hold-there are many other ways to investigate
AND experience the universe. Inspiration is the primary reason for human
accomplishment not whether one of you needs validity to make you feel
secure.
> >>>>> Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list
> >>
> >> I could come up with a list through my University of master's thesis and
> >> doctoral thesis that would lean the other way. What for?
>
> Go ahead! We're waiting.....
I may do this, I am very busy on my book etc, but I may be able to
compile something as the result of my other research.
Edmond H. Wollmann
Professional Member of The American Federation of Astrologers
The International Society for Astrological Research
The Association for Astrological Networking
Edmond H. Wollmann
Paul you really need to take a RIF (reading is fundemental) class or
perhaps you are dyslexic or something, please reread the above before you
make any more foolish comments.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Edmond H. Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <31C1FE...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
> >> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>>>> My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
> >>>> What's good enough for you isn't the question.
> >>> No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and stay
> >>> satisfied 10 years later-
> >> Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay satisfied"
> > Let me ask a simple question. If through my service the satisfaction of
> > my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
> > consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
> > "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
> > who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
> > newsnet format hold?
> Let me ask a simple question. If, through the service of the drug
> dealer, the satisfaction of the drug addict in their belief that
> something positive has occurred through drug use, is not the
> "important issue" as we've have been so eloquently "told", then what
> position of importance in this issue do the attacker's of drug
> misuse, who have no real intimate knowledge of drug addiction, or
> their opinons of it on this newsnet format hold?
The clear difference here is that what is put into scenarios, is what is
extracted out. Positive energy expands, unifies and integrates. Negative
energy dis-integrates, breaks down-like skepticism. If I am successful in
my service the client is empowered and unifies parts of their identity
towards fuller application AND I AM OUT OF A JOB they do not return. If
the drug dealer is successful, he removes control from the client,
dis-integrates the identity and develops reliance THAT KEEPS HIM IN
CONTROL of the person in order to feed the illusion. A positive person is
never going to see these scenarios let alone interact with them because
they are not a part of his reality definition. Positive energy in-(self
empowered)integrated effect out. Negative energy in (power to others or
"things") dis-integrated effect out, it is simple mechanics. My service
is to enhance control through awareness, the drug dealers is to decrease
it through dependency and fear.This is really simple psychology which
limits the level of our discussion to your level of comprehension of it.
Next misconception please?!...
Jim Marshall
You know I have to laugh at you two WE don't even know what
gravity is and you talk about whether the planets effect us.
I just joined a group of physicist, we are putting our heads
together in an effort to define gravity. When we do maybe
we will come up with the answer as to the way planets effect
us. We know the Moon has a gavitational effect on the tides,
but we do not actually know what gravity is any more then we
know how the planets effect us.
Jim
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>In article <31C234...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
>Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>
>>> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
>>>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>>>>>> My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that
>>>>>>>> I need.
>>
>>>>>>> What's good enough for you isn't the question.
>>
>>>>>> No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and
>>>>>> stay satisfied 10 years later-
>>
>>>>> Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay
>>>>> satisfied"
>>
>>>> Let me ask a simple question. If through my service the satisfaction of
>>>> my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
>>>> consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
>>>> "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
>>>> who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
>>>> newsnet format hold?
>>>
>>> Well here's a free clue: look at the subject of this thread you chose to
>>> participate in.
>>> Jim
>>
>> From that perspective it indeed then has a basis in fact as a valid
>> application like all others to the human experience, experiment and
>> condition, as evidenced through my application of it to those issues.
>
>I'm sorry but truth is not a matter of majority vote! Even if a
>majority of the people would think the Earth is flat (as they
>probably did in medieval times), would this change the shape of the
>real Earth?
>
>> There is no one truth, now or at the end of this exceedingly monotonous
>> thread.
>
>You're wrong here - blatantly wrong. Read on...
>
>> Except that THE truth is the composition of all truths, because
>> "All That Is" is all one unseparated, homogenous, idea manifesting itself
>> in all the ways it can-ETERNALLY.
>
>Here you do admit the existence of an "eternal truth".
>
>It's just amazing that you contradict yourself in two passages just a
>few lines apart from each other....
>
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C411...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>>
>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>
>>>>if you don't like the weather forecast on one channel you change it,
>>
>> 'xcuse me but could you suggest a practical way of changing the weather
>> forecasts on those channels where you don't like it?
>
> I see you still have a reading and comprehension problem. the channel not
> the weather.
Not at all -- it's you who have a writing problem and are unable to
express yourself in an unambiguous way. To alert you of this, I
deliberately chose the least probable interpretation of your sentence
above.
In addition, getting a good weather report is not a matter of
"selecting the weather report you like", but to ensure that available
weather reports are as accurate as meteorology permits. If this goal
is reached, the various weather reports are quite similar in contents
(even if they may be very different in appearance). That's the
situation we have here in Sweden: when comparing the weather reports
for the same day in various channels, they say pretty much the same,
with only minor variations, which means one can assume they're all
quite reliable. Therefore I was quite baffled when, during a visit
to the U.S., I watched the weather report in one channel, and then in
another channel - and they predicted opposite weather! One said
"sunny and warm"; the other said "cold and rainy"....
>>>> if you guys are so convinced of what you say what the hell are you
>>>> doing here?
>>
>> We're trying to educate those ignorant pepole who still try to cling
>> to worldviews from the dark ages..... but it surely seems to be a
>> hopeless undertaking.... <evil grin>
>
> Well yes that is true, and it would help if you reread my posts so that
> you will be more up to date, I listed Authors who have an agreement of
> postulates and theories that I believe are correct, you asked for them
> and then said putting names up there was not the point, they were just
> SOME of the current thinking in these subjects. Especially the
> psychological parts which it appears you (and every other naysayer I have
> seen) have absolutely no inkling of-and you are correct about the
> hopeless thing, and it goes both ways!:-) I cannot spend all my time
> doing reseach to convince people of things they are never going to be
> convinced about which is proven by their unwillingness to investigate the
> proof I do give.
The psychological posts are irrelevant, since they deal only with human
imagination and not with reality. You don't need to post them anymore
since I agree with what they say: many people believe in astrology, and
there are psychological reasons to believe in it. This is obvious and
need not be discussed further.
However, the subject of this thread is whether there are any FACTUAL
basis for astrology -- and then psychology becomes irrelevant.
>>>> not a scientist.
>>
>> Then what about YOU? Are YOU a scientist or a joke?
>
> It is not a goal nor am I impressed with the "scientist" definition, this
> is the assumption of you true believers. This is not always the best nor
> most logical definition to hold-there are many other ways to investigate
> AND experience the universe. Inspiration is the primary reason for human
> accomplishment not whether one of you needs validity to make you feel
> secure.
You're partially correct here. Facts without inspiration indeed
leads to a very dull life where little progress is made. On the
other hand, inspiration without facts leads only to a fantasy world
which of course may be extremely interesting to the fantasizer, but
which nevertheless also leads to very little real progress. That's
why the "modern astrology" of today isn't much different from the
ancient astrology milennia ago.
>>>>>>> Paul Schlyter periodically posts a list
>>>>
>>>> I could come up with a list through my University of master's thesis and
>>>> doctoral thesis that would lean the other way. What for?
>>
>> Go ahead! We're waiting.....
>
> I may do this, I am very busy on my book etc, but I may be able to
> compile something as the result of my other research.
We're waiting....
Meanwhile, don't waste any more time on this thread. Instead devote
that time to your reference list. When you've posted that, THEN we
can continue our discussion....
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C44D...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> In article <31C1FE...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
>> Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>
>>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>>>>>>> My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that
>>>>>>> I need.
>
>>>>>> What's good enough for you isn't the question.
>
>>>>> No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and
>>>>> stay satisfied 10 years later-
>
>>>> Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay
>>>> satisfied"
>
>>> Let me ask a simple question. If through my service the satisfaction of
>>> my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
>>> consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
>>> "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
>>> who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
>>> newsnet format hold?
>>
>> Let me ask a simple question. If, through the service of the drug
>> dealer, the satisfaction of the drug addict in their belief that
>> something positive has occurred through drug use, is not the
>> "important issue" as we've have been so eloquently "told", then what
>> position of importance in this issue do the attacker's of drug
>> misuse, who have no real intimate knowledge of drug addiction, or
>> their opinons of it on this newsnet format hold?
>
> The clear difference here is that what is put into scenarios, is what is
> extracted out. Positive energy expands, unifies and integrates. Negative
> energy dis-integrates, breaks down-like skepticism.
Or like astrology. Being afraid for nasty things happening to you
every time Mercury retrogades, or some bright comet appears, is
certainly a very negative energy. If you instead understand that the
comet won't do you any harm, and if this gives you the peace of mind
to be able to enjoy it, then this will give you a lot of positive
energy.
> If I am successful in my service the client is empowered and unifies
> parts of their identity towards fuller application AND I AM OUT OF
> A JOB they do not return.
Hmmm... earlier you wrote that your clients returned to you even
after 10 years, and here you write that if you're successful they
won't return. Isn't it frustrating to be unsuccsessful?
> If the drug dealer is successful, he removes control from the client,
> dis-integrates the identity and develops reliance THAT KEEPS HIM IN
> CONTROL of the person in order to feed the illusion.
Of course! That's the basis of ALL marketing: to get sufficient
control over the mind of the customer to make him buy your stuff. It
doesn't really matter whether you sell hard drugs, microwave ovens,
or astrology. Companies know this, that's why they pay big bucks for
advertising - bucks the customers are paying in the end.
> A positive person is never going to see these scenarios let alone
> interact with them because they are not a part of his reality
> definition.
Possible, but a positive person will then be a horrible marketer.....
> Positive energy in-(self empowered)integrated effect out. Negative
> energy in (power to others or "things") dis-integrated effect out,
> it is simple mechanics.
It's definitely NOT mechanics, because here you don't use the word
"energy" in a mechanical context. It's psychology though.
> My service is to enhance control through awareness,
Why do you want to lose your jobs?
> the drug dealers is to decrease it through dependency and fear.
The successful astrologer must do the same, or else he'll lose
customers. You must do the same, since your customers return to
you after 10 years, because, as you said yourself, otherwise they
wouldn't retirn to you,
> This is really simple psychology
Yep! It's NOT mechanics....
> which limits the level of our discussion to your level of
> comprehension of it. Next misconception please?!...
The next misconcsption is your idea that the subject of this thread
can be answered through psychology. It cannot.
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C44F...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Paul you really need to take a RIF (reading is fundemental) class
Do they try to make you an astrologer on such a class? If not, why
do you want me to take it?
Edmond H. Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <31C44D...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
> Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> > Paul Schlyter wrote:
> >> In article <31C1FE...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
> >> Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> >>> Jim Rogers wrote:
> >>>> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> >>>>>>> My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that
> >>>>>>> I need.
> >>>>>> What's good enough for you isn't the question.
> >>>>> No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are satisfied and
> >>>>> stay satisfied 10 years later-
> >>>> Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients also "stay
> >>>> satisfied"
Please see statements at the end.
> >>> Let me ask a simple question. If through my service the satisfaction of
> >>> my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
> >>> consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
> >>> "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
> >>> who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
> >>> newsnet format hold?
> >> Let me ask a simple question. If, through the service of the drug
> >> dealer, the satisfaction of the drug addict in their belief that
> >> something positive has occurred through drug use, is not the
> >> "important issue" as we've have been so eloquently "told", then what
> >> position of importance in this issue do the attacker's of drug
> >> misuse, who have no real intimate knowledge of drug addiction, or
> >> their opinons of it on this newsnet format hold?
> > The clear difference here is that what is put into scenarios, is what is
> > extracted out. Positive energy expands, unifies and integrates. Negative
> > energy dis-integrates, breaks down-like skepticism.
> Or like astrology. Being afraid for nasty things happening to you
> every time Mercury retrogades, or some bright comet appears, is
> certainly a very negative energy. If you instead understand that the
> comet won't do you any harm, and if this gives you the peace of mind
> to be able to enjoy it, then this will give you a lot of positive
> energy.
If you have ever taken the time to look at my posts, you would see that
empowerment is my goal.
> > If I am successful in my service the client is empowered and unifies
> > parts of their identity towards fuller application AND I AM OUT OF
> > A JOB they do not return.
> Hmmm... earlier you wrote that your clients returned to you even
> after 10 years, and here you write that if you're successful they
> won't return. Isn't it frustrating to be unsuccsessful?
Misconception #1,367,456.......
> > If the drug dealer is successful, he removes control from the client,
> > dis-integrates the identity and develops reliance THAT KEEPS HIM IN
> > CONTROL of the person in order to feed the illusion.
> Of course! That's the basis of ALL marketing: to get sufficient
> control over the mind of the customer to make him buy your stuff. It
> doesn't really matter whether you sell hard drugs, microwave ovens,
> or astrology. Companies know this, that's why they pay big bucks for
> advertising - bucks the customers are paying in the end.
I am not interested in marketing.
> > A positive person is never going to see these scenarios let alone
> > interact with them because they are not a part of his reality
> > definition.
> Possible, but a positive person will then be a horrible marketer.....
> > Positive energy in-(self empowered)integrated effect out. Negative
> > energy in (power to others or "things") dis-integrated effect out,
> > it is simple mechanics.
> It's definitely NOT mechanics, because here you don't use the word
> "energy" in a mechanical context. It's psychology though.
Psychology and astrology both have mechanical workings-yes it is.
> > My service is to enhance control through awareness,
> Why do you want to lose your jobs?
> > the drug dealers is to decrease it through dependency and fear.
> The successful astrologer must do the same, or else he'll lose
> customers. You must do the same, since your customers return to
> you after 10 years, because, as you said yourself, otherwise they
> wouldn't retirn to you,
There are endless people with developmental problems such as yourself, I
doubt I will ever lack for work.
> > This is really simple psychology
> Yep! It's NOT mechanics....
> > which limits the level of our discussion to your level of
> > comprehension of it. Next misconception please?!...
> The next misconcsption is your idea that the subject of this thread
> can be answered through psychology. It cannot.
You have a terrible difficulty following logical arguments and have
difficulty reading- I am not being flippant, it is precisely psychology
that determines basic assumptions of the observer to obtain facts to
further pursue the subject. If you reveiw this thread you will see that I
said the clients were satisifyed 10 years later not that they returned. I
did not say the flow was the returned clients. This was done for a
reason, and you fell for it (and took a couple people with you). It also
proves that the motivation of my work is not $ as you have tried to
promote. It actually is a combination of strategy of mine and your poor
comprehension that has allowed me once again to prove my point (at least
to me and those who are aware enough to see it) in this thread as I did
in the one where you were forced to admit paradoxical behavior (I know
you will reject that statement-it is for others so interested), because I
became aware early on that your ego was profoundly entangled in your
reasoning, and it is this fact that continues to allow you to make
assumptions (the basis for paradigms) that are illusory at best, which
are then followed with arguments that are irrelevant and data that ignors
the point.(please see the Paradigm shift post) It IS A MATTER of
psychology Mr.Schlyter and an objective person does not allow "facts" to
become the illusion that he uses to promote his own brand of fallacious
reasoning, because if you don't understand yourself through the sciences
of psychology/astrology it is very difficult to separate your belief
projection into scenarios from true analytical discernment, your basic
assumptions are then wildly irrelevant. To anyone interested truly in the
search for truth, it can be seen that my ability with linguistics were
far more powerful and effective than any temporary illusion of a "basis
in fact", I will take your advice and let go of this thread, but hardly
for the subjective ego reinforcing statements that you seem to be unable
to let go of. It is questioning that brings knowledge, not confidence. He
who thinks he knows doesn't, but he who knows he doesn't know does. I
admit that I know very little about the nature of existance and reality,
and that all my compilations will probably lead to very little. But I am
open to to all knowledge and truths to help me fill these voids. You
would benefit from considering Einsteins statement "I do not wish to BE
right, but rather to know WHETHER I am right." And I guarantee you this
one can be verifyed. Even he was aware of the psychology of the ego.
Bruce Daniel Kettler
>© 1996 Astrological Consulting/Altair Publications
>http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
>Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
>PO Box 221000 San Diego, CA. 92192-1000
>(619)453-2342 e-mail woll...@mail.sdsu.edu
From: "Edmond H. Wollmann" <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
Subject: Astrology Has No Basis in Fact
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 08:49:17 -0700
Organization: Astrological Consulting
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello everyone.
I'm Bruce Daniel Kettler (BDK) and I must say that PMAFA is
a credential of distinction. AFA is American Federation
of Astrologers. This PMAFA is the passing of a
written test, one that requires extensive knowledge and
experience with Astrology.
PM stands for "Professional Member"
At one time, it was the requirement of the City of Las
Vegas, Nevada for licensing Astrologers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul Schlyter wrote:
Edmond H. Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
___________________________________________________________
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service
that I need.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What's good enough for you isn't the question.
(who wrote that?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Edmond wrote:
No thats precisely the question, and my clientel are
satisfied and stay satisfied 10 years later-
----------------------------------------------------------------
__________________________________________________________
Comment from BDK on the above:
See Edmond, the world view of the so-called "skeptic" is
not quite connected to reality. They have ideas that don't
fit in with the world's culture or laws.
To these people there's this *QUESTION* and you are *ON
TRIAL* to answer it. To you, and to other rational people,
you don't have to answer a thing. Your clients are satisfied,
and stay satisfied 10 years later. It is those people you
have to answer to, *NOT ANYONE ELSE.*
Thank God these people have no political clout. I used
to worry about fundamentalist christians in political office,
and now it's these people, EEEKKK!!!
__________________________________________________________
Bull! As Paul pointed out, hard-drug dealers' clients
also "stay satisfied"
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Oh, such lovely people. Sound's like "Religion is the
opium of the masses" from the old hard-line communists.
(BDK)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Edmond wrote:
Let me ask a simple question. If through my service the
satisfaction of my clients in their belief that something
positive has occurred through consultation is not the
"important issue" as I have been so eloquently "told", then
what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons
of it on this newsnet format hold?
Let me ask a simple question. If, through the service of the
drug dealer, the satisfaction of the drug addict in their
belief that something positive has occurred through drug use,
is not the "important issue" as we've have been so eloquently
"told", then what position of importance in this issue do the
attacker's of drug misuse, who have no real intimate knowledge
of drug addiction, or their opinons of it on this newsnet
format hold?
The clear difference here is that what is put into scenarios,
is what is extracted out. Positive energy expands, unifies and
integrates. Negative energy dis-integrates, breaks down-like
skepticism.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Well, "skepticism" is not a negative energy. Everyone
is skeptical. It's those who use that label, who are part
of a group mind. That's where the negative energy can
be identified as coming from.
(BDK) (the resident "skeptic-cult" expert)
_______________________________________________________________
Paul:
Or like astrology. Being afraid for nasty things happening
to you every time Mercury retrogades, or some bright comet
appears, is certainly a very negative energy. If you instead
understand that the comet won't do you any harm, and if this
gives you the peace of mind to be able to enjoy it, then this
will give you a lot of positive energy.
_______________________________________________________________
Time to comment on the above comment. It's a comment about the
negative results of Astrology. Indeed, everything has side
effects, no matter how useful it is. So, back to the
way "skeptics" comment. Skeptics point out fraudulent
psychics. Skeptics can point to harm done because of psychics
and because of the belief in Astrology. So What! Has Edmond
engendered such fear, such total dependence upon Astrology
that it causes a debilitating effect?
(BDK)
_______________________________________________________________
Edmond:
If you have ever taken the time to look at my posts, you would
see that empowerment is my goal.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BDK:
READ YOUR POSTS?
Come on now? Who's got time for that. They have an agenda.
All they know is what they read in the "skeptic" literature.
Reminds me of the Bible Thumpers, who only know what God
said from their "bible."
__________________________________________________________________
Edmund:
If I am successful in my service the client is empowered and
unifies parts of their identity towards fuller application
AND I AM OUT OF A JOB they do not return.
_________________________________________________________________
Paul:
Hmmm... earlier you wrote that your clients returned to you even
after 10 years, and here you write that if you're successful they
won't return. Isn't it frustrating to be unsuccsessful?
__________________________________________________________________
Edmond, I'm going to re-label that "Misconception #1,367,456......"
that you placed, to "distortion." It's that old *either-or*
mentality again. It's sometimes called *black-white.*
I cover it in detail in my "Skeptics Witnessing" in alt.
pagan, placed by a different poster.
Let me clarify here. Both witnessing people return after 10
years, and then doing one's best to see that they do not have to
return are facts that co-exist in a mind that has a broader
perspective than Paul's. It's kind of frustrating to explain
that, when one knows that so many people in the world readily
understand it.
(BDK)
__________________________________________________________________
<SNIP>
Paul:
Of course! That's the basis of ALL marketing: to get sufficient
control over the mind of the customer to make him buy your stuff.
<SNIP>
Edmond:
I am not interested in marketing.
<SNIP>
Edmond:
My service is to enhance control through awareness,
Paul:
Why do you want to lose your jobs?
Edmond:
the drug dealer's is to decrease it [control] through
dependency and fear.
Paul:
The successful astrologer must do the same, or else he'll lose
customers. You must do the same, since your customers return
to you after 10 years, because, as you said yourself, otherwise
they wouldn't return to you,
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul, at this point, you still didn't get it, did you?
Edmond wrote that he want's to "enhance control through
awareness." That means lose his job *TO THOSE PEOPLE
WHO ENHANCE CONTROL*
That doesn't mean that people don't have problems.
How is it you misread Edmond? Did you want there to
be dependency after 10 years. All he wrote was that
they were "satisfied" after 10 years.
(BDK)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Edmond:
There are endless people with developmental problems such as
yourself, I doubt I will ever lack for work.
<SNIP>
Edmond:
....which limits the level of our discussion to your level of
comprehension of it. Next misconception please?!...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is more to this. We'll call this part 1.
(BDK)
My apologies if I put someone's name where it didn't
belong. These 3 or more person threads are really
hard to dissect. Someone's has to invent a better
system than >>>>>> these notations.
_____________________________________
http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc
then select
Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena
(later I'll have a link to
Astrological Sites)
_____________________________________
Bruce Daniel Kettler
From: "Edmond H. Wollmann" <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu>
Subject: Astrology Has No Basis in Fact
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 08:49:17 -0700
Organization: Astrological Consulting
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hello everyone.
I'm Bruce Daniel Kettler (BDK) and I must say that PMAFA is
a credential of distinction. AFA is American Federation
of Astrologers. This PMAFA is the passing of a
written test, one that requires extensive knowledge and
experience with Astrology.
Edmond H. Wollmann is a P.M.A.F.A.
PM stands for "Professional Member"
At one time, it was the requirement of the City of Las
Vegas, Nevada for licensing Astrologers.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Paul Schlyter wrote:
Edmond H. Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
Jim Rogers wrote:
___________________________________________________________
In part 1, I may have quoted certain writing as that
of Paul, when actually it was Jim.
It's easy to distinguish between persons who are into
ASTROLOGY
UFO'S
PSYCHIC PHENOMENA
but those who write from the "skeptic cult" are usually
of the same mentality, and they all write so much of
the same material, in the same manner, that it's kind of
hard to tell who's who. That's a good reason for me to
call it a "group mind."
Anyway, in this one I'll just put a question mark, and
label it "skeptic."
____________________________________________________________
We'll call this part 2 of 2 parts:
(BDK)
_____________________________________
http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc
then select
Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena
(later I'll have a link to
Astrological Sites)
_____________________________________
Skeptic?? wrote:
The next misconcsption is your idea that the subject of
this thread can be answered through psychology.
It cannot.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Edmond wrote:
You have a terrible difficulty following logical
arguments and have difficulty reading- I am not
being flippant, it is precisely psychology that
determines basic assumptions of the observer to obtain
facts to further pursue the subject. If you review
this thread you will see thatI said the clients were
satisifyed 10 years later not that they returned. I did
not say the flow was the returned clients. This was
done for a reason, and you fell for it (and took a
couple people with you).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To Edmond:
Do you know how to look for USENET archives? You use a WWW
browser. Then you select YAHOO or ALTA VISTA, then USENET
and the e-mail address of the person you are looking up.
If you look up my e-mail address, and the another of mine,
72711.707 @compuserve.com, you will find in my dialogue with
"skeptics" time after time after time, they do the same
thing you just pointed out.
They *FILTER* what you write into their own *BELIEF SYSTEM*
They *RE-WRITE* what you WROTE in their own minds.
Even here, now, in alt.paranormal in some of my recent
postings, without going into the archives, are examples
of that.
Please, "skeptics," don't accuse me of over-generalizing.
This just happens much, much, too often.
(BDK) (dket...@ix.netcom.com)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From Edmond:
It also proves that the motivation of my work is not $
[MONEY] as you have tried to promote. It actually is a
combination of strategy of mine and your poor comprehension
-------------------------------------------------------
FROM BDK:
Oh, come on, Edmond. Didn't you know the "skeptics" have
to protect all the public from us "money grabbers" who
are just out for a quick buck. It's their RANDI, high
priest, appointed mission in life. To them, anyone who
collects money is somehow dirty.
_______________________________________________________
No, Edmond, I disagree, but ever so slightly.
It's not "poor comprehension." Most of these people are
quite good at reading. However, when their agenda is in
focus, they "filter" out what they don't want to see.
(BDK) resident "skeptic-cult" expert
--------------------------------------------------------
Edmond continues:
...that has allowed me once again to prove my point
(at least to me and those who are aware enough to see it)
in this thread as I did in the one where you were forced
to admit paradoxical behavior (I know you will reject that
statement-it is for others so interested), because
I became aware early on that your ego was profoundly
entangled in your reasoning, and it is this fact that
continues to allow you to make assumptions (the basis for
paradigms) that are illusory at best, which are then
followed with arguments that are irrelevant, and data that
ignores the point.(please see the Paradigm shift post)
It IS A MATTER of psychology Mr.Schlyter and an objective
person does not allow "facts" to become the illusion that
he uses to promote his own brand of fallacious reasoning,
because if you don't understand yourself through the sciences
of psychology/astrology it is very difficult to separate
your belief projection into scenarios from true analytical
discernment, your basic assumptions are then wildly irrelevant.
To anyone interested truly in the search for truth, it can be
seen that my ability with linguistics were far more powerful
and effective than any temporary illusion of a "basis
in fact.", I will take your advice and let go of this thread,
but hardly for the subjective ego reinforcing statements that
you seem to be unable to let go of. It is questioning that
brings knowledge, not confidence. He who thinks he knows doesn't,
but he who knows he doesn't know does. I admit that I know
very little about the nature of existance and reality, and
that all my compilations will probably lead to very little.
But I am open to to all knowledge and truths to help me fill these
voids. You would benefit from considering Einsteins statement
"I do not wish to BE right, but rather to know WHETHER I am
right." And I guarantee you this one can be verifyed. Even he
was aware of the psychology of the ego.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FOR THE ABOVE
APPLAUSE!!!!!!!!!!!! from (BDK)
Now, I refer the reader to "SKEPTICS WITNESSING" in
alt.pagan. I've been saying, what Edmond, above, has
been saying, that this matter of dialogue with so-called
"skeptics" is more a matter of *PSYCHOLOGY* not so much
a matter of *SCIENCE*.
I love the way this was presented. I want to include this
example in my next revision of my copyrighted book,
which is, right now, in alt.pagan, and there is titled,
by another poster, seta...@ix.netcom.com *SKEPTICS
WITNESSING*
In my writing, there were examples of motives of so-called
"skeptics" and what Edmond points out here applies to my
showing of a "need to be right." I believe that Brian
Zeiler brings that out very well. Take a look at the archives
toward the end of May for bdze...@students.wisc.edu and
his postings about the Hyman debate. He wrote of Hyman,
something like:
better to look like an illogical
freak and be *right*
after quoting Hyman.
By the way, links to sites that show Hyman's writing, and
Professor Jessica Utt's writing are at the site:
_____________________________________________
http://agora.rdrop.com/users/tifpc
then select
Scientific Study of Psychic Phenomena
_____________________________________________
(BDK)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Scott LaRoche
>BDK:
>READ YOUR POSTS?
>Come on now? Who's got time for that. They have an agenda.
>All they know is what they read in the "skeptic" literature.
>Reminds me of the Bible Thumpers, who only know what God
>said from their "bible."
I've noticed a recurrent thread amongst those who believe in the
paranormal. Wiccans, astrologists, and others of such bent are quick to
dismiss Christian superstitions, but act with bitterness towards skeptics
who have the temerity to question their own frivolous and patently
ridiculous belief system.
Here's a clue: Wicca, astrology and other new-age nonsense is just as
invalid as creationism, and just as goofy.
I've written more about this subject:
http://members.aol.com/scroach1/astro.htm
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C577...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> There are endless people with developmental problems such as yourself, I
> doubt I will ever lack for work.
>> The next misconcsption is your idea that the subject of this thread
>> can be answered through psychology. It cannot.
>
> You have a terrible difficulty following logical arguments and have
> difficulty reading- I am not being flippant, it is precisely psychology
> that determines basic assumptions of the observer to obtain facts to
> further pursue the subject. If you reveiw this thread you will see that I
> said the clients were satisifyed 10 years later not that they returned.
And how many percent of all your customers have you verified as actually
remaining "satisfied" after 10 years? What happens after 15 or 20 years?
> I did not say the flow was the returned clients. This was done for a
> reason, and you fell for it (and took a couple people with you).
> It also proves that the motivation of my work is not $ as you have
> tried to promote.
not interested in the money?
> It actually is a combination of strategy of mine and your poor
> comprehension that has allowed me once again to prove my point
> (at least to me
"Proving" stuff to yourself is trivial. The hard part is convincing
those who initially are skeptical to you, and there you've performed
miserably.
> and those who are aware enough to see it)
> in this thread as I did in the one where you were forced to admit
> paradoxical behavior (I know you will reject that statement-it is
> for others so interested),
suppose you'll refuse to clarify that.....
> because I became aware early on that your ego was profoundly
> entangled in your reasoning,
hopelessly confusing your own fantasies with reality.
> and it is this fact that continues to allow you to make assumptions
> (the basis for paradigms) that are illusory at best,
> which are then followed with arguments that are irrelevant
escape these arguments.
> and data that ignors
^^^^^^
That should be "ignores"
> the point.(please see the Paradigm shift post) It IS A MATTER of
> psychology Mr.Schlyter and an objective person does not allow "facts" to
> become the illusion that he uses to promote his own brand of fallacious
> reasoning, because if you don't understand yourself through the sciences
> of psychology/astrology
> it is very difficult to separate your belief
> projection into scenarios from true analytical discernment, your basic
> assumptions are then wildly irrelevant. To anyone interested truly in the
> search for truth, it can be seen that my ability with linguistics were
> far more powerful
your native language, but not my native language. To be fair, should we,
for awhile, switch to MY native language? No? Why not? With your "far
more powerful linguistic ability" this ought to be quite trivial to you...
> and effective than any temporary illusion of a "basis in fact",
something more sophisticated than merely trying to push something that
obviously is false.
> I will take your advice and let go of this thread, but hardly
> for the subjective ego reinforcing statements that you seem to be unable
> to let go of. It is questioning that brings knowledge, not confidence. He
> who thinks he knows doesn't, but he who knows he doesn't know does. I
> admit that I know very little about the nature of existance and reality,
> and that all my compilations will probably lead to very little. But I am
> open to to all knowledge and truths to help me fill these voids. You
> would benefit from considering Einsteins statement "I do not wish to BE
> right, but rather to know WHETHER I am right." And I guarantee you this
> one can be verifyed. Even he was aware of the psychology of the ego.
surely didn't consider astrology to "be right"......
Otherwise I agree completely with Einstein. Be my guest and prove me
wrong and I'll be grateful because then I've learnt something new.
But do use the presentation of facts to prove me wrong, and not, as
you try to do now, what you "humbly" refer to as your "far more
powerful linguistic ability" (talk about big ego's....!!!!!).
I'm awaiting your list of references....
Bart Scott
>
>Here's a clue: Wicca, astrology and other new-age nonsense is just as
>invalid as creationism, and just as goofy.
>
Do you believe in tides? That's a very goofy thing that heavenly
bodies do in our lives. Sometimes I wonder why you guys don't just up
and float off the planet for lack of belief in things you can't see,
hear, smell, taste, or touch. Sometimes I wish you would.
Prove to me that you were not created and that you are not goofy
yourself.
Bart
Bruce Daniel Kettler
In <4q5mja$q...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com> bart...@ix.netcom.com(Bart
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey Bart, you and I and all the people in the world are a bunch of goof
balls.
Dan (BDK)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bart Scott
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Hey Bart, you and I and all the people in the world are a bunch of
goof balls.
>
>Dan (BDK)
>
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wow!!! BDK writes a one liner!!! Proof that miracles do exist!!! And,
I totally agree with it's content - another miracle!!! This is truly a
paranormal phenomena happening right now folks - right before this NG's
very eyes.
I know this is all off the subject title, but what the heck. I've
always held the belief close to my heart that if I should ever meet a
"Normal" person (unlikely) I shall feel obligated and compelled to get
down on my knees and praise them. I haven't met one yet so my knees
remain clean. This is, indeed, a world of nuts and the "theory" of
reincarnation supports my hypothesis that we're all here together
because we're all nuts. Anyone out there who claims that they are not
nuts is certainly one of us.
I can't wait for somebody to come along and say, "Yes, but can you
prove we're all nuts?"
Like so many of my other posts, I request that this one be ignored as
well.
Bart
Jim Rogers
Bart Scott wrote:
> >
> >Here's a clue: Wicca, astrology and other new-age nonsense is just as
> >invalid as creationism, and just as goofy.
>
> Do you believe in tides? That's a very goofy thing that heavenly
> bodies do in our lives.
Yes, and we can directly measure that. The *only* "heavenly bodies" that
have any measurable impact on our tides are the moon (strongest) and the
sun. So then, why does astrology follow all of the planets? Why is astrology
interested in every new comet or asteroid that wanders by? The gravitational
effects of the midwife or doctor attending your birth is many orders of
magnitude stronger than that of any of the planets. So why does your birth
chart analysis not take into consideration where she/he was standing?
> Sometimes I wonder why you guys don't just up
> and float off the planet for lack of belief in things you can't see,
> hear, smell, taste, or touch. Sometimes I wish you would.
Because we know how to prove the existence of these "things [we] can't
see." The correlations suggested by astrology have never been shown to
exist.
Jim
Jim Rogers
Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > >> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > >>>>> My continued flow of clients is all the validity in service that I need.
>
>
> > >>> satisfied 10 years later-
>
>
> > > my clients in their belief that something positive has occurred through
> > > consultation is not the "important issue" as I have been so eloquently
> > > "told", then what position of importance in this issue do my attacker's
> > > who have no real intimate knowledge of it, or their opinons of it on this
> > > newsnet format hold?
> > Let me ask a simple question. If, through the service of the drug
> > dealer, the satisfaction of the drug addict in their belief that
> > something positive has occurred through drug use, is not the
> > "important issue" as we've have been so eloquently "told", then what
> > position of importance in this issue do the attacker's of drug
> > misuse, who have no real intimate knowledge of drug addiction, or
> > their opinons of it on this newsnet format hold?
>
> The clear difference here is that what is put into scenarios, is what is
> extracted out. Positive energy expands, unifies and integrates. Negative
> my service the client is empowered and unifies parts of their identity
> the drug dealer is successful, he removes control from the client,
> dis-integrates the identity and develops reliance THAT KEEPS HIM IN
> never going to see these scenarios let alone interact with them because
> empowered)integrated effect out. Negative energy in (power to others or
> is to enhance control through awareness, the drug dealers is to decrease
> it through dependency and fear.This is really simple psychology which
> Next misconception please?!...
So why do you require astrology to do good psychological counseling? How
do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they fed you
incorrect natal data?
Jim
Bart Scott
>> Sometimes I wonder why you guys don't just up
>> and float off the planet for lack of belief in things you can't see,
>> hear, smell, taste, or touch.
>
>Because we know how to prove the existence of these "things [we] can't
>see." The correlations suggested by astrology have never been shown to
>exist.
>
>Jim
----------------
Hi Jim,
Astrologer's exist, obviously, and astrology works for them. I'm not
the least bit interested in astrology because, well, just because it
doesn't interest me. I rarely have a desire to predict the future
because I'm having a difficult enough time with the present as it is.
I posted because I'm just so tired of people jumping on a group of
individuals who feel they have had some success with a certain train of
thought. The correlations suggested by astrology HAVE been shown to
exist - for them. Though I may not, myself, "believe" that these
correlations exist - I do believe that the astrologers do, and I don't
think it's right to run around making fun of them.
All of this "paranormal" stuff is quite personal. The term
"Parapsychology" itself indicates that this statement is true. It's a
personal experience. The words and proceedures surrounding the issues
involved are as widely varied as there are personalities. These people
who believe in the paranormal are in search of a higher meaning in
life. I think that is an admirable pursuit. Don't you?
Bart
Jim Marshall
To: Paul Schlyter <pau...@saaf.se>
From: jh...@nando.net
Subject: Re: The Space Quantum Theory
>>>I do -- as a matter of fact I predict celestial events based on
>>>gravity all the time. The predictions, which are published in a
>>>yearly swedish astrolomical almanac, succeed. If I should fail,
>>>a large number of people will see it.
>> I suppose you mean "Swedish Astronomical Almanac" surely it is
>> not astrological,
>I never claimed it was, but it DOES use our understanding of
>gravity to predict celestial events....
After reading your remarks I doubt you are able to predict anything
concerning gravity. You must first understand Einstein.
>No I wouldn't. Our current best understanding of gravity is in the
>theory of General Relativity, which explains gravity as a
>pseudo-force due to curvature of spacetime, much like the "centrifugal
>force" in a rotating frame of reference. This is our only explanation
>why the gravitational mass and the inertial mass are the same. It's
>not likely that I'd come up with a better explanation than that during
>my lifetime.
I must agree with you, you would never come up with a better explanation
than relativity since you don't even know what Einstein's equations tell
us. To begin Einstein never claimed gravity was a "pseudo force?" In
fact he claimed that gravity was not a force at all, unlike Newton. Neither
one claimed to know "what is gravity?" There effects of the happening
was explained in a different ways that amounted to the same thing. Both
admitted to the fact that the gravitational mass was equal to the inertia mass.
While Newton claimed that mass attracts mass, Einstein made no such claim.
He developed the special theory of relativity that claimed that mass and
energy was one and the same thing using he famous E=MC^2.
Einstein's general relativity describes gravity with abstract equations
discovered by Guess using Riemannian geometry, that is tensor calculus.
Einstein's field equations, are a set of ten nonlinear second-order
(hyperbolic) partial differential equations for the ten components
4
These equation are written in tensor language: -- Gab(x)=S gab(x) qx^a qx^b
a,b = 1
They simply describe a set of coordinates in 4 dimensions, 3 spatial and one
time transferring from one finite place to and other finite place and he called
it the law of gravity.
Does your "space link theory" give any explanation why the gravitational
mass and the inertial mass are the same?
Yes "The Space Quantum Theory" explains more than the fact that inertia
mass and gravitational mass are derived from the same cause, it gives the
cause but if you don't understand relativity and tensor calculus their is little
point in further explanation.
Jim
Edmond H. Wollmann
Because I am able to define the core belief systems and approach the
client with them immediately at introduction, as well as attachment
schemas, whereas psychologists must do much testing and interveiwing to
come up with parameters even more general than mine. I use no other tool
to discover this BUT astrology, the psychology is employed after this.
How do I know this? I have to do research in my academic field which is
psychology, so I am in both worlds at once, academic and astrological.
This is why I am not fooled by the proponents of skepticism who attack
astrology on this group. The current research on attachment schemas is
just approaching recognitions I have been employing for years (please see
"The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology" 1996, vol 64, No.'s
1, 42-52, 5-7, 8-21 Attachment represenations, Attachment and
psychopathology, Attachment disorders in infancy, Distributions of
four-way AAI classifications in non-clinical and clinical examples,
Attachment representations in fathers and couples...) and also the fact
that many of my collegues are practicing psychotheripists and clinicians
some who have been a clients of mine. I would say they are very suited to
say whether I had accurately defined these schemas or not, since this is
their training and field. This is really all irrelevant I would like to
be of service on this group to help other individuals understand
astrology from a more empowered, modern and psychological and academic
perspective. This proving stuff is maybe informative, but takes valuable
discussion time away from our supposed like minded study.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
--
Jim Rogers
Bart Scott wrote:
>
> >> Sometimes I wonder why you guys don't just up
> >> and float off the planet for lack of belief in things you can't see,
> >> hear, smell, taste, or touch.
> >
> >Because we know how to prove the existence of these "things [we] can't
> >see." The correlations suggested by astrology have never been shown to
> >exist.
> All of this "paranormal" stuff is quite personal. The term
> "Parapsychology" itself indicates that this statement is true. It's a
> personal experience. The words and proceedures surrounding the issues
> involved are as widely varied as there are personalities. These people
> who believe in the paranormal are in search of a higher meaning in
> life. I think that is an admirable pursuit. Don't you?
Until you try to sell your soap to the general public. Then wrong-headed
nonsense that *can* be shown to be illogical should be exposed as such. I
make no argument with the putative aesthetics of things like astrology,
the only part that concerns me is when testable claims are made without
any experimental support, and valid experiments of those claims discarded
without so much as a passing review, let alone a critical one.
The public deserves to know what is chicanery, and how it is determined
to be such. Just because some people missed the renaissance doesn't mean
we need to continue to entertain medieval superstitions. What "higher
meaning" is there in the bigotry that pigeon-holes you based on where the
planets were when you were born?
Jim
SKE
In article , pau...@electra.saaf.se says...
Well, I won't comment on the substance of this debate, but Edmond H. Wollman
definitely gets first prize for Pompous Ass of the Month. 'Far more
powerful linguistic ability' ??!! Please Ed, take a modesty pill. Either that
or take Paul up on his suggestion to continue the debate in his
language for awhile, and we'll see just how far your 'far more poweful
linguistic ability' gets you.
//SKE
Jim Rogers
Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > So why do you require astrology to do good psychological counseling? How
> > do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they fed you
> > incorrect natal data?
>
> client with them immediately at introduction, as well as attachment
> schemas, whereas psychologists must do much testing and interveiwing to
> come up with parameters even more general than mine. I use no other tool
> to discover this BUT astrology, the psychology is employed after this.
> How do I know this? I have to do research in my academic field which is
> psychology, so I am in both worlds at once, academic and astrological.
> This is why I am not fooled by the proponents of skepticism who attack
> astrology on this group. The current research on attachment schemas is
> just approaching recognitions I have been employing for years (please see
> "The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology" 1996, vol 64, No.'s
> 1, 42-52, 5-7, 8-21 Attachment represenations, Attachment and
> psychopathology, Attachment disorders in infancy, Distributions of
> four-way AAI classifications in non-clinical and clinical examples,
> Attachment representations in fathers and couples...) and also the fact
> that many of my collegues are practicing psychotheripists and clinicians
> some who have been a clients of mine. I would say they are very suited to
> say whether I had accurately defined these schemas or not, since this is
> their training and field. This is really all irrelevant I would like to
> be of service on this group to help other individuals understand
> astrology from a more empowered, modern and psychological and academic
> perspective. This proving stuff is maybe informative, but takes valuable
> discussion time away from our supposed like minded study.
You didn't really answer the question, as it seems you've never tested
yourself with fudged (unbeknownst to you) natal data. Testimonials from
people don't go very far as evidence, as it doesn't control for placebo
effects. My question isn't how good a psychologist you are, it's how
accurate astrologically-generated psychological profiles are.
Jim
Edmond H. Wollmann
> Well, I won't comment on the substance of this debate, but Edmond H. Wollman
> definitely gets first prize for Pompous Ass of the Month. 'Far more
> powerful linguistic ability' ??!! Please Ed, take a modesty pill. Either that
> or take Paul up on his suggestion to continue the debate in his
> language for awhile, and we'll see just how far your 'far more poweful
> linguistic ability' gets you.
> //SKE
I do not wish to participate in this tit for tat business, but I must say
for presenting and promoting the idea that facts and accuracy are
important, the both of you now must go back and reread that statement. I
never said "far more powerful linguistic ability". I have no idea what
Paul's linguistic abilities are. Except for what I've seen and they seem
pretty good. But that is not what I was speaking of, and the both of you
know it.
"my ability with linguistics were
far more powerful" are the exact words- in the directing further
discourse and inquiry within the conversation..., and was obviously meant
in the application and assumption of a premise from which to further our
argument and/or paradigmatical research, because he made assumptions that
lead him on a wild goose chase of arguments as per ususal in the zeal to
prove his case, armed only with these assumptions, that no one mislead
him to take, but were his choice. Rearranging linguistics does not make
what you wish to be real, real gentlemen. I can read. And I know my own
intent. I have no desire to insult Paul. It proved that the lot of you
pursue further investigation of these things based on your preconcieved
beliefs about them. And here you do it again. Case closed. Thank you for
a stimulating and interesting conversation.
Jonathan C Dunn
Let us not forget that 'proof' means 'proof to SOMEONE's satisfaction'. To
say that something has never been 'proven' or 'shown' is no simple
cut-and-dried thing...
-jon dunn, seattle washington
http://nsccux.sccd.ctc.edu/~jondunn
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C71F...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> SKE wrote:
>>
>> In article , pau...@electra.saaf.se says...
>>>
>>>In article <31C577...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
>>>Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> it is very difficult to separate your belief
>>>> projection into scenarios from true analytical discernment, your basic
>>>> assumptions are then wildly irrelevant. To anyone interested truly in the
>>>> search for truth, it can be seen that my ability with linguistics
>>>>>were far more powerful
>
>>>Here you may be right, but you have an unfair advantage: english is
>>>your native language, but not my native language. To be fair, should we,
>>>for awhile, switch to MY native language? No? Why not? With your "far
>>>more powerful linguistic ability" this ought to be quite trivial to you...
>> Well, I won't comment on the substance of this debate, but Edmond H. Wollman
>> definitely gets first prize for Pompous Ass of the Month. 'Far more
>> powerful linguistic ability' ??!! Please Ed, take a modesty pill. Either
>> that or take Paul up on his suggestion to continue the debate in his
>> language for awhile, and we'll see just how far your 'far more poweful
>> linguistic ability' gets you.
>> //SKE
>
> I do not wish to participate in this tit for tat business, but I must say
> for presenting and promoting the idea that facts and accuracy are
> important, the both of you now must go back and reread that statement. I
> never said "far more powerful linguistic ability".
you:
# To anyone interested truly in the search for truth, it can be seen
# that my ability with linguistics were far more powerful
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Please don't deny your earlier posts....
> I have no idea what Paul's linguistic abilities are. Except for what
> I've seen and they seem pretty good. But that is not what I was
> speaking of, and the both of you know it.
something else?
> "my ability with linguistics were far more powerful" are the exact
> words-
linguistic ability"....
> I can read.
Good! Then re-read what you wrote....
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C6D5...@fc.hp.com>, Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
> Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
>> they are not a part of his reality definition. Positive energy in-(self
>> empowered)integrated effect out. Negative energy in (power to others or
>> "things") dis-integrated effect out, it is simple mechanics. My service
>> is to enhance control through awareness, the drug dealers is to decrease
>> it through dependency and fear.This is really simple psychology which
>> limits the level of our discussion to your level of comprehension of it.
>> Next misconception please?!...
>
> do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they fed you
> incorrect natal data?
two groups of clients - one group giving him accurate birth data, and
another group giving him completely erroneous birth data, he'd be
unable to distinguish the two groups from each other.
Similar tests have been performed numerous times, and the results are
always the same: when presented to astrological interpretations based
on correct birth data and on false birth data, people are unable to
tell which one that use the correct borth data.
A good example of this appeared here in a.a. a few months ago, when
Rusty Sheila made a chart interpretation of me, based on erroneous
birth data, nevertheless she thought she found a lot of "interesting
stuff"....
Paul Schlyter
In article <4q71qj$7...@castle.nando.net>, Jim Marshall <jh...@nando.net> wrote:
>>>>I do -- as a matter of fact I predict celestial events based on
>>>>gravity all the time. The predictions, which are published in a
>>>>yearly swedish astrolomical almanac, succeed. If I should fail,
>>>>a large number of people will see it.
>
>>> I suppose you mean "Swedish Astronomical Almanac" surely it is
>>> not astrological,
>
>>I never claimed it was, but it DOES use our understanding of
>>gravity to predict celestial events....
>
> After reading your remarks I doubt you are able to predict anything
> concerning gravity.
location. Then you can verify these predictions yourself, which should
remove your doubt about my ability to predict "anything"...
> You must first understand Einstein.
For modest accuracy requirements, good ol' Newton works fine in the
solar system.
>>No I wouldn't. Our current best understanding of gravity is in the
>>theory of General Relativity, which explains gravity as a
>>pseudo-force due to curvature of spacetime, much like the "centrifugal
>>force" in a rotating frame of reference. This is our only explanation
>>why the gravitational mass and the inertial mass are the same. It's
>>not likely that I'd come up with a better explanation than that during
>>my lifetime.
>
> I must agree with you, you would never come up with a better explanation
> than relativity since you don't even know what Einstein's equations tell
> us. To begin Einstein never claimed gravity was a "pseudo force?" In
> fact he claimed that gravity was not a force at all, unlike Newton.
real force, however it appears like a force, therefore one may call it a
"pseudo force".
Bart Scott
In <31C710...@fc.hp.com> Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> writes:
>
>Bart Scott wrote:
>>
>> >> Sometimes I wonder why you guys don't just up
>> >> and float off the planet for lack of belief in things you can't
see, hear, smell, taste, or touch.
>> >Because we know how to prove the existence of these "things [we]
can't see." The correlations suggested by astrology have never been
shown to exist.
>> All of this "paranormal" stuff is quite personal. The term
>> "Parapsychology" itself indicates that this statement is true. It's
a personal experience. The words and proceedures surrounding the
issues involved are as widely varied as there are personalities. These
people who believe in the paranormal are in search of a higher meaning
in life. I think that is an admirable pursuit. Don't you?
Bart
-----------------
>Until you try to sell your soap to the general public. The public
deserves to know what is chicanery, and how it is determined
>to be such. Just because some people missed the renaissance doesn't
mean we need to continue to entertain medieval superstitions. What
"higher meaning" is there in the bigotry that pigeon-holes you based on
where the planets were when you were born?
>
>Jim
---------------
You have made a valid point. Although you didn't justify making fun of
them, I understand the need to expose them, "IF" they are
"Intentionally" fraudulent. There ARE many charlatons in this field
who prey on the unfortunate gullible who have a need for their
questions to be answered when they have run out of all other recources
available to them. It is very sad that a person who is in desperate
need for information pays someone good money for bad info. It's good
to expose REAL chicanery because it often causes great damage - but the
people who do that aren't astrologers, they are criminals. There are
others, I feel, who are not this way at all and they use the tools of
the astrologer as a focus on the individual's life in order to inwardly
"see" what the future "most probably" holds in store for them. It's a
mental "focus" - not necessarily a calculator which will give you the
correct answer for every formula you put into it. I'm not sure that
any astrologer who takes this craft seriously will suggest to anyone
anything like the following:
"Well, let's see... You were born in this place, at this time, with
these planet positions. So, let's put it into the calculator. And the
answer is.... You're gonna die in a plane crash in New Jersey at
9:51p.m. EST on Saturday, August 28th of 1999."
Only a charaton would do that and I leave them in your capable hands to
expose and destroy.
Though I have limited understanding on the field of astrology because
of my limited interest in it, I find it surprisingly similar to the
study of "Biorythms". I AM convinced that people DO have chartable
biorythms and moderately accurate "predictions" of mood and
susceptibility to certain events can be made.
I have enjoyed this thread. I came into it to play with some skeptics.
Now I come out of it with a greater understanding of myself and other
people's points of view. Thanks for your time and patience.
Bart
Edmond H. Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <31C71F...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
> >> In article , pau...@electra.saaf.se says...
> >>>In article <31C577...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
> >>>Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> >>>> it is very difficult to separate your belief
> >>>> projection into scenarios from true analytical discernment, your basic
> >>>> assumptions are then wildly irrelevant. To anyone interested truly in the
> >>>> search for truth, it can be seen that my ability with linguistics
> >>>>>were far more powerful
> >>>Here you may be right, but you have an unfair advantage: english is
> >>>your native language, but not my native language. To be fair, should we,
> >>>for awhile, switch to MY native language? No? Why not? With your "far
> >>>more powerful linguistic ability" this ought to be quite trivial to you...
...........................
> >> Well, I won't comment on the substance of this debate, but Edmond H. Wollman
> >> definitely gets first prize for Pompous Ass of the Month. 'Far more
> >> powerful linguistic ability' ??!! Please Ed, take a modesty pill. Either
> >> that or take Paul up on his suggestion to continue the debate in his
> >> language for awhile, and we'll see just how far your 'far more poweful
> >> linguistic ability' gets you.
> >> //SKE
> > I do not wish to participate in this tit for tat business, but I must say
> > for presenting and promoting the idea that facts and accuracy are
> > important, the both of you now must go back and reread that statement. I
> > never said "far more powerful linguistic ability".
> Your memory appears extremely short -- above I can read this quote from
> you:
> # To anyone interested truly in the search for truth, it can be seen
> # that my ability with linguistics were far more powerful ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Please don't deny your earlier posts....
> > I have no idea what Paul's linguistic abilities are. Except for what
> > I've seen and they seem pretty good. But that is not what I was
> > speaking of, and the both of you know it.
> Then why were you talking about lignuistic abilities at all if you meant
> something else?
> > "my ability with linguistics were far more powerful" are the exact
> > words-
> Yep! Yet you now say you didn't claim to have "far more powerful
> linguistic ability"....
> > I can read.
> Good! Then re-read what you wrote....
<in reply to red herring fallacious arguments>
539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. -5.393707075 x 10 58th (sorry if there is a miscount) Is greater
than the population of a million earths, but the smallest possible number
of astrological factor combinations, and from that like any other data
you can infer what you wish. If a client of mine is suffering from self
efficacy concerns, and through astrological and psychological awareness
finds levels of stress factors associated with it that interfere with
developmental growth diminished, and understanding and efficacy enhanced,
neither the number above, nor studies a mile long, would create
sufficient developmental tension for either of us to attempt to fix
something that isn't broken, only so persons so needing this evidence in
order to make the same progress, can supposedly let go of these
strictures and live their lives with as much trust as those of us who
realize the futility of such numbers. Skeptics will not regardless of
"factors" anyway because it is a matter of belief. It would therefore be
foolish to ignore sure results experienced with such clients in order to
chase the obviously futile and speculative arguments with skeptical
minds. Analytical discernment begs for efficiency. I therefore
respectfully beg to differ and offer sincere success in your future
search for truths. There is no one truth EXCEPT that THE truth is the
composition of all truths. Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
of
paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
Thank you for your contributions.
Edmond H. Wollmann
Scott LaRoche wrote:
>
> >BDK:
>
> >READ YOUR POSTS?
>
> >Come on now? Who's got time for that. They have an agenda.
> >All they know is what they read in the "skeptic" literature.
> >Reminds me of the Bible Thumpers, who only know what God
> >said from their "bible."
>
> paranormal. Wiccans, astrologists, and others of such bent are quick to
> dismiss Christian superstitions, but act with bitterness towards skeptics
> who have the temerity to question their own frivolous and patently
> ridiculous belief system.
>
> invalid as creationism, and just as goofy.
Astrology is not something to believe in it is something to know.My
clients are empowered. Religion-unless it equips the individual for
greater reality experience is the science of following.
539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. -5.393707075 x 10 58th (sorry if there is a miscount) Is greater
than the population of a million earths, but the smallest possible number
of astrological factor combinations, and from that like any other data
you can infer what you wish. If a client of mine is suffering from self
efficacy concerns, and through astrological and psychological awareness
finds levels of stress factors associated with it that interfere with
developmental growth diminished, and understanding and efficacy enhanced,
neither the number above, nor studies a mile long, would create
sufficient developmental tension for either of us to attempt to fix
something that isn't broken, only so persons so needing this evidence in
order to make the same progress, can supposedly let go of these
strictures and live their lives with as much trust as those of us who
realize the futility of such numbers. Skeptics will not regardless of
"factors" anyway because it is a matter of belief. It would therefore be
foolish to ignore sure results experienced with such clients in order to
chase the obviously futile and speculative arguments with skeptical
minds. Analytical discernment begs for efficiency. I therefore
respectfully beg to differ and offer sincere success in your future
search for truths. There is no one truth EXCEPT that THE truth is the
composition of all truths.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
of
paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
Thank you for your contributions.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
--
Bruce Daniel Kettler
In <4q925j$2...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com> bart...@ix.netcom.com(Bart
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The person who was writing of ASTROLOGY, that started others on this
HEADS FULL OF STARS think was not only an astrologer, but the American
Federation of Astrologers certified him as a "professional Member." I
know that as a very prestigious, a very honest organization, and that
distinction comes only to members who are not only ethical, but quite
experienced and knowledgeable.
(bdk)
Very good points, you make, Bart.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Edmond H. Wollmann
> >Bart Scott wrote:
Everyone has a right to express their opinions, and to explore the way
they need to.
> >> >Because we know how to prove the existence of these "things [we]
> can't see." The correlations suggested by astrology have never been
> shown to exist.--------
> >> All of this "paranormal" stuff is quite personal. The term
> >> "Parapsychology" itself indicates that this statement is true. It's
> a personal experience. The words and proceedures surrounding the
> issues involved are as widely varied as there are personalities. These
> people who believe in the paranormal are in search of a higher meaning
> in life. I think that is an admirable pursuit. Don't you?
Like attracts like and those so positively oriented will either find like
or assist unlike, and/or both.
> Bart
> >Until you try to sell your soap to the general public. The public
> deserves to know what is chicanery, and how it is determined
> >to be such. Just because some people missed the renaissance doesn't
> mean we need to continue to entertain medieval superstitions. What
> "higher meaning" is there in the bigotry that pigeon-holes you based on
> where the planets were when you were born?
> >Jim
This is powerless and fruitless thinking that somehow efforts to
circumvent each person attracting their own experiences for their own
reasons can be instituted by another. We are not responsible for people
we are responsible to them by being as much as we can be in integrity.
When we do this everythjing falls into place. It is belief that creates
experiencial reality not meddling. I will post this again;
"He who has so little knowledge of human nature as to seek happiness by
changing ANYTHING but his own disposition, will waste his life in
fruitless efforts and multiply the griefs which he proposes to remove."
Webster. Please try to remember it this time. We cannot protect people
from themselves only advise.
> You have made a valid point. Although you didn't justify making fun of
> them, I understand the need to expose them, "IF" they are
> "Intentionally" fraudulent. There ARE many charlatons in this field
> who prey on the unfortunate gullible who have a need for their
> questions to be answered when they have run out of all other recources
> available to them. It is very sad that a person who is in desperate
> need for information pays someone good money for bad info. It's good
> to expose REAL chicanery because it often causes great damage - but the
> people who do that aren't astrologers, they are criminals. There are
> others, I feel, who are not this way at all and they use the tools of
> the astrologer as a focus on the individual's life in order to inwardly
> "see" what the future "most probably" holds in store for them. It's a
> mental "focus" - not necessarily a calculator which will give you the
> correct answer for every formula you put into it. I'm not sure that
> any astrologer who takes this craft seriously will suggest to anyone
> anything like the following:
> "Well, let's see... You were born in this place, at this time, with
> these planet positions. So, let's put it into the calculator. And the
> answer is.... You're gonna die in a plane crash in New Jersey at
> 9:51p.m. EST on Saturday, August 28th of 1999."
> Only a charaton would do that and I leave them in your capable hands to
> expose and destroy.
> Though I have limited understanding on the field of astrology because
> of my limited interest in it, I find it surprisingly similar to the
> study of "Biorythms". I AM convinced that people DO have chartable
> biorythms and moderately accurate "predictions" of mood and
> susceptibility to certain events can be made.
Correct. Tools are for making things easier or more fulfilling-not for
replacing effort. There is no prediction of THE future, because there
isn't one, there are only probables, it is this awareness that allows us
to create more probables and select and make effort towards the one we
prefer. Life is a matter of definition and choices, not facts, data,
planets, stars, whether science likes it, religion likes it, skeptics
like it, or anyone on newsnet or any other format in the world, likes it.
It is a matter of what we PREFER TO CREATE. Unless someone can tell me
the precise purpose for living-their opinion will allways be just that.
Because unless that parameter is known for certain (which at this point
is not possible)All truths must be true or WOULDN"T BE THERE. They may
not be positive, they may not be what you prefer, but none of us-let me
repeat that NONE OF US has the answer to the above parameters. Therefore
it follows that none HAVE THE ONE TRUTH-IT IS NOT POSSIBLE-PERIOD!
> I have enjoyed this thread. I came into it to play with some skeptics.
> Now I come out of it with a greater understanding of myself and other
> people's points of view. Thanks for your time and patience.
> Bart
All tools are valid tools when used to empower and assist the individual.
539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. -5.393707075 x 10 58th (sorry if there is a miscount) Is greater
than the population of a million earths, but the smallest possible number
of astrological factor combinations, and from that like any other data
you can infer what you wish. If a client of mine is suffering from self
efficacy concerns, and through astrological and psychological awareness
finds levels of stress factors associated with it that interfere with
developmental growth diminished, and understanding and efficacy enhanced,
neither the number above, nor studies a mile long, would create
sufficient developmental tension for either of us to attempt to fix
something that isn't broken, only so persons so needing this evidence in
order to make the same progress, can supposedly let go of these
strictures and live their lives with as much trust as those of us who
realize the futility of such numbers. Skeptics will not regardless of
"factors" anyway because it is a matter of belief. It would therefore be
foolish to ignore sure results experienced with such clients in order to
chase the obviously futile and speculative arguments with skeptical
minds. Analytical discernment begs for efficiency. I therefore
respectfully beg to differ and offer sincere success in your future
search for truths. There is no one truth EXCEPT that THE truth is the
composition of all truths. Absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence-it may be a difference in root assumptions.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
of
paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
Thank you for your contributions.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
--
Jim Rogers
> >Until you try to sell your soap to the general public. The public
> deserves to know what is chicanery, and how it is determined
> >to be such. Just because some people missed the renaissance doesn't
> mean we need to continue to entertain medieval superstitions. What
> "higher meaning" is there in the bigotry that pigeon-holes you based on
> where the planets were when you were born?
Bart's reply:
> You have made a valid point. Although you didn't justify making fun of
> them, I understand the need to expose them, "IF" they are
> "Intentionally" fraudulent. There ARE many charlatons in this field
....
> Only a charaton would do that and I leave them in your capable hands to
> expose and destroy.
Yes there *are* outright frauds, but even the "honest" astrologers are
delivering a "service" about as effective as homeopathy (i.e., placebo).
Placebo effects can be powerful and useful, but they still aren't doing
anything the subject doesn't bring about himself.
> Though I have limited understanding on the field of astrology because
> of my limited interest in it, I find it surprisingly similar to the
> study of "Biorythms". I AM convinced that people DO have chartable
> biorythms and moderately accurate "predictions" of mood and
> susceptibility to certain events can be made.
In my youth I toyed around with biorhythm computations, wrote simple
computer programs to chart them and all, but the entire thing is based on
very faulty assumptions. Think about these: is it realistic to expect
every person on earth to strictly follow 23, 28, and 33-day cycles from
the day they're born to the day they die? Will illness or interrupted
sleep patterns or a physical ordeal affect them? I'd imagine there *are*
a number of cycles in your body, but not chartable/predictable to any
degree. Just ask any woman how much her (natural, not birth-control-pill-
imposed) menstrual cycle varies from month to month; very few are regular
to a day.
Do this little test: in your program, try changing just one of those
cycles by .1 day; for instance, make the long one 33.1 days long, and see
how far your results differ for you, this year.
Jim
Michael Edelman
Edmond H. Wollmann (woll...@mail.sdsu.edu) wrote:
: My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
: respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
: Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
: of
: paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
: taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
: Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
Yet another amateur has delved into Kuhn without being aware of the
history of the philosophy of science, of of the criticism of Kuhn-
like the fact he used the term "paradigm" in at least six different ways-
or the contrext of the debate.
Kuhn has one view. Lakatos has another. And so on. It's a field rich
with contention.
: "We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
: according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
: however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
: enterprise.
Kuhn stated that the shift from one paradigm to a new one did not always
follow what appeared to be a strictly logical fashion, i.e., sometimes
new paradigms were adopted even when they had more inconsistencies
than the old paradigm, as the community as a whole may have felt
that the new paradigm was a major advance over the old one- the classic
case being the acceptence of the relativistic view of the universe over the
static Newtonian view.
Note Kuhn was attempting to describe the way he thought science was
actually done; he was not arguing for a given methodology.
And he was certainly not arguing for atheroetical, subjective approaches to
scientific enterprise.
--mike
Edmond H. Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
> In article <31C6D5...@fc.hp.com>, Jim Rogers <j...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> >> they are not a part of his reality definition. Positive energy in-(self
> >> empowered)integrated effect out. Negative energy in (power to others or
> >> "things") dis-integrated effect out, it is simple mechanics. My service
> >> is to enhance control through awareness, the drug dealers is to decrease
> >> it through dependency and fear.This is really simple psychology which
> >> limits the level of our discussion to your level of comprehension of it.
> >> Next misconception please?!...
> >
> > So why do you require astrology to do good psychological counseling? How
> > do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they fed you
> > incorrect natal data?
>
> He don't, and he's probably not even interested in trying. If he got
> two groups of clients - one group giving him accurate birth data, and
> another group giving him completely erroneous birth data, he'd be
> unable to distinguish the two groups from each other.
>
> Similar tests have been performed numerous times,
<irrelevant arguments deleted>
539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. -5.393707075 x 10 58th (sorry if there is a miscount) Is greater
than the population of a million earths, but the smallest possible number
of astrological factor combinations, and from that like any other data
you can infer what you wish. If a client of mine is suffering from self
efficacy concerns, and through astrological and psychological awareness
finds levels of stress factors associated with it that interfere with
developmental growth diminished, and understanding and efficacy enhanced,
neither the number above, nor studies a mile long, would create
sufficient developmental tension for either of us to attempt to fix
something that isn't broken, only so persons so needing this evidence in
order to make the same progress, can supposedly let go of these
strictures and live their lives with as much trust as those of us who
realize the futility of such numbers. Skeptics will not regardless of
"factors" anyway because it is a matter of belief. It would therefore be
foolish to ignore sure results experienced with such clients in order to
chase the obviously futile and speculative arguments with skeptical
minds. Analytical discernment begs for efficiency. I therefore
respectfully beg to differ and offer sincere success in your future
search for truths. There is no one truth EXCEPT that THE truth is the
composition of all truths.
My particular "Universes of inquiry" are psychology and astrology, I
respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
of
paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe, enter
into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
University of Southern California", State University of New York"
Davidson and Neale, 6th
edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
Thank you for your contributions.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
Frank Ernest
>So why do you require astrology to do good psychological counseling?
How
>do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they fed
you
>incorrect natal data?
>
Would you expect your doctor or auto mechanic to correctly diagnose a
problem and fix it if you deliberately deceived them as to what you
know?
Edmond H. Wollmann
> : respect all inquiry and the paradigms that articulate them.
> : Paradigms form from sets of beliefs and assumptions. To clarify the idea
> : of
> : paradigms here is a quote from experimentation in abnormal psychology
> : taken from Thomas Kuhn's veiw, author of the widely acknowledged "The
> : Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
> history of the philosophy of science, of of the criticism of Kuhn-
> like the fact he used the term "paradigm" in at least six different ways-
> or the contrext of the debate.
> Kuhn has one view. Lakatos has another. And so on. It's a field rich
> with contention.
> : according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
> : however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
> : enterprise.
> follow what appeared to be a strictly logical fashion, i.e., sometimes
> new paradigms were adopted even when they had more inconsistencies
> than the old paradigm, as the community as a whole may have felt
> that the new paradigm was a major advance over the old one- the classic
> case being the acceptence of the relativistic view of the universe over the
> static Newtonian view.
> Note Kuhn was attempting to describe the way he thought science was
> actually done; he was not arguing for a given methodology.
> And he was certainly not arguing for atheroetical, subjective approaches to
> scientific enterprise.
> --mike
The fact that you state "its a feild rich with contention" is exactly my
point. If we cannot even agree on what enquiry guidelines are how can we
agree any other way?
I am quite aware of the history of the philosophy of science, likewise if
you are aware of it you will find my point valid. If there was only one
truth or one basis to form assumptions from about the nature of existence
and/or universe, then most people would agree-there would be nothing to
have a shift or a revolution from. Yes? LISTEN CAREFULLY PLEASE, I am not
arguing against science, I am arguing against presumptuous thinking, and
there is no one on this planet (I think) who would think that rigidity
was a sign of intelligence and that the breadth of vision of someone say
like Einstein was gullibility. There is a fine balance and most fall on
one side or the other. It takes a secure and bold psychology to embrace
magnanimous thinking. Skepticism is healthy but rigid rejection without
sufficient investigation is just plain stupid, of course we could argue
indefinately in regards to "sufficient". I said "I respect all inquiry
and the paradigms that articulate them" if this is not enough
reasonableness in my perspective, just what would be? That I sacrifice
every independent thought and awareness ever learned? The problem is that
the scientific veiw is unyeilding, human beings are extremely insecure,
and history and time will prove and has proven my point repeatedly. I am
just pointing it out.
Jim Rogers
(attributions fixed)
Frank Ernest wrote:
Of course I wouldn't; I would expect a totally useless diagnosis leading to an
incorrect cure or repair. Do you think that might be the point? The question
is, could an astrologer do "as good" a job starting from fudged natal data?
Experiments have shown that they can. What conclusion does that compel?
Jim
Alan Roth
In article <4q510m$f...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, Scott LaRoche
<scott....@atomiccafe.com> wrote:
> >BDK:
>
> >READ YOUR POSTS?
>
> >Come on now? Who's got time for that. They have an agenda.
> >All they know is what they read in the "skeptic" literature.
> >Reminds me of the Bible Thumpers, who only know what God
> >said from their "bible."
>
>
> I've noticed a recurrent thread amongst those who believe in the
> paranormal. Wiccans, astrologists, and others of such bent are quick to
> dismiss Christian superstitions, but act with bitterness towards skeptics
> who have the temerity to question their own frivolous and patently
> ridiculous belief system.
>
> Here's a clue: Wicca, astrology and other new-age nonsense is just as
> invalid as creationism, and just as goofy.
>
> I've written more about this subject:
> http://members.aol.com/scroach1/astro.htm
Dear Scott,
You seem to have dismissed all metaphysics. Are all events explicable
by our current science? I doubt it very much. This leaves a vast body of
experience that must be dealt with in some "non-scientific" way, or
ignored, unless it becomes inconveniently obtrusive.
Once we admit that there are things that are not in the domain of
science that are important it becomes necessary to choose some normative
framework to allow conceptualization our experiences. All frameworks are
not equal. "Christian superstitions" have a political agenda--the
assumptions of redemption, etc., as inducements to participate in the body
politic, called "The Church."
Openmindedness requires respect of alternative frameworks unless they
would subordinate one to some agenda of power and prestige, unless they
would enforce membership as a means of survival within a community. Most
Christians don't practice the spirit of Chiristianity; this is not the
fault of Christ, but of the hungers and drives of human nature. I fault
creationism specifically for attempting to re-inforce a Godhead that seems
at variance with much of human experience, the competitions and
compromises of a resource-limited environment. Certainly Christian virtues
of sharing and compassion are not out of place in promoting the general
well-being, while ignoring relatively well-established science IS a form
of ignorance, (not the same as "superstition," which addresses that which
is currently present but unexplained scientifically).
My personal Godhead is not all-powerful, if it were so, human existence
would be less tedious. No all-powerful God would even allow the existence
of the Devil. The all-powerful God is not a zero-sum game, where the
entrants have to prove they are more perfect than their creator who
permits daily travesties that few humans would condone. This is not to say
that some less powerful Godhead does not exist.
Some of the more ancient traditions (or "superstitions" if you prefer)
contain areas of knowledge that science has intruded upon. Most of us who
have our own metaphysics give science credence in those areas where it
does not violate our own basic premises about the subjective reality of
importance personal experiences. There is no conflict here except when
someone pretends to have science, where none is currently possible. (I
have studied statistics at the doctoral level in education and don't
believe that what works mathematically can ever supercede what one knows
from intuitive or emotional necessity.)
Hope I have not muddied the waters too much. But I have fought my own
early dedication to science (and atheism) to find a more balanced
position, one that brings me the satisfaction of allowing my own
"superstitions" and those of others to co-exist.
Alan
SKE
>Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>
>> SKE wrote:
>>>
>>> In article , pau...@electra.saaf.se says...
>>>>
>>>>In article <31C577...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
>>>>Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>> it is very difficult to separate your belief
>>>>> projection into scenarios from true analytical discernment, your basic
>>>>> assumptions are then wildly irrelevant. To anyone interested truly in the
>>>>> search for truth, it can be seen that my ability with linguistics
>>>>>>were far more powerful
>>
>>>>Here you may be right, but you have an unfair advantage: english is
>>>>your native language, but not my native language. To be fair, should we,
>>>>for awhile, switch to MY native language? No? Why not? With your "far
>>>>more powerful linguistic ability" this ought to be quite trivial to you...
>>> Well, I won't comment on the substance of this debate, but Edmond H. Wollman
>>> definitely gets first prize for Pompous Ass of the Month. 'Far more
>>> powerful linguistic ability' ??!! Please Ed, take a modesty pill. Either
>>> that or take Paul up on his suggestion to continue the debate in his
>>> language for awhile, and we'll see just how far your 'far more poweful
>>> linguistic ability' gets you.
>>> //SKE
>>
>> I do not wish to participate in this tit for tat business, but I must say
>> for presenting and promoting the idea that facts and accuracy are
>> important, the both of you now must go back and reread that statement. I
>> never said "far more powerful linguistic ability".
I have reread the statement, and in fairness to Ed, he did say that 'it can
be seen that my ability with linguistics were (sic -- is?) far more
powerful', not 'far more powerful linguistic ability'. My apologies; no
misquote was intended.
The recommendation to take a modesty pill stands, nonetheless.
//SKE
>
>Your memory appears extremely short -- above I can read this quote from
>you:
>
># To anyone interested truly in the search for truth, it can be seen
># that my ability with linguistics were far more powerful
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Please don't deny your earlier posts....
>
>> I have no idea what Paul's linguistic abilities are. Except for what
>> I've seen and they seem pretty good. But that is not what I was
>> speaking of, and the both of you know it.
>
>Then why were you talking about lignuistic abilities at all if you meant
>something else?
>
>> "my ability with linguistics were far more powerful" are the exact
>> words-
>
>Yep! Yet you now say you didn't claim to have "far more powerful
>linguistic ability"....
>
>> I can read.
>
>Good! Then re-read what you wrote....
>
Bart Scott
>
>Do this little test: in your program, try changing just one of those
>cycles by .1 day; for instance, make the long one 33.1 days long, and
see
>how far your results differ for you, this year.
>
>Jim
--------------
No, I won't do that. I'm not very interested in biorhythms either. I
don't HAVE a program and I've gotten just about all I need out of this
thread, but it seems I must clarify a statement I made earlier. I used
the term "Moderately accurate predictions" not "Completely accurate
predictions" The menstrual cycle is a biorhythm. It doesn't fall
EXACTLY on the same day, I agree, but you can be "Moderately" certain
it WILL occur within an approximate period of about a week - and you
better damn well pay attention to it. I was with my wife for ten years
and I knew when I should begin to prepare myself for something that was
often quite devastating. Be it in the stars or in the rhythm of life.
A pattern can be seen and, to a degree, charted.
Bart
Edmond H. Wollmann
SKE wrote:
Edmond H. Wollmann writes;
> >>>>> search for truth, it can be seen that my ability with linguistics
> >>>>>>were far more powerful than any basis in fact
(in the controlling or directing of our discussion towards basic
assumptions which are then articulated)
This was my point-that language and the implied (even though I did not
imply anything in my original statement, Paul took off on an assumption
by what I DIDN"T say) and beliefs are just as valid-just as powerful (and
perhaps more). Paul knows this unless his ego is even more caught up in
his thinking than I previously stated-or otherwise he is mistaken, either
which proves my point, and ONCE again he brought someone into it by
twisting it. Now look at his statements and tell me who needs to take a
humility pill. Because he is a supposed scientist (at least this is the
way he presents himself) and is continually arguing proof and facts, it
was my purposful intention to leave certain facts out to demonstrate that
it is not FACTS ALONE that determine this search, it is human belief and
assumption that initiate them-Kuhn knows it, I know it, philosophers have
known it for millenia. But if you are going to live by a sword, you must
be prepared to die by it. I believe science is a valid paradigm along
WITH astrology, psychology and many other belief systems. So if using his
own sword to slay his message is unfair I must have missed something
somewhere, there will be no modesty pill taken here. Since I wasn't being
arrogant to begin with, others were being defensive.
> >>>>Here you may be right, but you have an unfair advantage: english is
> >>>>your native language, but not my native language. To be fair, should we,
> >>>>for awhile, switch to MY native language? No? Why not? With your "far
> >>>>more powerful linguistic ability" this ought to be quite trivial to you...
> >...........................
> >>> Well, I won't comment on the substance of this debate, but Edmond H. Wollman
> >>> definitely gets first prize for Pompous Ass of the Month. 'Far more
> >>> powerful linguistic ability' ??!! Please Ed, take a modesty pill. Either
> >>> that or take Paul up on his suggestion to continue the debate in his
> >>> language for awhile, and we'll see just how far your 'far more poweful
> >>> linguistic ability' gets you.
> >>> //SKE
> >>
> >> I do not wish to participate in this tit for tat business, but I must say
> >> for presenting and promoting the idea that facts and accuracy are
> >> important, the both of you now must go back and reread that statement. I
> >> never said "far more powerful linguistic ability".
>
> I have reread the statement, and in fairness to Ed, he did say that 'it can
> be seen that my ability with linguistics were (sic -- is?) far more
> powerful', not 'far more powerful linguistic ability'. My apologies; no
> misquote was intended.
>
> The recommendation to take a modesty pill stands, nonetheless.
>
> //SKE
>
> >
> >Your memory appears extremely short -- above I can read this quote from
> >you:
> >
> ># To anyone interested truly in the search for truth, it can be seen
> ># that my ability with linguistics were far more powerful than any basis in facts...
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> >Please don't deny your earlier posts....
I will never deny my posts, because they may have errors but the
integrity stands.
> >> I have no idea what Paul's linguistic abilities are. Except for what
> >> I've seen and they seem pretty good. But that is not what I was
> >> speaking of, and the both of you know it.
> >
> >Then why were you talking about lignuistic abilities at all if you meant
> >something else?
> >
> >> "my ability with linguistics were far more powerful" are the exact
> >> words-
See the above. Perhaps you should read all the way through them before
thinking that my response is so simplistic that you can cut in the middle
of a line and demolish it, then next time you wont get caught with your
pants down and have to throw these "Look Look he's an ego maniac" red
herrings.
> >Yep! Yet you now say you didn't claim to have "far more powerful
> >linguistic ability"....
Yes it was more powerful in directing your thinking than any facts
YESSSS!
> >
> >> I can read.
> >
> >Good! Then re-read what you wrote....
I suggest that you stop while you are ahead, and quit misleading others.
Edmond H. Wollmann
Paul Schlyter wrote:
> In article <6137cc$b3b2...@news.thepoint.net>,
> Frank Ernest <fjer...@thepoint.net> wrote:
>
> >> So why do you require astrology to do good psychological counseling?
> >> How do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they
> >> fed you incorrect natal data?
> >
> > Would you expect your doctor or auto mechanic to correctly diagnose a
> > problem and fix it if you deliberately deceived them as to what you
> > know?
>
> Of course not. And, more importantly, it's highly likely that the
> doctor, or car mechanic, during their investigation will discover that
> you didn't tell them the truth.
>
> But astrology is different. The astrologer will have no way to
> detect whether birth data he received is correct or false.
Well this is just incorrect Paul, there are many ways-if there is
interaction with the client and you are actually skilled in the craft.
But these are things you would learn, and I also offer classes for those
who wish to know these things.
Keld Hammer Pedersen
Scott LaRoche <scott....@atomiccafe.com> wrote:
>>BDK:
>>READ YOUR POSTS?
>>Come on now? Who's got time for that. They have an agenda.
>>All they know is what they read in the "skeptic" literature.
>>Reminds me of the Bible Thumpers, who only know what God
>>said from their "bible."
>I've noticed a recurrent thread amongst those who believe in the
>paranormal. Wiccans, astrologists, and others of such bent are quick to
>dismiss Christian superstitions, but act with bitterness towards skeptics
>who have the temerity to question their own frivolous and patently
>ridiculous belief system.
>Here's a clue: Wicca, astrology and other new-age nonsense is just as
>invalid as creationism, and just as goofy.
>I've written more about this subject:
>http://members.aol.com/scroach1/astro.htm
Astrology isn't a religion. Unless of cause you are a sceptic,
wrong word sceptics have an open-mind. But then everything is
religion.
When discussing the Christian religion you must be aware of one
thing. One thing is the "belief" and the other is the practice.
You can easily be outside the established church and still
believe. Any religion is like an onion, and you can peal the
layers made of history off.
However, I'm a Christian (a catholic) and I haven't got any
problem with that. No matter what the church say about astrology
I know it works. When astrology works, then it's part of the
creation made by God. No church nor science can change that.
I've never stopped wondering about how superstitions such as
acupuncture has been generally accepted. Fifteen years ago all
studies showed "No effect, which was expected for such old
superstition." Today it's accepted by the world of medicine as
treatment.
==============================================
God be with you all
Keld H. Pedersen (keld...@cybernet.dk)
==============================================
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C80F...@mail.sdsu.edu>,> 539,370,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
> 000,000. -5.393707075 x 10 58th (sorry if there is a miscount)
> Is greater than the population of a million earths
population of a million Earths!
>but the smallest possible number of astrological factor combinations
Why not instead 5.393707074E+59, or 5.393707076E+59, or some other
number ???
> It should be clear at this point however, that science is NOT a
> completely objective and certain enterprise.
aim is to be completely objective. Due to human error we never reach
this goal of course, but we do get closer than in almost any other
human activity.
Hoovamoon
Bart Scott wrote:
> >
> >Here's a clue: Wicca, astrology and other new-age nonsense is just as
> >invalid as creationism, and just as goofy.
Invalid is a very strong word.
> Do you believe in tides? That's a very goofy thing that heavenly
> bodies do in our lives.
Yes, and we can directly measure that. The *only* "heavenly bodies" that
have any measurable impact on our tides are the moon (strongest) and the
sun. So then, why does astrology follow all of the planets? Why is
astrology
interested in every new comet or asteroid that wanders by? The
gravitational
effects of the midwife or doctor attending your birth is many orders of
magnitude stronger than that of any of the planets. So why does your birth
chart analysis not take into consideration where she/he was standing?
There are measurable effects from novas and other celestial phenomenon,
nutrinos as well. are you sure you have done your homework? The planets
would not stay in their orbits if there was no measurable impact between
them (and earth). And there are very measurable effects of cosmic rays on
albinism and gene mutation.
> Sometimes I wonder why you guys don't just up
> and float off the planet for lack of belief in things you can't see,
> hear, smell, taste, or touch. Sometimes I wish you would.
Because we know how to prove the existence of these "things [we] can't
see." The correlations suggested by astrology have never been shown to
exist.
Jim
And there are many things we can see, that we can't prove how they work.
But if I remember correctly, doesn't the theory determine what we can and
cannot observe?
Don't we have to make the tools that look for the things we think are
there first? I am not sure what you argue for you seem to be on both sides
of the issue.
HOOVA MOON MUHTMAH
Paul Schlyter
In article <6137cc$b3b2...@news.thepoint.net>,
Frank Ernest <fjer...@thepoint.net> wrote:
>> So why do you require astrology to do good psychological counseling?
>> How do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they
>> fed you incorrect natal data?
>
> Would you expect your doctor or auto mechanic to correctly diagnose a
> problem and fix it if you deliberately deceived them as to what you
> know?
Of course not. And, more importantly, it's highly likely that the
doctor, or car mechanic, during their investigation will discover that
you didn't tell them the truth.
But astrology is different. The astrologer will have no way to
astrology will work just as well on erronoeus birth data as on real
birth data: the astrology-believing customer will feel just as
satisfied with the "personal insight", or "psychologicl counseling",
or whatever, but if examined more closely, no correlation will be
found with verifiable facts.
This test has been performed numerous times: people are given sets of
chart interpretations, and are informed that some of them are based
on correct birth data and some on false birth data. They will always
be unable to distinguish the two from each other any better than
someone guessing randomly.
Therefore the question "How do we know you wouldn't do just as well
by these clients if they fed you incorrect natal data?" is highly
relevant. The doctor, or the auto mechanic, have means to discover
false input data like this, but the astrologer has no way to detect
it.
Jim Rogers
Bart Scott wrote:
> >
> >Do this little test: in your program, try changing just one of those
> >cycles by .1 day; for instance, make the long one 33.1 days long, and
> see
> >how far your results differ for you, this year.
>
> No, I won't do that. I'm not very interested in biorhythms either. I
> don't HAVE a program and I've gotten just about all I need out of this
> thread, but it seems I must clarify a statement I made earlier. I used
> the term "Moderately accurate predictions" not "Completely accurate
> predictions" The menstrual cycle is a biorhythm. It doesn't fall
> EXACTLY on the same day, I agree, but you can be "Moderately" certain
> it WILL occur within an approximate period of about a week - and you
> better damn well pay attention to it. I was with my wife for ten years
> and I knew when I should begin to prepare myself for something that was
> often quite devastating. Be it in the stars or in the rhythm of life.
> A pattern can be seen and, to a degree, charted.
I'm sure you get the point, then, and I agree with what you say here, as far
as it goes. We *do* have lots of little patterns in our lives that are more or
less cyclic, but that "more or less" part is *crucial*. The inputs that affect
those cycles make it chaotic in the long term, except where there's some sort
of external or artificial synchronizing influence-- such as the moon and thus
tides synching up human activity in fishing villages, social constructs like
calendars and clocks deliminating the seven-day week, rush-hour, holidays, etc.
Jim
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C8B6...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> SKE wrote:
>
> Edmond H. Wollmann writes;
>>>>>>> search for truth, it can be seen that my ability with linguistics
>>>>>>>>were far more powerful than any basis in fact
>
> (in the controlling or directing of our discussion towards basic
> assumptions which are then articulated)
>
> This was my point-that language and the implied (even though I did not
> imply anything in my original statement, Paul took off on an assumption
> by what I DIDN"T say) and beliefs are just as valid-just as powerful (and
> perhaps more). Paul knows this unless his ego is even more caught up in
> his thinking than I previously stated-or otherwise he is mistaken, either
> which proves my point, and ONCE again he brought someone into it by
> twisting it. Now look at his statements and tell me who needs to take a
> humility pill. Because he is a supposed scientist (at least this is the
> way he presents himself)
Now YOU are committing the very sin you're accusing me of doing: you're
claiming I've said things I've never said!!!! Stop doing that!!!
I've never posted anything even remotely like "Hello - my name is
Paul Schlyter, and I'm a scientist in <field_of_research>". On the
contrary, I've repeatedly pointed out that I nowadays make my living
outside science.
> and is continually arguing proof and facts,
Of course -- what's wrong with that?
> it was my purposful intention to leave certain facts out to demonstrate
> that it is not FACTS ALONE that determine this search, it is human belief
> and assumption that initiate them
This is obvious -- but why not be honest enough and admit something like
"Astrology has no basis in fact, however I don't care about that, I believe
in it anyway because <presentation_of_reason_to_believe_in_something_
_thats_incorrect>". If you did that you'd be respected for your belief.
Instead you try to pretend that astrology has basis in fact, while
it doesn't. That's not honest -- and that's really what this discussion
is all about.
Jim Rogers
Edmond H. Wollmann wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
> > In article <6137cc$b3b2...@news.thepoint.net>,
> > Frank Ernest <fjer...@thepoint.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> So why do you require astrology to do good psychological counseling?
> > >> How do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they
> > >> fed you incorrect natal data?
> > >
> > > Would you expect your doctor or auto mechanic to correctly diagnose a
> > > problem and fix it if you deliberately deceived them as to what you
> > > know?
> >
> > Of course not. And, more importantly, it's highly likely that the
> > doctor, or car mechanic, during their investigation will discover that
> > you didn't tell them the truth.
> >
> > But astrology is different. The astrologer will have no way to
> > detect whether birth data he received is correct or false.
>
> interaction with the client and you are actually skilled in the craft.
> who wish to know these things.
Then how come tests of that sort, which *have* been conducted, have failed
to show that skilled astrologers can't tell the difference between accurate
and inaccurate natal data?
Jim
Paul Schlyter
In article <31C8F0...@mail.sdsu.edu>,
Edmond H. Wollmann <woll...@mail.sdsu.edu> wrote:
> Paul Schlyter wrote:
>
>> In article <6137cc$b3b2...@news.thepoint.net>,
>> Frank Ernest <fjer...@thepoint.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> So why do you require astrology to do good psychological counseling?
>>>> How do we know you wouldn't do just as well by these clients if they
>>>> fed you incorrect natal data?
>>>
>>> Would you expect your doctor or auto mechanic to correctly diagnose a
>>> problem and fix it if you deliberately deceived them as to what you
>>> know?
>>
>> Of course not. And, more importantly, it's highly likely that the
>> doctor, or car mechanic, during their investigation will discover that
>> you didn't tell them the truth.
>>
>> But astrology is different. The astrologer will have no way to
>> detect whether birth data he received is correct or false.
>
> Well this is just incorrect Paul,
No it's not!!! Check the references below:
-------------------------------------------
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astrology: True or False, p215
Prometheus
1988
A double blind test of astrologer John McCall was organized at the
University of Virginia by Charles Tolvert and Philip Ianna. McCall
claimed an 80 percent success rate in choosing the correct natal
horoscope for a subject from three false ones. Twenty-eight subjects
were chosen according to McCalls requirements (naturally born
caucasians). McCall had 7 successes out of 28 trials, exactly the
number predicted by chance.
Shawn Carlson
A Double-blind Test of Astrology
Nature, 318, 419
1985
116 adults filled out California Personality Index surveys and
provided natal data. One set of natal data and the results of three
personality surveys (one of which was for the same person as the natal
data) were given to an astrologer who was to interpret the natal data
and determine which of the three CPI results belonged to the same
subject as the natal data.
The San Francisco chapter of the National Council for Geocosmic
Research recommended the 28 astrologers who took part. They approved
the procedure in advance and predicted that they would select the
correct CPI profiles in more that 50 per cent of the trials.
Out of 116 trials, the astrologers chose the correct CPI 34 per cent
of the time. This agrees with the random chance prediction of 1 of 3
trails producing a correct choice.
Horoscopes were prepared by professional astrologers for 83 subjects.
Each subject was given three charts, one of which belonged to the
subject. In 28 of 83 trials the subject chose the correct chart.
This is the success rate expected for random chance.
Dean, G.
Does Astrology Need to be True? Part 1: A Look at the Real Thing
Skeptical Inquirer, 11, 166
1987
Astrologers prepared horoscopes for subjects correct natal data.
Reversed charts were then constructed from the correct charts by
retaining the sun sign, but reversing all of the planetary aspects.
Half of the subjects were given correct charts, the other half were
given reversed charts. There was no correlation between the perceived
accuracy of the charts and whether the subject was given a correct or
reversed chart.
Dwyer T.
Unpublished word described in Dean, 1987.
Horoscopes were prepared for correct natal data and for a birth date 5
years and 6 months before the correct date, with the correct sun sign
retained. Thirty subjects were given the correct and incorrect
charts. Half of the subjects picked the correct chart, half chose the
incorrect chart.
McGrew, John H., McFall, Richard M.
A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology
Journal of Scientific Exploration, 4, 75-83
1990
Abstract--Six expert astrologers independently attempted to match
23 astrological birth charts to the corresponding case files of 4
male and 19 female volunteers. Case files contained information on
the volunteers' life histories, full-face and profile photographs,
and test profiles from the Strong-Campbell Vocational Interest Blank
and the Cattell 16-P.F. Personality Inventory. Astrologers did no
better than chance or than a nonastrologer control subject at
matching the birth charts to the personal data; this result was
independent of astrologers' confidence ratings for their predicted
matches. Astrologers also failed to agree with one another's
predictions.
> there are many ways-if there is interaction with the client and you
> are actually skilled in the craft. But these are things you would
> learn, and I also offer classes for those who wish to know these things.
What you're really saying here is that the astrologer has several
non-astrological sources of information about his clients. This
explains well why his concelling may work even though the method he
claims to be using (i.e. astrology) doesn't work: he really uses
other, more accurate, methods to gather information about his
customers.
Hoovamoon
Do this little test: in your program, try changing just one of those
cycles by .1 day; for instance, make the long one 33.1 days long, and see
how far your results differ for you, this year.
Jim
"This we know. The Earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the Earth.
All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not
weave the web of life he is merely a strand in it-whatever he does to the
web he does to himself"
Chief Seattle
Hoova Moon muhtmah
How about those Native Americans? What will you do with this truth?