Astrology Testing Proposal
Paul Rumelhart
I have an idea for a method for testing the validity of astrology as a
psychological predictor and would like to see some discussion on the
topic.
Take a standardized test such as the Michigan Multi-Phasic Inventory (did I
get that right?) and sit a group of astrology experts down and have them
walk through each question assigning an answer to the question and a
weighting to determine how strongly the answer would correlate with each
separate astrological trait.
Take such astrological traits as Sun sign, Moon sign, which sign was
rising, which house each planet is in, etc and use it to attach a weighting
to each question. A typical question might have almost no weighting for
someone with a Sun sign of Capricorn, but a Moon sign of Aries might affect
the way the person would answer the question significantly.
Obviously a lot of preparation must be involved, because some of these
tests have hundreds of questions and there are many possible astrological
traits that could be used. One astrological system would have to be
chosen. And the experts would have to agree to the answer and weighting to
each question.
Then test a significant sample of people in the normal way, except that
exact date of birth and location would have to be obtained (birth
certificate?). Or if this information is available in a database somewhere
and could legally be used then the results could be obtained soon after the
answers and weightings were agreed upon.
Each person's astrological data would be used to generate an expected list
of answers to the questions and would be compared with the actual answers.
A high correlation between expected and actual answers would go far to
establishing the validity of astrology as a scientific field.
Conversely, the data could be used to look for common answers to questions
based on the astrological traits of the person, whether or not it actually
matched what was expected. These correlations could then be used to refine
astrology on a scientific basis.
My apologies for the long post. Comments are welcome.
Paul Rumelhart
Paul Rumelhart
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote in article <33850c63.4984663@ne
ws.c-zone.net>...
>Pete Stapleton comments: more anti astro clone smoke
>blowing. Why was this posted on alt.astrology?
>
Paul Rumelhart comments: smoke blowing? anti astro? clone? Really? I
don't recall mentioning anything anti-astrology. I am certainly cloning no
posts. I don't even know how to address the smoke blowing comment. What
would I be trying to obscure with this post?
As to your second question: because it deals with astrology. Seemed like a
pretty good place to post it. I have read the charter and am not violating
it. I believe it argumentative posts on the validity of astrology are not
welcome. I do recall that posts on astrology from a psychological
perspective are on the "good" list. I don't recall it stating that quoting
entire posts to ask about their legality on the newsgroup was on the "good"
list, however.
Here is the relevant portion of my post to alt.astrology (assuming that the
snipped test has no validity on this newgroup which is just a bit hard to
swallow, but, hey, whatever):
>
>
>"Paul Rumelhart" <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>
>>
>>Conversely, the data could be used to look for common answers to
questions
>>based on the astrological traits of the person, whether or not it
actually
>>matched what was expected. These correlations could then be used to
refine
>>astrology on a scientific basis.
>>
To clarify: A database of answers to in-depth standard psychological
tests correlated with the relevant astrological charts for the participants
would be useful for both testing the validity of astrology (you may
*believe*, but wouldn't you rather *know*?) as well as serving to enhance
the precision of astrology as it relates to people in the modern world. It
would be a good tool for answering such questions as "what part do
retrograde planets play in astrology?" and "what is the signifacance of
this chart oddity?".
I am surprised. I expected astrologers to be more open-minded than most.
Paul Rumelhart
Jim Rogers
Paul Rumelhart wrote:
...
> I am surprised. I expected astrologers to be more open-minded than most.
Ignore Pete, he's an anomaly among anomalies, but as to astrologers'
general open-mindedness, it generally excludes the option of their being
incorrect.
Jim
Mary L. Urquhart
Jim Rogers <jfr@fc{Remove/NoJunkMail}.hp.com> wrote:
I love this one. It's quite true. But then, I've noticed the exact
same trait in most of the people who operate in any kind of science,
be it physics, chemistry, psychology, etc. Everyone has their pet
theories and will not see their pets mistreated. No one WANTS to be
made to look like a fool, so the idea seems to be that the more
bluster applied to the theory, the more likely the success of the
theory due to the fact that the wind will keep detractors from
approaching it to tear it apart.
This brings out another trait in a minority of people in science - the
ones for whom the wind is a challenge and who take much pleasure in
using it to show that it's just a lot of hot air. Drives the
blusterers quite mad, it does. There are those in this number,
however, who will poke pins in anyone's balloon because, since all
they have is a pin, everything looks like a balloon.
I place myself in both categories. I will bluster when I feel a need
to be defensive, and I'll poke pins in people's balloons sometimes to
enlighten and sometimes for cruel pleasure.
And then sometimes I'm in a third category - that of willing guinea
pig to error and discovery, appearing stupid and not minding it as
long as I or someone else can learn something by it.
It takes all kinds to make a world. The astrological world is no
different. And it sometimes takes the Petes of this world to make us
notice and appreciate the Carols and the Robs and those other gentle
souls who only want to learn, teach, live, and evolve.
Forgive me for my rambling. It's Saturday morning, I've just finished
my daughter's paper route (she's ill with the flu), and I'm feeling
philosophical. I may be full of hot air in 10 more minutes, who can
tell. In the meantime, I'm going to look at some charts to see what I
can see. :)
Dan M.
I've got a few observations and questions.
1) Most of the time, in sci.physics, alt.physics.new-theories we tend to
welcome questions from those who don't understand physics. When someone
keeps on insisting that a well proven theory or application, say the
electric motor for example, is totally misunderstood by the great
science conspiracy, things might get testy the fourth or fifth time
something simple is explained. However, very few scientists are
defensive about the basic theories because we have overwhelming
confidence in their validity.
2) I'd love to take a challenge like the Randi challenge over the
scientific principals that I understand to be true. I think that I
could show significant evidence for quantum mechanics or special
relativity with equipment that I could obtain and with the help of
friends who are also experimental physicists. If people who believe that
astrology describes observables in the world, then I don't see why they
aren't eager to have rigorous trials to prove it.
3) I don't understand the way in which people who believe in astrology,
reflexology, and the other alternate viewpoints see their viewpoints to
be true. Do you think that people born at one date and time will have
observable characteristics that differ from those born at a different
date and time?
4) If the answer to the above question is yes, shouldn't you be able to
match birthdays and times with profiles of people? You may argue that
the profiles that are usually generated don't ask the right question,
but, if allowed to write your own (as long as it doesn't give away the
birthday info), you should be able to do it. Even if you can only do it
some of the time, that would be fine. I, and most decent scientists,
can easily find a signal above a background.
5) If the answer to the above question is no, then in what sense do you
know something about someone by doing a chart for them? Is it like the
ink blot tests of the psychologists? That is, the charts themselves
mean nothing, it is only a tool to see how people view themselves.
Anyway, I'd be curious concerning your response. I'm sorry if mailing
you is considered rude, but the postings of my server are often not well
distributed.
Dan M.
Christopher Slee
Mornin' All,
On Fri, 23 May 1997 10:49:19 -0700, "Paul Rumelhart" <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote:
PR> To clarify: A database of answers to in-depth standard
PR> psychological tests correlated with the relevant astrological
PR> charts for the participants would be useful for both testing the
PR> validity of astrology (you may *believe*, but wouldn't you rather
PR> *know*?) as well as serving to enhance the precision of astrology
PR> as it relates to people in the modern world. It would be a good
PR> tool for answering such questions as "what part do retrograde
PR> planets play in astrology?" and "what is the signifacance of this
PR> chart oddity?".
You may wish to look up the decades long work of French astrologer, Michel
Gauquelin whose books include: "The Scientific Basis of Astrology",
"Zodiac and Personality" and the "Truth About Astrology". He did pretty
much as you have recommended and his experiments -- so I'm told but don't
know for sure -- has been replicated no less than eight times, each time
successfully.
PR> I am surprised. I expected astrologers to be more open-minded
PR> than most.
Astrologers are people. What else can you expect from people?
Regards,
Chris Slee
___________________________________________________________________________
Chris Slee sle...@ozemail.com.au
No wife, no horse, no moustache!
___________________________________________________________________________
Paul Schlyter
In article <5m5don$6...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,> ...
>> I am surprised. I expected astrologers to be more open-minded than most.
>
> Ignore Pete, he's an anomaly among anomalies, but as to astrologers'
> general open-mindedness, it generally excludes the option of their being
> incorrect.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://spitfire.ausys.se/psr -- updated daily!
Paul Schlyter
In article <5m4lb0$dul$1...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>,
Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>>"Paul Rumelhart" <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Conversely, the data could be used to look for common answers to
>>> questions based on the astrological traits of the person, whether
>>> or not it actually matched what was expected. These correlations
>>> could then be used to refine astrology on a scientific basis.
>
> To clarify: A database of answers to in-depth standard psychological
> tests correlated with the relevant astrological charts for the
> participants would be useful for both testing the validity of
> astrology (you may *believe*, but wouldn't you rather *know*?)
Most astrologers wouldn't want to know, because then they'd have to face
a, to them, uncomfortable fact: astrology doesn't work.
> as well as serving to enhance the precision of astrology as it relates
> to people in the modern world. It would be a good tool for answering
> such questions as "what part do retrograde planets play in astrology?"
> and "what is the signifacance of this chart oddity?".
>
> I am surprised. I expected astrologers to be more open-minded than most.
As you've just seen, they aren't. Most astrologers treat astrology as
some kind of religion: to them, astrology is by definition right, and
they don't even want to consider the possibility that it doesn't work.
Please feel free to perform these studies, if you have the time and
resources, however they've already been performed numerous times, as
you can find out from the reference list below:
--------------------------begin inserted file---------------------------------
A while back, somebody was lamenting the fact the scientists just
don't take astrology seriously, so they never do any studies to find
out if it works.
Aside from the fact that nothing is keeping the astrologers from doing
such studies, I posted a reply stating that plenty of research had
been done, and the results were negative.
References were then requested.
Most of these references are "second hand" in that I haven't read the
actual papers, only summaries in other books and magazine articles.
If I have misrepresented either the protocol or results of any of the
following, feel free to correct me.
I have not included references on the Gauquelin mars effect, which has
been covered by other threads in far greater detail.
Here are the references I've collected so far -- in no particular
order:
Gauquelin, M.
Zodiac and Personality: An Empirical Study
Skeptical Inquirer, 6:3, 57
1982
Compiled personality profiles from biographies of 2000 sports figures,
actors, scientists, and writers. Compared these profiles with
personality traits associated with the sign of the sun, moon, and
ascendant according to eight astrology texts. No correlation was
found using either the sidereal or tropical zodiac.
Press, N., Michelsen, N.F., Russel, L., Shannon, J., Stark, M.
The New Yourk Suicide Study
Journal of Geocosmic Research, 2, 23-47
1978
Examined records of suicides in NYC from 1969 to 1973. Selected all
suicides who were born in NYC and for which birth data was available.
This resulted in 311 suicide cases. For each of these, a control
subject was randomly chosen who was born in the same borough and
year. The suicides and matching controls were divide into three
groups according to year of suicide.
A computer program was used to test 100,000 different astrological
factors in each of the 622 birth charts for significance between
suicide and control groups. None of the factors consistently
correlated with the suicide cases.
Culver, R.
Sun Sign Sunset
Pachert
1979
Van Deusen, E.
Astrogenetics
Doubleday
1976
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 147
1977
The above three references examined the correlation between sun sign
and over 60 occupations. The results of all three were negative -- no
correlation was found between occupation and sun sign.
Dean G., Mather, A.
Recent Advances in Natal Astrology
p113
The Astrological Association
1977
Silverman, B., Witmer, M.
Astrological Indicators of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 87, 89
1974
Per Dalen,
Season of Birth
American Elsevier Publishing
1975
Pellegrini, R.,
The Astrological Theory of Personality
Journal of Psychology, 85, 21
1973
The above 4 references all found no correlation between sun sign and
personality traits as measured by standardized psychological tests,
mostly the California Personality Inventory (CPI). However, Pellegrini
found a slight correlation between the CPI femininity index and season
of birth.
Illingworth, D., Syme, G.
Birthday and Femininity
Journal of Social Psychology, 103, 153
1977
Tyson, G.
Astrology or Season of Birth: A 'Split-Sphere' Test
Journal of Psychology, 95, 285
1977
These two studies found no correlation between sun sign and
personality traits measured by the CPI, including the femininity
index.
Mayes, B., Klugh, H.
Birthdate Psychology: A Look at Some New Data
Journal of Psychology 99, 27
1978
Compiled natal charts and results of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory and the Leary Interpersonal Check List for 196 subjects.
Compared 13 personality traits with sun signs, signs and houses of the
moon and 8 planets, and with five planetary aspects. No correlations
were found.
Mayo, J., White, O., Eysenck, H.
An Empirical Study of the Relation between Astrology Factors and
Personality
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 105, 229
1979
Jackson, M.
Extroversion, Neuroticism, and Date of Birth: A Southern Hemisphere
Study
Journal of Psychology, 101, 197
1979
These two studies found correlations between astrological factors and
the Introversion/Extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality
Inventory.
Veno, A., Pammunt, P.
Astrological Factors and Personality: a Southern Hemisphere
Replication
Journal of Psychology, 101, 73
1979
Failed to duplicate the correlation found above.
Pawlik, K., Buse, L.,
Self-attribution as a Differential Psychological Moderating Variable
Zeitschrift fur Sozilpsychologie, 10, 54
1979
Showed that the correlation above could be explained by the fact that
some of the subjects knew what the expected results would be for their
astrological signs.
Eysenck, H.,
Astrology: Science or Superstition?
Encounter, Dec 1979, p85
Jackson, M., Fiebert, M. S.
Introversion-Extroversion and Astrology
Journal of Psychology, 105, 155
1980
Saklofske, D., Kelly, I., McKerracher, D.
An Empirical Study of Personality and Astrological Factors
Journal of Psychology, 110, 275
1982
These three studies found no correlation between astrological factors
(sun and planetary) and personality, including the
introversion/extroversion index of the Eysenck Personality Inventory.
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.
Silverman, Bernie I.,
Contemporary Astronomy by J. Pasachoff, cf p437
W. B. Saunders
1977
Kop, P., Heuts, B.
Journal of Interdisciplenary Cycle Research 5, 19
1974
The above 2 studies found no correlation between marriage/divorce rate
and sun sign combinations in the state of Michigan and the city of
Amsterdam, respectively.
John McGervey
Physicist
Case Western Reserve University
Found that the sun signs of 6,000 politicians and 10,000 scientists
were randomly distributed.
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, Geoffrey
(trying to find reference)
Astrological readings were done for a groups of subjects. The content
of some of the readings were reversed (changed phrases describing the
subject to their opposites).
Subjects reported that both the reversed and normal readings applied
95 per cent of the time.
Gauquelin, M.
L'Influence des Astres, Etude Critique et Experimentale
Dauphin Press
1955
Found no correlation between occupation and the zodiac signs
containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and the Moon at the
time of birth.
Gauquelin, M.
The Cosmic Clocks, p84
Henry Regnery Co.
1967
Found random distribution of the house containing Saturn for
successful individuals, and the house containing Mars for murderers.
Barth, J., Bennet, J.
Leonardo 7, 235
1974
Found no correlation between occupation, medical problems, height,
longevity, and the zodiac signs containing Mercury, Venus, Mars, and
Jupiter at the time of birth.
Culver, R., Ianna, P.
Astronomy Quarterly, 1, 85
1977
Pretty much the same study and results as the previous reference.
Additionally, no correlation was found between occupation, medical
problems, etc. and angular separation (along the ecliptic) of planet
pairs at time of birth.
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.
From: lip...@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Astrology References
A couple more, one negative and one positive:
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.
Marbell, Neil Z., Novak, Angela R., Heal, Laird W., Fleming, Land D.,
Burton, Jeannine Marie
Self Selection of Astrologically Derived Personality Descriptions:
An Empirical Test of the Relationship Between Astrology and Psychology
NCGR Journal, Winter 1986-87, 29-44
Abstract--Twenty-four female subjects were asked to recognize as
true or untrue complex personality characteristics describing themselves
and to select one of three personality profiles as their own; personality
information had been derived by "blinded" astrologers from natal charts
representing the moment of birth. Three different experiments varied as
to the complexity of the astrologically derived personality characteristics,
method of test material administration, and subjects' knowledge of the
astrological basis for personality information. Overall results for the
three experiments evaluated using cumulative binomial distribution were
significantly non-random, with p<.001 for 15 valid trials and p<.01
for all 24 trials including nine found non-eligible for inclusion. These
results supported the validity of astrology's capability to generate
unique personality descriptors that subjects affirm by selection as
representative of their own personalities.
[Comment on this last one: This is in an astrology publication (the journal
of the National Council for Geocosmic Research) and the description of
the methodology is a bit vague in places, as are the reasons why some of
the subjects were disqualified. The article is followed, however, by
letters from various people praising the methodology--including the
late CSICOP Fellow George Abell and Allan Teger, Boston University
professor and former program director for social and developmental psychology
for the National Science Foundation. These letters all date from the late
seventies. There's also a letter from Paul Kurtz in support of Marbell's
application for NSF money for an astrological study, but you can't tell from
the letter whether Kurtz saw the details of these particular experiments.]
Jim Lippard Lip...@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lip...@ARIZVMS.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
From: gib...@crisium.geop.ubc.ca (Brad Gibson)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.astrology
>I'm afraid that many of the studies are in journals devoted to astrological
>research, which your university library (or public library) would only
>have if it were unusually progressive. There are scattered studies in
>various scholarly journals (e.g., in journals devoted to psychological
>research);
... stuff deleted ...
You might like to try the following references:
(1) Carlson, S. "A Double Blind Test of Astrology", Nature, 318, 419 (1985)
-- the above is a "must-read"
(2) Carlson, S. "Astrology", Experimentia, 44, 290 (1988)
(3) Kelly, I. "Astrology and Science: A Critical Examination", Psychological
Reports, 44, 1231 (1979)
For more references, please refer to "Astrology: True or False" by Culver &
Ianna (1988, Prometheus Books). Also, more scientific references can be
found in "Mercury" magazince (a publication of the Astronomical Society
of the Pacific).
Brad
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad K. Gibson INTERNET: gib...@geop.ubc.ca
Dept. of Geophysics & Astronomy BITNET: user...@ubcmtsg.bitnet
#129-2219 Main Mall
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
V6T 1Z4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------end inserted file---------------------------------
Paul Rumelhart
Paul Schlyter wrote in article <5mf54b$c...@electra.saaf.se>...
>Please feel free to perform these studies, if you have the time and
>resources, however they've already been performed numerous times, as
>you can find out from the reference list below:
>
Thanks for the references. Any comments from the astrologers? I still
agree with the idea that an astrological chart can be a useful tool for
examining ones personality. It may not be correct, but it still causes you
to evaluate those questions. It might also be true that a signal exists
but is too faint to be heard above the noise or that the art of astrology
has strayed so far from reality over the years that it has no relation to
reality anymore.
From the data, though, I would have to conclude that it doesn't work as
they say it works.
Yes, I know, ANTI-ASTRO SMOKE-BLOWING something-or-other.
Is it possible that astrology might have been correct (having no idea of
what the mechanism would be, of course) when it was first introduced but it
has been lost in inaccuracies of teaching or translation over the
centuries? How many astrologers learn from texts more that 50 years old?
No idea one way or the other, just wanting to get some interesting
discussion going.
Could it be that sweeping generalizations don't work if they are too
specific because the more specific they are the more they can be turned
around because of the vast variety of mitigating factors in the chart?
Hope that abortion of a sentence made sense. For example, if you
generalize that the most common sun sign among a group of leaders should be
aries that it might not be true because of those people who are aries, many
have moon signs which lessen the effect or planets in houses which show
that the energy that would have gone into leadership and ambition has been
channeled somewhere else.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to some good discussion. I don't know what I
believe, so no ad-hominem attacks please.
Paul Rumelhart
Roger L. Satterlee
Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>Paul,
I'm very fond of astrology, and I find your comments here reflect a person who is
fair-minded, and I think you are on the right track...:)
Whatever astrology is, I don't think there is anyone looking for *it* the way one
usually looks for psychological activity...If the analysis of literature was good enough
for Freud and Jung, why is it that astrologers do not apply themselves to similar
activities?
Astrologists, in general, seem to be following the technical/vocational training
model of education.
Rog
--
rog...@ix.netcom.com
11:53pm EDT 26Jul50 Elmira, NY 076W48 42N06
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7406
Michael D. Painter
Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote in article
<5mg72o$h9h$1...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>...
>
> Paul Schlyter wrote in article <5mf54b$c...@electra.saaf.se>...
>
> >Please feel free to perform these studies, if you have the time and
> >resources, however they've already been performed numerous times, as
> >you can find out from the reference list below:
> >
>
> Thanks for the references. Any comments from the astrologers? I still
> agree with the idea that an astrological chart can be a useful tool for
> examining ones personality. It may not be correct, but it still causes
you
> to evaluate those questions. It might also be true that a signal exists
> but is too faint to be heard above the noise or that the art of astrology
> has strayed so far from reality over the years that it has no relation to
> reality anymore.
>
A signal implies a receiver which adds to the unknowns.
Most seem to postulate some force from the stars. I've seen gravity
mentioned!
As an astronomer I'm sure you are aware of the amount of energy that comes
from the nearest star and what's needed to receive it..
Edmond Wollmann
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> > Thanks for the references. Any comments from the astrologers? I still
> > agree with the idea that an astrological chart can be a useful tool for
> > examining ones personality. It may not be correct, but it still causes you
> > to evaluate those questions.
It is correct, the astrologers are the ones who either are astute or
not. Those who know little of the subject can make little if no
determination about it at all.
> It might also be true that a signal exists
> > but is too faint to be heard above the noise or that the art of
Yes, the noise is the inefficiency and colored lenses of the perciever.
>astrology
> > has strayed so far from reality over the years that it has no relation to
> > reality anymore.
EVERY client I have sees the validity and reality of astrological
insight and finds it adds to their understanding of not only themselves,
but the life they lead-because that life is the extension of them.
"Astrology" has strayed nowhere.
> > From the data, though, I would have to conclude that it doesn't work as
> > they say it works.
Well, when you believe in a negative reinforcing reality thats what you
get-because we always create the reality we believe to be true-it always
works it never doesn't work and no one is exempt.
> > Yes, I know, ANTI-ASTRO SMOKE-BLOWING something-or-other.
Certain astrologers do not help astrology because they refuse to
incorporate actual practice, other paradigms and results into their
perspective. This, like science is an ongoing process that any resonable
and intelligent person incorporates into any worthy study. All paradigms
are growing and changing always. It is the nature of the beast and has
little to do with whether it is astrology or nuclear physics.
> > Is it possible that astrology might have been correct (having no idea of
> > what the mechanism would be, of course) when it was first introduced but it
> > has been lost in inaccuracies of teaching or translation over the
> > centuries? How many astrologers learn from texts more that 50 years old?
No, subjects are never "correct" or "incorrect" by themselves. There are
many factors-first and foremost the theory determines what can be seen,
secondly the astuteness of the observer (since observation is the
polarity of the observer and observed) in the "act" of observation. Most
important is the knowledge base of the perciever. If you had thorough
knowledge of astrology you would not be saying what you are saying.
Therefore it is the ignorance of the subject that evokes such questions.
Have you ever observed the non-artist try to draw an ellipse? Many
times it is rather silly to watch as they percieve the top of a glass as
a circle instead of what it actually-through observation is-an ellipse.
Until they deal with this illusion of perception they have difficulty
drawing things as THEY ARE, but instead because of a lack of knowledge
of self and experience is compensating for that illusion and have to
PRACTICE THE ART until this limitation is overcome. It is ONLY through
practice that the astuteness is developed.
Therefore in this way persons who choose to try to confuse the subject
even further by offering opinions and advice on subjects they have no
experience with, CANNOT be qualified to do so-that is why we learn art
from an art teacher and astrology from those who practice it-to
incorporate this learned perceptual training from one who has labored to
overcome it.
> > No idea one way or the other, just wanting to get some interesting
> > discussion going.
It is quite simple, in my learning art I listened to the teacher, then
tried to apply what I learned. Apply, learn more, apply, learn more.
There is no "magic bullet" and there is no other way to learn ANYTHING.
A word to the wise is sufficient.
Those who truly wish to learn astrology will do the same. The "smoke
blowing" is from those who know nothing about it but wish to spin it in
a certain direction because they are bigoted against it and fearful the
it MIGHT have some validity, reflect that we are intimately connected to
the universe in a meaningful way, and force them to take responsibility
for a reality more easily "blamed" on chance, chaos, natural forces, or
some physiological mechanism. Therefore their public agenda serves a
personal one that attempts to defend against the fear that it JUST MIGHT
have validity and allow them some keys to change the reality they
experience.
Unlocking from fearful perspectives is not easy, the ego seeks to
reinforce its validity and control-hence cynicism is a very difficult
lock of ego fearfulness to break. It is a weakness-not a strength.
Critical thinkers withhold judgments of things they know nothing
about-because they are self critical as well as critical of other
things. Cynics reject information out of fear and
unreasonableness-intelligent people say-"don't know", cynics say "can't
be".
> > Could it be that sweeping generalizations don't work if they are too
> > specific because the more specific they are the more they can be turned
> > around because of the vast variety of mitigating factors in the chart?
Everything is mitigating if you don't know what you are doing. No, it is
the belief that effort and comprhensive learning of the subject has
"nothing to do with it" that allows any Tom, Dick, Jane and Harry to
believe they have as good a shot of being good at it as someone who has
made concerted effort to do so. It is not something to believe in it is
something to know-things that can be known must be learned-until they
are learned the person is ignorant of the subject-period. One cannot
"believe" or "disbelieve" in something they know 0 about! Since they do
not believe it a subject of serious study with rules and guidelines that
MUST be learned, they are like the guy down the block with no knowledge
of physics, building a nuclear bomb-highly improbable and very unstable.
> > Hope that abortion of a sentence made sense. For example, if you
> > generalize that the most common sun sign among a group of leaders should be
> > aries that it might not be true because of those people who are aries, many
> > have moon signs which lessen the effect or planets in houses which show
> > that the energy that would have gone into leadership and ambition has been
> > channeled somewhere else.
Competant astrologers blend these and delineate these "parts" just as
meteorologists blend barometric pressure, temperature, wind speed etc.
to predict weather. It is not astrology anymore than it is "weather"
until this is done.
> > Anyway, I'm looking forward to some good discussion. I don't know what I
> > believe, so no ad-hominem attacks please.
Get rid of the belief idea and learn it, then you will not have to
guess.
> > Paul Rumelhart
Rog says;
> >Paul,
> I'm very fond of astrology, and I find your comments here reflect a person who is
> fair-minded, and I think you are on the right track...:)
Subjective value judgment to seek social acceptance and reinforcment.
SNIP
Astrology is the study of the psyche and its momentum-a tool that can be
used in conjunction with psychology to understand the self and its
extension-its reality. We are the reality we believe we exist within,
therefore it is no "surprise" that our psyche is reflected
holographically in celestial configurations. The horoscope is the frozen
version of the primal energy reflected through geometric planetary
configurations that is reflective of the consciousness (and rightly so)
of the individual born in the middle of it.
> Whatever astrology is,
> Astrologists, in general, seem to be following the technical/vocational training
> model of education.
In the same way that there are numerous contributions in the field of
psychology-each helpful in our understanding of the human condition and
its resolutions, so there are numerous contributions in astrology that
are useful and helpful in that endeavor that aid in the understanding
and improvement of the human condition.There is no thats the way it is
for anything. Labling astrologers as this or that is bigoted,
propogandic and irrelevant.
--
"Your only obligation in any lifetime is to be true to yourself. Being
true to anyone else or anything else is not only impossible, but the
mark of a fake messiah." Richard Bach "Illusions"
--
Bem P. Allen
Western Illinois University "Personality Theories" pg 15 introduction,
1994 Simon & Schuster
"All this talk of science should not leave you with the impression that
it is good and other approaches are bad.
It is neither good nor necessarily better than other orientations;
science just is..."There are good reasons to include theories that do
not meet scientific criteria well. In fact, strengths in the
non-scientific realm may make these theories more valuable than some
more scientific theories.
Sometimes a well thought-out philosophical position, although it is too
abstract to be tested scientifically, can have more merit than a 'hard
science' point of view."
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Paul Rumelhart
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net wrote in article <338abe83.10362447@n
ews.c-zone.net>...
>Pete Stapleton comments: THIS IS LITTLE
>AMATEUR PAULS SECOND ANTI ASTRO
>TIRADE POSTED ON ALT.ASTROLOGY TODAY.
>LITTLE AMATEUR PAUL FAILED HIS
>DOCTORATE AND IS NOW TRYING TO
>PROVE HE IS A FANATICAL DEFENDER
>OF THE FAITH BY POSTING OVER
>2500 ANTI ASTRO CLONE POSTS HERE
>ON ALT.ASTROLOGY IN THE PAST TWO
>YEARS. THIS IS A VERY SICK PERSON -
>AND BRANDT SHOULD HAVE HIS MEDS
>CHECKED
>
Why the personal insults?
One simple suggestion. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Paul Rumelhart (Little Amateur Paul What Failed His Doctorate - or did you
mean Paul Schlyter?)
>
>
>pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>
>>In article <5m5don$6...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
>>Jim Rogers <jfr@fc{Remove/NoJunkMail}.hp.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Rumelhart wrote:
<snipped>
Paul Rumelhart
Paul Schlyter
In article <33878B...@wt.net>, Dan M. <sh...@wt.net> wrote:
> 3) I don't understand the way in which people who believe in astrology,
> reflexology, and the other alternate viewpoints see their viewpoints to
> be true. Do you think that people born at one date and time will have
> observable characteristics that differ from those born at a different
> date and time?
positive evidence for it.
> 4) If the answer to the above question is yes, shouldn't you be able to
> match birthdays and times with profiles of people? You may argue that
> the profiles that are usually generated don't ask the right question,
> but, if allowed to write your own (as long as it doesn't give away the
> birthday info), you should be able to do it. Even if you can only do it
> some of the time, that would be fine. I, and most decent scientists,
> can easily find a signal above a background.
been negative. The response from astrologers to this is usually one of
these:
a: these tests are flawed and the wrong questions are asked (these people
usually do not bother to try to define the right questions -- those few
who do do not pursue this all the way through a test).
b: these tests, while not flawed in themselves, are misdirected: the
astrological truths cannot be revealed by tests like these since the
astrological truths are symbolic and intuitive (these people do not want
to draw one very natural conclusions from this, namely that the birth
data then does not matter; one can acheive an equal amount of "symbolic
truth" from a natal chart based on _any_ birth data).
c: astrology is just a language, and since a language merely transfers
information, it's meaningless to ask whether its true or not (the same
remark as for b: applies here: if astrology is "just a language" then
the birth data need not be correct since the "language" itself is there
anyway).
d: the tests disproving astrology are all faked by materialistic
scientists who are afraid of the astrological truth and wants to
discredit astrology (this is the "conspiracy theory" variety --
unfortunately for these people, not only scientists fail to produce
scientific evidence for astrology, but those few astrologers who try
fail too).
e: these tests were performed by people who do not know astrology,
therefore they can be ignored since these people do not know what
they're talking about (this is false, since astrologers also
participated in several tests. It's also irrelevant, since you
need not know the intricicaties of astrology to judge whether the
astrological predictions matches information from other sources;
somewhat like you need not be an electronics expert to judge whether
a TV set is broken or not).
f: these tests are not interesting since they're done entirely within
the materialistic domain; astrology is spiritual (people arguing like
this have made astrology their religion; they're also apparently
unaware, or they consciously ignore, the fact that astrology also
makes predictions within the "materialistic domain", predictions that
are testable).
> 5) If the answer to the above question is no, then in what sense do you
> know something about someone by doing a chart for them? Is it like the
> ink blot tests of the psychologists? That is, the charts themselves
> mean nothing, it is only a tool to see how people view themselves.
information: during the chart analysis, they talk with their customer
about his/her life, and the customer is usually willing to supply these
additional details. A while ago, one astrologer here said: "This is
not cheating -- of course we should use all available means to help
the client" -- by this he really did admit the unreliability of
astrology.
> Anyway, I'd be curious concerning your response. I'm sorry if mailing
> you is considered rude, but the postings of my server are often not well
> distributed.
all irony it contaisn much truth.
A good astrologer is really a good illusionist, however (s)he's less
honest than an illusionist since (s)he refuses to admit it's really
just an illusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW TO BECOME A SUCCESSFUL ASTROLOGER
1. FUNDAMENTALS
1.1 Psychological qualification
The astrologer is assumed to be familiar with the fundamental rules of
astrology. He must of course be familiar with the most important methods
of casting and interpreting a horoscope - to master this is however the
easier part on the way to become a successful astrologer. More important,
and not as easy to learn as the books, is the psychological qualification.
*Every* successful astrologer knows how to deal with people. Success as
quickly as desired cannot be guaranteed. However, this text will help you
understand why many astrologers are so successful.
1.2 Accompanying literature
Applicable literature is of course fundamental for the astrologer, but he
should also know the esoteric literature about astrology. Pseudoscientific
magazines (e.g. P.M.-Magazin) inform about fashionable slogans that are
very important in some discussions (see 5 below).
2. OUTFIT/EQUIPMENT
2.1 Your office
The outfits in the office is, apart from the personal appearance, very
important. For every type of customer you want (see 3), the outfits are
different. A crystal ball, a wide coat, a long beard and dim lights is no
guarantee for success any more. Many customers are still impressed by
this, but you won't profit much on such customers.
2.2 Your own appearance
More preferable is a modern apperance. A suit (not too gaudy), a clean
haircut, and (if you wear a beard) a short beard, are nowadays
recommended. The office should be equipped in a modern but not too
unimaginative way. A PC on your desk with impressing graphics of a
horoscope on the screen supports this impression. On your walls there
should be NASA pictures of the planets, and perhaps a graphics work by
Escher. A small library (no paperbacks!) of course also belongs here.
3. CUSTOMERS
3.1 Economy
Nowadays it's easier to find customers that pay well. In spite of the
general improved knowledge, there are, due to modern social politics, a lot
of people with enough money to spend, but little education. Don't
look for customers among people with high intelligence, as a well-knowngerman astrologer recommend (those few exceptions confirm the rule).
This argument appears insightful, because intelligence, in spite of
definitions differing in details, is generally ackowledged as an ability
to recognize and understand abstract contexts. However, half the
population are still potential customers (about 45% has an IQ of 100 or
lower).
3.2 Politics
We will not here further investigate the conicidence that many astrology
followers are also right-wing extremists. Later (see 6) it will be made
clear that these people are an obvious potential market. Conspicuous
people, like Zjirinowsky whose journalists are bragging with their
astrological knowledge, or even Adolph Hitler - his astrologer (Krafft)
did have to pay with his life for his forecasts though - act among
neo-nazis as leaders.
4. PREDICTIONS
4.1 How to cast a horoscope
While casting a horoscope, successful astrologers make little use of the
astrological rules. The personal image of the customer is more important.
If the horoscope is written when the customer is not personally known,
this is considerably more difficult since not much personal information is
available, but even then a succesful horoscope can be cast. Many
astrologers do this without even being aware of it. One can gain
additional information about personal details, by interrogating the
customer. In most cases the customer will not notice the examination.
4.2 Making predictions successful
Predictions is the central theme of casting a horoscope - the customer
wants as accurate predictions as possible. This causes problems though,
since accurate predictions may be too easy to check against reality. One
very popular question is: "Should I separate from my partner?". An
astrologer who wants to remain successful will almost always advice the
customer to separate, since otherwise the prediction "You will be happy
with your current partner" may fail to agree with reality. Usually,
successful predictions cannot be precise. A clever astrologer can fall
back on psychological predictions, similar to those in Freudian
psychoanalysis. He will always be safe if his predictions cannot be
checked.
5. TECHNIQUES OF ARGUMENTATION
5.1 Believers
Usually an astrologer has no need to argue. Your customer will gladly
hear some explanation, but that is easily obtained from the horoscope. If
the astrologer has been careless enough to make a false prediction, he can
always blame it on trivial mistake ("When did you say you were born?
5:30? Oh, that's the mistake, I had used 3:50 instead!"). The astrologer
should never declare: "Astrology cannot make such predictions" - he'll
scare his customer and deprive the customer of his belief in the allmight
of the stars.
Praise your early successes as often as you can! The more successful
predictions you have made in the past, the more your customers will trust
your skill and the more they will pay you for your horoscopes. Many
successful astrologers have shown that these successful predictions need
not necessarily be true. More important is that they sound plausible and
contain enough detail, but no details that can be checked. With such
predictions, astrologers have sold not only horoscopes, but also many many
books.
5.2 Skeptics
When discussing with skeptics, the astrologer must argue in a different
way. Here it's necessary (as recommended in 1) to know the literature
well. If you are familiar with the esoteric and pseudo-scientific slogans,
the argument is already half won. Your statements need not to be true.
So you will find dozens of proofs for astrology that can convince many
skeptics.
5.3 Obtaining arguments
A popular method is forgery of quotes. Normally only a small change in
the original text is needed to make the quote useful. Here it is
important to either give only an incomplete reference to the original, or
to ensure that the original is unavailable to the reader ("...which I
already wrote in Frankfurter Tageszeitung in 1953..."). When the subject
of the discussion cannot even be comprehended by the adversary (or - in
books - the readers), then astrologers often also use obvious forgeries -
there is hardly anyone participating in the discussion, who understands
enough about the subject, and thus the forgery will not be revealed.
5.4 When no arguments can be found
The astrologer must never admit that he has not said the truth. When he
has no arguments left, he should remember the proverb "When you cannot
attack the thoughts, then attack the thinker!". This is a welltried
technique when discussing with skeptics. He can also borrow another
technique from the skeptics: irony. He should ridicule his adversary,
while maintaining his own moral blamelessness.
6. ASTROLOGY AND POWER
Never forget, that astrology to many of its followers is not only an
ideology or a philosophy, it's a religion. Thus, like crusaders have
risked their lives, or islamic fundamental extremists blow themselves and
others up, astrology too can be used as an instrument of power. When you
want to be part of this power, you must never show your followers (or your
skeptics) that you really only are doing some hocus pocus. They must
believe that you too believe in the power of astrology. Put your personal
integrity and your moral credibility in the foreground.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Rumelhart
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338C52...@aznet.net>...
>Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
>
>> Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>> > Thanks for the references. Any comments from the astrologers? I
still
>> > agree with the idea that an astrological chart can be a useful tool
for
>> > examining ones personality. It may not be correct, but it still
causes you
>> > to evaluate those questions.
>
>It is correct, the astrologers are the ones who either are astute or
>not. Those who know little of the subject can make little if no
>determination about it at all.
>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a real, tangible world out there that
is measurable and observable. There is also an intricate black box called
astrology that is very precise with explicit rules which alleges to be able
to describe the personalities of humans which live in that real, tangible
world. Astrology <=(allegedly)=> Real World. Why do I have to be an
expert on the intricacies of that black box to ask what connection it has
to the real world? Becoming an expert in astrology does nothing to show me
what that connection is in and of itself. Obviously I need to learn enough
about astrology to be able to know what is claimed and to be able to draw
up a person's chart. I'm working on it.
I have seen some sweeping generalizations that appear to be correct about
people I know. What I don't know is if any other sweeping generalizations
at random would have seem to have fit too. When viewing something as
complex as the human psyche, it is easy to ascribe attributes to it that
aren't always true. People are complex enough that I can usually think of
at least one example of each sweeping generalization for each sun-sign, at
least for people I know well. On each one I can say "Yeah, that's true -
like when he/she did this..." I need something more concrete before I will
invest too much of myself into it.
>> It might also be true that a signal exists
>> > but is too faint to be heard above the noise or that the art of
>
>Yes, the noise is the inefficiency and colored lenses of the perciever.
>
>>astrology
>> > has strayed so far from reality over the years that it has no relation
to
>> > reality anymore.
>
>EVERY client I have sees the validity and reality of astrological
>insight and finds it adds to their understanding of not only themselves,
>but the life they lead-because that life is the extension of them.
>"Astrology" has strayed nowhere.
I think it's wonderful that they see the validity and reality of astrology.
But as I stated above it doesn't mean that that it is valid or real.
>
>> > From the data, though, I would have to conclude that it doesn't work
as
>> > they say it works.
>
>Well, when you believe in a negative reinforcing reality thats what you
>get-because we always create the reality we believe to be true-it always
>works it never doesn't work and no one is exempt.
I am not unfamiliar with the ideas of reality creation. If they are
creating a reality in which astrology is valid, it should be able to be
tested. The shared reality should be the same for all of us. Unless
simple casual thoughts can change reality instantly - which doesn't appear
to be the case, I've tried it.
>
>> > Yes, I know, ANTI-ASTRO SMOKE-BLOWING something-or-other.
>
>Certain astrologers do not help astrology because they refuse to
>incorporate actual practice, other paradigms and results into their
>perspective. This, like science is an ongoing process that any resonable
>and intelligent person incorporates into any worthy study. All paradigms
>are growing and changing always. It is the nature of the beast and has
>little to do with whether it is astrology or nuclear physics.
>
I agree.
I cannot now with authority say that this aspect of a person's chart means
this in terms of their personality. If an astrologer claims a link between
a given aspect and a given personality trait though, I can test that. My
knowledge or lack thereof in astrology matters little in that case. I'm
just the flunky scientist who has been given a theory to test.
>
>> > No idea one way or the other, just wanting to get some interesting
>> > discussion going.
>
>It is quite simple, in my learning art I listened to the teacher, then
>tried to apply what I learned. Apply, learn more, apply, learn more.
>There is no "magic bullet" and there is no other way to learn ANYTHING.
>A word to the wise is sufficient.
>
> Those who truly wish to learn astrology will do the same. The "smoke
>blowing" is from those who know nothing about it but wish to spin it in
>a certain direction because they are bigoted against it and fearful the
>it MIGHT have some validity, reflect that we are intimately connected to
>the universe in a meaningful way, and force them to take responsibility
>for a reality more easily "blamed" on chance, chaos, natural forces, or
>some physiological mechanism. Therefore their public agenda serves a
>personal one that attempts to defend against the fear that it JUST MIGHT
>have validity and allow them some keys to change the reality they
>experience.
>Unlocking from fearful perspectives is not easy, the ego seeks to
>reinforce its validity and control-hence cynicism is a very difficult
>lock of ego fearfulness to break. It is a weakness-not a strength.
>Critical thinkers withhold judgments of things they know nothing
>about-because they are self critical as well as critical of other
>things. Cynics reject information out of fear and
>unreasonableness-intelligent people say-"don't know", cynics say "can't
>be".
>
I do this not out of fear, but out of curiosity. I have no agenda. My
beliefs, whatever they are, about the universe as a whole don't enter into
this. It's a hobby. I am interested in astrology. I just want some firm
footing upon which to stand. There is either something to it, or there
isn't. If there isn't, I'll go on to something else. If there is, I'll
try to determine the mechanism involved. Who knows where that will lead.
Off-the-cuff psychological assessment based upon one casual sentence. So
what?
<snip>
Edmond Wollmann
Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> >It is correct, the astrologers are the ones who either are astute or
> >not. Those who know little of the subject can make little if no
> >determination about it at all.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a real, tangible world out there that
> is measurable and observable.
Ok, wrong. There is a physical world, it is tangible, no that doesn't
separate it as the only "real" world compared to other realities. Yes it
is measurable and observable. But they are the effects of the
non-physical world. Yes I understand there is an agreed upon collective
reality that appears fixed but it isn't.
> There is also an intricate black box called
> astrology that is very precise with explicit rules which alleges to be able
> to describe the personalities of humans which live in that real,
Wrong astrology is an art/science. I have posted a complete definition
of what it is you can access through deja news if you are truly
interested.
Yes it has rules and yes it works-whether it is amenable to empirical
assessment is another story-I have been through this many times.-go find
some current books such as "Black holes and Time Warps" or "Self Aware
Universe" these things are not new you guys are just unread. Learn some
philosophy and ideas about reality.
>tangible
> world. Astrology <=(allegedly)=> Real World.
Wrong, astrology=psyche. There is no one "real world".
> Why do I have to be an
> expert on the intricacies of that black box to ask what connection it has
> to the real world? Becoming an expert in astrology does nothing to show me
> what that connection is in and of itself.
Oh and I suppose becoming an expert in Qunatum mechanics doesn't help
you understand why it is the way it is? Give me a break.
> Obviously I need to learn enough
> about astrology to be able to know what is claimed and to be able to draw
> up a person's chart. I'm working on it.
Well go buy some books and go to some lectures and take a class-you got
about 25 years until you catch up with me.
> I have seen some sweeping generalizations that appear to be correct about
> people I know. What I don't know is if any other sweeping generalizations
> at random would have seem to have fit too.
How do you read the chart? Answer that-if you cannot answer that you are
jumping the gun-sit down and do some learning. Quit arguing and ask
questions as you read book after book-start with horoscope construction.
> When viewing something as
> complex as the human psyche, it is easy to ascribe attributes to it that
> aren't always true.
I've been counseling for 18 years-I know that. If you are truly serious
and in integrity-TELL us what you DO know. We'll go from there. If you
know nothing these questions are irrelevant.
> People are complex enough that I can usually think of
> at least one example of each sweeping generalization for each sun-sign, at
> least for people I know well. On each one I can say "Yeah, that's true
Sun signs have little to do with astrology-I have posted the statisitics
for the smallest number of astrological combiunations as well-it is 10
to the 58th, I think that covers psychological probability factors.
Again, you sound silly cause your knowledge is obviously nil.
> like when he/she did this..." I need something more concrete before I will
> invest too much of myself into it.
Well then you will never see anything-go find something easy-like
science.
> I think it's wonderful that they see the validity and reality of astrology.
> But as I stated above it doesn't mean that that it is valid or real.
I never say an astrological word in my counsel -unless the person wants
to know where I get whatever I am talking about from. If I say "this
characteristic we were talking about seems to be connected to your fears
about not having that quality nurtured by the mother-perhaps when you
were 13 there was a crisis I see regarding your beliefs about how
intelligent you believe yourself to be..." or some such thing I discern
from the horoscope, I say it just like that-in plain English, so they
don't CARE how I get it-the fact is I GET IT. We move on to HOW these
things can be resolved or improved or something. They KNOW what I said
was true cause its THEIR life-what other proof would we need? If its not
true and I'm on the wrong track they say so-and yes many times I am-I
cannot always discern WHAT the person has done with what is
seen-sometimes it is a higher level than I thought and sometimes lower.
But as far as the theme I am never wrong. They have free will to shape
these things-astrology is NOT a science-but that has NOTHING to do with
its validity-neither are many forms of psychological study. Wake up!
> >Well, when you believe in a negative reinforcing reality thats what you
> >get-because we always create the reality we believe to be true-it always
> >works it never doesn't work and no one is exempt.
> I am not unfamiliar with the ideas of reality creation. If they are
> creating a reality in which astrology is valid, it should be able to be
> tested.
Listen, reality is not cut an dried and if you think so go take a stats
class and/or philosophy-NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN. I thought you were
scientific not cynical?
> The shared reality should be the same for all of us. Unless
> simple casual thoughts can change reality instantly - which doesn't appear
> to be the case, I've tried it.
Please read my post on self awareness and free will-there is no
predetermined reality. That is one of the major reasons astrology is not
empirical-would you WANT every little thing in your life predictable? I
doubt it. You have free will-do you know that?
> >Therefore in this way persons who choose to try to confuse the subject
> >even further by offering opinions and advice on subjects they have no
> >experience with, CANNOT be qualified to do so-that is why we learn art
> >from an art teacher and astrology from those who practice it-to
> >incorporate this learned perceptual training from one who has labored to
> >overcome it.
> I cannot now with authority say that this aspect of a person's chart means
> this in terms of their personality.
Then you cannot peer review it or critique those who can.
SNIP!
> > Cynics reject information out of fear and
> >unreasonableness-intelligent people say-"don't know", cynics say "can't
> >be".
> I do this not out of fear, but out of curiosity. I have no agenda. My
> beliefs, whatever they are, about the universe as a whole don't enter into
> this.
Not possible-everyones beliefs are WHAT their reality consists of. "It
is the theory that determines WHAT we see." A. Einstein-how many times
do I have to post that?
> It's a hobby. I am interested in astrology. I just want some firm
> footing upon which to stand.
Not possible-you have to study it first. I studied ART, AND FALCONRY as
long as I have studied astrology, AND I CAN TELL YOU IT TOOK JUST AS
LONG TO SEE THE RESULTS OF those practices as well-so don't give me that
crap!
Sit down and sketch a person and make them look exactly like they do if
you think I am being a smart alec-go to my art page, I have photos of
the people I have sketched there and you cannot tell the difference
between the photo and the person-NOW do you think I saw those kind of
results FIRST before I drew them? What kind of idiocy is that? "A, no
Mr. Art instructor I am not going to pursue this unless you can prove to
me I will be able to draw like that when I invest my 10 years-YOU CYNICS
ARE DREAMING!!!!!!
>There is either something to it, or there
> isn't. If there isn't, I'll go on to something else.
There is something to it-but please go do something else we don't need
you. Anything worth having is worth putting some effort to-this takes
you out of the picture.
> If there is, I'll
> try to determine the mechanism involved. Who knows where that will lead.
It'll lead to a dead end-cause the mechanism is US! We create our
reality TOTALLY AS THE PRODUCT OF OUR BELIEFS AND DEFINITIONS, the chart
reflects these thats all-and I will stand by that for the next 50 years.
> >Rog says;
> >> >Paul,
> >> I'm very fond of astrology, and I find your comments here
> reflect a person who is
> >> fair-minded, and I think you are on the right track...:)
> >Subjective value judgment to seek social acceptance and reinforcment.
> >SNIP
> Off-the-cuff psychological assessment based upon one casual sentence. So
> what?
> <snip>
That is not true, I have interacted with him and I have his chart-over
and above the obviousness of the intent in his statement.
--
"The senses turn outward; Man therefore looks towards what is outside,
and sees not the inward being. Rare is the wise man who shuts his eyes
to outward things and so beholds the glory of the Atman within." The
Upanishads
Paul Rumelhart
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338D13...@aznet.net>...
>Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a real, tangible world out there
that
>> is measurable and observable.
>
>Ok, wrong. There is a physical world, it is tangible, no that doesn't
>separate it as the only "real" world compared to other realities. Yes it
>is measurable and observable. But they are the effects of the
>non-physical world. Yes I understand there is an agreed upon collective
>reality that appears fixed but it isn't.
>
This shared reality is measurable, observable, tangible. Doesn't matter if
there are more than one. It's *this* one I'm concerned about. This
reality may be the effects of the non-physical world. Since it is
measurable and observable who cares? I'm not a philosopher. I'm not
worried about mechanisms at this point, just in verifying that the claims
are real.
How fixed is fixed? I drop a ball, it follows the laws of gravity.
Science (yes that ugly word rears it's head again) has gone as far as it
has because these laws don't change (or at least very rarely). If you can
demonstrate that these laws can be broken, take up Randi's challenge. The
scientific community would love to see it.
>
>Wrong astrology is an art/science. I have posted a complete definition
>of what it is you can access through deja news if you are truly
>interested.
Thanks. I'll look it up.
>Yes it has rules and yes it works-whether it is amenable to empirical
>assessment is another story-I have been through this many times.-go find
>some current books such as "Black holes and Time Warps" or "Self Aware
>Universe" these things are not new you guys are just unread. Learn some
>philosophy and ideas about reality.
>
>>tangible
>> world. Astrology <=(allegedly)=> Real World.
>
>Wrong, astrology=psyche. There is no one "real world".
Very authoritative sounding. How do you know?
<snip>
>Oh and I suppose becoming an expert in Qunatum mechanics doesn't help
>you understand why it is the way it is? Give me a break.
Existence first. We'll figure out the why of it later.
<snip>
>How do you read the chart? Answer that-if you cannot answer that you are
>jumping the gun-sit down and do some learning. Quit arguing and ask
>questions as you read book after book-start with horoscope construction.
The particular chart I looked at had a nice summary written by an
astrologer. I read that. Does it differ that much from astrologer to
astrologer?
<snip>
>Sun signs have little to do with astrology-I have posted the statisitics
>for the smallest number of astrological combiunations as well-it is 10
>to the 58th, I think that covers psychological probability factors.
>Again, you sound silly cause your knowledge is obviously nil.
>
You take into account each and every one of the 10^58 factors one by one
when making a chart? I'm impressed.
<snip>
>Listen, reality is not cut an dried and if you think so go take a stats
>class and/or philosophy-NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN. I thought you were
>scientific not cynical?
But certain laws appear to hold true trial after trial. If reality is
mutable, scientists are measuring the amount of mutability. It seems to be
exremely small for certain physical aspects. If reality (*this* reality)
is too mutable for astrology's validity to be confirmed then how can it be
used as a tool for personal growth?
>> I cannot now with authority say that this aspect of a person's chart
means
>> this in terms of their personality.
>
>Then you cannot peer review it or critique those who can.
I have no intention in reviewing or critiquing any charts that you may
produce. I will take them as expert astrological information.
Paul Rumelhart
Paul Rumelhart
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338D13...@aznet.net>...
>Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a real, tangible world out there
that
>> is measurable and observable.
>
>Ok, wrong. There is a physical world, it is tangible, no that doesn't
>separate it as the only "real" world compared to other realities. Yes it
>is measurable and observable. But they are the effects of the
>non-physical world. Yes I understand there is an agreed upon collective
>reality that appears fixed but it isn't.
>
This shared reality is measurable, observable, tangible. Doesn't matter if
there are more than one. It's *this* one I'm concerned about. This
reality may be the effects of the non-physical world. Since it is
measurable and observable who cares? I'm not a philosopher. I'm not
worried about mechanisms at this point, just in verifying that the claims
are real.
How fixed is fixed? I drop a ball, it follows the laws of gravity.
Science (yes that ugly word rears it's head again) has gone as far as it
has because these laws don't change (or at least very rarely). If you can
demonstrate that these laws can be broken, take up Randi's challenge. The
scientific community would love to see it.
>
>Wrong astrology is an art/science. I have posted a complete definition
>of what it is you can access through deja news if you are truly
>interested.
Thanks. I'll look it up.
>Yes it has rules and yes it works-whether it is amenable to empirical
>assessment is another story-I have been through this many times.-go find
>some current books such as "Black holes and Time Warps" or "Self Aware
>Universe" these things are not new you guys are just unread. Learn some
>philosophy and ideas about reality.
>
>>tangible
>> world. Astrology <=(allegedly)=> Real World.
>
>Wrong, astrology=psyche. There is no one "real world".
Very authoritative sounding. How do you know?
<snip>
>Oh and I suppose becoming an expert in Qunatum mechanics doesn't help
>you understand why it is the way it is? Give me a break.
Existence first. We'll figure out the why of it later.
<snip>
>How do you read the chart? Answer that-if you cannot answer that you are
>jumping the gun-sit down and do some learning. Quit arguing and ask
>questions as you read book after book-start with horoscope construction.
The particular chart I looked at had a nice summary written by an
astrologer. I read that. Does it differ that much from astrologer to
astrologer?
<snip>
>Sun signs have little to do with astrology-I have posted the statisitics
>for the smallest number of astrological combiunations as well-it is 10
>to the 58th, I think that covers psychological probability factors.
>Again, you sound silly cause your knowledge is obviously nil.
>
You take into account each and every one of the 10^58 factors one by one
when making a chart? I'm impressed.
<snip>
>Listen, reality is not cut an dried and if you think so go take a stats
>class and/or philosophy-NOTHING IS EVER PROVEN. I thought you were
>scientific not cynical?
But certain laws appear to hold true trial after trial. If reality is
mutable, scientists are measuring the amount of mutability. It seems to be
exremely small for certain physical aspects. If reality (*this* reality)
is too mutable for astrology's validity to be confirmed then how can it be
used as a tool for personal growth?
>> I cannot now with authority say that this aspect of a person's chart
means
>> this in terms of their personality.
>
>Then you cannot peer review it or critique those who can.
I have no intention in reviewing or critiquing any charts that you may
Edmond Wollmann
Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338D13...@aznet.net>...
> >Paul Rumelhart wrote:
> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a real, tangible world out there
> that
> >> is measurable and observable.
> >Ok, wrong. There is a physical world, it is tangible, no that doesn't
> >separate it as the only "real" world compared to other realities. Yes it
> >is measurable and observable. But they are the effects of the
> >non-physical world. Yes I understand there is an agreed upon collective
> >reality that appears fixed but it isn't.
> This shared reality is measurable, observable, tangible. Doesn't matter if
> there are more than one.
Oh yes it does. They are all one under "All That Is" so their
separateness is only an illusion and they are all intertwined like the
web of life described by the native Americans. They are all interacting
with one another-and if you think not we may have to end our
conversation here until your studies are more complete.
> It's *this* one I'm concerned about. This
> reality may be the effects of the non-physical world. Since it is
> measurable and observable who cares? I'm not a philosopher.
You obviously are incapable of understanding how negative you and your
kind are-
Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive, inclusive-INTEGRAL.
Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
PARTS.
Philosophy is the foundation of all sciences and of all belief systems
in texistence. A person's philosophical perspective is the
foundation-not the icing on the cake of their entire world. Then you
have no foundation from which to make accurate discernments. Think about
this please-all of you cynics and others so inclined. If the purpose of
living were to perhaps overcome the illusion of what you think is real,
would it not be self defeating to find reasons to NOT do that??
Therefore if you have no inkling of some purpose behind life as we
experience it-then you have no template perception BY WHICH any of what
you wish to promote as "real" can be measured against-it is ALL
RELATIVE.
> I'm not
> worried about mechanisms at this point, just in verifying that the claims
> are real.
But I have already told you and it is already known by those with
breadth of vision that THERE IS NO ONE REALITY. So your insistence is
redundant.
> How fixed is fixed? I drop a ball, it follows the laws of gravity.
> Science (yes that ugly word rears it's head again) has gone as far as it
Listen I may have studied more science than you! If you continue this
tone with me I will ignore you like all the other narrow minded cynics
on these groups-if you wish to carry on intelligent conversation I
suggest you get off your high horse. You are not more knowing you are
less, and it is your lock of ego on physicality that keeps you and yours
blind.
> has because these laws don't change (or at least very rarely). If you can
> demonstrate that these laws can be broken, take up Randi's challenge.
End of conversation I am killfiling you.
Good cynicking.
If Randi wishes to learn a few things he can come to me. There will be
many proofs and I give them all the time.
--
"I came into this world for judgment so that those who do not see may
see, and those who do see may become blind.
The Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, "Surely we are not
blind are we?" And he said to them, "If you were blind, you would have
no sin. But now that you say, 'We see,'your sin remains." John 39-41
Paul Rumelhart
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338E4B...@aznet.net>...
>Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>> Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <338D13...@aznet.net>...
>> >Paul Rumelhart wrote:
>
>> >> Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a real, tangible world out
there
>> that
>> >> is measurable and observable.
>
>> >Ok, wrong. There is a physical world, it is tangible, no that doesn't
>> >separate it as the only "real" world compared to other realities. Yes
it
>> >is measurable and observable. But they are the effects of the
>> >non-physical world. Yes I understand there is an agreed upon
collective
>> >reality that appears fixed but it isn't.
>
>> This shared reality is measurable, observable, tangible. Doesn't matter
if
>> there are more than one.
>
>Oh yes it does. They are all one under "All That Is" so their
>separateness is only an illusion and they are all intertwined like the
>web of life described by the native Americans. They are all interacting
>with one another-and if you think not we may have to end our
>conversation here until your studies are more complete.
Any common well-trained household parrakeet can spout dogma if you give it
enough lessons. Tell me *why* this is. Also, converse if you want, stop
if you don't. But don't blame either choice on my level of study.
>
>> It's *this* one I'm concerned about. This
>> reality may be the effects of the non-physical world. Since it is
>> measurable and observable who cares? I'm not a philosopher.
>
>You obviously are incapable of understanding how negative you and your
>kind are-
>
>Positive is simply integrative, unifying, expansive, inclusive-INTEGRAL.
>
>Negative is separative, segragative, limited, conflicted functions in
>PARTS.
>
>Philosophy is the foundation of all sciences and of all belief systems
>in texistence. A person's philosophical perspective is the
>foundation-not the icing on the cake of their entire world. Then you
>have no foundation from which to make accurate discernments. Think about
>this please-all of you cynics and others so inclined. If the purpose of
>living were to perhaps overcome the illusion of what you think is real,
>would it not be self defeating to find reasons to NOT do that??
>Therefore if you have no inkling of some purpose behind life as we
>experience it-then you have no template perception BY WHICH any of what
>you wish to promote as "real" can be measured against-it is ALL
>RELATIVE.
I go with what I know. And how did I get to be labelled a cynic? You
don't have all the answers. You have only what you've read or learned.
Thousands of pages of guesses in the dark.
>
>> I'm not
>> worried about mechanisms at this point, just in verifying that the
claims
>> are real.
>
>But I have already told you and it is already known by those with
>breadth of vision that THERE IS NO ONE REALITY. So your insistence is
>redundant.
Is this "breadth of vision" too complex for mere mortals like myself to
understand if you paraphrased it in a usenet post?
>
>> How fixed is fixed? I drop a ball, it follows the laws of gravity.
>> Science (yes that ugly word rears it's head again) has gone as far as
it
>
>Listen I may have studied more science than you! If you continue this
>tone with me I will ignore you like all the other narrow minded cynics
>on these groups-if you wish to carry on intelligent conversation I
>suggest you get off your high horse. You are not more knowing you are
>less, and it is your lock of ego on physicality that keeps you and yours
>blind.
You *may* have studied more science. You have gone on and on in multiple
posts spouting off on how greatly intelligent you are and how greatly
intelligent I'm not. You know nothing of me. You don't know what I
believe, what motivates me, what thoughts pound around in my head or
anything else about me that I have not felt free to disclose in a public
forum. Think for a moment what that shows of your personality to the world
at large.
>
>> has because these laws don't change (or at least very rarely). If you
can
>> demonstrate that these laws can be broken, take up Randi's challenge.
>
>End of conversation I am killfiling you.
>Good cynicking.
I came into this whole conversation a believer in astrology and reality
creation. You may have reversed both of those convictions. Congratulations
.
>
>If Randi wishes to learn a few things he can come to me. There will be
>many proofs and I give them all the time.
Then why not make a few quick bucks?
Michael D. Painter
Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote in article < >
> <snip>
> >Sun signs have little to do with astrology-I have posted the statisitics
> >for the smallest number of astrological combiunations as well-it is 10
> >to the 58th, I think that covers psychological probability factors.
> >Again, you sound silly cause your knowledge is obviously nil.
> >
>
> You take into account each and every one of the 10^58 factors one by one
> when making a chart? I'm impressed.
10 ^ 58th is a medium size number. As an exercise in 6th grade math I ask
the following.
100 billion astrologers each have 1 billion computers.
Each computer can process 100 billion factors per second.
Starting with the big bang (15 billion years in round numbers.) would the
astrologers have examined more than 1 percent of the factors to date?
In that time span how many astrologers would it take to complete one chart.
When is any of them going to take the challenge, prove astrology, and win a
million dollars?
Randi challenge http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
And as I've said before I'll be happy to match funds with anyone on a side
bet ($1000.00 min) to see if the money is there.
If anything you say is true, you can't loose.
hfreeman
I don't know what proposal this thread started with, but as a former
rather serious student of astrology whose current stance is "I think its
inerestting but I don't actually 'believe in' it.", I like to offer the
following proposal/definition.
(1) I take it an established empirical fact that studying one's own
horoscope leads to a hightened sense of self knowledge and often to
greater self-acceptance.
(2) The key question is whether you'd get exactly the same result from
studying a randomly generated horoscope. If yes, then astrology is
serving as a "mandala" for meditation rather than a personality
predictor. In my opinion it has great value as a mandala of meditation
and insight even if there is no predictive link between horoscope and
personality.
(3) But "sense of self knowledge" is unmeasurable, so we can't do a
serious experiment with that.
(4) However, there is a good testable question: Can experienced
astrologers match charts to personality profiles with better than
chance results? It would be fairly easy to do a protocol consisting of
(a) pick a couple hundred subjects (b) have pscychologists interview
them and write a non-astrological personality profile (c) computer
generate their birth charts (d) have astrologers try to pick which of 10
profiles match a chart.
(5) If astrologers can do that with significantly better than chance
accuracy then astrology is a verfiable, useable, science. If they
can't, then its NOT a science as I define the term, but that doesn't
stop it from being a valuable, useful path to self knowledge, higher
wisdom, actualization or any such real but inherently non-measureable
result.
As you can see, I have a point of view which alienates both rationalists
and anti-rationalists: that there is an objective reality whose
features can be determined by scientific experiment, but that the
meaning of things very real, very important, and always outside of
objective reality.
Harris Freeman
Tosser
hfreeman wrote:
<snip>
> (4) However, there is a good testable question: Can experienced
> astrologers match charts to personality profiles with better than
> chance results? It would be fairly easy to do a protocol consisting of
> (a) pick a couple hundred subjects (b) have pscychologists interview
> them and write a non-astrological personality profile (c) computer
> generate their birth charts (d) have astrologers try to pick which of 10
> profiles match a chart.
> Harris Freeman
One flaw is that (b) assumes that psychology uses different techniques
than astrology. I have my doubts.
T
********************************************************************
All opinions expressed are my own. If they were my company's
you'd have to pay for them.
********************************************************************
Paul Rumelhart
hfreeman wrote in article <338F19...@activesw.com>...
>I don't know what proposal this thread started with, but as a former
>rather serious student of astrology whose current stance is "I think its
>inerestting but I don't actually 'believe in' it.", I like to offer the
>following proposal/definition.
The original proposal was similar to the one described below, except that
it involved using a standard personality test like the MMPI and trying to
correlate individual questions with specific astrological traits.
>
>(1) I take it an established empirical fact that studying one's own
>horoscope leads to a hightened sense of self knowledge and often to
>greater self-acceptance.
I agree with this completely. However, I am afraid of the possibility of
possibly-no-better-than-random information heightening their self knowledge
in a negative way. It is good to learn about yourself, but is it good to
learn things about yourself that are not true?
>
>(2) The key question is whether you'd get exactly the same result from
>studying a randomly generated horoscope. If yes, then astrology is
>serving as a "mandala" for meditation rather than a personality
>predictor. In my opinion it has great value as a mandala of meditation
>and insight even if there is no predictive link between horoscope and
>personality.
Yes, assuming that the person doing that knows that they are doing that.
>
>(3) But "sense of self knowledge" is unmeasurable, so we can't do a
>serious experiment with that.
>
>(4) However, there is a good testable question: Can experienced
>astrologers match charts to personality profiles with better than
>chance results? It would be fairly easy to do a protocol consisting of
>(a) pick a couple hundred subjects (b) have pscychologists interview
>them and write a non-astrological personality profile (c) computer
>generate their birth charts (d) have astrologers try to pick which of 10
>profiles match a chart.
I would suggest using a test from whatever the "accepted" battery of
personality tests is.
>
>(5) If astrologers can do that with significantly better than chance
>accuracy then astrology is a verfiable, useable, science. If they
>can't, then its NOT a science as I define the term, but that doesn't
>stop it from being a valuable, useful path to self knowledge, higher
>wisdom, actualization or any such real but inherently non-measureable
>result.
One problem is that it works so well as a mandala (imho) because it has the
authority of being supernaturally, magically, unexplainably correct.
Without that authority it might not work so well (at least for me).
Knowing it's been proven wrong again and again would make me doubt what it
was saying and just sow confusion.
>
>As you can see, I have a point of view which alienates both rationalists
>and anti-rationalists: that there is an objective reality whose
>features can be determined by scientific experiment, but that the
>meaning of things very real, very important, and always outside of
>objective reality.
I, too, feel that there is more to reality than what we know. I have had
psychic experiences and believe that they can be controlled and enhanced
with practice. That's why I'm looking to validate astrology. I'm
perfectly willing to believe that there is some paranormal method for it to
use as a mechanism. I'm just stunned that other astrologers aren't hot on
first proving that it has a correlation with reality.
>
>Harris Freeman
>
Paul Rumelhart
Paul Rumelhart
Daniel A. Morgan
> One flaw is that (b) assumes that psychology uses different techniques
> than astrology. I have my doubts.
Well based upon the available evidence I doubt there is any difference
between the two disciplines other than the names.
Daniel A. Morgan
I H Spedding
On Fri, 30 May 1997 11:16:10 -0700, hfreeman <hfre...@activesw.com>
wrote:
[...]
>(4) However, there is a good testable question: Can experienced
>astrologers match charts to personality profiles with better than
>chance results? It would be fairly easy to do a protocol consisting of
>(a) pick a couple hundred subjects (b) have pscychologists interview
>them and write a non-astrological personality profile (c) computer
>generate their birth charts (d) have astrologers try to pick which of 10
>profiles match a chart.
>
>(5) If astrologers can do that with significantly better than chance
>accuracy then astrology is a verfiable, useable, science. If they
>can't, then its NOT a science as I define the term, but that doesn't
>stop it from being a valuable, useful path to self knowledge, higher
>wisdom, actualization or any such real but inherently non-measureable
>result.
Paul Schlyter has posted a list of studies which show that astrology
does not perform better that chance. You should be able to find it on
Deja News, if not, you could ask him to e-mail you a copy.
Ian
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian H Spedding (sped...@mognet.u-net.com)
There is certainly nothing impossible about abduction by aliens in
UFO's. But on the grounds of probability it should be kept as an
explanation of last resort. It is unparsimonious, demanding more than
routinely weak evidence to support it.
Richard Dawkins: Richard Dimbleby Lecture (12 November 1996)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Chastain
I don't think it is possible to automatically assign a natal chart to a
grown person's personality chart. The Natal Chart shows the challenges
issued at birth. The adult subject has met some of these challenges and
increased others. As all astrological signs have both positive and
negative aspects and we are creatures of free will, how each individual
chooses to express the energies of their birth chart will continue to be
individualistic.
The value of a natal chart, as I see it, is to point out to each of us
the challenges that we have not seen and propose solutions to those
challenges. We are all unique and even the information on our birth
charts cannot alter that uniqueness.
Why are we continuing to attempt to justify the existence of our beliefs
through Science? Science is a valuable study that explains beautifully
the properies of the physical plane. Why can't we leave it where it
belongs? The issues of the spirit should not have to be subjected to a
test in the physical. I believe because I believe. I need no
scientific proof as my proof lies in my heart.
Brant Watson
>As you can see, I have a point of view which alienates both rationalists
>and anti-rationalists: that there is an objective reality whose
>features can be determined by scientific experiment, but that the
>meaning of things very real, very important, and always outside of
>objective reality.
>
You are pretty good at proposing what kinds of tests would be good
ones to test astrology. You might be surprised to learn that the very
same tests you propose *have* been conducted...some repeatedly. And
astrology has failed all of them.
Brant
Brant Watson
On 30 May 1997 06:35:43 GMT, "Michael D. Painter"
<mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote in article < >
>
> > <snip>
>> >Sun signs have little to do with astrology-I have posted the statisitics
>> >for the smallest number of astrological combiunations as well-it is 10
>> >to the 58th, I think that covers psychological probability factors.
>> >Again, you sound silly cause your knowledge is obviously nil.
>> >
>>
>> You take into account each and every one of the 10^58 factors one by one
>> when making a chart? I'm impressed.
>
>10 ^ 58th is a medium size number. As an exercise in 6th grade math I ask
>the following.
>100 billion astrologers each have 1 billion computers.
>Each computer can process 100 billion factors per second.
>Starting with the big bang (15 billion years in round numbers.) would the
>astrologers have examined more than 1 percent of the factors to date?
>
>In that time span how many astrologers would it take to complete one chart.
>
>
>When is any of them going to take the challenge, prove astrology, and win a
>million dollars?
>
> Randi challenge http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
>
>And as I've said before I'll be happy to match funds with anyone on a side
>bet ($1000.00 min) to see if the money is there.
>If anything you say is true, you can't loose.
Michael, I have to suggest that one could argue that the total number
of moves in a chess game is also a very big number, yet people finish
chess games in a matter of minutes. As for pure computational power,
it could also be argued that humans must have some special
intellectual (or mystical) skills working under the surface since only
just recently were we able to develop a supercomputer that could beat
the best human.
We have to deal with such objections, and I would prefer to make them
before the opposition does. In chess, it is not necessary to consider
all possible move trees in order to play a game. Certain
generalizations and patterns are used. One could argue that the same
is true for astrology. To counter this argument, I would suggest that
the enormous number of possibilities in a chess game stems from the
sequential nature of the game. The number of possibilities increases
geometrically with each possible next move. Astrology is not
sequential. Virtually all combinations must be considered since any
one or all of them contribute to the *single* reading.
So if astrology is to be compared to playing chess, the comparison
is invalid. BTW, the fair comparison would be to count the number of
possible moves for any single *turn* in chess. That may be a couple
dozen at most. While making a move may be an outcome, of sorts, it is
not a conclusion, such as a win (chess) or reading (astrology) would
be. The astrologer must be able to weigh virtually millions of
factors in order to make a single reading. There is no process of
elimination or filtering of significant data from insignificant or
meaningless data.
I'm still interested in collaborating with you in a test so that
we can combine our $1000 offers.
Two that I have considered are:
1) Ed Wollman's claim that he can determine the timing of certain
kinds of significant life events based on current and natal charts.
2) Pete Stapleton's claim that he can make 100% accurate predictions
of the stock market.
Brant
Christine Lydon
On Sun, 01 Jun 1997 , sped...@mognet.u-net.com (I H Spedding) wrote:
>On Fri, 30 May 1997 , hfreeman <hfre...@activesw.com>wrote:
>>(4) However, there is a good testable question: Can experienced
>>astrologers match charts to personality profiles with better than
>>chance results? It would be fairly easy to do a protocol consisting of
>>(a) pick a couple hundred subjects (b) have pscychologists interview
>>them and write a non-astrological personality profile (c) computer
>>generate their birth charts (d) have astrologers try to pick which of 10
>>profiles match a chart.
>>
>>(5) If astrologers can do that with significantly better than chance
>>accuracy then astrology is a verfiable, useable, science. If they
>>can't, then its NOT a science as I define the term, but that doesn't
>>stop it from being a valuable, useful path to self knowledge, higher
>>wisdom, actualization or any such real but inherently non-measureable
>>result.
>Paul Schlyter has posted a list of studies which show that astrology
>does not perform better that chance. You should be able to find it on
>Deja News, if not, you could ask him to e-mail you a copy.
>Ian
Well here's something which I've copied from an earlier post:
In article <5jadb4$p...@electra.saaf.se>,
pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
>One good way is to ask the astrologer to match a set of birth data
>with a set of psychology profiles of the same people -- whenever this
>test has been performed, even "expert astrologers" fail to perform
>better than someone just guessing randomly.
Paul, in some of the most famous examples of this type of "test", not
only were the astrologers unable to match the psychological profiles
with the correct individuals - but the individuals THEMSELVES were
unable to identify which psych. profile was his or her own!
(I can hunt down references, if you're interested.)
In other words, these tests do not test the abilities of the
astrologer so much as they test the ability of psychologists to create
a "profile" which is an accurate picture of a person.
So far, it seems the psychologists are unable to pass the very test
you keep trying to apply to astrologers.
I fail to see how we can measure astrologers' interpretations by
asking astrologers to match birthcharts with "psychological profiles"
which are, themselves, not a verifiably accurate portrait of an
individual.
What do you think?
- Mary Ellen
It has occurred to me that this sort of test could be adapted as
follows:
A client is interviewed for about an hour by four people, separately
(i.e. four interviews in total) Two are astrologers, two are
psychologists, but the client doesn't know which is which.
After the interviews, the four interviewers write up a profile of the
client of about six sides of paper. The astrologers also have access
to the clients accurate birthchart.
The client is then asked to read the four reports about themself, and
rank them according to how well the interviewer seems to have learned
about them and written a fair and accurate assessment of their
personality.
You then repeat the experiment with lots of people of course.
If there is nothing in astrology, or if psychology is just as good as
astrology, you would expect that the psychologists' reports would on
average be ranked as highly or get as many "points" as the
astrologers' reports.
So if some researcher has a budget to spend, perhaps they could try it
out?
From Christine
And from another thread:
In article <5j748f$j...@electra.saaf.se>, pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul
Schlyter) says:
>In article <01bc4aa2$f9e20d70$82bdbacd@michael>,
>Michael Erlewine <mic...@TheNewAge.com> wrote:
>> Jim Rogers writes:
>>> 1) Do you hold that planetary aspects at birth determine or correlate to
>>> personality?
>> Yes, correlate (there is a relationship), but not just aspects and not just
>> to personality.
>Then why do all controlled experiments which try to find such correlations
>fail?
Perhaps the controlled experiments fail because the personality tests
are inadequate. I assume they must be based on modern psychology,
which has only been around for about 50 or 100 years and has hardly
germinated, let alone flowered. It could be that the "personality"
which is described in astrology is more a portrait of the current
state of the soul or spirit, and it is quite beyond the capabilities
of behaviouristic psychologists to understand or measure or even
recognise it.
>>> 3) Do you hold that any astrologers can tell a person important things
>>> about their personality and about "influences" in their life, starting
>>> only with natal details?
>> Yes, I do hold that is so,
>Then why do astrologers always fail, when asked to, in a blind test,
>match birth data with personal profiles?
Perhaps because the personal profiles, which are prepared in advance
by the psychologists conducting these experiments (or by the clients
themselves ? ), prejudge what sort of information the astrologer is
"supposed" to see in the chart and provide to the client. If you ask
20 different astrologers to give a written or oral interpretation of a
birthchart, you will get 20 different answers, and all of them may be
equally valid and useful, or equally irrelevant to the actual state of
the client at this time in his/her life. The exercise of matching
sets of birth data to sets of "answers" is pointless. It shows a
complete failure to understand what astrological consultation is
really for, i.e. to help people grow in understanding of themselves.
From Christine
--------------
P.S. I'm having problems with my server not retrieving
all the posts. Everybody, If I don't respond to something,
please accept my apologies, but I probably didn't see your
message. It's better to email me as well as post.
P.P.S. alt.astrology FAQ (courtesy of L M McPherson)
at www.magitech.com/pub/astrology/info/faq.txt
last updated October 1995.
----------------------------------
Michael D. Painter
Brant Watson <bra...@erols.com> wrote in article
<33977d72...@news.erols.com>...
> On 30 May 1997 06:35:43 GMT, "Michael D. Painter"
> <mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote in article
< >
> >
> > > <snip>
> >> >Sun signs have little to do with astrology-I have posted the
statisitics
> >> >for the smallest number of astrological combiunations as well-it is
10
> >> >to the 58th, I think that covers psychological probability factors.
> >> >Again, you sound silly cause your knowledge is obviously nil.
> >> >
> >>
Agreed. That thought passed (quickly) through my mind.
I didn't post: "You take into account each and every one of the 10^58
factors one by one when making a chart? I'm impressed."
When No answer to that was posted I put my numbers up.
I suspect the challenge will go unanswered. If he's wrong he knows it and
if he's right why bother with trivial amounts of pocket change:)
Edmond Wollmann
Michael D. Painter wrote:
This post has gotten ridiculous so this will be the last response to it.
> Brant Watson <bra...@erols.com> wrote in article
> > On 30 May 1997 06:35:43 GMT, "Michael D. Painter"
> > <mpai...@maxinet.com> wrote:
> > >Paul Rumelhart <pa...@sapsucker.csrv-staff.uidaho.edu> wrote in article
> > >> Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> > >> >Sun signs have little to do with astrology-I have posted the
> statisitics
> > >> >for the smallest number of astrological combiunations as well-it is
> 10
> > >> >to the 58th, I think that covers psychological probability factors.
> > >> >Again, you sound silly cause your knowledge is obviously nil.
> > >> You take into account each and every one of the 10^58 factors one by
> one
> > >> when making a chart? I'm impressed.
Yes, in the blink of an eye. Those numbers are the SMALLEST amount of
astrological factor combinations. Not all are necessary to come to good
conclusions however. Therefore you cynics have much learning ahead as I
have said. All these factors contribute to accurate conclusions and the
more you are capable of discerning the more accurate one can be.
> > >When is any of them going to take the challenge, prove astrology, and
> win a
> > >million dollars?
:-)))))) I prove it every day where's my million?
> > > Randi challenge http://www.randi.org/jr/chall.html
Whose Randi, king of cynics?:-)))) They should use him to debunk food
lables and drug claims for the goivernment if he's so great-put him to
some productive work instead of creating straw man tests to disprove
belief systems others prefer.
I know how to create tests of significance and astrology has too many
factors that produce conclusions to isolate one and try to prove it
causes the whole.
Most educated people know these things you cynics keep trying to con
people into believing.
> > >And as I've said before I'll be happy to match funds with anyone on a
> side
> > >bet ($1000.00 min) to see if the money is there.
> > >If anything you say is true, you can't loose.
Well, you guys must be really intimidated by something that others favor
and improves thier quality of life, to offer so much money and stuff
just to quell your fears and fulfill your agendas. Thanks, if I want
protection I'll hire a body guard-my mind needs no protection-especially
from those less coherent than I. Perhaps you could try it with
siesmologists-see if they can predict the next quake for some money or
something-see if that dissuades them from continuing their
research:-))))
Brant wrote:
> > So if astrology is to be compared to playing chess, the comparison
> > is invalid.
It can't. For once you have accurately described a fallacious
analogy-only by luck though since you still are struggling with what
astrology is.
Tests snipped ..
> Agreed. That thought passed (quickly) through my mind.
> I didn't post: "You take into account each and every one of the 10^58
> factors one by one when making a chart? I'm impressed."
> When No answer to that was posted I put my numbers up.
> I suspect the challenge will go unanswered. If he's wrong he knows it and
> if he's right why bother with trivial amounts of pocket change:)
You suspect wrong as usual, the reason there is no need to even answer
these posts anymore is because I accurately defined the parameters of
the issues from the beginning. And all the lot of you do is continue to
struggle with definitions because you know you must define what
astrology is before you can even dream up tests-which proves the
accuracy of my assertion that you cannot critique or analyse something
you are ignorant of. Please- you need me if you wish to keep agendas
spinning- I do NOT need the lot of you to continue doing what I do. I
was born at noon, but not YESTERDAY noon:-)
It is humorous watching you all try to aggravate me into responding to
nonsense as a last ditch effort to continue misinformed and incoherent
assertions. To try to get the information you deparately need to build a
straw man. Go read some books on it maybe that will give you some to
work with.
I know how the tests of significance are performed. I know how to set
up experiments. I have access to data bases at the university I attend
and the ability and knowledge to publish papers when I am ready and it
is properly designed etc., I have friends in the psychology departments
of a couple universities and many friends in the clinical psychology
fields-some past clients-what in the heck would I need approval from a
bunch of wackos on newsnet for?
PS Please remove alt.astrology.metapsych from future posts as I have
done here. I will not be responding to anymore of these. There are
astrology issues to clarify and discuss in a.a. There will be no tests
and no Randi's. If he wants to learn astrology he can enroll in classes
with the rest of the neophytes.
Thanks
--
"Like the church, like a cop, like my mother. You want me to be
truthful-sometimes you turn it on me like a weapon though and I need
your approval." Joni Mitchell
Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D.
> Why are we continuing to attempt to justify the existence of our beliefs
> through Science? Science is a valuable study that explains beautifully
> the properies of the physical plane.
Hmmm...not justification but expanded service I believe is the
idea...
The scientific method may be applied on all planes of personal
experience
...see http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/rel.html
> The issues of the spirit should not have to be subjected to a
> test in the physical.
Science as a methodology is transcendent of physical plane
processes and applies to any set of shared experiences among people.
For our work in astrology much good would/will come, I believe, as to
refinement, accuracy and service. (see
http://users.aol.com/aprioripa/future.html )
Shanti,
Patrick Alessandra, Psy.D.
--
*** A.Priori / 1441C Bellevue Way NE / Bellevue, WA 98004 USA
*** apri...@aol.com / http://users.aol.com/psychosoph/home.html
*** (425) 455-9259
Avital Pilpel
Anne Chastain wrote:
>
>
> Why are we continuing to attempt to justify the existence of our beliefs
> through Science? Science is a valuable study that explains beautifully
> the properies of the physical plane. Why can't we leave it where it
> belongs? The issues of the spirit should not have to be subjected to a
> test in the physical. I believe because I believe. I need no
> scientific proof as my proof lies in my heart.
In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not completley
_wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
--
Avital Pilpel.
=====================================
The majority is never right.
-Lazarus Long
=====================================
Paul Schlyter
In article <01bc723d$f11fdce0$49ce77cc@mpainter>,
>> we can combine our $1000 offers.
>>
>> Two that I have considered are:
>>
>> 1) Ed Wollman's claim that he can determine the timing of certain
>> kinds of significant life events based on current and natal charts.
>>
>> 2) Pete Stapleton's claim that he can make 100% accurate predictions
>> of the stock market.
>>
>> Brant
>
> I didn't post: "You take into account each and every one of the 10^58
> factors one by one when making a chart? I'm impressed."
> When No answer to that was posted I put my numbers up.
>
> I suspect the challenge will go unanswered. If he's wrong he knows it and
> if he's right why bother with trivial amounts of pocket change:)
Pete vanishes from this newsgroup when it suits him, like he did
recently, when he finally was offered money without having to offer any
back. He'll probably return in half a year or so, re-iterating his
usual stuff Yet Once More.
Regarding Ed: somewhat more than a year ago, Ed claimed to have the
ability to do rectification "routinely and accyrately".
Rectification is an astrological technique by which the astrologer
attempts to correct an erroneous birth time: any discrepancy between
the chart reading and actual events in life are assumed to be due to
errors in the birth time. Other birth times are then tried, and the
birth time which yields the "best" chart reading is assumed to be the
correct birth time. Naturally, this process can be quite time
consuming.
This is something one can check though: pick a set of a few birth
times, known to be accurate, introduce deliberate errors in the birth
time of, say, up to 10 hours in either direction, then give these
manipulated birth times to the astrologer. He will be allowed to
interview the subject, and ask anything except at what time they were
born, and they should answer honestly. The astrologer's task is to
try to recover the correct birth times. When the astrologer is done,
one can directly compare his "rectified" birth times with the actual
birth times, to see how well he did.
I suggested this to Ed as a "rectification challenge" more than a
year ago. How did Ed respond? He just bailed out -- he refused to
respond at all (yes, he even refused to say "No"), then later he
claimed he had responded anyway.
But the most interesting thing about Ed's non-response was: after
this he never again talked about rectification. Obviously Ed
realized he was unsafe: his claims could too easily be refuted.
I expect a similar response from Ed this time: he won't do it, and he
won't even say he won't do it. Instead he'll escape into "safer
territory", by retreating to claims that are harder, or impossible,
to test.
Brant Watson
On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:12:31 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
<snip>
>You suspect wrong as usual, the reason there is no need to even answer
>these posts anymore is because I accurately defined the parameters of
>the issues from the beginning.
No. You are the one who struggles with definitions...and
interpretations, and nuances, and parameters, and qualifications, and
sophistical gibberish, etc., etc., etc. My goal, at least, is quite
simple and direct, immune to the intensive obfuscation upon which you
are totally dependent. I have asked you to respond to a test and have
offered you $1000 if you can do either of the two things you claim.
You are insistent on avoiding accountability to a skeptical audience
in a public forum by alternately using three standard dodges:
1) claiming that others are not qualified to determine if you can do
as you claim.
2) setting massive smoke screens of irrelevant pseudo-philosophical
gibberish.
3) asserting that you are quite capable of evaluating your claims on
your own.
> And all the lot of you do is continue to
>struggle with definitions because you know you must define what
>astrology is before you can even dream up tests-which proves the
>accuracy of my assertion that you cannot critique or analyse something
>you are ignorant of.
Astrology has been defined to the point necessary to test it. You
have also made specific claims of your abilities...claims which do not
require any special expertise to understand or evaluate. If such
expertise were required, then your astrological contributions would be
useless to anyone else.
You have claimed that you can determine one's beliefs from his natal
chart. Easy to test.
You have claimed that you can predict domestic violence from
astrological data. Easy to test.
Don't worry...nobody's going to ask you to perform any feat you
don't claim you can perform. I can try to obtain birth charts for
individuals who have committed acts of domestic violence. Then I can
give you dates that each committed a major act of domestic violence.
You have claimed that you can match these data. It's an easy and
unambiguous test if I can actually get that kind of data to work with.
What special knowledge of astrology does one need in order to count
your correct responses?
Even easier still, give me some typical "beliefs" you are able to
determine from birth data. I'll try to get birth data on people with
these kinds of beliefs. You just match them. What special
qualifications does a person need in order to evaluate how well you
match a few birth charts with a few predominant beliefs. How about if
I could find a particular belief in which a person concentrates most
of his/her time and attention? For example:
1) Creationism
2) UFOs/aliens
3) Evolution
4) Political conservatism
5) Political liberalism
6) Feminism
7) Environmentalism
Of course, I would be far more interested in actually hearing what
*you* feel you could do best. To offer a fair test would necessarily
mean allowing you to put on your best show.
>Please- you need me if you wish to keep agendas
>spinning- I do NOT need the lot of you to continue doing what I do. I
>was born at noon, but not YESTERDAY noon:-)
> It is humorous watching you all try to aggravate me into responding to
>nonsense as a last ditch effort to continue misinformed and incoherent
>assertions. To try to get the information you deparately need to build a
>straw man. Go read some books on it maybe that will give you some to
>work with.
> I know how the tests of significance are performed. I know how to set
>up experiments. I have access to data bases at the university I attend
>and the ability and knowledge to publish papers when I am ready and it
>is properly designed etc., I have friends in the psychology departments
>of a couple universities and many friends in the clinical psychology
>fields-some past clients-what in the heck would I need approval from a
>bunch of wackos on newsnet for?
You don't need approval. You are quite capable of conning clients out
of their money for the rest of your life and no one here can do
anything about it. You could leave now and spend years using your
talents to dupe others into launching you to higher and higher levels
of successful deception. BUT...you are here in a public forum, so
this is where we meet you to challenge the claims.
>PS Please remove alt.astrology.metapsych from future posts as I have
>done here. I will not be responding to anymore of these. There are
>astrology issues to clarify and discuss in a.a. There will be no tests
>and no Randi's. If he wants to learn astrology he can enroll in classes
>with the rest of the neophytes.
>Thanks
It is again clear that you are a coward and since you are not eager
to show your ability and make my $1000 plus Randi's $1,000,000 proving
it, a reasonable person has to conclude that not only can you not do
what you claim, but that you know you cannot.
Even if astrology *is* real, you have given very good reason to
suspect that *you* are a fraud and incapable of anything but
persuasion.
Run away now with your escape clauses and exemptions, but realize
that you lose by default. Artful and arrogant default... but default
nonetheless.
Brant
Brant Watson
On 9 Jun 1997 02:45:14 +0200, pau...@electra.saaf.se (Paul Schlyter)
wrote:
<snip>
Sounds like it would be an interesting and workable test. Perhaps
someone will agree to it.
There is an important point though, which I feel needs to be
reiterated. If someone really believes he can do this kind of thing,
what better place to get a reputation than right here on the internet?
If it can be done online, it seems to me that astrologers, psychics,
numerologists, etc., all those who constantly claim they are being
picked on and harassed by skeptics, would be more than willing to
prove their claims and shut us all up.
Only those who seriously doubt their own ability or *know* they are
frauds would fight so hard against such demonstrations. They would
use other, more sympathetic routes to validation, like writing
articles for paranormalist publications or appealing to support from
those who already believe as they do. The intelligent ones know that
the only true confirmation of their claims *must* come from
skeptics...competent ones. Otherwise, they have proved nothing.
Prove it to the doubter in a conclusive, mutually agreeable test and
you have really proved something.
Brant
Lili4love
Brant writes:
Prove it to the doubter in a conclusive, mutually agreeable test and
you have really proved something.
Brant
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
scientifically speaking brant, "proven" is not appropriate.... nothing is
scientifically proven. ideas may or may not be substatiated based on
numerous factors... methodology, statistical analysis, and most
importantly, interpretation of "data"... see my other post to you about
your reticence.
peace,
lili
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
This post made me laugh-sorry I must use it! Please allow me this once
for fun K?
> On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:12:31 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
> <snip>
> >You suspect wrong as usual, the reason there is no need to even answer
> >these posts anymore is because I accurately defined the parameters of
> >the issues from the beginning.
> No. You are the one who struggles with definitions...and
> interpretations, and nuances, and parameters, and qualifications, and
> sophistical gibberish, etc., etc., etc. My goal, at least, is quite
> simple and direct, immune to the intensive obfuscation upon which you
> are totally dependent. I have asked you to respond to a test and have
> offered you $1000 if you can do either of the two things you claim.
> You are insistent on avoiding accountability to a skeptical audience
> in a public forum by alternately using three standard dodges:
Meaning I can't confuse you and make you do things you are far to wise
to fall for.
I counsel person's far more clever than you Mr. Brant.
> 1) claiming that others are not qualified to determine if you can do
> as you claim.
Which means I can't get around this and you are frustrating me so I
attack that which I cannot overcome.
> 2) setting massive smoke screens of irrelevant pseudo-philosophical
> gibberish.
Meaning I don't understand as much as you so I attack that to attempt to
demean it and remove the obvious power it has. Studies have shown that
pessimistic people do not succeed as readily as optimistic-perhaps
cynics failure can be attributed to that?
> 3) asserting that you are quite capable of evaluating your claims on
> your own.
Which means I can't verify it, so I can't try to control you with
propogandic tests that aren't even accepted as academically sound so I
cry instead of learning the subject like any other academically taught
or worthwhile subject of study on the planet. I am a spin doctor and you
have swiped my scalpel.
> > And all the lot of you do is continue to
> >struggle with definitions because you know you must define what
> >astrology is before you can even dream up tests-which proves the
> >accuracy of my assertion that you cannot critique or analyse something
> >you are ignorant of.
> Astrology has been defined to the point necessary to test it.
Meaning if I can trick everyone into spinning it this way they will
(hopefully) ignore the fact that I am completely ignorant of the subject
I seek to refute. I will then not look as biased and obviously NOT
scientific as I really am.
> You
> have also made specific claims of your abilities...claims which do not
> require any special expertise to understand or evaluate. If such
> expertise were required, then your astrological contributions would be
> useless to anyone else.
Meaning I can't accept the fact that person's with Ph.D's in all sorts
of paradigms not only accept astrology as a valid subject for study, but
come to astrologer's such as you to assist themselves in awareness
enhancement and I won't accept it until you succumb to my silly demands
on newsnet. The "true" test of significance!:-))))
> You have claimed that you can determine one's beliefs from his natal
> chart. Easy to test.
Meaning if YOU can't control it and test it-it hasn't been tested.
> You have claimed that you can predict domestic violence from
> astrological data. Easy to test.
I have NEVER said that!!!!!!!!!Easy to refute. The records are there.
Which once again proves the extent of the lack of integrity of negative
spin doctors with agendas and bias such as you are capable of. Once
again-I am holding the scalpel-you guys need to be careful you are
always cutting yourselves with it.
> Don't worry...nobody's going to ask you to perform any feat you
> don't claim you can perform. I can try to obtain birth charts for
> individuals who have committed acts of domestic violence. Then I can
> give you dates that each committed a major act of domestic violence.
> You have claimed that you can match these data. It's an easy and
> unambiguous test if I can actually get that kind of data to work with.
> What special knowledge of astrology does one need in order to count
> your correct responses?
Meaning "please Mr. Wollmann you are so important and powerful for us if
we don't knock you down a peg we will forever have difficulty sleeping
at night!!!" :-)))))))))
Snipped shameful test begging.
> >Please- you need me if you wish to keep agendas
> >spinning- I do NOT need the lot of you to continue doing what I do. I
> >was born at noon, but not YESTERDAY noon:-)
> > It is humorous watching you all try to aggravate me into responding to
> >nonsense as a last ditch effort to continue misinformed and incoherent
> >assertions. To try to get the information you deparately need to build a
> >straw man. Go read some books on it maybe that will give you some to
> >work with.
> > I know how the tests of significance are performed. I know how to set
> >up experiments. I have access to data bases at the university I attend
> >and the ability and knowledge to publish papers when I am ready and it
> >is properly designed etc., I have friends in the psychology departments
> >of a couple universities and many friends in the clinical psychology
> >fields-some past clients-what in the heck would I need approval from a
> >bunch of wackos on newsnet for?
> You don't need approval. You are quite capable of conning clients out
> of their money for the rest of your life and no one here can do
> anything about it. You could leave now and spend years using your
> talents to dupe others into launching you to higher and higher levels
> of successful deception. BUT...you are here in a public forum, so
> this is where we meet you to challenge the claims.
Meaning the person's you counsel are not real people with minds of their
own and any ability what so ever to determine "truth" as good as little
old "Brant the newsnet spin doctor who knows 0 about the subject"? And
they are not part of the public like the "real" public here on
newsnet!:-)))))))
> >PS Please remove alt.astrology.metapsych from future posts as I have
> >done here. I will not be responding to anymore of these. There are
> >astrology issues to clarify and discuss in a.a. There will be no tests
> >and no Randi's. If he wants to learn astrology he can enroll in classes
> >with the rest of the neophytes.
> >Thanks
> It is again clear that you are a coward and since you are not eager
> to show your ability and make my $1000 plus Randi's $1,000,000 proving
> it, a reasonable person has to conclude that not only can you not do
> what you claim, but that you know you cannot.
Meaning if I try to use typical egoistic "I know you are but what am
I's" resembling the level of Pee Wee Herman's- and you reject that
because you are not intimidated by those of obvious less competency than
you-and that service is given and you trust and know what you are
doing-then I cannot control you like those of weaker wills and minds and
you remove all power from my ability to construct these straw man tests
in the way I wish to spin it the WAY I wish- and cannot therefore
passify my fearful bias and attempts to control things I know nothing
about, which allows me to remain cynical and hope everyone else ignores
that.
Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
and
sarcasm.
> Even if astrology *is* real, you have given very good reason to
> suspect that *you* are a fraud and incapable of anything but
> persuasion.
Meaning here is my last ditch effort to aggravate you into doing what I
want to perpetuate my agenda and ignore the obvious value of paradigms
other than the ones I say MUST be the ONE.
> Run away now with your escape clauses and exemptions, but realize
> that you lose by default. Artful and arrogant default... but default
> nonetheless.
Meaning I cannot muster the magnanimity of and recognition of the value
of improving the human condition in any way but that which allows me to
feel secure but remain ignorant in my own little constricted world of
doubt and fear. And that this is a game of egos and I win.
"The disco hot was so mature for you-you can't concern yourself with
bigger things.." Asia "Heat of The Moment"
I have faith that the lot of you cynics can pull yourselves up by the
boostraps, muster some integrity and self respect and create a positive
reality and sense of service no matter how miserable you insist your
reality must be. You will be unable however, to have me as a pawn for
your negativity until this happens.
--
"What you are speaks so loudly, that I can't hear what you are saying."
Walt Whitman
Brant Watson
Please, for the sake of bandwidth, let's stop equivocating over the
word "proof." How many ways does an astrologer have of interpreting
all the evidence which shows that the earth is round? How much
statistical analysis is necessary to prove who won last year's World
Series? Your kind of argument is the reason OJ is playing golf today.
It might work in court with twelve pedestrians sitting in judgment,
but it doesn't work in science. Of course, you could always opt for
the religious approach as a road to truth.
You are simply trying to avoid accountability with semantic
arguments.
Brant
Brant Watson
On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 18:33:20 -0400, Avital Pilpel <ap...@columbia.edu>
wrote:
>Anne Chastain wrote:
>>
>
>>
>> Why are we continuing to attempt to justify the existence of our beliefs
>> through Science? Science is a valuable study that explains beautifully
>> the properies of the physical plane. Why can't we leave it where it
>> belongs? The issues of the spirit should not have to be subjected to a
>> test in the physical. I believe because I believe. I need no
>> scientific proof as my proof lies in my heart.
>
>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not completley
>_wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
>
>--
>Avital Pilpel.
Avital,
Apparently the heart is not particularly concerned with concepts
like "right" and "wrong." Neither are mirrors, multiverses,
omnitruths, higher dimensions, or the spirit. We brain people seem to
be the only ones still hung up on such trivialities. If we could only
*elevate* ourselves a little! BAD skeptics! BAD skeptics!
Brant
>mindspring.com
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:51:15 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
wrote:
> Please, for the sake of bandwidth, let's stop equivocating over the
>word "proof." How many ways does an astrologer have of interpreting
>all the evidence which shows that the earth is round? How much
>statistical analysis is necessary to prove who won last year's World
>Series? Your kind of argument is the reason OJ is playing golf today.
>It might work in court with twelve pedestrians sitting in judgment,
>but it doesn't work in science. Of course, you could always opt for
>the religious approach as a road to truth.
>
> You are simply trying to avoid accountability with semantic
>arguments.
>
> Brant
>
(1) I take responsibility for what I put out to people, because it can
have a large impact. It has for me and for others I've worked with.
(2) I have interpretations of each sun sign- negative and positive
qualities, characteristics, conscious and unconscious tendencies,
early life experiences, the type(s) of relationships each sign is
drawn to, and the challenges and issues for each- on my web site.
If you can read these definitions, and still have the opinion that
astrology is too vague, lame, or otherwise unusable, then I'll stop
talking to you about it.
Go to http://www.mindspring.com/~kizer, click on "On Line: Chapters
from Rebirthing for Life" and pick any sign, towards the bottom of the
table of contents.
(3) As far as proving something, I'm not interested in doing
statistics. There's a ton of research already out there. For you to
keep complaining that no one wants to submit to testing, and not be
willing yourself to read what's already been done, is like the pot
calling the kettle black. I can't take you seriously until you've
looked at something. You're not the first person to claim astrology
doesn't work.
For my part, I have a list of clients going back about 15 years, and I
believe most of them would express satisfaction or more. Sorry,
anecdotal evidence is as excited as I can get about this whole idea of
testing.
- - - - - - - -
Ken Kizer
ki...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~kizer
Anne Chastain
Avital Pilpel asked:
>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not >completley
My spirituality is not just an intellectual concept kept in my mind and
brought out for a little intellectual discussion once in a while. My
belief system is put into use everyday and it works FOR ME. I do not
propose that what I believe should or even could work for another. We
all have to chose our own path. If my system was wrong, it would not
work. I am happy with my life in most respects, I have good friends, a
happy marriage and I have few conflicts in my life. This to me is
sucess. When conflicts arise I have the skills to resolve them without
anger and animosity. Why should I change? If there is a fallacy in
this line of thinking, it is a functional delusion that appears to harm
none so why should I destroy it. Others may have conflicts that result
from my holding these beliefs but that conflict is theirs not mine and
they are the ones who need to resolve it, not me. If they need to
believe that I am blissfully ignorant in order to resolve their own
intellectual conflict with our differences, it is of no consequence to
me. I do not define my beliefs through their acceptance or approval.
Anne Chastain
Brant Watson
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 19:45:30 GMT, kizer@<remove>mindspring.com wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 04:51:15 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
>wrote:
>
>> Please, for the sake of bandwidth, let's stop equivocating over the
>>word "proof." How many ways does an astrologer have of interpreting
>>all the evidence which shows that the earth is round? How much
>>statistical analysis is necessary to prove who won last year's World
>>Series? Your kind of argument is the reason OJ is playing golf today.
>>It might work in court with twelve pedestrians sitting in judgment,
>>but it doesn't work in science. Of course, you could always opt for
>>the religious approach as a road to truth.
>>
>> You are simply trying to avoid accountability with semantic
>>arguments.
>>
>> Brant
>>
>(1) I take responsibility for what I put out to people, because it can
>have a large impact. It has for me and for others I've worked with.
Oh really? How much do you spend, annually, on astrological
malpractice insurance?
>(2) I have interpretations of each sun sign- negative and positive
>qualities, characteristics, conscious and unconscious tendencies,
>early life experiences, the type(s) of relationships each sign is
>drawn to, and the challenges and issues for each- on my web site.
>
>If you can read these definitions, and still have the opinion that
>astrology is too vague, lame, or otherwise unusable, then I'll stop
>talking to you about it.
I look forward to visiting your site.
>Go to http://www.mindspring.com/~kizer, click on "On Line: Chapters
>from Rebirthing for Life" and pick any sign, towards the bottom of the
>table of contents.
>
>(3) As far as proving something, I'm not interested in doing
>statistics. There's a ton of research already out there.
And all of it shows that astrology doesn't work.
>For you to
>keep complaining that no one wants to submit to testing, and not be
>willing yourself to read what's already been done, is like the pot
>calling the kettle black. I can't take you seriously until you've
>looked at something. You're not the first person to claim astrology
>doesn't work.
Nor am I going to be the last, unfortunately.
>For my part, I have a list of clients going back about 15 years, and I
>believe most of them would express satisfaction or more.
Yes, I believe that is probably true. So what? Once a bias is
established, it can stay for a long time, despite lots of
contradictory evidence. The evidence is ignored, even altered in the
mind, in order to sustain the belief. This is a well-known phenomenon
and fundamental to the success of astrology.
>Sorry,
>anecdotal evidence is as excited as I can get about this whole idea of
>testing.
Well it does seem that you have a motivation to leave it at that.
Brant
Brant Watson
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 09:39:30 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>This post made me laugh-sorry I must use it! Please allow me this once
>for fun K?
>
>> On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:12:31 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
>> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>> <snip>
>
>> >You suspect wrong as usual, the reason there is no need to even answer
>> >these posts anymore is because I accurately defined the parameters of
>> >the issues from the beginning.
>
>> No. You are the one who struggles with definitions...and
>> interpretations, and nuances, and parameters, and qualifications, and
>> sophistical gibberish, etc., etc., etc. My goal, at least, is quite
>> simple and direct, immune to the intensive obfuscation upon which you
>> are totally dependent. I have asked you to respond to a test and have
>> offered you $1000 if you can do either of the two things you claim.
>> You are insistent on avoiding accountability to a skeptical audience
>> in a public forum by alternately using three standard dodges:
>
>Meaning I can't confuse you and make you do things you are far to wise
>to fall for.
Confuse you? That's not my intent...never was. In fact, you seem
to be the one who benefits the most from confusing people. Back to my
breathholding analogy:
Ed: Using mystical powers I can hold my breath underwater
continuously for twelve hours.
Brant: Yeah, show me. I'll give you a K-note if you can do it.
Ed: Ahhhh...I'm far too wise to let you confuse me into
falling for *that* trick!
>I counsel person's far more clever than you Mr. Brant.
Just out of curiosity, what certification do you have, Mr. Ed, for
counseling anyone? Or is this just one of your ways of falsely
portraying yourself as some kind of legitimate professional?
In any case, just make sure you don't counsel anyone on the difference
between plural and possessive.
>
>> 1) claiming that others are not qualified to determine if you can do
>> as you claim.
>
>Which means I can't get around this and you are frustrating me so I
>attack that which I cannot overcome.
By your response, are you now saying that you are *not* doing this?
Are you actually attempting to make it look like you have not
*repeatedly* disqualified me from evaluating your claims? I have that
stupid quote almost memorized by now, as do most others who have been
following these conversations.
>> 2) setting massive smoke screens of irrelevant pseudo-philosophical
>> gibberish.
>
>Meaning I don't understand as much as you so I attack that to attempt to
>demean it and remove the obvious power it has. Studies have shown that
>pessimistic people do not succeed as readily as optimistic-perhaps
>cynics failure can be attributed to that?
No doubt there will be many who will be impressed by your gibberish.
It sounds pretty and makes those who *want* to believe you think you
are being so vast and profound. I'm just not one of them and I
recognize it for what it is. I've known all along that you would
always have the ability to say I just don't understand you and am not
functioning at your intellectual and spiritual level. I could do the
same if my intent was to deceive people. Pulling the wool over
people's eyes is not something I would take pride in...certainly not
something I would try to make a career out of.
>> 3) asserting that you are quite capable of evaluating your claims on
>> your own.
>
>Which means I can't verify it, so I can't try to control you with
>propogandic tests that aren't even accepted as academically sound so I
>cry instead of learning the subject like any other academically taught
>or worthwhile subject of study on the planet. I am a spin doctor and you
>have swiped my scalpel.
Of course I can't verify it. No one else has ever been able to
verify it under proper conditions, either. What's propagandistic
about a test upon which we mutually agree? I've learned the subject
to a reasonable degree in the absence of anyone's ability to
demonstrate observable causes, effects, or correlations. But once
again, it doesn't matter how much someone is able to crank out
fabricated assertions in order to test whether or not someone can do
what he claims. All I need to be able to do is count the number of
times you are able to match a birth date with some attribute which is
known in advance. I don't need to know anything at all about
automechanics to tell whether a mechanic has gotten my car running.
>> > And all the lot of you do is continue to
>> >struggle with definitions because you know you must define what
>> >astrology is before you can even dream up tests-which proves the
>> >accuracy of my assertion that you cannot critique or analyse something
>> >you are ignorant of.
>
>> Astrology has been defined to the point necessary to test it.
>
>Meaning if I can trick everyone into spinning it this way they will
>(hopefully) ignore the fact that I am completely ignorant of the subject
>I seek to refute. I will then not look as biased and obviously NOT
>scientific as I really am.
Twelve times in this post you respond to something I have said by
beginning with the words "Which means..." or "Meaning..." and then
restate, in your words, what you want people to think I'm *really*
saying. And here, you have accused *me* of spinning. That person was
right...this *was* a funny post.
If you are so good at translating meanings, why don't you do it with
your own psychobabble and astrolobabble? Well, I guess you can't
because wherever there *is* any meaning to your posts, it is mostly
incorrect, irrelevant, out of context, or purely fabricated. That
goes for almost all of your quoting as well.
Every time you dodge my challenge by attempting to discredit me, you
demonstrate the standard con man's ploy and discredit yourself
instead.
>> You
>> have also made specific claims of your abilities...claims which do not
>> require any special expertise to understand or evaluate. If such
>> expertise were required, then your astrological contributions would be
>> useless to anyone else.
>
>Meaning I can't accept the fact that person's with Ph.D's in all sorts
>of paradigms not only accept astrology as a valid subject for study, but
>come to astrologer's such as you to assist themselves in awareness
>enhancement and I won't accept it until you succumb to my silly demands
>on newsnet. The "true" test of significance!:-))))
Appeal to authority, so what? For any given form of nonsense one
can name, there is at least one PhD who believes in it. Would you
like to open up the academic consensus issue again, as it relates to
astrology?
But back to my original point since you seemed to have missed it.
You try to place astrology beyond the ability to test empirically, but
if it makes statements which can be understood by the average client,
then those statements can be tested. If a reading is so esoteric and
mystical that it can't be tested, then it can't be understood by the
client.
>> You have claimed that you can determine one's beliefs from his natal
>> chart. Easy to test.
>
>Meaning if YOU can't control it and test it-it hasn't been tested.
Well, I can't be anyone but me. I offered the $1000 to make it more
worth your while. Certainly Randi's $1,100,000 would be worth
*anyone's* while. The subject which would best be able to document
and catalog beliefs would be psychology. The ability to predict
beliefs based on one's time of birth would be a breakthrough of
monumental proportions in psychology. Psychology is also an academic
and clinical field which is well experienced in doing tests. Are you
saying that you have demonstrated this ability, under test conditions,
to a psychologist or team of experimental psychologists and had those
results published in a psychogical journal? If so, I'd be very
interested in the article, so can you direct me to it?
If you have presented your claims to other astrologers interested in
legitimizing astrology, and had it published in some astrological
journal, I should point out that none of these have been recognized as
legitimate by anyone except those who are in the business of promoting
the paranormal. This kind of success in the absence of skeptics is
worthless.
>
>> You have claimed that you can predict domestic violence from
>> astrological data. Easy to test.
>
>I have NEVER said that!!!!!!!!!Easy to refute. The records are there.
>Which once again proves the extent of the lack of integrity of negative
>spin doctors with agendas and bias such as you are capable of. Once
>again-I am holding the scalpel-you guys need to be careful you are
>always cutting yourselves with it.
I will go back and find your comments where you claimed that
astrology could be used in the prediction of domestic violence and how
you saw the connection between birth data and celestial alignments at
the time of acts of violence. If that was someone else or I have
misinterpreted this, I apologize. If it WAS you, you can be sure I'll
post it in this thread.
>> Don't worry...nobody's going to ask you to perform any feat you
>> don't claim you can perform. I can try to obtain birth charts for
>> individuals who have committed acts of domestic violence. Then I can
>> give you dates that each committed a major act of domestic violence.
>> You have claimed that you can match these data. It's an easy and
>> unambiguous test if I can actually get that kind of data to work with.
>> What special knowledge of astrology does one need in order to count
>> your correct responses?
>
>Meaning "please Mr. Wollmann you are so important and powerful for us if
>we don't knock you down a peg we will forever have difficulty sleeping
>at night!!!" :-)))))))))
First note that you did not answer my question. What special
knowledge does one need in order to count correct responses. (Does
anyone else get the idea that Ed's translations of my comments are
just another form of evasion?)
You are not so powerful or important to me, but you might be for
some other people. And if you can't do as you claim, it is not my
intention to knock you down a peg...it's my intention to flatten you.
:-)))))))))))))))
>Snipped shameful test begging.
Oh well, I guess we'll just let all those hundreds of people in the
NGs you posted this to, take your word that it was shameful. You
didn't seem inclined to snip anything else and considering the 2100
lines you recently posted to alt.astrology in four posts, one has to
wonder why you suddenly started snipping here.
Well whatever I know or do not know about the subject, you just showed
one more example of something I know and apparently you do not. It is
clear that you do not believe there is a decline in religious beliefs
and that people, in their attempt to feel special, will often do some
pretty bizarre things and will believe in anyone who gives them what
satisfies their emotional needs, even if it is bad for them...even if
it is lethal. Perhaps you are too young to remember Jonestown. Were
all 900 of those people stupid? What about Nazi Germany? Just
millions of dumb violent monsters all of a sudden? Yeah, people have
minds of their own and if one thing has proven consistent through
human history, they don't use them very well. Cons and frauds and
megalomaniacs have always existed and there have always been a few in
the wings trying to challenge them, generally unsuccessfully.
>> >PS Please remove alt.astrology.metapsych from future posts as I have
>> >done here. I will not be responding to anymore of these. There are
>> >astrology issues to clarify and discuss in a.a. There will be no tests
>> >and no Randi's. If he wants to learn astrology he can enroll in classes
>> >with the rest of the neophytes.
>> >Thanks
>
>> It is again clear that you are a coward and since you are not eager
>> to show your ability and make my $1000 plus Randi's $1,000,000 proving
>> it, a reasonable person has to conclude that not only can you not do
>> what you claim, but that you know you cannot.
>
>Meaning if I try to use typical egoistic "I know you are but what am
>I's" resembling the level of Pee Wee Herman's- and you reject that
>because you are not intimidated by those of obvious less competency than
>you-
I was the one who originally challenged you. It was your Hermanish
and irrelevant demand that I pass some kind of entrance test in order
to check out your claims. You are also the one who, on at least two
occasions, simply substituted words in something I said and bounced it
back at me. Those are your dumb tricks, not mine.
In this post, I was simply saying what I have said all along: I
challenge your claims and am willing to give you $1000 if you can do
what you say. Randi will give you a million. Boy, tell ya what, if
*I* could do what you say you can do, I wouldn't waste any time
performing for Randi because I could sure use a million bucks and the
world-wide fame of passing such a test would set me up for life.
>and that service is given and you trust and know what you are
>doing-then I cannot control you like those of weaker wills and minds and
>you remove all power from my ability to construct these straw man tests
It would not be a straw man test as you would be able to clarify and
negotiate all conditions before the test is conducted. By straw man,
I suppose you mean "invalid." That's a better word for someone like
yourself who claims to know so much about tests and experiments.
Neither of us would benefit in any way from a test that did not
measure what was intended...by both parties.
>in the way I wish to spin it the WAY I wish- and cannot therefore
>passify my fearful bias and attempts to control things I know nothing
>about, which allows me to remain cynical and hope everyone else ignores
>that.
No spins, Ed...that's your department, as you have demonstrated here
twelve times. Just a challenge.
>
>Cynic=a sneering faultfinder; one who disbelieves in the goodness of
>human motives, and who is given to displaying his disbelief by sneers
>and
>sarcasm.
>
>> Even if astrology *is* real, you have given very good reason to
>> suspect that *you* are a fraud and incapable of anything but
>> persuasion.
>
>Meaning here is my last ditch effort to aggravate you into doing what I
>want to perpetuate my agenda and ignore the obvious value of paradigms
>other than the ones I say MUST be the ONE.
Just covering my bases. For those who become too distracted by what
they perceive as my attack on astrology, I felt it was important that
such a test wouldn't disprove astrology, (*that* would be an invalid
conclusion), but it might prove you are a fraud. I'm sure other
astrologers would want to expose the fakes, right?
>> Run away now with your escape clauses and exemptions, but realize
>> that you lose by default. Artful and arrogant default... but default
>> nonetheless.
>
>Meaning I cannot muster the magnanimity of and recognition of the value
>of improving the human condition in any way but that which allows me to
>feel secure but remain ignorant in my own little constricted world of
>doubt and fear. And that this is a game of egos and I win.
I believe you do nothing with astrology to improve the human
condition. Of course, this is something I'm sure you are willing to
document.
Where ego is concerned, yes, you are quite a study. Reading your
posts, one gets the impression that you think you are some kind of
deity.
As for my world, there is doubt and that is what keeps me looking
for the truth. The only fear I have is what people like you do to
those who are altogether eager to put their trust in you...simply
because you convince them to by offering psychological placebos in the
guise of some kind of cosmic wizardry. You promote ignorance and
superstition and blind faith in assertions from authority. You
canonize yourself and exempt yourself from all challenges and
accountability. And you do it all for your own personal advancement,
probably with the conscious intention of spending your life conning
people out of their money.
My world...the real one...is quite a marvelous thing. I like it and
feel quite good about it. It is far less miraculous than most will
ever believe, far more wonderful than most will ever know.
>
>"The disco hot was so mature for you-you can't concern yourself with
>bigger things.." Asia "Heat of The Moment"
>
>I have faith that the lot of you cynics can pull yourselves up by the
>boostraps, muster some integrity and self respect and create a positive
>reality and sense of service no matter how miserable you insist your
>reality must be. You will be unable however, to have me as a pawn for
>your negativity until this happens.
And so I very positively say, "Show us, Ed."
Brant
>mindspring.com
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:54:01 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
wrote:
>Oh really? How much do you spend, annually, on astrological
>malpractice insurance?
Good question. I've spent nothing, so far, because I've not had this
come up with anyone.
> And all of it shows that astrology doesn't work.
(research)
The "sides" involved here keep bumping into this point. My wife, who
majored in anthropology before she gave that up and went into
metaphysics/astrology, pointed out a maxim she was taught- if it's
real in one's perception, it's real in one's experience (badly
quoted). I've noticed that to pretty much be the case for people.
And I'm willing to agree to disagree, because I'm not willing to fight
with people about it.
>Nor am I going to be the last, unfortunately.
Well, under the hype and sensationalized media coverage, I have a hard
time believing things really look that bad from the outside.
>>For my part, I have a list of clients going back about 15 years, and I
>>believe most of them would express satisfaction or more.
>Yes, I believe that is probably true. So what? Once a bias is
>established, it can stay for a long time, despite lots of
>contradictory evidence. The evidence is ignored, even altered in the
>mind, in order to sustain the belief. This is a well-known phenomenon
>and fundamental to the success of astrology.
Or any healing technique that deals with emotional imbalance. I don't
get that psychiatry or psychology is much different in how people use
it and how it affects them. I've gotten many comments that I covered
in one session what took years of therapy to accomplish.
In addition, I hear things now about how doctors are starting to
notice that a person's will to live can have as much impact as any
procedures they might use. If people believe alternative approaches
work better for them, they will probably have that experience (and
vice versa, obviously).
>>Sorry,
>>anecdotal evidence is as excited as I can get about this whole idea of
>>testing.
>Well it does seem that you have a motivation to leave it at that.
At first, I looked very hard for reasons to not go into astrology.
There is tremendous (sometimes unfounded) prejudice, largely based on
a small minority of "practitioners" who do rip people off.
If my mother, who is a fundamental Christian and thought I was going
to the devil, can come to a place of total comfort about my profession
(without compromising any of her beliefs), there must be something
valuable here. ALL healing modalities, regardless their basis, aim to
help people back to a state of balance. That's one of the major
reasons I stopped being concerned I was out of integrity (at least
concerning technique).
Keep asking them questions.
> Brant
Jim Rogers
kizer@ mindspring.com wrote:
...
> (3) As far as proving something, I'm not interested in doing
> statistics. There's a ton of research already out there.
Yes there is; are you aware of all the studies that have shown "no
significant effect beyond chance" to astrology? I have yet to see
controlled, repeatable tests published that show otherwise; if you know
of some, please cure our ignorance by citing them.
> For you to
> keep complaining that no one wants to submit to testing, and not be
> willing yourself to read what's already been done, is like the pot
> calling the kettle black.
Indeed; ironic of you to say so.
...
> For my part, I have a list of clients going back about 15 years, and I
> believe most of them would express satisfaction or more. Sorry,
> anecdotal evidence is as excited as I can get about this whole idea of
> testing.
I commend your honesty in admitting this, anyway. I can't say much for
your scorn of statistics while making statistically-significant claims,
however.
Jim
Ann Shermann
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Please, for the sake of bandwidth, let's stop equivocating over the
> >>word "proof." How many ways does an astrologer have of interpreting
> >>all the evidence which shows that the earth is round? How much
> >>statistical analysis is necessary to prove who won last year's World
> >>Series? Your kind of argument is the reason OJ is playing golf today.
> >>It might work in court with twelve pedestrians sitting in judgment,
> >>but it doesn't work in science. Of course, you could always opt for
> >>the religious approach as a road to truth.
> >>
> >> You are simply trying to avoid accountability with semantic
> >>arguments.
> >>
> >> Brant
> >>
> >(1) I take responsibility for what I put out to people, because it can
> >have a large impact. It has for me and for others I've worked with.
>
> malpractice insurance?
I don't know about the rest of the world but I spend about $40,000 per
year -- the different between the amount of money I earn as an astrologer
and the amount I earned in the "real world" before.
> >(2) I have interpretations of each sun sign- negative and positive
> >qualities, characteristics, conscious and unconscious tendencies,
> >early life experiences, the type(s) of relationships each sign is
> >drawn to, and the challenges and issues for each- on my web site.
> >
> >If you can read these definitions, and still have the opinion that
> >astrology is too vague, lame, or otherwise unusable, then I'll stop
> >talking to you about it.
>
> I look forward to visiting your site.
>
> >Go to http://www.mindspring.com/~kizer, click on "On Line: Chapters
> >from Rebirthing for Life" and pick any sign, towards the bottom of the
> >table of contents.
All sound and fury signifying ....
> >
> >(3) As far as proving something, I'm not interested in doing
> >statistics. There's a ton of research already out there.
>
> And all of it shows that astrology doesn't work.
Unless, of course, you actually talk to PEOPLE who have had their CHARTS
DONE! Then the numbers go to hell just like you hypotheses.
> >For you to
> >keep complaining that no one wants to submit to testing, and not be
> >willing yourself to read what's already been done, is like the pot
> >calling the kettle black. I can't take you seriously until you've
> >looked at something. You're not the first person to claim astrology
> >doesn't work.
>
> Nor am I going to be the last, unfortunately.
>
> >For my part, I have a list of clients going back about 15 years, and I
> >believe most of them would express satisfaction or more.
>
> Yes, I believe that is probably true. So what? Once a bias is
> established, it can stay for a long time, despite lots of
> contradictory evidence. The evidence is ignored, even altered in the
> mind, in order to sustain the belief. This is a well-known phenomenon
> and fundamental to the success of astrology.
Oh, good, you are one of those who claim that "people don't KNOW their
own reaity," right? We have a say in Texas for that, it's called the
malorderous product of bovine digestion.
> >Sorry,
> >anecdotal evidence is as excited as I can get about this whole idea of
> >testing.
>
> Well it does seem that you have a motivation to leave it at that.
>
> Brant
Post your birthdata or get thee gone.
Mitakuye oyasin,
Ann
>mindspring.com
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:36:10 -0600, Jim Rogers
<jfr@fc{Remove/NoJunkMail}.hp.com> wrote:
>kizer@ mindspring.com wrote:
>...
>> (3) As far as proving something, I'm not interested in doing
>> statistics. There's a ton of research already out there.
>
>Yes there is; are you aware of all the studies that have shown "no
>significant effect beyond chance" to astrology? I have yet to see
>controlled, repeatable tests published that show otherwise; if you know
>of some, please cure our ignorance by citing them.
You might be right; you might be more aware of what's out there than
I. It hasn't been important because I didn't answer my questions about
the validity of astrology through statistical research, mine or
others. I saw it in use, both through my first teachers and their
students and clients, and in my own life. I realize this is anecdotal
evidence and is one thing that makes scientifically-oriented people
nuts, but there it is.
>> For you to
>> keep complaining that no one wants to submit to testing, and not be
>> willing yourself to read what's already been done, is like the pot
>> calling the kettle black.
>
>Indeed; ironic of you to say so.
The point being that it's sort of a standoff right now until both
sides agree to the terms of investigation. In my opinion, this is
largely because of the difference in approaches. I'm not trying to
resolve the valdity of astrology. I passed that threshold years ago-
people I didn't know kept blowing my socks off with the accuracy of
their insights and suggestions, in proportion to their skills with the
tool. My focus now is on the quality of insight I offer others.
And, yes, as a result of one person's experience with astrology
(mine), I tend to make blanket statements about how it could be
valuable for others. I don't hear much from those in the field about
how astrology has hurt them, unless they're stupid enough to stop at a
roadside madam. I see opinions expressed here that anyone seeking my
help is wasting their time and money, but I don't recall seeing anyone
posting actual negative experiences, at least in recent months.
>...
>> For my part, I have a list of clients going back about 15 years, and I
>> believe most of them would express satisfaction or more. Sorry,
>> anecdotal evidence is as excited as I can get about this whole idea of
>> testing.
>
>I commend your honesty in admitting this, anyway. I can't say much for
>your scorn of statistics while making statistically-significant claims,
>however.
I wouldn't call it scorn; it just bores me. If others are willing to
do it, wonderful: I'm lazy on that score. If I have made
"statistically-significant claims", I can stop. It's purely anecdotal
on my part; let's be clear about that.
I am willing to play with the testing thing if we can agree on
parameters. There's a new message in here somewhere to Brant that
spells a lot more of this out.
>Jim
Neal
Excuse me. Maybe I've misunderstood something here, but you see to me
to be exactly like that idio, er person, who shows up at the
pentocostal church on Sunday morning prime time, smack dat in the
middle of the healing, and says, 'Yeah! Right! Heal the
thaladamide(sp) dude without a hand, that's right, that one r-i-g-h-t
there, that's the one, head him, and I'll say <snicker, snicker, yuck,
yuck>, IT WAS A FAKE! He wasn't really missing a hand. I was set up.'
Dude, if you did that, I mean you went into that place and did that,
what would happen. Think about it. I'll wait.
Now here you are, throwing mud balls at the faithful. Are you really
so small that the oinly way you can feel important is by putting down
people who believe in something?
It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, misguided or straight on
target, they believe. Just who do you think you are to come in here
and try to tear down their belief?
I've been watching this thread for a while. The standard arguments
have been presented, by both sides, ad nauseum. Get a clue. Go play in
the street. When the trucks come, sit in the middle and wave by. Then
figure out how to come back and tell me which of the sides presented
was closest to correct.
In other words, he said while slipping into the Jamaciam dialect,
goway.
Jennifer Birkett
Brant Watson wrote:
>
> The intelligent ones know that
> the only true confirmation of their claims *must* come from
> skeptics...competent ones. Otherwise, they have proved nothing.
>
> you have really proved something.
>
> Brant
Hey Brant, I don't seek confirmation from you or anyone else of any
"claims," therefore I must be one of the dumb ones. Dumbo. I don't seek
to prove nuthin with you. Therefore I prove nothing. I don't care if
doubters don't believe me. I'm doubting all the time. The mensa have
rejected me because I'm a menstruating woman. And I no longer care very
much. But its still fun to confirm my caring. What is a skeptic? A tic
with skeps...a tic with spectacles...I wonder, would i really feel
fulfilled by having proved it to a skeptic? I'd rather empath with a
like-minded being. I guess there would be some kind of territorial
conceptual satisfaction with having "proven" myself. But it would be
like having a conceptual condem on. Intellectual barren. Infertile. The
dance of the futility goddess. Go go go boy! grok jen
Anne Chastain
Avital Pilpel wrote:
>
> In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not completley
> _wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
>
> --
> Avital Pilpel.
>
My beliefs are continually checked by their effectivness in my day to
day life. My spirituality is not a intellectual concept brought out
once in a while for a little philosophical debate. My spirituality is
the way I have chosen to live my life. I know that it is not "wrong"
because it is working. I have a good life that brings me joy. I have a
loving family, nice home and a good job. None of these things present
me with conflicts that I have been unable to resolve within the
framework of my spirituality as it exists. This is all the proof that I
need. If this makes me a deluded fool; I will simply focus on the joy
and lightness of spirit the fool represents. I am happy in my life and
if what I have seen about other philosophies is any indication....I will
stick with the one that I have chosen. If, at some later date, I come
across conflicts that I need new tools to resolve, I shall at that time
go in search of adjustments to my thinking. In the meantime "Don't fix
what ain't broke!"
Drakkus
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:54:00 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
wrote:
-On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:23 -0700, Anne Chastain
-<CHASTA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
-
->Avital Pilpel asked:
->>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not >completley
->_>wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
->
->My spirituality is not just an intellectual concept kept in my mind and
->brought out for a little intellectual discussion once in a while. My
->belief system is put into use everyday and it works FOR ME.
-
-"It works for me," is probably one of the most self-deceptive
-principles humans have ever invented.
And yet, without respecting it you become a missionary and an
inquisitor in the name of science.
<Brant> Burn, heretical believer, burn!
->I do not
->propose that what I believe should or even could work for another.
-
-But astrologers *do* propose this, and collectively make over a
-billion dollars a year from those they have been able to dupe.
True enough. That, my dear Brant, is crime, selling something that
doesn't exist to some poor credulous sap who desperately wants to
believe it. However, someone who has examined his options and decided
on what he likes best should remain free to follow that, despite
whether another group believes it or not, and even in spite of fact.
There are, after all, elements of the universe which are not Fact, but
are real concepts nonetheless. Do you deny the existence of Fiction,
especially as a vital component of the human mind and soul?
-> We
->all have to chose our own path. If my system was wrong, it would not
->work. I am happy with my life in most respects, I have good friends, a
->happy marriage and I have few conflicts in my life. This to me is
->sucess. When conflicts arise I have the skills to resolve them without
->anger and animosity. Why should I change?
-
- So far you haven't mentioned anything which has to do with
-astrology. How has astrology improved your life?
I believe he was implying that astrology was part of the "path" he
chose, and therefore, by association, improved his life.
->If there is a fallacy in
->this line of thinking, it is a functional delusion that appears to harm
->none so why should I destroy it.
-
- Because it harms a great many. The tendency to look for and find
-some cosmic or mystical connectedness leads people into cults, for one
-example. As you can see, this forum alone suggests astrology as an
-alternative to medical advice. How can you say it doesn't harm
-anyone? The belief systems you defend threaten out intellectual
-freedom, science, education, laws, and politics. It is a regression
-to the dark ages and fundamentally antithetical to the principles of
-liberty and democracy which ironically protect its dissemination
-throughout the media.
Actually, you are in turn advocating the destruction of this line of
thought, which, wrong or right, should not by any means be restricted.
Even an idea with little value or validity has merit in simply being
an idea, another ingredient in the vast stew of human thought. It can
only enhance the flavor.
- I just hate to see us go backwards after such hard-won
-accomplishments.
Ah, but we are only going backwards when we start restricting and
attempting to squelch ways of thinking.
->Others may have conflicts that result
->from my holding these beliefs but that conflict is theirs not mine and
->they are the ones who need to resolve it, not me. If they need to
->believe that I am blissfully ignorant in order to resolve their own
->intellectual conflict with our differences, it is of no consequence to
->me. I do not define my beliefs through their acceptance or approval.
-
- "Blissfully ignorant" is a pretty good description. You know the
-rest? "...then 'tis folly to be wise." I take my stand and say I
-will always choose the folly of wisdom. To each his own. You can
-believe in all the non-existent things you want. After all, bliss is
-man's greatest ambition, right?
No, Brant. Bliss is only a side-effect. What man desires is
satisfaction, completion, solidarity. To each his own, indeed.
Everyone ultimately receives that which his nature truly dictates as
his need: for you, perhaps, complete rationality. Or perhaps what you
ultimately desire is a perfect paradox, which is why you pursue logic
so ruthlessly.
- Brant, Logician Without Thought.
-Drakkus (Alan Zeni Jr.) -=-Posting from SOUTH AFRICA! WHOOHOO!!-=-
dra...@labyrinth.net
http:/www.zeni.com/drakkus
"I'm not a human, I just play one in real life."
G & G
Anne Chastain wrote:
>
> Avital Pilpel wrote:
> >
>
> > In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not completley
Beautiful statement. If it works for you, who cares! Your statement
could equally apply to folks who are non-spiritual. It is a beautiful
lifestyle that brings lots of joy and happiness and a sense of
accomplishment and well-being.
Avital Pilpel
Jennifer Birkett wrote:
>
> The mensa have
> rejected me because I'm a menstruating woman. And I no longer care very
> much.
What are you talking about?
> But its still fun to confirm my caring. What is a skeptic? A tic
> with skeps...a tic with spectacles...I wonder, would i really feel
> fulfilled by having proved it to a skeptic? I'd rather empath with a
> like-minded being. I guess there would be some kind of territorial
> conceptual satisfaction with having "proven" myself. But it would be
> like having a conceptual condem on. Intellectual barren. Infertile. The
> dance of the futility goddess. Go go go boy! grok jen
--
Jim Rogers
Drakkus wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:54:00 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
> -On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:23 -0700, Anne Chastain wrote:
> ->Avital Pilpel asked:
> ->>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not >completley
> ->_>wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
> ->My spirituality is not just an intellectual concept kept in my mind and
> ->brought out for a little intellectual discussion once in a while. My
> ->belief system is put into use everyday and it works FOR ME.
> -"It works for me," is probably one of the most self-deceptive
> -principles humans have ever invented.
> And yet, without respecting it you become a missionary and an
> inquisitor in the name of science.
Why should anyone "respect" utter nonsense? "It works for me" is a road
to cementing one's ignorance forever.
...
> ->I do not
> ->propose that what I believe should or even could work for another.
> -But astrologers *do* propose this, and collectively make over a
> -billion dollars a year from those they have been able to dupe.
> True enough. That, my dear Brant, is crime, selling something that
> doesn't exist to some poor credulous sap who desperately wants to
> believe it. However, someone who has examined his options and decided
> on what he likes best should remain free to follow that, despite
> whether another group believes it or not, and even in spite of fact.
Absolutely, and others have a perfect right to warn potential customers
that they'd be buying bunk. If anyone is determined to throw their
hard-earned money away on astrologers, psychic hotlines, lotteries, or
whatever, that's their business; but don't insist that everyone respect
as an intelligent selection that which is just plain stupid.
> There are, after all, elements of the universe which are not Fact, but
> are real concepts nonetheless.
And how would you know which "non-factual elements" are real?
> Do you deny the existence of Fiction,
> especially as a vital component of the human mind and soul?
It is a fact that humans invent fiction which has no necessary
connection to reality. Your point is...?
...
> - Because it harms a great many. The tendency to look for and find
> -some cosmic or mystical connectedness leads people into cults, for one
> -example. As you can see, this forum alone suggests astrology as an
> -alternative to medical advice. How can you say it doesn't harm
> -anyone? The belief systems you defend threaten out intellectual
> -freedom, science, education, laws, and politics. It is a regression
> -to the dark ages and fundamentally antithetical to the principles of
> -liberty and democracy which ironically protect its dissemination
> -throughout the media.
This forum has also entertained the notion of using astrology to help
women predict which potential spouses are prone to physical abusiveness,
which can be a life-threatening fallacy.
> Actually, you are in turn advocating the destruction of this line of
> thought, which, wrong or right, should not by any means be restricted.
No, he's advocating that astrologers do the conscientious thing and TEST
the relevance and accuracy of their art before relying on it to counsel
people on important decisions in their life.
> Even an idea with little value or validity has merit in simply being
> an idea, another ingredient in the vast stew of human thought. It can
> only enhance the flavor.
Provided you recognize what's speculative and not confuse it with
reality with simplistic "It works for me" mentality.
> - I just hate to see us go backwards after such hard-won
> -accomplishments.
> Ah, but we are only going backwards when we start restricting and
> attempting to squelch ways of thinking.
The facts of the matter are:
1) Astrology has purely mythological roots; there is no "science" to it
at all.
2) Astrology has been tested repeatedly and consistently fails to show
above-chance results.
3) Astrologers impugn tests in 2) as meaningless (without looking at
them) and make every imaginable rationalization to deny that meaningful
tests are even possible.
4) Astrologers hang everything on anecdotal "evidence" and justify
themselves with "it works for me," not realizing that "works" can be
posed as an objectively testable proposition (all you need to do is
scramble the time/location data and check if it "works" just as well,
with blind test protocols and objective choices).
5) There is a sizeable population of woefully undereducated people who
buy the first part of 4) above and patronize these (and other)
charlatans.
Now, given that this is how I picture the situation, what facts about
astrology as it exists in the world today am I supposed to "respect"? I
can respect its aesthetic merits and even the potential use of its
language in the discourse of psychological counselling, but that's not
the question at hand; the questions at hand are "does it work?" and
"should we care?" You seem to be trying to say that we shouldn't care; I
couldn't disagree with you more.
Jim
Brant Watson
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997 01:44:19 GMT, kizer@<remove>mindspring.com wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 11:36:10 -0600, Jim Rogers
><jfr@fc{Remove/NoJunkMail}.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>kizer@ mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>
>I passed that threshold years ago-
>people I didn't know kept blowing my socks off with the accuracy of
>their insights and suggestions, in proportion to their skills with the
>tool. My focus now is on the quality of insight I offer others.
>
Ken, I strongly recommend the book "Science and the Paranormal." You
might also try "Flim Flam," by James Randi. These books contain a
perspective on the mechanism of self-affirmation as it applies to a
number of fringe beliefs. My reading of skeptical literature has
shown many cases of how easy it is for us to be fooled by our
perceptions, especially when it comes to the highly subjective matter
of evaluating our own experiences.
Brant
Brant Watson
On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:49:52 GMT, dra...@labyrinth.net (Drakkus)
wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:54:00 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
>wrote:
>
>-On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:23 -0700, Anne Chastain
>-<CHASTA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>-
>->Avital Pilpel asked:
>->>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not >completley
>->_>wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
>->
>->My spirituality is not just an intellectual concept kept in my mind and
>->brought out for a little intellectual discussion once in a while. My
>->belief system is put into use everyday and it works FOR ME.
>-
>-"It works for me," is probably one of the most self-deceptive
>-principles humans have ever invented.
>
>And yet, without respecting it you become a missionary and an
>inquisitor in the name of science.
Only if someone wants to overdramatize for emotional effect. I
oppose the practice of astrology, hate to see people conned, and have
more than ample evidence to justify this view. Astrology has had its
chance and has failed. It does not deserve my respect. I will argue
against it and hope others will see why it is bogus. This is not some
form of persecution, as you imply.
><Brant> Burn, heretical believer, burn!
>
>->I do not
>->propose that what I believe should or even could work for another.
>-
>-But astrologers *do* propose this, and collectively make over a
>-billion dollars a year from those they have been able to dupe.
>
>True enough. That, my dear Brant, is crime, selling something that
>doesn't exist to some poor credulous sap who desperately wants to
>believe it.
It is important to mention here that it is *not* a crime. The
Weekly World News is more than ample evidence of that. And you have
just defined astrology to a tee.
>However, someone who has examined his options and decided
>on what he likes best should remain free to follow that, despite
>whether another group believes it or not, and even in spite of fact.
As much as I would like to see more strongly enforced charlatan
laws, these practices still fall mainly under civil law. As for
freedom of choice, I'm all for it...first amendment too, but implicit
in that liberty is the duty of knowledgeable, conscientious people to
point an accusing finger at the fakes of the world. Wherever fraud is
facilitated in a society because of its value for individual rights
and liberty, there must be those who speak out against the ones who
take advantage of that liberty to mislead and deceive others.
>There are, after all, elements of the universe which are not Fact, but
>are real concepts nonetheless. Do you deny the existence of Fiction,
>especially as a vital component of the human mind and soul?
Fiction is the word we use to describe things that are not real.
There's nothing wrong with fiction or imagination as long as they are
clearly lableled as such. When one represents fiction as real, we
have another word for that: lying.
>-> We
>->all have to chose our own path. If my system was wrong, it would not
>->work. I am happy with my life in most respects, I have good friends, a
>->happy marriage and I have few conflicts in my life. This to me is
>->sucess. When conflicts arise I have the skills to resolve them without
>->anger and animosity. Why should I change?
>-
>- So far you haven't mentioned anything which has to do with
>-astrology. How has astrology improved your life?
>
>I believe he was implying that astrology was part of the "path" he
>chose, and therefore, by association, improved his life.
>->If there is a fallacy in
>->this line of thinking, it is a functional delusion that appears to harm
>->none so why should I destroy it.
>-
>- Because it harms a great many. The tendency to look for and find
>-some cosmic or mystical connectedness leads people into cults, for one
>-example. As you can see, this forum alone suggests astrology as an
>-alternative to medical advice. How can you say it doesn't harm
>-anyone? The belief systems you defend threaten out intellectual
>-freedom, science, education, laws, and politics. It is a regression
>-to the dark ages and fundamentally antithetical to the principles of
>-liberty and democracy which ironically protect its dissemination
>-throughout the media.
>
>Actually, you are in turn advocating the destruction of this line of
>thought, which, wrong or right, should not by any means be restricted.
Legally speaking, your comment is debatable, since I believe an
astrologer should be liable for advice or information given. This
would have the natural consequence of discouraging lots of astrologers
from the practice. As for the *existence* of astrology, I would like
to see it die a natural death. This, of course, is not something that
can be legislated.
>Even an idea with little value or validity has merit in simply being
>an idea,
Merit? You're quibbling with terms here. Value and merit mean
essentially the same thing. Ideas with little value or validity have
little merit.
>another ingredient in the vast stew of human thought. It can
>only enhance the flavor.
>
>- I just hate to see us go backwards after such hard-won
>-accomplishments.
>
>Ah, but we are only going backwards when we start restricting and
>attempting to squelch ways of thinking.
A very New Age sentiment. Shirley MacLaine would be proud. Other
sentiments of the same genre include:
1) I have my truth and you have yours. (There is no objective
reality.)
2) All opinions are equally valid.
3) Anything is possible.
These ideas come from intellectual laziness and a misapplied sense
of democracy. Some ideas are destructive. Some are regressive.
There are many that should be abandoned because they are wrong and add
nothing to our experience. You seem to believe that the concept of
equal rights has some analog in the realm of natural ideas and
principles. We are not bettered by the quantity of ideas we are
willing to incorporate into our consciousnesses, but by the quality of
ideas. Astrology does not qualify for affirmative action.
>->Others may have conflicts that result
>->from my holding these beliefs but that conflict is theirs not mine and
>->they are the ones who need to resolve it, not me. If they need to
>->believe that I am blissfully ignorant in order to resolve their own
>->intellectual conflict with our differences, it is of no consequence to
>->me. I do not define my beliefs through their acceptance or approval.
>-
>- "Blissfully ignorant" is a pretty good description. You know the
>-rest? "...then 'tis folly to be wise." I take my stand and say I
>-will always choose the folly of wisdom. To each his own. You can
>-believe in all the non-existent things you want. After all, bliss is
>-man's greatest ambition, right?
>
>No, Brant. Bliss is only a side-effect. What man desires is
>satisfaction, completion, solidarity. To each his own, indeed.
>Everyone ultimately receives that which his nature truly dictates as
>his need: for you, perhaps, complete rationality. Or perhaps what you
>ultimately desire is a perfect paradox, which is why you pursue logic
>so ruthlessly.
And what do you get? A warm squishy feeling. A sense of
excitement. A feeling of importance or cosmic significance. How often
I see people who feel this is so important but they don't seem to give
a darn whether any of their beliefs are true or any of their feelings
based on things which exist. What satisfaction can one get from
believing in a lie?
Knowing a whole bunch of little truths is better that believing a
whole bunch of huge lies. But if there are those who disagree with
me, so be it. Just be aware that there will always be those who
expose the lies and myths despite others' need to believe in them.
Believing in something because it makes you feel good is a lousy
reason to believe something. Saying "it's true for me" is just a
simpler way of saying, "Because it makes me feel good, I can declare
anything true, whether it is or not, and believe in it."
>- Brant, Logician Without Thought.
>
>-Drakkus (Alan Zeni Jr.) -=-Posting from SOUTH AFRICA! WHOOHOO!!-=-
>dra...@labyrinth.net
>http:/www.zeni.com/drakkus
>"I'm not a human, I just play one in real life."
Alan, have you been following this thread? Do you really believe
there should be no one who opposes the use of astrological readings as
an alternative to traditional medical advice?
Brant
Brant Watson
On Sat, 14 Jun 1997 23:54:29 GMT, nea...@ix.netcom.com (Neal) wrote:
>
>
>Excuse me. Maybe I've misunderstood something here, but you see to me
>to be exactly like that idio, er person, who shows up at the
>pentocostal church on Sunday morning prime time, smack dat in the
>middle of the healing, and says, 'Yeah! Right! Heal the
>thaladamide(sp) dude without a hand, that's right, that one r-i-g-h-t
>there, that's the one, head him, and I'll say <snicker, snicker, yuck,
>yuck>, IT WAS A FAKE! He wasn't really missing a hand. I was set up.'
>
>Dude, if you did that, I mean you went into that place and did that,
>what would happen. Think about it. I'll wait.
It would show people that they were being conned and they would
react by protecting their beliefs in a predictably hostile manner.
Most of them, anyway. What's your point? I wish someone had gone
into the People's Temple and exposed Jim Jones while he was still here
in the U.S. (He used fakes and plants, too.) Perhaps then there might
have been some dissenters who wouldn't have gone to South America and
been among the 900 who killed themselves because Jones told them to.
Maybe if someone had exposed Manson or Koresh for the frauds they
were, other violence, death, and torture would never have occurred.
So let me see, on the basis of your sentiments expressed here, you
think all that stuff was good?
>Now here you are, throwing mud balls at the faithful. Are you really
>so small that the oinly way you can feel important is by putting down
>people who believe in something?
It is my hope that they can discover the real beauty and wonder of the
world, as I have, without having to believe in things which don't
exist or might even be harmful. If I am successful, I'll feel good
about it. If not, the people who have come in contact with me will go
on about their business as usual.
I put down demonstrably false beliefs in the hopes that some others
will see the truth...the objective external reality which *does*
exist. I also feel that the widespread acceptance of these beliefs
will be socially regressive and undermine the knowledge and progress
we have achieved. Like it or not, we are stuck in a world of high
technology and overpopulation. The problems of the future will not be
solved by witchdoctors, faith healers, and astrologers. Undermining
science and reason could prove disastrous.
If you still consider my reasons "small," then so be it.
>It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong, misguided or straight on
>target, they believe. Just who do you think you are to come in here
>and try to tear down their belief?
>
>I've been watching this thread for a while. The standard arguments
>have been presented, by both sides, ad nauseum. Get a clue. Go play in
>the street. When the trucks come, sit in the middle and wave by. Then
>figure out how to come back and tell me which of the sides presented
>was closest to correct.
>
>In other words, he said while slipping into the Jamaciam dialect,
>goway.
Thank you for you insightful comments, Neal.
Brant
Drakkus
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:52:13 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
wrote:
-On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:49:52 GMT, dra...@labyrinth.net (Drakkus)
-wrote:
-
->On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:54:00 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
->wrote:
->
->-On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:23 -0700, Anne Chastain
->-<CHASTA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
->-
->->Avital Pilpel asked:
->->>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not >completley
->->_>wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
->->
->->My spirituality is not just an intellectual concept kept in my mind and
->->brought out for a little intellectual discussion once in a while. My
->->belief system is put into use everyday and it works FOR ME.
->-
->-"It works for me," is probably one of the most self-deceptive
->-principles humans have ever invented.
->
->And yet, without respecting it you become a missionary and an
->inquisitor in the name of science.
-
- Only if someone wants to overdramatize for emotional effect. I
-oppose the practice of astrology, hate to see people conned, and have
-more than ample evidence to justify this view. Astrology has had its
-chance and has failed. It does not deserve my respect. I will argue
-against it and hope others will see why it is bogus. This is not some
-form of persecution, as you imply.
You appeared, in the article I replied to, to be advocating the death
of astrology as an option for others. My point was that you have no
right to remove anyone else's option for belief. I wasn't arguing
astrology or anti-astrology so much as I was arguing against your
assumption that you can dictate belief beyond your own mind.
-><Brant> Burn, heretical believer, burn!
->
->->I do not
->->propose that what I believe should or even could work for another.
->-
->-But astrologers *do* propose this, and collectively make over a
->-billion dollars a year from those they have been able to dupe.
->
->True enough. That, my dear Brant, is crime, selling something that
->doesn't exist to some poor credulous sap who desperately wants to
->believe it.
-
- It is important to mention here that it is *not* a crime. The
-Weekly World News is more than ample evidence of that. And you have
-just defined astrology to a tee.
It is a crime in my eyes.
->However, someone who has examined his options and decided
->on what he likes best should remain free to follow that, despite
->whether another group believes it or not, and even in spite of fact.
-
- As much as I would like to see more strongly enforced charlatan
-laws, these practices still fall mainly under civil law. As for
-freedom of choice, I'm all for it...first amendment too, but implicit
-in that liberty is the duty of knowledgeable, conscientious people to
-point an accusing finger at the fakes of the world. Wherever fraud is
-facilitated in a society because of its value for individual rights
-and liberty, there must be those who speak out against the ones who
-take advantage of that liberty to mislead and deceive others.
Indeed. I was not debating that. I was objecting to the implication
that you may dictate others' beliefs. Argue as much as you like, make
valid points, but don't presume to command and think that I, at least,
will stand by without objection.
->There are, after all, elements of the universe which are not Fact, but
->are real concepts nonetheless. Do you deny the existence of Fiction,
->especially as a vital component of the human mind and soul?
-
- Fiction is the word we use to describe things that are not real.
-There's nothing wrong with fiction or imagination as long as they are
-clearly lableled as such. When one represents fiction as real, we
-have another word for that: lying.
It only becomes a lie because you default to defining it as one. I was
merely illustrating the paradox between the human mind's belief in and
need for the unreal and that same mind's inability to maintain the
irrational. As opposed to you, who are determined to extinguish your
belief in the unreal, I seek to recognize my paradox and still
maintain it. Call it a Thighmaster for the brain.
->-> We
->->all have to chose our own path. If my system was wrong, it would not
->->work. I am happy with my life in most respects, I have good friends, a
->->happy marriage and I have few conflicts in my life. This to me is
->->sucess. When conflicts arise I have the skills to resolve them without
->->anger and animosity. Why should I change?
->-
->- So far you haven't mentioned anything which has to do with
->-astrology. How has astrology improved your life?
->
->I believe he was implying that astrology was part of the "path" he
->chose, and therefore, by association, improved his life.
-
->->If there is a fallacy in
->->this line of thinking, it is a functional delusion that appears to harm
->->none so why should I destroy it.
->-
->- Because it harms a great many. The tendency to look for and find
->-some cosmic or mystical connectedness leads people into cults, for one
->-example. As you can see, this forum alone suggests astrology as an
->-alternative to medical advice. How can you say it doesn't harm
->-anyone? The belief systems you defend threaten out intellectual
->-freedom, science, education, laws, and politics. It is a regression
->-to the dark ages and fundamentally antithetical to the principles of
->-liberty and democracy which ironically protect its dissemination
->-throughout the media.
->
->Actually, you are in turn advocating the destruction of this line of
->thought, which, wrong or right, should not by any means be restricted.
-
-Legally speaking, your comment is debatable, since I believe an
-astrologer should be liable for advice or information given. This
-would have the natural consequence of discouraging lots of astrologers
-from the practice. As for the *existence* of astrology, I would like
-to see it die a natural death. This, of course, is not something that
-can be legislated.
I wasn't speaking legally, but morally. I forgive you for thinking I
was referring to law, since I wasn't clear on the point.
I think we stand in the same position on astrology. Whatever pagan or
religious value the study of the stars may once have had is now lost
somewhere under Dion Warwick's fat ass.
->Even an idea with little value or validity has merit in simply being
->an idea,
-
- Merit? You're quibbling with terms here. Value and merit mean
-essentially the same thing. Ideas with little value or validity have
-little merit.
You're right, I should have left value out. I tend to alliterate
without thinking about it. Belles-lettres, y'know. Putting together
words is an art in itself, one that I am, regrettably, still learning.
The occasional sacrifice of accuracy is made, unconsciously, in some
of my posts. Please disregard it in the future and put it down to the
influence of my soul, which belonged to a bad poet in a former life.
As to ideas having little value because they are invalid...well, I'll
deal with that down where you accuse me of being, sin of sins, a New
Ager.
->another ingredient in the vast stew of human thought. It can
->only enhance the flavor.
->
->- I just hate to see us go backwards after such hard-won
->-accomplishments.
->
->Ah, but we are only going backwards when we start restricting and
->attempting to squelch ways of thinking.
-
- A very New Age sentiment. Shirley MacLaine would be proud. Other
-sentiments of the same genre include:
I am a New Age thinker, Brant. I'm a pagan, a Ceremonial Magickian.
Candles, incense, gods, goddesses. I honestly don't care if that makes
you so pissed off you spit urine. It's what I am and dammit, I won't
let you portray it as wrong.
For that matter, now that you know what I am, let's have no little
attempts at being superior to one another because of it. You can't
play the logical snob and I can't play the mystical one.
If it comes down to it, though, I have to retain my right to aesthetic
and intellectual snobbishness, which includes but is not limited to:
a. Quoting or referring to obscure writers, artists, and musicians.
b. Using a vast vocabulary and doing so wrong at least a quarter of
the time.
c. A condescending attitude when pointing out some small hole in
either your thinking or your knowledge, or when showing off my own.
I cannot:
a. Claim the Gods have not shown themselves to you.
b. Act or speak from pity of the poor, unenlightened materialist.
c. Make any pointed comments about "materialism", "close-mindedness",
or "limited understanding".
d. Imply the existence of "forces", "powers", aliens, or anything else
whose reality lies in the realm of speculation only.
These are the rules I set for myself. If we continue to debate, I
would like you to provide similar ones for yourself so that we can
maintain a certain amount of dignity without resorting to overdone and
pointless tactics.
-1) I have my truth and you have yours. (There is no objective
-reality.)
I don't believe in this one, Brant. I feel that there is no subjective
truth. However, as with law, different parts apply to different people
at different times, depending.
This as opposed to belief, which is equally valid but always
subjective.
-2) All opinions are equally valid.
I do believe in this one, mainly because of what would happen without
it. Some idiot would come up with the idea that only HIS opinions are
valid, and it'd go downhill from there.
-3) Anything is possible.
Fanciful or not, I believe in this one simply because it fits with the
part of my mind where my emotions reside. Furthermore, it provides me
with the emotion of hope...and dammit, Brant...I'm a writer. I have to
believe anything is possible because when I believe it, I can see it
in my mind and put it down on paper for you to take off the bookshelf
and lose yourself in. Discount it if you like, hell, don't read it if
you like, but if people didn't need it, they wouldn't buy it.
- These ideas come from intellectual laziness and a misapplied sense
-of democracy.
I know what democracy is, and the ideas do NOT come from intellectual
laziness, at least on my part. You're being condescending and
offensive, and accomplishing little.
-Some ideas are destructive. Some are regressive.
Indeed. But they serve the purpose of providing something to oppose,
and that, Brant, is vital. Ours is a species whose history is a
near-continuous war, first with nature, then with each other, and now
we turn inward. Without an enemy of some kind before us, our society
is growing mad.
-There are many that should be abandoned because they are wrong and add
-nothing to our experience. You seem to believe that the concept of
-equal rights has some analog in the realm of natural ideas and
-principles.
No, I do not. I believe that the growth of every idea should be
encouraged because it serves a vital purpose, not because ideas have
some inherant right. You're attempting to twist what I say to give
yourself the advantage, causing me to spend most of my post on the
defensive. Congratulations.
Ideas should be abandoned as they die naturally, of course. I wouldn't
be one to encourage keeping a silly idea on life support artificially,
or a good idea, for that matter. What I oppose is killing ideas before
then.
-We are not bettered by the quantity of ideas we are
-willing to incorporate into our consciousnesses, but by the quality of
-ideas. Astrology does not qualify for affirmative action.
You're missing the point so completely in that last sentence that I'm
not even going to bother with it. As for the first....
Perhaps it is not the quantity that betters us, but it is the device
by which we obtain the good ideas that do. It is our fate, I fear, to
draw our diamonds from the garbage heap. Think where we'd be with
neither trash nor gem.
->->Others may have conflicts that result
->->from my holding these beliefs but that conflict is theirs not mine and
->->they are the ones who need to resolve it, not me. If they need to
->->believe that I am blissfully ignorant in order to resolve their own
->->intellectual conflict with our differences, it is of no consequence to
->->me. I do not define my beliefs through their acceptance or approval.
->-
->- "Blissfully ignorant" is a pretty good description. You know the
->-rest? "...then 'tis folly to be wise." I take my stand and say I
->-will always choose the folly of wisdom. To each his own. You can
->-believe in all the non-existent things you want. After all, bliss is
->-man's greatest ambition, right?
->
->No, Brant. Bliss is only a side-effect. What man desires is
->satisfaction, completion, solidarity. To each his own, indeed.
->Everyone ultimately receives that which his nature truly dictates as
->his need: for you, perhaps, complete rationality. Or perhaps what you
->ultimately desire is a perfect paradox, which is why you pursue logic
->so ruthlessly.
-
- And what do you get? A warm squishy feeling. A sense of
-excitement. A feeling of importance or cosmic significance. How often
-I see people who feel this is so important but they don't seem to give
-a darn whether any of their beliefs are true or any of their feelings
-based on things which exist. What satisfaction can one get from
-believing in a lie?
You're not a sensualist, I take it. If not the "warm, squishy
feeling", what can we pursue? Truth? Fact? Understanding? You sound
like a Star Trek episode.
I'd advise you to quit orgasming to the fantasy of the final frontier
and get down to simply satisfying yourself, to looking for that warm,
squishy feeling. It's all you've got, in the end.
- Knowing a whole bunch of little truths is better that believing a
-whole bunch of huge lies. But if there are those who disagree with
-me, so be it. Just be aware that there will always be those who
-expose the lies and myths despite others' need to believe in them.
Indeed, and it will change not a thing. If you thought there were a
point to all this arguing and debunking and disproving, you would have
despaired by now. We all know what these arguments really are: a way
to pass the time until we've got something better to do.
And your little truths may indeed be just your way of achieving that
warm fuzzy feeling. It's only the sensations that count in material
life. Don't jump on me for distinguishing life as being material,
either. I'm trying to be neutral by simply adding an adjective for my
sake and nothing else for yours.
- Believing in something because it makes you feel good is a lousy
-reason to believe something. Saying "it's true for me" is just a
-simpler way of saying, "Because it makes me feel good, I can declare
-anything true, whether it is or not, and believe in it."
Congratulations! You finally understand. I was beginning to despair.
Just quit associating that last comment of yours with that odius "it's
true for me" shit.
->- Brant, Logician Without Thought.
->
->-Drakkus (Alan Zeni Jr.) -=-Posting from SOUTH AFRICA! WHOOHOO!!-=-
->dra...@labyrinth.net
->http:/www.zeni.com/drakkus
->"I'm not a human, I just play one in real life."
-
-Alan, have you been following this thread? Do you really believe
-there should be no one who opposes the use of astrological readings as
-an alternative to traditional medical advice?
I just read the post I replied to, Brant. If you read over my initial
reply again, you'll note that I said no such thing.
I encourage the opposition as strongly as the idea, since both help
disorder and creative chaos to grow.
Drakkus
On Thu, 19 Jun 1997 04:52:13 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
wrote:
-On Mon, 16 Jun 1997 21:49:52 GMT, dra...@labyrinth.net (Drakkus)
-wrote:
-
->On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:54:00 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
->wrote:
->
->-On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:23 -0700, Anne Chastain
->-<CHASTA...@prodigy.net> wrote:
->-
->->Avital Pilpel asked:
->->>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not >completley
->->_>wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
->->
->->My spirituality is not just an intellectual concept kept in my mind and
->->brought out for a little intellectual discussion once in a while. My
->->belief system is put into use everyday and it works FOR ME.
->-
->-"It works for me," is probably one of the most self-deceptive
->-principles humans have ever invented.
->
->And yet, without respecting it you become a missionary and an
->inquisitor in the name of science.
-
- Only if someone wants to overdramatize for emotional effect. I
-oppose the practice of astrology, hate to see people conned, and have
-more than ample evidence to justify this view. Astrology has had its
-chance and has failed. It does not deserve my respect. I will argue
-against it and hope others will see why it is bogus. This is not some
-form of persecution, as you imply.
You appeared, in the article I replied to, to be advocating the death
of astrology as an option for others. My point was that you have no
right to remove anyone else's option for belief. I wasn't arguing
astrology or anti-astrology so much as I was arguing against your
assumption that you can dictate belief beyond your own mind.
-><Brant> Burn, heretical believer, burn!
->
->->I do not
->->propose that what I believe should or even could work for another.
->-
->-But astrologers *do* propose this, and collectively make over a
->-> We
->->all have to chose our own path. If my system was wrong, it would not
->->work. I am happy with my life in most respects, I have good friends, a
->->happy marriage and I have few conflicts in my life. This to me is
->->sucess. When conflicts arise I have the skills to resolve them without
->->anger and animosity. Why should I change?
->-
->- So far you haven't mentioned anything which has to do with
->-astrology. How has astrology improved your life?
->
->I believe he was implying that astrology was part of the "path" he
->chose, and therefore, by association, improved his life.
-
->->If there is a fallacy in
->->this line of thinking, it is a functional delusion that appears to harm
->->none so why should I destroy it.
->-
->- Because it harms a great many. The tendency to look for and find
->another ingredient in the vast stew of human thought. It can
->only enhance the flavor.
->
I cannot:
-3) Anything is possible.
->->Others may have conflicts that result
->->from my holding these beliefs but that conflict is theirs not mine and
->->they are the ones who need to resolve it, not me. If they need to
->->believe that I am blissfully ignorant in order to resolve their own
->->intellectual conflict with our differences, it is of no consequence to
->->me. I do not define my beliefs through their acceptance or approval.
->-
->- "Blissfully ignorant" is a pretty good description. You know the
Just quit associating that last comment of yours with that odius "it's
true for me" shit.
->- Brant, Logician Without Thought.
->
->-Drakkus (Alan Zeni Jr.) -=-Posting from SOUTH AFRICA! WHOOHOO!!-=-
->dra...@labyrinth.net
->http:/www.zeni.com/drakkus
->"I'm not a human, I just play one in real life."
-
-Alan, have you been following this thread? Do you really believe
-there should be no one who opposes the use of astrological readings as
-an alternative to traditional medical advice?
I just read the post I replied to, Brant. If you read over my initial
reply again, you'll note that I said no such thing.
I encourage the opposition as strongly as the idea, since both help
disorder and creative chaos to grow.
-Drakkus (Alan Zeni Jr.) -=-Posting from SOUTH AFRICA! WHOOHOO!!-=-
John Reder
As far as any challenge you making about the validity of astrology. I
proposed before and will propose again, that in finding verifiable
events, for know personalities, that can be readily confirmed, (not Joe
Schmoe in Parma, Ohio), I could go along with that challenge.
Unfortunately, you did not see fit to respond, therefore, we must
assume that if you do not get to have total control over the results of
judgment, you don't want to play.
I can guarantee that there are any number of people who would accept a
valid verifiable challenge with an unbiased arbitrator. I assume that
some have also proposed such a situation, but like me, have not been
taken up on it. We are willing to get up to bat, but it seems you want
to be pitcher and umpire or you won't take the field.
--
******When replying by email, remove mass******
******mail blocking X from return address******
John Reder (jre...@tiac.net)
Brant Watson
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 18:57:44 GMT, kizer@<remove>mindspring.com wrote:
<snip>
>In addition, I hear things now about how doctors are starting to
>notice that a person's will to live can have as much impact as any
>procedures they might use. If people believe alternative approaches
>work better for them, they will probably have that experience (and
>vice versa, obviously).
That's called a placebo.
Brant
Brant Watson
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 23:55:29 -0700, Ann Shermann
<awal...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Brant Watson wrote:
>>
>> Oh really? How much do you spend, annually, on astrological
>> malpractice insurance?
>
>
>I don't know about the rest of the world but I spend about $40,000 per
>year -- the different between the amount of money I earn as an astrologer
>and the amount I earned in the "real world" before.
That is very interesting. What insurance company underwrites that
policy?
<snip>
>> And all of it shows that astrology doesn't work.
>
>
>Unless, of course, you actually talk to PEOPLE who have had their CHARTS
>DONE! Then the numbers go to hell just like you hypotheses.
Why can't y'all understand why a person's own impression of a
reading is probably very unreliable? Readings are done in such a way
as to allow the client to fill in details in his/her mind, ignore
misses, consider vague generalizations to be direct hits, and even
accept a statement on the premise that he or she didn't know it but
the astrologer did. It's the magician's game of making someone think
they saw something that wasn't really there.
Several tests have shown that someone who wants to believe in a
reading will give very high accuracy ratings to readings which are not
from their birth data...consistently. Doesn't this tell you
something? How can someone consider that this kind of mental
manipulation is more reliable than carefully conducted tests of data
which show no effects, no correlations, and no ability for astrologers
to do better than chance. The rational conclusion is that the
astrologer conducts the session in such a way as to influence, not
inform, the client and the client, wanting to believe in it,
unwittingly gets gets misled at every step along the way. *That* is
what one should conclude from the evidence.
<snip>
>Oh, good, you are one of those who claim that "people don't KNOW their
>own reaity," right? We have a say in Texas for that, it's called the
>malorderous product of bovine digestion.
>
To some degree, yes. To a greater degree, it is their inability to
see how certain statements could apply to just about anybody. To an
even greater degree it is the astrologer's ability to glean
information without the client being aware of it. It is also due to
the astrologer's skill in making statements which are wrong but are
forgotten by the client. (The most common way of doing this is to put
the statement in the form of a question. If the answer is yes, the
astrologer has scored a big hit. If the answer is no, it is forgotten
because the astrologer made no commitment to it...he she was just
inquiring about something.) And finally it is due to confirmation
bias.
Brant
Brant Watson
On Sun, 15 Jun 1997 00:19:18 -0700, Jennifer Birkett
<msgu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
<snip>
>Hey Brant, I don't seek confirmation from you or anyone else of any
>"claims," therefore I must be one of the dumb ones. Dumbo. I don't seek
>to prove nuthin with you. Therefore I prove nothing. I don't care if
>doubters don't believe me. I'm doubting all the time. The mensa have
>rejected me because I'm a menstruating woman. And I no longer care very
>much. But its still fun to confirm my caring. What is a skeptic? A tic
>with skeps...a tic with spectacles...I wonder, would i really feel
>fulfilled by having proved it to a skeptic? I'd rather empath with a
>like-minded being. I guess there would be some kind of territorial
>conceptual satisfaction with having "proven" myself. But it would be
>like having a conceptual condem on. Intellectual barren. Infertile. The
>dance of the futility goddess. Go go go boy! grok jen
>
Well...but you know...I mean it's like...Oh never mind.
Brant
msgu...@pacbell.net
now we are getting somewhere! Or was that nowhere? Oh no, no mind. Poof.
gone.
jennifer
Michael D. Painter
Brant Watson <bra...@erols.com> wrote in article
<33a9f598...@news.erols.com>...
What Brant is trying to say is that:
"like-minded being"
is an oxymoron.
Brant Watson
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 01:17:22 GMT, dra...@labyrinth.net (Drakkus)
wrote:
I get a little annoyed with complaints about depriving others of their
right to believe what they want. It is not what I would do, even if
it *were* possible to achieve such a thing. All I could ever hope to
do is change some minds. There's nothing wrong with that.
>-><Brant> Burn, heretical believer, burn!
>->
>->->I do not
>->->propose that what I believe should or even could work for another.
>->-
>->-But astrologers *do* propose this, and collectively make over a
>->-billion dollars a year from those they have been able to dupe.
>->
>->True enough. That, my dear Brant, is crime, selling something that
>->doesn't exist to some poor credulous sap who desperately wants to
>->believe it.
>-
>- It is important to mention here that it is *not* a crime. The
>-Weekly World News is more than ample evidence of that. And you have
>-just defined astrology to a tee.
>
>It is a crime in my eyes.
It would be nice if we could lock up every con artist and pretender
who bilks others for his own personal gain, but the standards would be
hard to establish. As it is now, we are free to say just about
anything and even charge people for completely bogus advice. It only
becomes criminal when 1) it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
that the claim was intentionally fraudulent and, 2) it causes
excessively high amounts of money. For example, I remember the con
exposed for doing some prayer/psychic thing to unsuspecting victims
and wiping out their life savings in the process.
>->However, someone who has examined his options and decided
>->on what he likes best should remain free to follow that, despite
>->whether another group believes it or not, and even in spite of fact.
>-
>- As much as I would like to see more strongly enforced charlatan
>-laws, these practices still fall mainly under civil law. As for
>-freedom of choice, I'm all for it...first amendment too, but implicit
>-in that liberty is the duty of knowledgeable, conscientious people to
>-point an accusing finger at the fakes of the world. Wherever fraud is
>-facilitated in a society because of its value for individual rights
>-and liberty, there must be those who speak out against the ones who
>-take advantage of that liberty to mislead and deceive others.
>
>Indeed. I was not debating that. I was objecting to the implication
>that you may dictate others' beliefs.
Have you ever seen me tell someone they *had* to believe something,
or else...? How in the world does some "dictate" beliefs using this
kind of medium? I consider the suggestion diversionary.
>-
>- Fiction is the word we use to describe things that are not real.
>-There's nothing wrong with fiction or imagination as long as they are
>-clearly lableled as such. When one represents fiction as real, we
>-have another word for that: lying.
>
>It only becomes a lie because you default to defining it as one.
Okay, what do you call it when someone represents fiction as real?
>I was
>merely illustrating the paradox between the human mind's belief in and
>need for the unreal and that same mind's inability to maintain the
>irrational. As opposed to you, who are determined to extinguish your
>belief in the unreal, I seek to recognize my paradox and still
>maintain it. Call it a Thighmaster for the brain.
I have to keep reminding myself that you are the guy who believes
something even though you know it is impossible and not real. Alan,
you are so close. You are not recognizing a paradox, you are creating
it. I'd like you to take some time with that thought.
<snip>
>I am a New Age thinker, Brant. I'm a pagan, a Ceremonial Magickian.
>Candles, incense, gods, goddesses. I honestly don't care if that makes
>you so pissed off you spit urine. It's what I am and dammit, I won't
>let you portray it as wrong.
I'm not pissed...why should I be? Actually, I'm smiling a bit, (not
cynically), because I believe you are hanging on to this with a very
thin tether. I predict that you are not long for the magickal world.
I have become familiar with you on sci.skeptic and I feel you will
abandon the last of your paranormal affinities in the near future, but
I don't think you'll do it until you see the light on the other side.
(Did I just mix metaphors?) I just have a feeling that your love for
the truth will win out over your need for enchantment.
<snip...I'll revisit your the rest of your comments when I'm not
feeling so lazy>
Brant
Brant Watson
On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 17:38:09 -0700, John Reder <xjr...@tiac.net>
wrote:
>As far as any challenge you making about the validity of astrology. I
>proposed before and will propose again, that in finding verifiable
>events, for know personalities, that can be readily confirmed, (not Joe
>Schmoe in Parma, Ohio), I could go along with that challenge.
> Unfortunately, you did not see fit to respond, therefore, we must
>assume that if you do not get to have total control over the results of
>judgment, you don't want to play.
> I can guarantee that there are any number of people who would accept a
>valid verifiable challenge with an unbiased arbitrator. I assume that
>some have also proposed such a situation, but like me, have not been
>taken up on it. We are willing to get up to bat, but it seems you want
>to be pitcher and umpire or you won't take the field.
John,
I truly apologize if I have failed to respond to your suggestions.
I will look for your posts to see if they are still there and give you
the best answer I can.
No, I don't need to be in complete control, but the test itself has
to be something which will give useful results or it would be a waste
of time. I would suggest controls and would look for ways which might
eliminate problems involving interpretation of results.
Your suggestion of an unbiased arbitrator is a good one on the
surface, but I don't know where we could find one. Wouldn't you agree
that the test would be even better if the results were such that
arbitration wouldn't be necessary? I see the possibility that with
conscientious planning and pre-test negotiation, we could devise a
demonstration that would involve very little latitude in the
interpretation of results.
I'm open to suggestions, but ones which involve post-hoc evaluation
of vague statements is not a good method, for obvious reasons.
Brant
John Reder
You came on here, you said that you knew that astrology was a fraud,
and made a challenge. Now, obviously neither the challenger nor
challengee can be the ultimate judge of the results.
You also cannot have any person judge for them selves on the basis of
what is said about their own horoscope. For example, in the first
astrology class I took, the teacher took everyone's birth info and she
told one of the people that she should think about looking for another
job, (not knowing where this woman worked),because there were some very
dishonest people where she worked. After the class this woman just
pissed and moaned about how wrong that was and it was a bad thing to
tell anybody. I, for one, agreed. Then someone asked her where she
worked and she said "In the mayor's office." Long story short, when he
left office the feds came in the mayor ended up doing 7 years in prison
for corruption. To this day, I know that woman thinks he was innocent.
So what could be done is an event orientated analysis. For example,
somebody could have analyzed the chart for the time Nicole Simpson's
body was found to give an idea of how the crime would play out.
Same with the Ramsey case. (It was an astrological certainty from the
chart drawn for the Simpson criminal cas that he was going to walk.)
Facts are facts and events are events and there is no subjective
viewpoint. It could be things as simple as losing your car keys and
drawing a chart for the time and place you first noticed them missing.
It's not that hard to find a couple of neutral events. (it would have
to be at least a couple of different things to be sure that it was
astrology being judged and not the ability of the astrologer himself.)
John Reder
astrology being judged and not the ability of the astrologer)
John Reder
astrology being judged and not the ability of the astrologer himself.)
--
Drakkus
On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:13:26 -0600, Jim Rogers
<jfr@fc{Remove/NoJunkMail}.hp.com> wrote:
-Drakkus wrote:
-> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:54:00 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
-> -On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:23 -0700, Anne Chastain wrote:
-> ->Avital Pilpel asked:
-
-> ->>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not >completley
-> ->_>wrong_? How would you ever check your beliefs?
-
-> ->My spirituality is not just an intellectual concept kept in my mind and
-> ->brought out for a little intellectual discussion once in a while. My
-> ->belief system is put into use everyday and it works FOR ME.
-
-> -"It works for me," is probably one of the most self-deceptive
-> -principles humans have ever invented.
-
-> And yet, without respecting it you become a missionary and an
-> inquisitor in the name of science.
-
-Why should anyone "respect" utter nonsense? "It works for me" is a road
-to cementing one's ignorance forever.
Because nonsense, freely admitted, is a vital component of human
nature.
-...
-> ->I do not
-> ->propose that what I believe should or even could work for another.
-
-> -But astrologers *do* propose this, and collectively make over a
-> -billion dollars a year from those they have been able to dupe.
-
-> True enough. That, my dear Brant, is crime, selling something that
-> doesn't exist to some poor credulous sap who desperately wants to
-> believe it. However, someone who has examined his options and decided
-> on what he likes best should remain free to follow that, despite
-> whether another group believes it or not, and even in spite of fact.
-
-Absolutely, and others have a perfect right to warn potential customers
-that they'd be buying bunk. If anyone is determined to throw their
-hard-earned money away on astrologers, psychic hotlines, lotteries, or
-whatever, that's their business; but don't insist that everyone respect
-as an intelligent selection that which is just plain stupid.
I never said an INTELLIGENT selection. I said the option had to remain
available until and unless it died a natural death.
-> There are, after all, elements of the universe which are not Fact, but
-> are real concepts nonetheless.
-
-And how would you know which "non-factual elements" are real?
Any concept is real, as far as it can be. Concepts are abstract. I was
simply stating that one should not disregard things which are not
fact. Whether something exists or not, if it is believed, it can still
affect the human mind.
-> Do you deny the existence of Fiction,
-> especially as a vital component of the human mind and soul?
-
-It is a fact that humans invent fiction which has no necessary
-connection to reality. Your point is...?
That we should consider WHY humans invent fiction and follow it with
the sort of zeal scientists wish they could drum up when it comes time
to apply for grants.
-> - Because it harms a great many. The tendency to look for and find
-> -some cosmic or mystical connectedness leads people into cults, for one
-> -example. As you can see, this forum alone suggests astrology as an
-> -alternative to medical advice. How can you say it doesn't harm
-> -anyone? The belief systems you defend threaten out intellectual
-> -freedom, science, education, laws, and politics. It is a regression
-> -to the dark ages and fundamentally antithetical to the principles of
-> -liberty and democracy which ironically protect its dissemination
-> -throughout the media.
-
-This forum has also entertained the notion of using astrology to help
-women predict which potential spouses are prone to physical abusiveness,
-which can be a life-threatening fallacy.
Since I didn't write what he's replying to, I'll leave rebuttal to
Brandt.
-> Actually, you are in turn advocating the destruction of this line of
-> thought, which, wrong or right, should not by any means be restricted.
-
-No, he's advocating that astrologers do the conscientious thing and TEST
-the relevance and accuracy of their art before relying on it to counsel
-people on important decisions in their life.
Fine with me. I detected in his tone a desire to destroy the option of
believing in astrology, which was what I was arguing against.
Disprove, by all means, but don't censor.
-> Even an idea with little value or validity has merit in simply being
-> an idea, another ingredient in the vast stew of human thought. It can
-> only enhance the flavor.
-
-Provided you recognize what's speculative and not confuse it with
-reality with simplistic "It works for me" mentality.
If you read some of my other posts, you'll see that I am NOT
advocating "it works for me".;I could fall into the trap of that
philosophy so easily, arguing the position I do. Brandt, at least,
seems to appreciate the attention I devote to avoiding it.
However, I think that you have no right to limit the realm of belief
to that which is merely factual. What you state above tends to rank
beliefs and ideas, with the factual ones being the most desirable. It
is this snide and rather distant attitude that alienates most skeptics
from most believers.
To put it quite simply, it would be fair of the skeptic to concede
that his corner of human thought is not the entire realm, and that he
should respect the irrational as another necessary aspect of human
thinking.
-> - I just hate to see us go backwards after such hard-won
-> -accomplishments.
-
-> Ah, but we are only going backwards when we start restricting and
-> attempting to squelch ways of thinking.
-
-The facts of the matter are:
-
-1) Astrology has purely mythological roots; there is no "science" to it
-at all.
You needn't sneer at mythology. Time was when it kept our little
species alive. The stories we tell have always served a vital purpose,
whether they were cold fact or not. I tend to believe they served as
an outlet for the madness that would otherwise consume us. Perhaps
astrology serves that purpose in a time when storytelling is a lost
art.
If we are to continue our dialogue, I must insist that you honor and
respect myths and stories. Fail to do so and I will not see fit to
reply to your posts. This one is rude as it stands, and you have
stretched the limits of my tolerance with it.
-2) Astrology has been tested repeatedly and consistently fails to show
-above-chance results.
It doesn't matter. The belief, the irrationality is the important
part. So long as it does no harm, it is a belief that should not be
killed before it dies naturally.
-3) Astrologers impugn tests in 2) as meaningless (without looking at
-them) and make every imaginable rationalization to deny that meaningful
-tests are even possible.
True enough. As I said in another article, I do not wish to preserve
dead beliefs or save dying ones, only prevent the murder of those
which still live.
-4) Astrologers hang everything on anecdotal "evidence" and justify
-themselves with "it works for me," not realizing that "works" can be
-posed as an objectively testable proposition (all you need to do is
-scramble the time/location data and check if it "works" just as well,
-with blind test protocols and objective choices).
I realize at this point that you have completely missed the point of
what I was trying to say, and are simply letting off that cannon of
logic at anyone who dares to cross you. Those who are not your friends
are not always your enemy. Please remember that in future contact with
me. I am not your enemy, and I don't want to fight.
-5) There is a sizeable population of woefully undereducated people who
-buy the first part of 4) above and patronize these (and other)
-charlatans.
True again, and when the charlatan is causing harm by stealing the
customer's money or damaging his/her faith, I am as eager to punish as
you. However, you condemn the entire belief, not just the criminals,
and that I cannot condone. Not because I believe in astrology myself,
either; I don't. I think it's pop occultism and fashion magick, and
pretty much worthless.
-Now, given that this is how I picture the situation, what facts about
-astrology as it exists in the world today am I supposed to "respect"? I
-can respect its aesthetic merits and even the potential use of its
-language in the discourse of psychological counselling, but that's not
-the question at hand; the questions at hand are "does it work?" and
-"should we care?" You seem to be trying to say that we shouldn't care; I
-couldn't disagree with you more.
You're right. We shouldn't care. It's the belief that has the value,
not the accuracy. People need to believe in something.
Overall, I have found your post to be offensive, condescending, and
outright insulting. Since I haven't attempted to flame you, or even
attack you, I suggest you withdraw the challenge from your tone before
you consider contacting me again.
My killfile is always open if you find you can't bear to do so.
-Drakkus (Alan Zeni Jr.)
dra...@labyrinth.net
http:/www.zeni.com/drakkus
"I have the integrity to argue principle, and ignore facts."
-BDK
Brant Watson
On Sun, 22 Jun 1997 12:49:06 -0700, John Reder <xjr...@tiac.net>
wrote:
I agree that this kind of test should be a good one. I would
suggest that you make some predictions and we'll try to pin down what
constitutes a successful test. Your idea of limiting the amount of
interpretation required is one that I am in complete agreement with.
You raised the point of how to determine whether it is astrology
itself or the ability of the astrologer that is being tested. Let me
make it easy for you. It doesn't really matter at this stage. What
does matter is whether it was astrology which led to the predictions.
I think you should state, along with each prediction, what
configuration in the chart led you to the conclusion and why you chose
a particular time for that event to take place. This would at least
show that astrology was probably being used instead of some other form
of prophecy.
BRant
Jim Rogers
Drakkus wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jun 1997 16:13:26 -0600, Jim Rogers wrote:
> -Drakkus wrote:
> -> On Fri, 13 Jun 1997 17:54:00 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
> -> -On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:20:23 -0700, Anne Chastain wrote:
> -> ->Avital Pilpel asked:
> -> ->>In that case, how do you know your belief in the spititual is not
> -> ->My spirituality is not just an intellectual concept kept in my mind and
> -> ->brought out for a little intellectual discussion once in a while. My
> -> ->belief system is put into use everyday and it works FOR ME.
> -> -"It works for me," is probably one of the most self-deceptive
> -> -principles humans have ever invented.
> -> And yet, without respecting it you become a missionary and an
> -> inquisitor in the name of science.
> -to cementing one's ignorance forever.
> Because nonsense, freely admitted, is a vital component of human
> nature.
When "freely admitted," yes. FTR I have no quarrel with Anne's approach,
which is honest as can be -- all she requires is that it "works for
her," which is true for a lot of people who don't choose to interrogate
their assumptions very harshly. I only _scorn_ this approach when these
same sorts become evangelists for their nonsensical faith; that does
nothing to serve the general enlightenment. Anne is not in that
category, but seems to recognize that her belief system may well be
wrong but adheres to it anyway out of personal pragmatics; one can't
really argue with personal pragmatics, only in the projection of them to
general truths.
> -> ->I do not
> -> ->propose that what I believe should or even could work for another.
And this clarifies Anne's position -- she doesn't presume to project her
personal pragmatics to general truths. Others do, such as Ed Wollmann
and other astrologers-for-hire whose oxen are getting gored by this.
> -> -But astrologers *do* propose this, and collectively make over a
> -> -billion dollars a year from those they have been able to dupe.
> -> True enough. That, my dear Brant, is crime, selling something that
> -> doesn't exist to some poor credulous sap who desperately wants to
> -> believe it. However, someone who has examined his options and decided
> -> on what he likes best should remain free to follow that, despite
> -> whether another group believes it or not, and even in spite of fact.
> -Absolutely, and others have a perfect right to warn potential customers
> -that they'd be buying bunk. If anyone is determined to throw their
> -hard-earned money away on astrologers, psychic hotlines, lotteries, or
> -whatever, that's their business; but don't insist that everyone respect
> -as an intelligent selection that which is just plain stupid.
> I never said an INTELLIGENT selection. I said the option had to remain
> available until and unless it died a natural death.
Sure, and I'm doing my best to contribute to its "natural death" through
education; in what sense do you think I'm trying to rob anyone of their
options? Quite the opposite -- what I'm offering is more options, in the
form of another way of looking at the claims of astrology instead of the
testimonials it thrives on. In stark contrast to most "religious"
claims, astrology deals in things that are eminently testable.
> -> There are, after all, elements of the universe which are not Fact, but
> -> are real concepts nonetheless.
> -And how would you know which "non-factual elements" are real?
> Any concept is real, as far as it can be. Concepts are abstract.
Concepts are "real" only as "concepts." If I conceptualize vast cities
on the far side of the moon, out of our sight, that doesn't make them
"real" in any meaningful definition of the word.
> I was
> simply stating that one should not disregard things which are not
> fact. Whether something exists or not, if it is believed, it can still
> affect the human mind.
I couldn't possibly disagree with that tautology. Nonsense beliefs
permeate human culture; this doesn't mean they shouldn't be
intellectually opposed simply because they exist. Where would we be
today had Galileo and his ilk not dared to oppose some of the nonsense
beliefs of the Church?
...
> -It is a fact that humans invent fiction which has no necessary
> -connection to reality. Your point is...?
> That we should consider WHY humans invent fiction and follow it with
> the sort of zeal scientists wish they could drum up when it comes time
> to apply for grants.
Support the humanities? By all means!
...
> -> Actually, you are in turn advocating the destruction of this line of
> -> thought, which, wrong or right, should not by any means be restricted.
> -No, he's advocating that astrologers do the conscientious thing and TEST
> -the relevance and accuracy of their art before relying on it to counsel
> -people on important decisions in their life.
> Fine with me. I detected in his tone a desire to destroy the option of
> believing in astrology, which was what I was arguing against.
> Disprove, by all means, but don't censor.
Who said anything about censor? This one of the frayed old straw men the
astrology side regularly drags out and burns whenever someone suggests
testing the claims of astrology. Shortly thereafter, skeptics are
accused of Nazism. I seek to shed light, not to cover with a bushel
basket; the only problem is that this "light" is something astrologers
don't want to face, and as a result engage in exactly the sort of
behavior (attempted squelching) they ascribe to their straw-man skeptic.
(Take a quick peek in a.a at who the few people were that Ed Wollmann
launched "complain nastily to their ISP's about off-topic cross-posts"
campaigns against in the last couple of weeks, and tell me, honestly,
which skeptics you've ever seen engage in similar behavior.)
> -> Even an idea with little value or validity has merit in simply being
> -> an idea, another ingredient in the vast stew of human thought. It can
> -> only enhance the flavor.
> -Provided you recognize what's speculative and not confuse it with
> -reality with simplistic "It works for me" mentality.
> If you read some of my other posts, you'll see that I am NOT
> advocating "it works for me".;I could fall into the trap of that
> philosophy so easily, arguing the position I do. Brandt, at least,
> seems to appreciate the attention I devote to avoiding it.
>
> However, I think that you have no right to limit the realm of belief
> to that which is merely factual. What you state above tends to rank
> beliefs and ideas, with the factual ones being the most desirable. It
> is this snide and rather distant attitude that alienates most skeptics
> from most believers.
Why should the factual _not_ be more desirable than the merely
speculative? If you _know_ something to be true, why would it be
preferable to ignore it and believe its opposite? What higher purpose is
served?
I freely grant that there are aspects of this world we have no facts
about, yet are free to form opinions on (it's hard _not_ to form
opinions); "opinions" are really all that "beliefs" that don't involve
facts are.
> To put it quite simply, it would be fair of the skeptic to concede
> that his corner of human thought is not the entire realm, and that he
> should respect the irrational as another necessary aspect of human
> thinking.
I would say "inevitable" instead of "necessary," otherwise agree.
...
> -> Ah, but we are only going backwards when we start restricting and
> -> attempting to squelch ways of thinking.
> -The facts of the matter are:
> -
> -1) Astrology has purely mythological roots; there is no "science" to it
> -at all.
> You needn't sneer at mythology. Time was when it kept our little
> species alive. The stories we tell have always served a vital purpose,
> whether they were cold fact or not. I tend to believe they served as
> an outlet for the madness that would otherwise consume us. Perhaps
> astrology serves that purpose in a time when storytelling is a lost
> art.
>
> If we are to continue our dialogue, I must insist that you honor and
> respect myths and stories. Fail to do so and I will not see fit to
> reply to your posts. This one is rude as it stands, and you have
> stretched the limits of my tolerance with it.
I already stated that I have no quarrel with the aesthetic merits of
astrology; my concern is with the factuality of its claims, which are
clearly testable. File it's "stories" right alongside your copies of
"Beowulf" and "The Iliad," as that's where they belong.
> -2) Astrology has been tested repeatedly and consistently fails to show
> -above-chance results.
> It doesn't matter. The belief, the irrationality is the important
> part. So long as it does no harm, it is a belief that should not be
> killed before it dies naturally.
What purpose is served by people thinking that their personalities and
lives are programmed by the planets? I and Brant showed clear examples
where it "does harm." Astrologers counsel people, sometimes on
life-critical matters, using a system that provides arbitrary decision
criteria. That's "harm." Yes, it should die a natural death unless it
can be shown to be reliable.
Doctors don't use phrenology anymore. Why not? It died a natural death
once it was determined that it provided arbitrary data that was
irrelevant to the traits being diagnosed. Why should astrology be exempt
from similar scrutiny?
> -3) Astrologers impugn tests in 2) as meaningless (without looking at
> -them) and make every imaginable rationalization to deny that meaningful
> -tests are even possible.
> True enough. As I said in another article, I do not wish to preserve
> dead beliefs or save dying ones, only prevent the murder of those
> which still live.
You're tilting at windmills.
> -4) Astrologers hang everything on anecdotal "evidence" and justify
> -themselves with "it works for me," not realizing that "works" can be
> -posed as an objectively testable proposition (all you need to do is
> -scramble the time/location data and check if it "works" just as well,
> -with blind test protocols and objective choices).
> I realize at this point that you have completely missed the point of
> what I was trying to say, and are simply letting off that cannon of
> logic at anyone who dares to cross you. Those who are not your friends
> are not always your enemy. Please remember that in future contact with
> me. I am not your enemy, and I don't want to fight.
I go only by your own words in defense of the irrational which _can_ be
rationally examined. Astrologers are, for the most part, in denial that
they make objectively testable claims. Astrology need _not_ be a mere
issue of "belief" one way or another, it's _testable_. I haven't missed
your point, I just consider it a bit moot because of this one wee fact.
> -5) There is a sizeable population of woefully undereducated people who
> -buy the first part of 4) above and patronize these (and other)
> -charlatans.
> True again, and when the charlatan is causing harm by stealing the
> customer's money or damaging his/her faith, I am as eager to punish as
> you. However, you condemn the entire belief, not just the criminals,
> and that I cannot condone. Not because I believe in astrology myself,
> either; I don't. I think it's pop occultism and fashion magick, and
> pretty much worthless.
It's a virus of the mind, for which the proper innoculation is
rationality. I don't consider it "interference" or "censorship" or
"persecution" to work toward the better education of the populace in
matters of rational thinking and the exposure of pseudoscience. We're
not talking about beliefs in the ineffable here, but claims that are
eminently testable.
> -Now, given that this is how I picture the situation, what facts about
> -astrology as it exists in the world today am I supposed to "respect"? I
> -can respect its aesthetic merits and even the potential use of its
> -language in the discourse of psychological counselling, but that's not
> -the question at hand; the questions at hand are "does it work?" and
> -"should we care?" You seem to be trying to say that we shouldn't care; I
> -couldn't disagree with you more.
> You're right. We shouldn't care. It's the belief that has the value,
> not the accuracy. People need to believe in something.
I know _you_ don't, but _I_ care. Some need to follow, instead of
relying on their own resources, that I readily concede. But this is one
of the very few "religions" (loose terminology) that preach using
arbitrary data to make crucial decisions, and it's a termite-eaten
crutch in this case that can steer people gravely wrong when their
horoscopes show strong "energies" or "momenta." What about a
compatability analysis that gives an erstwhile-battered woman an
indication that her new beau is a kind man, only to find to her horror
later that he's a worse abuser than the first, and she ignored obvious
_observed_ personality warning signs because of the strong
to-the-contrary indications in their respective charts? What about those
who advocate using it for partial medical diagnosis? Or applicant
screening? Still think it's "harmless"?
> Overall, I have found your post to be offensive, condescending, and
> outright insulting. Since I haven't attempted to flame you, or even
> attack you, I suggest you withdraw the challenge from your tone before
> you consider contacting me again.
It is too easy to read "offensive tone" into direct language; I intended
none.
Jim
Peter F. Curran
In article <33b036dc...@news.erols.com>,
In my opinion, (unasked for, so I don't expect a reply), the only
kind of test which has any sort of merit is one that is both
repeatable, and statistically violates the results which would
have arisen due to pure chance alone.
The only way that astrology can be shown to have any efficacy is
to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
What is needed is a test, the outcome of which can be statistically
analyzed. Find a problem, which astrology claims to solve, for which
you can determine known percentages prior to the test. Without hard
numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
--
Peter F Curran
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
dough knot male: nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu
Use address in Organization line, finger
for PGP key. Antispaam test in progress.
msgu...@pacbell.net
>
>
> The only way that astrology can be shown to have any efficacy is
> to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
> less doesn't PROVE anything.
Doesn't PROVE anything to whom? And what are you hoping to predict?
Human suffering?
>
> What is needed is a test, the outcome of which can be statistically
> analyzed.
Do YOU statistically analyze your moment to moment qualitative
responses to arising phenomena?
Find a problem, which astrology claims to solve, for which
> you can determine known percentages prior to the test.
Astrology, as I know it, in my humble opinion, doesn't claim to
solve problems. It provides a map, a mythology, a shared language that
can provide insight into some of the intangibles of life. Like human
suffering, like love, like creativity.
Without hard
> numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.> --
> Peter F Curran
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
A hard number has never given me much satisfaction. And these
people of IMPORT that you speak of who won't take astrology seriously.
Well I don't care about trying to impress them. Why throw pearls before
swine or lead a horse to water and force him to drink?
jennifer
>
>
Marsha
Peter F. Curran wrote:
> Without hard
> numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
>
> --
> Peter F Curran
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Presidents aren't considered important?
Marsha
Paul Schlyter
In article <5o7266$l...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
>
>> There are, after all, elements of the universe which are not Fact, but
>> are real concepts nonetheless.
>
> And how would you know which "non-factual elements" are real?
cannot be real.
Whether we know something to be a fact/real or not is another issue.
But if it's real, it's a fact, and vice versa, by definition.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Grev Turegatan 40, S-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se pa...@inorbit.com
WWW: http://spitfire.ausys.se/psr -- updated daily!
msgu...@pacbell.net
EWollmann wrote:
>
> From: msgu...@pacbell.net
>
> Brant in seeking the good opinions of others wrote;
>
> > The only way that astrology can be shown to have any efficacy is
> > to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
> > less doesn't PROVE anything.
>
> Doesn't PROVE anything to whom? And what are you hoping to predict?
> Human suffering?
> Hey Msguided:-) You are wasting your time with this nut!
> Have you looked at his chart? The above is a Saturn in Virgo in 6
> statement if I ever heard one!
No, I haven't looked at his chart. What about someone with SAturn in
Virgo? in the 6th. A hardworker, strong defense mechanisms, excess
clinging to rational mind and tradition and the material view. Polarity
is PIsces--connecting to the source, letting go of personality and ego.
Surrendering to power of compassion and letting universe breathe you.
Saturn in Virgo doesn't necessarily make someone a nut. Ed, you have
Saturn in Scorpio don't you? On the nadir maybe. Does that make you
manipulative? Have a fear of intimacy? Every placement of saturn has its
inherent inadequacies, and once transformed, eventual strengths.
msguided
Edmond Wollmann
msgu...@pacbell.net wrote:
> EWollmann wrote:
> > From: msgu...@pacbell.net
> > Brant in seeking the good opinions of others wrote;
> > > The only way that astrology can be shown to have any efficacy is
> > > to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
> > > less doesn't PROVE anything.
> > Doesn't PROVE anything to whom? And what are you hoping to predict?
> > Human suffering?
> > Hey Msguided:-) You are wasting your time with this nut!
> > Have you looked at his chart? The above is a Saturn in Virgo in 6
> > statement if I ever heard one!
> No, I haven't looked at his chart. What about someone with SAturn in
> Virgo? in the 6th. A hardworker, strong defense mechanisms, excess
> clinging to rational mind and tradition and the material view.
Effects, but no, a fear of functional inadequacy-sorry I assumed you
knew what it meant. Then we would have to prove everything from this
fear.
> Polarity
> is PIsces--connecting to the source, letting go of personality and ego.
No, perspective.
> Surrendering to power of compassion and letting universe breathe you.
No, recognizing that you ARE the universe.
> Saturn in Virgo doesn't necessarily make someone a nut.
No, it doesn't, but arguing against something in someone elses field and
backyard you have no inkling of BECAUSE of your fears of inadequacy
does.
> Ed, you have
> Saturn in Scorpio don't you?
Yes.
> On the nadir maybe.
No.
Does that make you
> manipulative?
No. I never say the planets MAKE anybody anything, that is placing the
power outside the self foolishly.
> Have a fear of intimacy?
Not hardly.
Every placement of saturn has its
> inherent inadequacies, and once transformed, eventual strengths.
Fears-that are then let go of, no one is inadequate-although some of us
have fears of being that.
--
"We know the whole idea of how we feel in that sense, we trust ourselves
as aspects of the infinite-therefore we interact spontaneously-without
necessarily having to "plan" anything, without having to "make sure"
everything will go "as planned," we do not need the "insurance" of
something to "fall back" on should what we go for "fail." All of these
ideas are doubts and mistrusts of the true unconditionalness of our
love." Bashar, "Southern Exposure"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
EWollmann
From: msgu...@pacbell.net
Brant in seeking the good opinions of others wrote;
> The only way that astrology can be shown to have any efficacy is
> to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
> less doesn't PROVE anything.
Doesn't PROVE anything to whom? And what are you hoping to predict?
Human suffering?
--
Hey Msguided:-) You are wasting your time with this nut!
Have you looked at his chart? The above is a Saturn in Virgo in 6
statement if I ever heard one!
Let's try it with other subjects to see what Mr. Brant's reasoning looks
like;
The only way that handicapping horse races can be shown to have any
efficacy is
to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
or
The only way that the entire medical field can be shown to have any
efficacy is
to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
or
The only way that weather forcasting can be shown to have any efficacy is
to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
or
The only way that cancer radiation treatments can be shown to have any
efficacy is
to have it predict cure, better than chance, on a regular basis.
Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
or
The only way that a relaxing evening with a lovely woman can be shown to
have any efficacy is
to have it predict better than chance that it lowers blood pressure, on
a regular basis. Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
or
The only way that the social sciences can be shown to have any efficacy
is
to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
or
The only way that art and music can be shown to have any efficacy is
to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
And if we change the wording just a little...
The only way that SCIENCE can be shown to have any efficacy is
to have it predict EVERYTHING better than chance, on a regular basis.
Anything
less doesn't PROVE anything.
:-))))) Which it does not- EVER.
--
"And when your looks are gone and you're alone, how many nights you'll sit
beside the phone-what were the things you wanted for yourself? Teen-age
ambitions you'll remember well!!!! it was the heat of the moment-telling
you what your heart meant, the heat of the moment shone in your eyes."
Asia "Heat of The Moment"
Edmond H. Wollmann
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
Marsha
msgu...@pacbell.net wrote:
>
> EWollmann wrote:
> >
> > From: msgu...@pacbell.net
> >
> > Brant in seeking the good opinions of others wrote;
> >
> > > The only way that astrology can be shown to have any efficacy is
> > > to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
> > > less doesn't PROVE anything.
> >
> > Doesn't PROVE anything to whom? And what are you hoping to predict?
> > Human suffering?
> > --
> > Hey Msguided:-) You are wasting your time with this nut!
> > Have you looked at his chart? The above is a Saturn in Virgo in 6
> > statement if I ever heard one!
>
> Virgo? in the 6th. A hardworker, strong defense mechanisms, excess
> is PIsces--connecting to the source, letting go of personality and ego.
> Saturn in Scorpio don't you? On the nadir maybe. Does that make you
> manipulative? Have a fear of intimacy? Every placement of saturn has its
> inherent inadequacies, and once transformed, eventual strengths.
>
How would it be described including the above when applied to the 6th
house?
Marsha
Jason Mathews
Marsha wrote in article <33B144...@mindspring.com>...
>Peter F. Curran wrote:
>
>> Without hard
>> numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
>>
>
Anybody can be stupid. Presidents are not immune.
--
desk...@hotmail.com | "I have the integrity to argue principle,
www.geocities.com/~godfist | and ignore facts." - Bruce Daniel Kettler
Edmond Wollmann
Peter F. Curran wrote:
> Without hard
> numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
Define persons of import. This is a subjective value judgment that is
meaningless. Person's with no "hard number" crunching knowledge, concern
or inclination have changed the world over and over. This simply
reflects your belief system and reinforcing logic. How does it serve you
to tell you about you that YOU have to have hard numbers before it
"means" anything?
Even Einstein agreed that "Imagination is more important than
knowledge."
Please show me the hard numbers that justify your own existence and
purpose. The hard numbers are that you will die and nothing will able to
be taken with you (if something even does survive). Therefore the energy
which propels you forward to even argue your points is driven by pure
superstition and nonsense since there is no "real" reason that we can
discern for you doing it, and that the whole of doing it is
pointless-according to hard numbers. Secondly there are no hard numbers
to even prove that your identity is anything more than a conglomeration
of illusory synapse and concoction.
Therefore by your hard number philosophy-your own existence is
meaningless and no one of import should even consider that you do.
--
"I am able to prove," wrote the great German mathematician, Leibnitz
"that not only light, color, heat, and the like, but motion, shape, and
extension too are mere apparent qualities."
"The Universe and Dr. Einstein"
Marsha
Colin Dooley wrote:
>
> Marsha wrote:
> >
> > > Without hard
> > > numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
> > >
> >
> >
>
> have votes too....
>
> "On no account should anybody who is capable of getting himself
> elected as president be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams
That's beside the point. I agree with that quote in most cases. It
still doesn't answer the question. No matter what a person's motives
for being elected president may be, no matter what he does or the state
of his mind. He's an important person--if for no other reason than the
position he holds & the power he has.
Marsha
>
> --
> <\___/> | SEAL Team 6 Waco cryptographic Khaddafi Hussein
> / O O \ | Semtex Uzi fissionable AK-47 Legion of Doom
> \_____/ FTB. | [Hello to all my fans in domestic surveillance]
Colin Dooley
Imagine 1000 people tossing coins. Anybody who tosses a tail is
eliminated from the game.
After one round, there would be about 500 people left.
After two rounds, there would be about 250.
Three.... about 125
Four.... 63
Five.... 32
Six..... 16
Seven... 8
Eight... 4
But wait a minute! Who are these four people? They must be really
gifted! They just picked up a normal coin, tossed it eight times,
and every time it came up heads!!!!
(story taken from "A Random Walk Down Wall Street", as an
explanation of why you should never believe people who claim
to beat the averages on share dealing).
Any genuine astrologer should be able to provide long term
statistical evidence that they can predict things. One single
event is not good enough.
nb. This does not mean you have to be right all the time. Even a
60/40 ratio of right/wrong would be very meaningful on 1000
different predictions.
Unfortunately, most astrologers suffer from a selective memory
- they only seem to remember the big successes. This memory is
usually helped by their victims. If I went around telling every
single person I met that "you will get married next year" then
I can be sure of quite a few success during my 76.5 years on
this planet.
Who will be the ones who remember me? Who will be the ones who
tell their friends about me? - The "successes" of course!
The "failures" will probably just forget the whole thing.
How many astrologers make big, bold predictions? Most make
predictions about things which happen in everyday life.
"You will change job soon", "You will find Mr. Right",
etc.
Colin Dooley
Marsha wrote:
>
> > Without hard
> > numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
> >
>
>
Remember - astrologers and people who believe in astrologers
have votes too....
"On no account should anybody who is capable of getting himself
elected as president be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams
Brant Watson
On 25 Jun 1997 04:07:51 GMT, nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu (Peter F.
Curran) wrote:
<snip>
>In my opinion, (unasked for, so I don't expect a reply), the only
>kind of test which has any sort of merit is one that is both
>repeatable, and statistically violates the results which would
>have arisen due to pure chance alone.
>
>The only way that astrology can be shown to have any efficacy is
>to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
>less doesn't PROVE anything.
>
>What is needed is a test, the outcome of which can be statistically
>analyzed. Find a problem, which astrology claims to solve, for which
>you can determine known percentages prior to the test. Without hard
>numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
>
>--
> Peter F Curran
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Peter,
You are completely right. In another post, I mentioned that. At
least as far as my involvement is concerned, I'm just looking for a
single demonstration. Granted, this would not be a general
confirmation that there is anything to astrology, but it would serve
my purposes.
This is why I wasn't to keen on the idea of a test which has a 1 in
10 chance of being correct by chance. A demonstration of
extraordinary effects or skills needs to be more clearly
distinguishable from luck.
Brant
msgu...@pacbell.net
> > > Brant in seeking the good opinions of others wrote;
>
to have it predict better than chance, on a regular basis. Anything
>less doesn't PROVE anything.
> >
> > > Have you looked at his chart? The above is a Saturn in Virgo in 6
> > > statement if I ever heard one!
>
No, I haven't looked at his chart. What about someone with SAturn in
> > Virgo? in the 6th. A hardworker, strong defense mechanisms, excess
> > clinging to rational mind and tradition and the material view.
>
> knew what it meant. Then we would have to prove everything from this
> fear.
ok i am trying to get this. A fear of not being able to function. Virgo
is functional, practical.
Hook it up to Saturn and we get the fear of inadequacy? So one would
exaggerate the details, cling to the facts and twist them to protect the
false sense of self. Ok. But this is a negative manifestation of Saturn.
There is also the potential for transforming this obstacle into a gift.
As a planet such as Pluto transits by square, the negativity could
purify. AFter the burning grounds of a pluto transit lets say, the need
to prove or control situations and people could mature into a genuine
sensitivity--of how all people feel inadequate sometimes and have fears.
Compassion could come out of the fear compulsion eventually. Saturn in
Virgo doesn't necessarily make someone a nut.
>
> No, it doesn't, but arguing against something in someone elses field and
> backyard you have no inkling of BECAUSE of your fears of inadequacy
> does.
But if you understand where he's coming from, a fear-based maneuvering,
a toxicity between senses and perception maybe with Saturn in Virgo,
then isn't it possible to aim a few gentle blows to the more receptive
part of the psyche? Rather than continue to match the negativity?
> >
> Every placement of saturn has its
> > inherent inadequacies, and once transformed, eventual strengths.
> Fears-that are then let go of, no one is inadequate-although some of us
> have fears of being that.
yeah I agree with this. I just feel sad for those who don't yet
recognize their own fears. Maybe its my Pisces ascendent. I am fearful
of excess rationality, in myself, because it cuts me off from feeling
anything. And in others, because it blocks a certain kindness,
gentleness and sharing. On the other hand, a good intellectual battle is
a real adrenlin high. Like verbal tennis. Thanks.
jennifer
Peter F. Curran
In article <33B290...@aznet.net>,
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@aznet.net> writes:
>Peter F. Curran wrote:
>
>> Without hard
>> numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
>
>meaningless. Person's with no "hard number" crunching knowledge, concern
I agree it was subjective. Your "hard number" statement reminds me of
the phrase "Naked people have little or no impact on society." Those
who changed history who had little or no knowledge of math usually
depended on, (or was advised by), someone who did, although I grant that
there are exceptions. In any case, those who didn't have any knowledge
of math would have likely made even BETTER decisions if they did! :)
>or inclination have changed the world over and over. This simply
>reflects your belief system and reinforcing logic. How does it serve you
>to tell you about you that YOU have to have hard numbers before it
>"means" anything?
>
I'm speaking of astrology in it's _predictive_ sense. If it actually
was able to predict ANYTHING better than random guessing, then it's
efficacy could be measured. Since it's predictive powers are tenuous
at BEST, the only possible way to measure them is with a repeatable
test.
>Even Einstein agreed that "Imagination is more important than
>knowledge."
>
Einstein's imaginations included mathematical relations.
>Please show me the hard numbers that justify your own existence and
>purpose. The hard numbers are that you will die and nothing will able to
I don't have to. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims and
charging suckers for information pulled out of thin air.
>be taken with you (if something even does survive). Therefore the energy
>which propels you forward to even argue your points is driven by pure
>superstition and nonsense since there is no "real" reason that we can
>discern for you doing it, and that the whole of doing it is
>pointless-according to hard numbers. Secondly there are no hard numbers
>to even prove that your identity is anything more than a conglomeration
>of illusory synapse and concoction.
Blah, blah, blah. Yes I will die. No, I don't think anything will
be left of me afterwards. I don't have any superstitions. You have
no point. Everything I _believe_ is testable.
> Therefore by your hard number philosophy-your own existence is
>meaningless and no one of import should even consider that you do.
*Yawn* You really need to stick to the issues, Ed. Astrology is
a farce. If you can't show it is effective under even one circumstance,
then you are merely fooling yourself. Perhaps the fact that you've
wasted so much time with it is what prevents you from acknowledging
the truth... Somebody has played you for a fool.
Peter F. Curran
In article <33B144...@mindspring.com>,
>> numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
>>
>> --
>> Peter F Curran
>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>
>
>
I regret the above statement, as what I _meant_ was that people of
import in the "scientific community" would never take astrology
seriously, and these are the people most qualified to actually
TEST it's efficacy. These people are also the ones who would
advise higher-ups regarding the usefullness of astrology.
Anyway, ff you are refering to Ronald Reagan, wasn't it actually
_Nancy_ who was known to have consulted an astrologer? Nancy probably
had a lot less influence on policy than Hillary Clinton does, and even
then, there is no proof that she actually believed or acted on what the
astrologer said. The astrologer may have given her information too
general to have any real practical interpretation. I too have read
my horoscope, (for amusement), but that doesn't mean I ever acted on
it.
Was it a different president to which you were referring?
Marsha
Peter F. Curran wrote:
>
> In article <33B144...@mindspring.com>,
> Marsha <sha...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >Peter F. Curran wrote:
> >
> >> numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter F Curran
> >> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
> >
> >
> >
> >Marsha
>
> I regret the above statement, as what I _meant_ was that people of
> import in the "scientific community" would never take astrology
> seriously, and these are the people most qualified to actually
> TEST it's efficacy. These people are also the ones who would
> advise higher-ups regarding the usefullness of astrology.
>
> Anyway, ff you are refering to Ronald Reagan, wasn't it actually
> _Nancy_ who was known to have consulted an astrologer? Nancy probably
> had a lot less influence on policy than Hillary Clinton does, and even
> then, there is no proof that she actually believed or acted on what the
> astrologer said.
Actually, I believe Nancy was doing a lot more than that especially
towards the end.
But I also remember hearing--it may have been a television interview
with her--that an astrologer was consulted for the favorable timing of
certain events during campaigning & after. I've also read information
about other presidents using astrology. I can't tell you where, but if
I remember or come across it I will post it.
> Peter F Curran
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
>
> dough knot male: nos...@pascal.stu.rpi.edu
> Use address in Organization line, finger
> for PGP key. Antispaam test in progress.
Marsha
Edmond Wollmann
> >Peter F. Curran wrote:
> >> Without hard
> >> numbers, nobody of import will ever take astrology seriously.
> >Define persons of import. This is a subjective value judgment that is
> >meaningless. Person's with no "hard number" crunching knowledge, concern
> I agree it was subjective. Your "hard number" statement reminds me of
> the phrase "Naked people have little or no impact on society." Those
> who changed history who had little or no knowledge of math usually
> depended on, (or was advised by), someone who did, although I grant that
> there are exceptions. In any case, those who didn't have any knowledge
> of math would have likely made even BETTER decisions if they did! :)
Better is a subjective value judgment-you see cynics teach best what
they need to learn.
> >or inclination have changed the world over and over. This simply
> >reflects your belief system and reinforcing logic. How does it serve you
> >to tell you about you that YOU have to have hard numbers before it
> >"means" anything?
> I'm speaking of astrology in it's _predictive_ sense. If it actually
> was able to predict ANYTHING better than random guessing, then it's
> efficacy could be measured. Since it's predictive powers are tenuous
> at BEST, the only possible way to measure them is with a repeatable
> test.
Astrology is not a science I have posted on numerous occasions what it
is and what it serves, please read it. Prediction is not the most
valuable aspect of astrology-you make these subjective assumptions
because of your ignorance of the subject.
> >Even Einstein agreed that "Imagination is more important than
> >knowledge."
> Einstein's imaginations included mathematical relations.
Irrelevant, he said MORE IMPORTANT than knowledge-and I agree-pls
refrain from Red Herrings.
> >Please show me the hard numbers that justify your own existence and
> >purpose. The hard numbers are that you will die and nothing will able to
> I don't have to. I'm not the one making extraordinary claims and
> charging suckers for information pulled out of thin air.
Oh you know this do you? You don't even know me. What claims have I
made? Be careful I am fully cognizant of laws as well as other subjects.
> >be taken with you (if something even does survive). Therefore the energy
> >which propels you forward to even argue your points is driven by pure
> >superstition and nonsense since there is no "real" reason that we can
> >discern for you doing it, and that the whole of doing it is
> >pointless-according to hard numbers. Secondly there are no hard numbers
> >to even prove that your identity is anything more than a conglomeration
> >of illusory synapse and concoction.
> Blah, blah, blah. Yes I will die. No, I don't think anything will
> be left of me afterwards. I don't have any superstitions. You have
> no point. Everything I _believe_ is testable.
What do you believe is the purpose of living? If you don't have one and
have one thats testable and provable you are a hypocrite and a
liar-correct? Or do you just have a "belief" of what it is? Answer
please-if you wish me to nail you I will-if you wish to get off
alt.astrology I will allow you to escape without embarrassment.
> > Therefore by your hard number philosophy-your own existence is
> >meaningless and no one of import should even consider that you do.
> *Yawn* You really need to stick to the issues, Ed.
That is the issue-you cynics are the ones making fantastic claims-namely
that everything you "believe" is testable. What do you believe to be the
purpose of living? If you cannot test it, why do you believe it?
CONTRADICTION. And if you can test it-where's the proof-and if you
cannot perform any of the above retract the lie that everything you
believe can be tested. And if you only do and believe in things that can
be tested I suggest you terminate your own life now-as it cannot be
proven to be anything or to have any significance beyond personal
belief.
The person that answers the purpose of living question I have posed many
times and proves it to be true I will give a million dollars to-hows
that?
--
"Too many mountains, and not enough stairs to climb, too many churches,
and not enough truth, too many people, and not enough eyes to see, too
many lives to lead and not enough time, its too late she's gone too far,
she's lost the Sun!" The Guess Who "She's Come Undone"
Jason Mathews
Edmond Wollmann wrote in article <33B3FF...@aznet.net>...
>Astrology is not a science I have posted on numerous occasions what it
>is and what it serves, please read it. Prediction is not the most
>valuable aspect of astrology-you make these subjective assumptions
>because of your ignorance of the subject.
Some people claim astrology is a science. You make it clear that it is
not. Nothing wrong with that.
Astrology is many things, as you have posted, and yes, it seems to
have other aspects other than prediction. Nothing wrong with that
either.
Give predictions then. Good ones. The rest of astrology seems to
be outside the boundaries of physical testing...so you can't possibly
test it objetively. But a prediction CAN be tested objectively.
Nobody cares about the methods used. Are the results correct? Can
they be repeated with the same accuracy each time? If there is
more to astrology, fine, we'll get to that part later. But
the ability of astrology to predict things is something that can
be tested for. It's objective, data, not something subjective
and ethereal.
Wouldn't you agree?
>The person that answers the purpose of living question I have posed many
>times and proves it to be true I will give a million dollars to-hows
>that?
Do you have a million dollars? I can come up with a good purpose of
living answer...but you won't agree with it.
Edmond Wollmann
Peter F. Curran wrote in anticipation of his argument's demise:
> There is no inherent "purpose". Life IS.
You said everything you believe in is testable.
That belief is not testable. I rest my case.
I see you have also run out of arguments since you resort to name
calling and challenging my astrological authority with a definate lack
of wit.
> >We don't need someone to tell us what should be self-evident to each > >of us.
There are no "shoulds" THAT again is a subjective value judgment-but if
you wish to live by that sword, then you must die by it, I can answer;
Neither do we. End of conversation.
--
"Common sense is actually nothing more than a deposit of predjudices
laid
down in the mind prior to the age of 18. Every new idea one encounters
in
later years must combat this accretion of "self-evident" concepts."
Albert Einstein quoted by Lincoln Barnett
Marsha
Peter F. Curran wrote:
> Ed, you are not QUALIFIED to say what astrology is or is not!
And you're qualified to tell Ed that? So *you* must be THE ONE to tell
us what astrology is & isn't?
> your
> views on astrology aren't worth any more than anyone else's.
You mean everyone's views are equal? Then what are you arguing about?
Oh, you mean your views are above everyone else's so then the others are
all worth the same--less than yours.
> You
> certainly haven't proved otherwise to anyone here! :)
I thought I was here. When you did your research on that you didn't ask
*me* if he has proven otherwise. I'll check again. Yup, you did say
"anyone here"--no information on the percentages of the people
interviewed.
>
> >> >Even Einstein agreed that "Imagination is more important than
> >> >knowledge."
>
>
> of astrology?!?! Einstein would LAUGH at someone who mentioned
> your quackery.
How well did you know Einstein? Can you prove this? But what you
actually said in that sentence is that he would laugh at someone who
said astrology was quackery.
>
> > I'm not the one making extraordinary claims and
> >> charging suckers for information pulled out of thin air.
Your claims are extraordinarily irresponsible--just as if you pulled
them out of thin air. Aw c'mon, you're just jealous. No one will pay
you for your opinions :) They'd be a dime a dozen if you had a dozen.
> >
> >Oh you know this do you? You don't even know me. What claims have I
> >made? Be careful I am fully cognizant of laws as well as other > subjects.
> >
>
> It is astrologer's in general who make extrordinary claims.
Define "extraordinary". Is it something like "abnormal"?
> They
> can't prove their info has any validity. The truth hurts, Ed, but
> you will get over it.
This is a really lame statement :))))))
> >have one thats testable and provable you are a hypocrite and a
> >liar-correct? Or do you just have a "belief" of what it is? Answer
> >please-if you wish me to nail you I will-if you wish to get off
> >alt.astrology I will allow you to escape without embarrassment.
> >
>
> Incorrect, Ed. If I don't have one, it doesn't HAVE to be testable.
>
> There is no inherent "purpose". Life IS. If you _decide_ to choose a
> purpose for your own life, that can be a good thing. Having a purpose,
> BTW, is not something which is unusual and needs to be tested.
So then, you not having a purpose *is* unusual & needs to be tested?
>
> (Heh... ALLOW me to escape without embarrassment??!?! :)
Please do.
> Ed, you
> are a certified kook. You pretend to be an authority but only have
> worthless pseudo-knowledge to spew!)
And the proof you have that he's not an authority on astrology
is......???
And the evidence that makes your statement credible is what? You must
be an authority on something to be able to make a statement like that.
> >> *Yawn* You really need to stick to the issues, Ed.
This is alt. astrology. The issue is astrology. Go yawn somewhere else
if you're bored & uninterested with the subject. What are you
interested in--besides attacking someone who *has* interests & knows
what he's doing with his life?
> >
> >What do you believe to be the
> >purpose of living? If you cannot test it, why do you believe it?
>
> As I said above, I don't believe there IS an inherent purpose, and
> I suppose that if there were, there WOULD be a means of testing it. :)
>
> >CONTRADICTION. And if you can test it-where's the proof-and if you
> >cannot perform any of the above retract the lie that everything you
> >believe can be tested. And if you only do and believe in things that can
>
> Hah! "CONTRADICTION" ?!?!? Where!?!?! I know it is a nice long
> word,
Most people don't think it's that long. But you'll learn.
> and that it sometimes wins an argument Ed, but you need to actually
> point out some things that actually ARE a contradiction! <Sheesh!>
>
> >be tested I suggest you terminate your own life now-as it cannot be
> >proven to be anything or to have any significance beyond personal
> >belief.
>
> This is Ed-logic, isn't it? Insignificance=Death? It is amazing
> that you managed to survive childhood.
I hope you survive childhood.
>
> >The person that answers the purpose of living question I have posed many
> >times and proves it to be true I will give a million dollars to-hows
> >that?
>
> It is SILLY. Nobody is interested in YOUR notions of "how life is".
Then why do a lot of Nobodys keep asking for it?
> We
You're a spokesman for which group? Skeptics?
> don't need someone to tell us what should be self-evident to each of > > us.
"Should" meaning it isn't? And you're speaking for all skeptics now?
> You'd really LIKE to be an authority on some subject, wouldn't you?
Would *you*? *Are* you? If so, what subject is it?
> Too
> bad your notions of reality and astrology don't hold water. You'd >
> really
> need to scrape the bottom of the barrel as far as intelligence is
> concerned if you wanted to aquire a few disciples.
What makes you think Ed wants to acquire disciples? From what Ed says I
get the idea that he doesn't care if people like him or not.
Is this how you acquired your disciples (I'm assuming it's the skeptics
that are your disciples, I've checked the newsgroups this was posted to
& that's the only one that comes close)--head first in a leaky barrel
with your pointy little head scraping the bottom? Or are you one of the
disciples of the guy that does that?
>
> --
> Peter F Curran
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Marsha