Empirical tests?
Edmond Wollmann
>
> In article <7anqp7$2ok$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein wrote:
> >In <36C95826...@itri.brighton.ac.uk> Chris Douce
> ><chris...@itri.brighton.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> >>I am very sceptical about astrology, but I am prepared to learn a little
> >>about it.
I am skeptical of everything because everything changes and every real
skeptic knows that all knowledge is tentative at best.
> My question is this : has there been any research that
> >>empirically tests the assertions that relate to personality traits of
> >>particular signs of the zodiac?
How would we propose a test for archetypes we can see as a landscape or
dimension?
> Surrounding questions : is there a
> >>scientifically oriented 'International Journal of Astrology', or an
> >>astrology professor somewhere in the world?
Define professor. Teaches at a University?
> >>All related references greatfully received.
There are many I posted in the astrology papers post.
...
> >I recently heard of a book written by a psychiatrist which supposedly
> >has some statistical stuff in it. I haven't read it so I can't give
> >an evaluation. It's called "Signs of Mental Illness" by Mitchell
> >Gibson, published by Llewellyn.
> >The most well known statistical studies done so far are Gauquelin's.
Which sacrificed specificity to garner statistical significance.
> On the subject of Chris's question about an "International Journal of
> Astrology", I'd say the closest to that is probably Correlation.
> http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/research.html
Correlation? Is only the linear relationship between variables. Did you
know there is a correlation between the number of diapers changed over a
certain period and the cracks in the Chicago sidewalk?
Astrology is not a hard science and never will be- because;
A) We have free will of the physical self and therefore nothing can be
predetimined. The horoscope is reflective of the MOMENTUM of mind, not
facts.
B) Therefore because of A, living is not a hard science.
And I thank the lord for revealing this to me. For if it were a hard
science, I would be unable to discern it as such.
Science can only measure the momentums of physicality and its effects.
These momentums are created by the psyche which is NOT entirely physical
(psyche means soul). This is why isolation (which science requires)
defeats the astrological validity that may be measureable. It is the
whole that organizes the parts, not the parts defining the whole.
Really, what we should be able to test is the astrologer-who can
oraganize the parts into a cognizable whole that can then be compared to
other measures. Astrology is a co-created paradigm, and therefore the
astuteness of the astrologer is critical to it being validated.
"I believe every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no
matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself." Albert Einstein
In order to make causal statements with regard to correlations one must
have;
1) Cause must precede effect.
2) Cause and effect must co-vary.
3) All other possible explanations between cause and effect must be
ruled out.
Correlations do not imply explanation. A correlation is a QUANTITATIVE
description of the strength and direction of the two variables. Most
astrological interpretations are QUALITATIVE.
To have cause and effect, one is dealing with focused applications in
the material world. Unless it is proven that life is deterministic
(which is not possible), cause and effect are irrelevant in the realm of
the psyche. The psyche is the "reason" for astrological
SYNCHRONICITY-because the psyche is "in" time and "out" of time as a
part of the unbroken wholeness (the "real" state of things) of the "All
That Is."
Therefore astrology, as a reflective tool of the psyche, allows us
access and insight into a BLEND of the physical-non-physical realms.
Because we are the reality it appears in 3D we exist within-the "cause"
is us-one part looking at another part and labeling it "outside."
Therefore "causation" of any physical sort is an illusion. Einstein's
theories of relativity already proved to a sufficient extent that
time/space are the EFFECTS of a 4D space/time continuum, and quantum
mechanics on the "other" end of the spectrum demonstrates that as we
move from the effects of being focused in the material world-either in
the macrocosmic direction or in the microcosmic direction "cause and
effect" and all other illusions of "science" break down and those
"rules" THAT ARE ONLY THE EFFECTS OF A "VIEW" are real only while you
are focused in them-but an illusion none-the-less. So why try to put a
size 2 shoe on a size 6 foot?
Therefore, although we may be able to read a pattern in the horoscope or
electro-magnetic energy sea, they are BOTH none-the-less EFFECTS of
consciousness and are mutually reflective-not cause and effect.
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Sutrice
Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
> Sherilyn wrote:
...
>
> > On the subject of Chris's question about an "International Journal of
> > Astrology", I'd say the closest to that is probably Correlation.
>
> > http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/research.html
>
> Correlation? Is only the linear relationship between variables.
In this context, it's the name of a journal of the type Chris is interested
in.
> Did you
> know there is a correlation between the number of diapers changed over a
> certain period and the cracks in the Chicago sidewalk?
...
Quite. Correlation does not imply causality, or any other kind of
relationship, for that matter.
Soeur Sutrice de Tormunil
Red Hat 101: Help for new and prospective Linux users
http://www.dejanews.com/~redhat101/
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Rick
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahooo.com> wrote:
>> Quite. Correlation does not imply causality, or any other kind of
>> relationship, for that matter.
>Yes it does, it is the linear relationship between two variables.
Wrong again, edie.
Shinobu Hosokawa
Edmond Wollmann wrote:
> Sutrice wrote:
> >
> > In article <36D349...@edmond.hwo>,
> > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
> > > Sherilyn wrote:
> > ...
> > >
> > > > On the subject of Chris's question about an "International Journal of
> > > > Astrology", I'd say the closest to that is probably Correlation.
> > >
> > > > http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/research.html
> > >
> > > Correlation? Is only the linear relationship between variables.
> >
> > In this context, it's the name of a journal of the type Chris is interested
> > in.
> >
> > > Did you
> > > know there is a correlation between the number of diapers changed over a
> > > certain period and the cracks in the Chicago sidewalk?
> > ...
> > Quite. Correlation does not imply causality, or any other kind of
> > relationship, for that matter.
>
> Yes it does, it is the linear relationship between two variables.
You are a kook, Mister Wollmann!
Edmond Wollmann
>
> In article <36D349...@edmond.hwo>,
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
> > Sherilyn wrote:
> ...
> >
> > > Astrology", I'd say the closest to that is probably Correlation.
> >
> > > http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/research.html
> >
> > Correlation? Is only the linear relationship between variables.
>
> in.
>
> > know there is a correlation between the number of diapers changed over a
> > certain period and the cracks in the Chicago sidewalk?
> Quite. Correlation does not imply causality, or any other kind of
> relationship, for that matter.
Yes it does, it is the linear relationship between two variables.
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
http://home.earthlink.net/~arcturian1/
Tisham Ingo
>Sherilyn wrote:
>>
>> In article <7anqp7$2ok$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein wrote:
>> >In <36C95826...@itri.brighton.ac.uk> Chris Douce
>> ><chris...@itri.brighton.ac.uk> writes:
>> >
>> >>I am very sceptical about astrology, but I am prepared to learn a little
>> >>about it.
>I am skeptical of everything because everything changes and every real
>skeptic knows that all knowledge is tentative at best.
No, it isn't.
>> My question is this : has there been any research that
>> >>empirically tests the assertions that relate to personality traits of
>> >>particular signs of the zodiac?
>How would we propose a test for archetypes we can see as a landscape or
>dimension?
How do we get Ed to answer a question?
<snip>
>Astrology is not a hard science and never will be- because;
>A) We have free will of the physical self and therefore nothing can be
>predetimined.
It is predetermined that we have free will?
>The horoscope is reflective of the MOMENTUM of mind, not
>facts.
>B) Therefore because of A, living is not a hard science.
Busted syllogism. B) does not follow from A). Living most definitely
*is* a hard science. If you don't eat, you die. If you don't
breathe, you die. If you don't ingest liquids, you die. That's hard
scientific fact.
Now, if you meant there are those who shirk the responsibility of
finding the means to eat, drink, and breathe, leaving it to others to
keep them alive; well, yes, that isn't hard science. If you meant
*coping* with life is not hard science, you're partially right in that
there are many who have difficulty in this area. If you were
referring to making decisions, that, too, can be difficult and is
often approached unscientifically.
For many, however, living is very much a hard science.
You project, assuming what's true for you must necessarily be true for
all.
>And I thank the lord for revealing this to me. For if it were a hard
>science, I would be unable to discern it as such.
<whackwhack!> Stating the obvious is against the rules.
>Science can only measure the momentums of physicality and its effects.
>These momentums are created by the psyche which is NOT entirely physical
>(psyche means soul).
So, you're saying the soul is partly physical? Explain, please.
> This is why isolation (which science requires)
>defeats the astrological validity that may be measureable. It is the
>whole that organizes the parts, not the parts defining the whole.
Dammit, Ed; you do come up with some terrific stuff on occasion. Why
do you have to bury it under so much turgid drivel?
>Really, what we should be able to test is the astrologer-who can
>oraganize the parts into a cognizable whole that can then be compared to
>other measures. Astrology is a co-created paradigm, and therefore the
>astuteness of the astrologer is critical to it being validated.
Oh, damn. That leaves you out, doesn't it.
<snip>
>In order to make causal statements with regard to correlations one must
>have;
>1) Cause must precede effect.
>2) Cause and effect must co-vary.
>3) All other possible explanations between cause and effect must be
>ruled out.
A very narrow, hard-science view. How can you apply it to living,
which you say is not a hard science?
>To have cause and effect, one is dealing with focused applications in
>the material world. Unless it is proven that life is deterministic
>(which is not possible), cause and effect are irrelevant in the realm of
>the psyche.
Are you saying the realm of the psyche violates all natural law? If
so, please explain which laws operate in that realm.
>The psyche is the "reason" for astrological
>SYNCHRONICITY-because the psyche is "in" time and "out" of time as a
>part of the unbroken wholeness (the "real" state of things) of the "All
>That Is."
Dang it; there you go, saying something good again.
<snip of a bunch of other good stuff too deeply buried in an atrocious
miasma of syntactical illiteracy. Cripes, Ed; you could make a
fortune if you'd just learn to write.
--
Tisham
Pamela Gross
<hosa...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>Edmond Wollmann wrote:
>
>> Sutrice wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <36D349...@edmond.hwo>,
>> > Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> wrote:
>> > > Sherilyn wrote:
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > > On the subject of Chris's question about an "International Journal of
>> > > > Astrology", I'd say the closest to that is probably Correlation.
>> > >
>> > > > http://www.astrologer.com/aanet/research.html
>> > >
>> > > Correlation? Is only the linear relationship between variables.
>> >
>> > In this context, it's the name of a journal of the type Chris is interested
>> > in.
>> >
>> > > Did you
>> > > know there is a correlation between the number of diapers changed over a
>> > > certain period and the cracks in the Chicago sidewalk?
>> > ...
>> > Quite. Correlation does not imply causality, or any other kind of
>> > relationship, for that matter.
>>
>> Yes it does, it is the linear relationship between two variables.
>
>You are a kook, Mister Wollmann!
Kon-ban-wa, Shinobu!
Pam
just saying good evening
--
Pamela Gross
be...@ix.netcom.com * http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/1962
Rheumatic Disease Web Site!!! http://www.silcom.com/~sblc/
irc powerchat.net #irrelevant #catch-22 #FreeBSD
Tom Kerr
>Sutrice wrote:
<snip>
>> Quite. Correlation does not imply causality, or any other kind of
>> relationship, for that matter.
>
>Yes it does, it is the linear relationship between two variables.
A correlation is a mathematical relationship. I think Sutrice was referring to
causality or a physical relationship.
A correlation does not imply causality, which your sentence suggests.
Sutrice
To be fair to Edmond, his nitpick is correct. I should have said: a
correlation is a mathematical relationship, but it implies no other
relationship, whether causal or otherwise.
Edmond Wollmann
Tisham Ingo wrote:
> Edmond Wollmann <woll...@edmond.hwo> snibbed:
> >Sherilyn wrote:
> >> In article <7anqp7$2ok$1...@panix2.panix.com>, Gail Klein wrote:
> >> >In <36C95826...@itri.brighton.ac.uk> Chris Douce
> >> ><chris...@itri.brighton.ac.uk> writes:
> >> >>I am very sceptical about astrology, but I am prepared to learn a little
> >> >>about it.
> >I am skeptical of everything because everything changes and every real
> >skeptic knows that all knowledge is tentative at best.
> No, it isn't.
Making declarations instead of arguments. WHY isn't it? The world never
changes? So you are saying that masturbation DOES cause mental
retardation as doctors asserted years ago and this assertion never
changed?:-)))
> >> My question is this : has there been any research that
> >> >>empirically tests the assertions that relate to personality traits of
> >> >>particular signs of the zodiac?
> >How would we propose a test for archetypes we can see as a landscape or
> >dimension?
> How do we get Ed to answer a question?
Answer the question. You cannot measure archetypes in a lab.
> <snip>
Why do you snip? Unable to answer?
> >Astrology is not a hard science and never will be- because;
> >A) We have free will of the physical self and therefore nothing can be
> >predetimined.
> It is predetermined that we have free will?
No, you can create the illusion that you have only 10% free will even
when you use all 90% to create that illusion of possessing the other 10.
Its up to you. So there is no predetermined anything.
> >The horoscope is reflective of the MOMENTUM of mind, not
> >facts.
> >B) Therefore because of A, living is not a hard science.
> Busted syllogism. B) does not follow from A). Living most definitely
> *is* a hard science. If you don't eat, you die. If you don't
> breathe, you die. If you don't ingest liquids, you die. That's hard
> scientific fact.
Physical survival requires these things not living. If this is all there
is to living what is the purpose to eating to survive? For what?
> Now, if you meant there are those who shirk the responsibility of
> finding the means to eat, drink, and breathe, leaving it to others to
> keep them alive; well, yes, that isn't hard science. If you meant
> *coping* with life is not hard science, you're partially right in that
> there are many who have difficulty in this area. If you were
> referring to making decisions, that, too, can be difficult and is
> often approached unscientifically.
Nothing is set in stone. These are simply your views, not THE truth, THE
truth is only that THE truth is composed of all ever changing truths.
There are no other THE truths.
> For many, however, living is very much a hard science.
If they choose it to be so then it will be. I prefer not to.
> You project, assuming what's true for you must necessarily be true for
> all.
How is saying that all truths are true my "projection"? :-)))
> >And I thank the lord for revealing this to me. For if it were a hard
> >science, I would be unable to discern it as such.
> <whackwhack!> Stating the obvious is against the rules.
?
> >Science can only measure the momentums of physicality and its effects.
> >These momentums are created by the psyche which is NOT entirely physical
> >(psyche means soul).
> So, you're saying the soul is partly physical? Explain, please.
All that exists is spirit, even physicality.
> > This is why isolation (which science requires)
> >defeats the astrological validity that may be measureable. It is the
> >whole that organizes the parts, not the parts defining the whole.
> Dammit, Ed; you do come up with some terrific stuff on occasion. Why
> do you have to bury it under so much turgid drivel?
Ad hominem.
> >Really, what we should be able to test is the astrologer-who can
> >oraganize the parts into a cognizable whole that can then be compared to
> >other measures. Astrology is a co-created paradigm, and therefore the
> >astuteness of the astrologer is critical to it being validated.
> Oh, damn. That leaves you out, doesn't it.
Ad hominem.
> <snip>
> >In order to make causal statements with regard to correlations one must
> >have;
> >1) Cause must precede effect.
> >2) Cause and effect must co-vary.
> >3) All other possible explanations between cause and effect must be
> >ruled out.
> A very narrow, hard-science view. How can you apply it to living,
> which you say is not a hard science?
You can't -as I also already stated.
> >To have cause and effect, one is dealing with focused applications in
> >the material world. Unless it is proven that life is deterministic
> >(which is not possible), cause and effect are irrelevant in the realm of
> >the psyche.
> Are you saying the realm of the psyche violates all natural law? If
> so, please explain which laws operate in that realm.
No, I am saying physicality which is a PART of spirit is the part that
IS testable by science and that thats all science really measures. YOUR
view of "natural law" is that of the physical, mine ecompasses all. The
psyche encompasses all, physical AND non-physical and cannot be
constrained by one method of understanding it (science).
Astrology is far more encompassing than science and cannot be
constrained by one of its "parts".
> >The psyche is the "reason" for astrological
> >SYNCHRONICITY-because the psyche is "in" time and "out" of time as a
> >part of the unbroken wholeness (the "real" state of things) of the "All
> >That Is."
> Dang it; there you go, saying something good again.
> <snip of a bunch of other good stuff too deeply buried in an atrocious
> miasma of syntactical illiteracy. Cripes, Ed; you could make a
> fortune if you'd just learn to write.
More ad hominems.
Science, you see, proceeds by a very fundamental assumption of the
way things are or must be. That assumption is the very thing that Amit
Goswami, with the assistance of Richard E. Reed and Maggie Gos-
wami, brings into question in the book you are about to read. For this
assumption, like its cloudy predecessors of the century before, seems to
be signaling not only the end of a century but the end of science as we
know it. That assumption is that there exists, "out there," a real,
objective reality.
This objective reality is something solid; it is made up of things that
have attributes, such as mass, electrical charge, momentum, angular
momentum, spin, position in space, and continuous existence through time
expressed as inertia, energy, and going even deeper into the microworld,
such attributes as strangeness, charm, and color. And yet the clouds
still gather. For in spite of all that we know about the objective
world, even with its twists and turns of space into time into matter,
and the black clouds called black holes, with all of our rational minds
working at full steam ahead, we are still left with a flock of
mysteries, paradoxes, and puzzle pieces that simply do not fit.
But we physicists are a stubborn lot, and we fear the proverbial toss
of the baby out with the bathwater. We still lather and shave our faces
watching carefully as we use Occam's razor to make sure that we cut
away all superfluous "hairy assumptions." What are these clouds that
obscure the end of the twentieth century's abstract art form? They boil
down to one sentence:
The universe does not seem to exist without a
perceiver of that universe.
Well, at some level this certainly makes sense. Even the word "uni-
verse" is a human construct. So it would make some kind of sense that
what we call the universe depends on our word-making capacity as
human beings. But is this observation any deeper than a simple ques-
tion of semantics? For example, before there were human beings, was
there a universe? It would seem that there was. Before we discovered
the atomic nature of matter, were there atoms around? Again, logic
dictates that the laws of nature, forces and causes, etc., even though
we didn't know about such things as atoms and subatomic particles,
certainly had to exist.
But it is just these assumptions about objective reality that have been
called into question by our present understanding of physics. Take, for
example, a simple particle, the electron. Is it a little speck of
matter? It turns out that to assume that it is such, consistently
behaving itself as such, is clearly wrong. For at times it appears to be
a cloud made up of an infinite number of possible electrons that
"appear" as a single particle when and only when we observe one.
Furthermore, when it is not a single particle it appears to be an
undulating wavelike cloud that is capable of moving at speeds in excess
of light speed, totally contradicting the Einstein concern that nothing
material can move faster than light. But Einstein's worry is assuaged,
for when it moves this way it is not actually a piece of matter Take as
another example the interaction between two electrons. According to
quantum physics, even though the two electrons may be vast
distances apart, the results of observations carried out upon them
indicate that there must be some connection between them that allows
communication to move faster than light. Yet before those observations,
before a conscious observer made up his or her mind, even the form of
the connection was totally indeterminate. And as a third example, a
quantum system such as an electron in a bound physical state appears
to be in an indeterminate state, and yet the indeterminacy can be
analyzed into component certainties that somehow add to the original
uncertainty. Then along comes an observer who, like some gigantic
Alexander chopping the Gordian knot, resolves the uncertainty into a
single, definite but unpredictable state simply by observing the
electron.
Not only that, the blow of the sword could come in the future
determining what state the electron is in now. For we have now even the
possibility that observations in the present legitimately determine what
we can say was the past.
Thus we have come to the end of a road once again. There is too
much quantum weirdness around, too many experiments showing that
the objective world-one that is running forward in time like a clock,
one that says action at a distance, particularly instantaneous action at
a distance, is not possible, one that says a thing cannot be in two or
more places at the same time-is an illusion of our thinking.
Amit Goswami Ph.D. (Physics) "Self Aware Universe"
The most commonly debated issue, whether abductions are really
taking place, leads us to the center of questions about perception and
levels of consciousness.
The most glaring question is whether there is
any reality independent of consciousness.
At the level of personal consciousness, can we apprehend reality
directly, or are we by necessity bound by the restrictions of our five
senses and the mind that organizes our worldview?
Is there a shared, collective consciousness that operates beyond our
individual consciousness? If there is a collective consciousness,
how is it influenced, and what determines its content?
Is UFO abduction a product of this shared consciousness? If, as in
some cultures, consciousness pervades all elements of the universe,
then what function do events like UFO abductions and various mysti-
cal experiences play in our psyches and in the rest of the cosmos?
John E. Mack M.D. (Psychiatrist-Harvard) "Abductions"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Edmond Wollmann
>
> In article <7b32ot$d8ms$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> t...@prodigy.net (Tom Kerr) wrote:
> > In article <36D4AF...@yahooo.com>, arctu...@yahooo.com wrote:
> > >Sutrice wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >> Quite. Correlation does not imply causality, or any other kind of
> > >> relationship, for that matter.
> > >
> > >Yes it does, it is the linear relationship between two variables.
> >
> > A correlation is a mathematical relationship. I think Sutrice was referring to
> > causality or a physical relationship.
> >
> > A correlation does not imply causality, which your sentence suggests.
>
> To be fair to Edmond, his nitpick is correct. I should have said: a
> correlation is a mathematical relationship, but it implies no other
> relationship, whether causal or otherwise.
You spinics make me laugh, when I find your errors its nitpicking.
"Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks; but an
accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a
house." Henri Poincare
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Rick
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahooo.com> wrote:
>> To be fair to Edmond, his nitpick is correct. I should have said: a
>> correlation is a mathematical relationship, but it implies no other
>> relationship, whether causal or otherwise.
>You spinics make me laugh, when I find your errors its nitpicking.
Yes, it is nitpicking compared to the glaring holes in your "logic".
Please continue to make yourself look foolish.
--
"Complaints will continue into infinity-and increase."
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, spammer, hypocrite, censor, Jan. '98 KoTM
Rick
Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahooo.com> wrote:
>metapsych removed,
Metapsych put back. How does you header vandalism server you?
>complaints sent.
Admission of wollmann cowardly refusal to face his own errors
noted.
>Making declarations instead of arguments.
That's what *you* do, edie. Do you even notice your own
hypocrisy?
--
"Truth, truth!! Warning spinics run for your lives!"
-Edmond Wollmann, a$trologer, spammer, hypocrite, censor, KotM, spin doctor
http://www.sidaway.demon.co.uk/astrology/lies/wollmann/edlies01.txt
Tisham Ingo
>metapsych removed, complaints sent.
Complaints sent to whom? I didn't add metapsych; you did. I was
merely responding to your post.
<snip>
>> >I am skeptical of everything because everything changes and every real
>> >skeptic knows that all knowledge is tentative at best.
>
>> No, it isn't.
>Making declarations instead of arguments. WHY isn't it? The world never
>changes? So you are saying that masturbation DOES cause mental
>retardation as doctors asserted years ago and this assertion never
>changed?:-)))
You said *all* knowledge is tentative. I disagreed. Had you said
"most" knowledge is tentative, or if you'd said all "empirical"
knowledge, I would have agreed. You speak often of Truth. That Truth
is not tentative, or empirical, or speculative. It IS.
<snip>
>> <snip>
>Why do you snip? Unable to answer?
I snip what is irrelevant to the point I'm making. Saves bandwidth,
and makes things much easier to read.
<snip>
>> It is predetermined that we have free will?
>No, you can create the illusion that you have only 10% free will even
>when you use all 90% to create that illusion of possessing the other 10.
>Its up to you. So there is no predetermined anything.
Good answer. My question was an impolite troll and I sincerely
apologize.
>> >The horoscope is reflective of the MOMENTUM of mind, not
>> >facts.
>> >B) Therefore because of A, living is not a hard science.
>
>> Busted syllogism. B) does not follow from A). Living most definitely
>> *is* a hard science. If you don't eat, you die. If you don't
>> breathe, you die. If you don't ingest liquids, you die. That's hard
>> scientific fact.
>Physical survival requires these things not living. If this is all there
>is to living what is the purpose to eating to survive? For what?
Agreed. My intent was to illustrate why it's often desirable to
qualify what one writes, particularly when the word of choice is so
easily taken to mean something else (e.g., living/survival).
>> Now, if you meant there are those who shirk the responsibility of
>> finding the means to eat, drink, and breathe, leaving it to others to
>> keep them alive; well, yes, that isn't hard science. If you meant
>> *coping* with life is not hard science, you're partially right in that
>> there are many who have difficulty in this area. If you were
>> referring to making decisions, that, too, can be difficult and is
>> often approached unscientifically.
>Nothing is set in stone. These are simply your views, not THE truth, THE
>truth is only that THE truth is composed of all ever changing truths.
>There are no other THE truths.
Well, now, here I must disagree. First, since all empirical knowledge
is tentative, you have no way of knowing if my views are, or are not
THE truth. That you say they are not is simply your view. I could
say your views are not THE truth, but I won't, because they very well
may be.
Second, if something is changeable, it isn't a truth; it's simply an
impulse of energy and information, often in the form of an illusion.
Your body, for instance. Truth is immutable.
>> For many, however, living is very much a hard science.
>If they choose it to be so then it will be. I prefer not to.
>
>> You project, assuming what's true for you must necessarily be true for
>> all.
>How is saying that all truths are true my "projection"? :-)))
Well, it is because that's your view; but that isn't what I was
referring to. I meant your statement that "living is not a hard
science." Such a flat assertion implies that it applies to everyone.
I was saying that because you think it's true, doesn't mean it's true
for everyone else. (Quite often, qualifying a statment can avoid a
great deal of misunderstanding.)
<snip>
>> >Science can only measure the momentums of physicality and its effects.
>> >These momentums are created by the psyche which is NOT entirely physical
>> >(psyche means soul).
>
>> So, you're saying the soul is partly physical? Explain, please.
>All that exists is spirit, even physicality.
Ah. Of course it is. I must have been out to lunch at that point.
Thanks for the wakeup.
>> > This is why isolation (which science requires)
>> >defeats the astrological validity that may be measureable. It is the
>> >whole that organizes the parts, not the parts defining the whole.
>
>> Dammit, Ed; you do come up with some terrific stuff on occasion. Why
>> do you have to bury it under so much turgid drivel?
>Ad hominem.
Not at all. See my comment below.
>> >Really, what we should be able to test is the astrologer-who can
>> >oraganize the parts into a cognizable whole that can then be compared to
>> >other measures. Astrology is a co-created paradigm, and therefore the
>> >astuteness of the astrologer is critical to it being validated.
>
>> Oh, damn. That leaves you out, doesn't it.
>Ad hominem.
Yes, it was. And again, I sincerely apologize. That was unworthy of
both of us.
<snip>
>> Are you saying the realm of the psyche violates all natural law? If
>> so, please explain which laws operate in that realm.
>No, I am saying physicality which is a PART of spirit is the part that
>IS testable by science and that thats all science really measures.
Good. I like that.
> YOUR
>view of "natural law" is that of the physical, mine ecompasses all.
Okay, I like this, too, except that mine also encompasses all. My use
of "natural laws" was inappropriate. I should have said, "the laws of
physics." Big difference, though the scientific types will disagree.
>The
>psyche encompasses all, physical AND non-physical and cannot be
>constrained by one method of understanding it (science).
Understood, and I agree.
>Astrology is far more encompassing than science and cannot be
>constrained by one of its "parts".
I'm still waiting to be convinced that it even works.
>> >The psyche is the "reason" for astrological
>> >SYNCHRONICITY-because the psyche is "in" time and "out" of time as a
>> >part of the unbroken wholeness (the "real" state of things) of the "All
>> >That Is."
>
>> Dang it; there you go, saying something good again.
>
>> <snip of a bunch of other good stuff too deeply buried in an atrocious
>> miasma of syntactical illiteracy. Cripes, Ed; you could make a
>> fortune if you'd just learn to write.
>More ad hominems.
Not at all. Other than that for which I apologized, I was not
attacking you. I was, in fact, praising you for the good ideas you
often express What you perceive as ad hominems were merely comments
on a certain arrangement of words on paper and screen. Granted, I
could have been gentler about it, so for that, I'll also apologize.
<snip of some rather good quotations>
--
Tisham
Sutrice
arctu...@yahooo.com wrote:
> Sutrice wrote:
> >
> > In article <7b32ot$d8ms$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com>,
> > t...@prodigy.net (Tom Kerr) wrote:
> > > In article <36D4AF...@yahooo.com>, arctu...@yahooo.com wrote:
> > > >Sutrice wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >> Quite. Correlation does not imply causality, or any other kind of
> > > >> relationship, for that matter.
> > > >
> > > >Yes it does, it is the linear relationship between two variables.
> > >
> > > A correlation is a mathematical relationship. I think Sutrice was
referring to
> > > causality or a physical relationship.
> > >
> > > A correlation does not imply causality, which your sentence suggests.
> >
> > correlation is a mathematical relationship, but it implies no other
> > relationship, whether causal or otherwise.
>
> You spinics make me laugh, when I find your errors its nitpicking.
And when I find yours, it's also nitpicking. Only you get mad about it, and I
don't. A lesson for life?
Lou Minatti
>
> Edmond Wollmann <arctu...@yahooo.com> snibbed:
>
> >metapsych removed, complaints sent.
>
> Complaints sent to whom? I didn't add metapsych; you did. I was
> merely responding to your post.
You're right! Just by following the thread back a few messages, we see
that Ed indeed is the one responsible for adding the newsgroup. And now
he's complaining about it!
--
We're watching you at SpOOk Central.
http://www.watchingyou.com
Includes the brand-new Bullshit Detector and fresh hate mail!
Rick
Lou Minatti <loumi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>You're right! Just by following the thread back a few messages, we see
>that Ed indeed is the one responsible for adding the newsgroup. And now
>he's complaining about it!
How typical. He *is* known for his hypocrisy after all.