HELP: Astrology & UFOS
pedro n safier 431
Hi,
I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
appreciated.
Thanks a lot in advance!
Pedro
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Astronomy, UC Berkeley -- phone:510-643-6406 fax:510-642-3411
--
Pedro N. Safier
University of California at Berkeley,
Department of Astronomy
John DeLaughter
>
>Hi,
>
>I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
>on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
>appreciated.
A wonderful book to use is _The Search for Life in the Universe_ by Donald
Goldsmith and Tobias Owen. (ISBN 0-8053-3325-8, 1980, 433 pp.) It covers
everything from stellar evolution to biological evolution in a very clear,
concise manner. It also devotes a chapter to the Drake equation, and
suggests some reasonable values for the unknowns.
John DeLaughter
Robert Roosen
: >
: >Hi,
: >
: >I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
: >on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
: >appreciated.
Try this quote from Albert Einstein:
"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating
body of knowledge.
"It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it.
Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in
relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to
some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to
mankind."
Or, you can do as Professor Mike Zeilik does with his astronomy
class at U of New Mexico. Invite a competent local astrologer to give a
lecture.
I happen to be an astronomer myself (PhD University of Texas,
1970). I learned about astrology and its value in 1978, and hence am one
of the few present day professionals certified in both fields.
As for UFOs, I have never personally seen any convincing evidence
that they contain travelers from "outer space". I HAVE seen many
misinterpreted and misidentified natural and manmade phenomena that were
brought to me as possible UFOs. So far, investigation has identified
them as unrecognized familiar objects :-)
Robert
PS If you check on alt.astrology, you will find Pete Stapleton, who used
to teach classes in astrology at Berkeley, until the Reaganites ousted
his work and that of all others with any sort of imagination or sense of
humor. Why not invite him to give a lecture?
John DeLaughter
>: saf...@minerva.minerva.berkeley.edu (pedro n safier 431) writes:
>: >
>: >Hi,
>: >
>: >I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
>: >on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
>: >appreciated.
>
> Try this quote from Albert Einstein:
>
> "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating
>body of knowledge.
> "It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it.
>Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in
>relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to
>some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to
>mankind."
May I ask for the location of this particular quotation? I.e., is
is from _Bartlett's_ or from a published m.s.?
John DeLaughter
Bo Parker
roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote, in part:
[...]
>PS If you check on alt.astrology, you will find Pete Stapleton, who used
>to teach classes in astrology at Berkeley, until the Reaganites ousted
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>his work and that of all others with any sort of imagination or sense of
>humor. Why not invite him to give a lecture?
Why did the "Reaganites" oust his work?
I thought ol' Ronnie believed in this crap, had a White House astrologer, etc...
-Bo Parker
Bo.P...@msfc.nasa.gov (<- MAIL to this address.
REPLIES to this address will probably bounce.)
"We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can't scoff at
them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me."
-- Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey [SNL]
Jaakko T Oksa
>Hi,
>
>I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
>on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
>appreciated.
It went that way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaakko Oksa
Mike Lemons
>: >
>: >I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
>: >on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
>: >appreciated.
I saw an episode of _Nova_ where The Amazing Randi talked about a course
he taught in Astrology where he told the students to fill out a form with
their date of birth, etc. At the end of the next class he gave each of them
a horoscope "individually prepared by an experienced astrologer." The
horoscopes said things like "You have much untapped potential." He asked
for a show of hands at the next class meeting of how many people thought it
was 90% accurate. Most people raised their hands. He then told them that
everyone's horoscope was exactly the same.
--
Mike Lemons | "In 20th-century Old Earth, a fast food chain
mi...@crash.cts.com| took dead cow meat, fried it in grease, added
| carcinogens, wrapped it in petroleum-based foam,
| and sold 900,000,000,000 units. Human Beings.
| Go figure." Dan Simmons - Hyperion
Robert Roosen
Amazing Randi 50 thousand dollars a year for five years to carry out his
debunking. He is a professional magician, so it is not surprising that
he is able to fool people.
About 15 years ago, a fellow astronomy professor was making fun
of my Astrology research. He wrote a horoscope analysis for himself
(without casting a chart). I heard him reading part of it, and found it
to be an amazingly accurate description of his chart, which I had myself
calculated.
It is too bad that Nova would spend time on an astrology course
taught by a professional fraud (magician) and ignore the courses taught
by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
Robert
: I saw an episode of _Nova_ where The Amazing Randi talked about a course
Pete Kimball
(snip)
: It is too bad that Nova would spend time on an astrology course
: by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
: that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
Yeah, it's part of that U.N. conspiracy :( Seriously, who ARE the
"knowledgeable people"? How did they discover this "knowledge"? See,
the weakest link in astrology is not so much that there's no physical way
in which Jupiter's position when you were born can make you accident-prone
today and so on. It's that nobody can point to those founders of
astrology who -discovered- that Jupiter does this and Saturn does that,
or to astrological schools that study and refine what Mars does by testing
it against the evidence. If Nova were to go out and look for the
"most knowledgeable astrologers", meaning the ones who have "advanced the
science" more, discovered the most new things, published the most, etc.,
they would be utterly stuck, because there are no such people and there
is no such process... Most importantly, there is no process whereby
astrologer A can say, "Astrologer B says that Venus does this and that,
but he/she is wrong and here is why." Where there is no power to identify
false "knowledge", how can there be true "knowledge"?
P. Kimball
American College of Healthcare Executives
Karl F. Johanson
In a previous article, roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) says:
>: saf...@minerva.minerva.berkeley.edu (pedro n safier 431) writes:
>: >
>: >Hi,
>: >
>: >I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
>: >on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
>: >appreciated.
>
> Try this quote from Albert Einstein:
>
> "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating
>body of knowledge.
> "It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it.
>Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in
>relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to
>some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to
>mankind."
This was the guy who refused to believe in quantum physics because it
disagreed with his version of god.
>
> Or, you can do as Professor Mike Zeilik does with his astronomy
>class at U of New Mexico. Invite a competent local astrologer to give a
>lecture.
> I happen to be an astronomer myself (PhD University of Texas,
>1970). I learned about astrology and its value in 1978, and hence am one
>of the few present day professionals certified in both fields.
> As for UFOs, I have never personally seen any convincing evidence
>that they contain travelers from "outer space". I HAVE seen many
>misinterpreted and misidentified natural and manmade phenomena that were
>brought to me as possible UFOs. So far, investigation has identified
>them as unrecognized familiar objects :-)
>Robert
>PS If you check on alt.astrology, you will find Pete Stapleton, who used
>to teach classes in astrology at Berkeley, until the Reaganites ousted
>his work and that of all others with any sort of imagination or sense of
>humor. Why not invite him to give a lecture?
Last I heard the astrolgy star charts are a couple of thousand years out
of date.
--
(* your name can appear here for only $25.95 / month! Act now *)
Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada
The other Co-editor of "Under The Ozone Hole"
Please let me know if you didn't get this.
Richard A. Schumacher
Randi's MacArthur grant is long since used up on legal fees,
defending himself from assorted barritry. As I see it, Randi
attacks astrology and other such bunkum to defend truth and
rationality, and is quite selfless about it. Are you prepared
to defend your slander of him?
And where are you employed as an astronomer?
John Ritson
>
> Let us remember that the MacArthur Foundation is paying the
> Amazing Randi 50 thousand dollars a year for five years to carry out his
> debunking. He is a professional magician, so it is not surprising that
> he is able to fool people.
> About 15 years ago, a fellow astronomy professor was making fun
> of my Astrology research. He wrote a horoscope analysis for himself
> (without casting a chart). I heard him reading part of it, and found it
> to be an amazingly accurate description of his chart, which I had myself
> calculated.
> taught by a professional fraud (magician) and ignore the courses taught
> by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
> that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
>
> : I saw an episode of _Nova_ where The Amazing Randi talked about a course
> : he taught in Astrology where he told the students to fill out a form with
> : their date of birth, etc. At the end of the next class he gave each of them
> : a horoscope "individually prepared by an experienced astrologer." The
> : horoscopes said things like "You have much untapped potential." He asked
> : for a show of hands at the next class meeting of how many people thought it
> : was 90% accurate. Most people raised their hands. He then told them that
> : everyone's horoscope was exactly the same.
>
for evidence in support of astrology (the best he could come up with was the 'Mars
Effect') did effectively the same as Randi (I think Randi copied the idea from him), and
got three-quarters of his sample to agree that a 'personally-constructed' horoscope was
'very accurate'. They all got the same horoscope, which was that of a French
mass-murderer.
Show anyone a horoscope that says 'You have eight good points, and a couple of weak
points' and what response do you expect but 'They got that 80 percent right'.
John
Nathaniel Tagg
: : saf...@minerva.minerva.berkeley.edu (pedro n safier 431) writes:
: : >I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
: : >on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
: : >appreciated.
: Try this quote from Albert Einstein:
: "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating
: body of knowledge.
: "It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it.
: Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in
: relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to
: some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to
: mankind."
You have got to be joking. Do you actually have a reference for
this quote? Pardon my skeptisism, but I simply don't believe it.
--
Nathaniel Tagg Physics grad student University of Guelph
"The chances of a neutrino actually hitting something as it
travels through all this howling emptiness are roughly comparable to that
of dropping a ball bearing at random from a cruising 747 and hitting,
say, an egg sandwich." -- Douglas Adams, _Mostly_Harmless_
Rusty Rae
> : by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
> : that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
>
> "knowledgeable people"? How did they discover this "knowledge"? See,
> the weakest link in astrology is not so much that there's no physical way
> in which Jupiter's position when you were born can make you accident-prone
> today and so on. It's that nobody can point to those founders of
> astrology who -discovered- that Jupiter does this and Saturn does that,
> or to astrological schools that study and refine what Mars does by testing
> it against the evidence. If Nova were to go out and look for the
> "most knowledgeable astrologers", meaning the ones who have "advanced the
> science" more, discovered the most new things, published the most, etc.,
> they would be utterly stuck, because there are no such people and there
> is no such process... Most importantly, there is no process whereby
> astrologer A can say, "Astrologer B says that Venus does this and that,
> but he/she is wrong and here is why." Where there is no power to identify
> false "knowledge", how can there be true "knowledge"?
>
> P. Kimball
> American College of Healthcare Executives
>
Well, this is a nowhere argument that keep creeping up on alt.
astrology. I sure wish you ya-hoos would read this ng more regularly
so you can stop saying this.
You see, P. Kimball, you are dealing with an unstable popula-
tion; one that cannot be measured because it changes! Nothing IS
predictable because of human nature, choice, etc. Get it? Now go blow
your nose. Your mommy's calling you for dinner.
Sheila
Robert Roosen
: roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote, in part:
: [...]
: >PS If you check on alt.astrology, you will find Pete Stapleton, who used
: >to teach classes in astrology at Berkeley, until the Reaganites ousted
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >his work and that of all others with any sort of imagination or sense of
: >humor. Why not invite him to give a lecture?
: Why did the "Reaganites" oust his work?
: I thought ol' Ronnie believed in this crap, had a White House astrologer, etc...
Actually, it was his wife that used it. The book "What does Joan
Say?" details how an astrologer coached Nancy and helped him and
Gorbachev work out the end of the cold war. The astrologer did charts
for both men and found that they would be able to get along really well.
The astrologer was right.
Reagan hated intellectuals, and did everything in his power to
injure them. When he was governor of California, he had any one with
humor or imagination suppressed in the UC system. When he became
president, the game got much meaner. The story is slowly coming out.
Reagan's enemies list was a real thing. I was on it myself for a number
of years.
: -Bo Parker
: "We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients."
Hey, I am not that old :-)
Robert
pedro n safier 431
Here is a question for astrologers:
How come that the moment of birth only matters? Does this mean that
the mother's body has a shielding influence? If so, one could delay
the birth by using certain drugs, waiting for a more "favorable"
astral conjunction. Or one could make incubators made of steak, into
which the baby is baby is delivered. Once the stars tell you that the
person born on a certain date are going to be winners, take the baby
out of the incubator and celebrate with a barbecue.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Pedro
SherryeLin
writes:
>I saw an episode of _Nova_ where The Amazing Randi talked about a course
>he taught in Astrology where he told the students to fill out a form with
>their date of birth, etc. At the end of the next class he gave each of
them
>a horoscope "individually prepared by an experienced astrologer." The
>horoscopes said things like "You have much untapped potential." He asked
>for a show of hands at the next class meeting of how many people thought
it
>was 90% accurate. Most people raised their hands. He then told them
that
>everyone's horoscope was exactly the same.
>
>--
>Mike Lemons
What has this got to do with astrology?
I saw an episode of "Kids In the Hall" where three of them were getting
drunk and talking about the Moon...Saying things like, "The Moon
laughs...knowingly!" And, "I wonder who OWNS the Moon?"
Would you consider that to be astronomy?
SherryeLin
Darin Johnson
> You see, P. Kimball, you are dealing with an unstable popula-
> tion; one that cannot be measured because it changes! Nothing IS
> predictable because of human nature, choice, etc. Get it? Now go blow
> your nose. Your mommy's calling you for dinner.
If nothing is predictable, what the heck are astrologers doing then?
Nova is a science program. As such, it does not present shows based
upon a lot of testimonials and hearsay. It is not even remotely
science to present the claims of astrologers as valid. Until there is
some scientific backing that is. Currently, there is none. Until
there can be reproduceable experiments, it's a matter of faith only.
The very tenets of astrology have no scientific basis, much less any
particular brand of specifics. And any scientific experiments must
block out extraneous effects to be useful (such as suggestability,
placebo effects, etc); the must also be reproducable to a degree.
Granted, everytime you drop a ball, there is a minute chance it will
not fall; but barring outside forces and interference, there is an
extremely high probability that the ball will fall. Science has
assigned a model under which the laws of gravity work, and can run
experiments that verify this - if someone comes up with an experiment
that shows that a different model applies, then this experiment will
be scrutinized and possibly the prevailing model will be changed.
But currently, astrology does not fit into this framework.
What Randi does is scientific. He tries to verify certain claims in a
scientific manner. So far he hasn't found a claim that will stand up
to his tests. This does not mean that these claims are necessarily
false, just that they won't stand up to scientific rigor and scrutiny.
In many cases, Randi has shown ways that mere stage magic can
reproduce the claimed effect; and sadly in many of these has actually
caught the claimant in the act of doing similar tricks. And another
large number of claims just failed to happen outright once scientific
rigour is used and steps have been taken to rule out trickery or
suggestibility or other interference. Nothing here is non-scientific.
It's an appropriate subject for Nova.
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
Support your right to own gnus.
Darin Johnson
> ... details how an astrologer coached Nancy and helped him and
> for both men and found that they would be able to get along really well.
> The astrologer was right.
Duh. What does astrology have to do with this?
Here's the possible outcomes:
1- astrologer says they're compatible, and they are
2- astrologer says they're compatible, and they're not.
3- astrologer says they're not compatible, and they're not.
4- astrologer says they're not compatible, and they are.
First off, options 1 and 3 can happen, no problem with that. If we
assume (as an example) equal probabilities for all, then the
astrologer is right 50% of the time. However, the probabilities are
not equal! Gorbachev and Reagan *wanted* to get along. Politically,
they could not afford not to. This raises the probabilities of 1 and
4 very high. Since the astrologer is no dummy, the astrologer goes
with option 1. Astrologer gets this right, no big feat, but this tiny
feat is touted none the less. Also note that conditional probability
applies as well. If the astrologer predicted that they wouldn't get
along, then there is a higher probability that the meeting will not
occur (Nancy will step in and try to slow things down). This isn't a
disaster for the astrologer, because the men may have a successful
meeting at a later time, and the astrologer can claim that it was a
good thing that the advice was taken.
What rarely gets touted is the claims that don't work out. Anyone can
make predictions that work out. This is trivial. Using your brain,
you can get a large number of them to work (especially in astrology
when you're dealing with human nature and predicting generalities
about how people will act, not specifics). The only thing the
astrologer did that was beneficial in this instance was to assuage
Nancy so she didn't screw up the meeting.
> : "We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients."
>
> Hey, I am not that old :-)
Just your ideas.
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
Caution! Under no circumstances confuse the mesh with the
interleave operator, except under confusing circumstances!
Charles Staniforth
>achepak@interaccess (Pete Kimball) wrote:
<Most of excellent argument snipped>
>> is no such process... Most importantly, there is no process whereby
>> astrologer A can say, "Astrologer B says that Venus does this and that,
>> but he/she is wrong and here is why." Where there is no power to identify
>> false "knowledge", how can there be true "knowledge"?
>
> Well, this is a nowhere argument that keep creeping up on alt.
>astrology. I sure wish you ya-hoos would read this ng more regularly
>so you can stop saying this.
>
> You see, P. Kimball, you are dealing with an unstable popula-
>tion; one that cannot be measured because it changes! Nothing IS
>predictable because of human nature, choice, etc. Get it? Now go blow
>your nose. Your mommy's calling you for dinner.
Eh???? What is astrology about, if it's not about making
predictions? You know, stuff like: "This person's chart
indicates personal characteristics a, b, and c. September
will be a favourable month for activities x, y, and z."
I appreciate that this is a very broad-brush, general picture,
but surely you're not saying that astrology doesn't and
can't make predictions?
--
Charles Staniforth cha...@stanifor.demon.co.uk
"The secret is: keep banging the rocks together, guys!"
- Douglas Adams, "The Hitch-hiker's Guide To The Galaxy"
Robert Roosen
personal papers and letters. I got it from alt.astrology, and have lost
the original reference. Perhaps someone on alt.astrology will be kind
enough to give the exact source.
Robert
John DeLaughter (j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu)
: >: saf...@minerva.minerva.berkeley.edu (pedro n safier 431) writes:
: >: >
: >: >
: >: >I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
: >: >on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
: >: >appreciated.
: >
: > Try this quote from Albert Einstein:
: >
: > "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating
: >body of knowledge.
: > "It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it.
: >Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in
: >relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to
: >some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to
: >mankind."
: May I ask for the location of this particular quotation? I.e., is
John Ritson
>
>
>
> How come that the moment of birth only matters?
Exactly. Nowadays maternity hospitals tend to induce births at times convenient to the
hospital (i.e. not at weekends or public holidays). So the birth date and time no
longer signify anything unique about the individual (not that they ever did).
> Does this mean that
> the mother's body has a shielding influence? If so, one could delay
> the birth by using certain drugs, waiting for a more "favorable"
> astral conjunction. Or one could make incubators made of steak, into
> which the baby is baby is delivered. Once the stars tell you that the
> person born on a certain date are going to be winners, take the baby
> out of the incubator and celebrate with a barbecue.
>
> Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
>
> Pedro
John
Volker Wedemeier
writes:
|> In article <DD0nI...@crash.cts.com>, mi...@crash.cts.com (Mike Lemons)
|> writes:
|>
|> >I saw an episode of _Nova_ where The Amazing Randi talked about a course
|> >he taught in Astrology where he told the students to fill out a form with
|> >their date of birth, etc. At the end of the next class he gave each of
|> them
|> >a horoscope "individually prepared by an experienced astrologer." The
|> >horoscopes said things like "You have much untapped potential." He asked
|> >for a show of hands at the next class meeting of how many people thought
|> it
|> >was 90% accurate. Most people raised their hands. He then told them
|> that
|> >everyone's horoscope was exactly the same.
|> >
|> >--
|> >Mike Lemons
|>
|> What has this got to do with astrology?
Easy: It prooves that you can easyly deceive people with false horoscopes. So the
fact that many people beleive in astrology does not mean that there is anything
behind the concept of astrology. You can tell people whatever you want (given it
is not too detailed, what horoscopes never are) and they'll beleive it.
But you are right. That experiment does not proove that astrology is crap. It
only makes it very likely.
Volker
Kevin D. Quitt
>Invite a competent local astrologer...
Oxymoron alert. Last time I tried, I had detailed horoscopes
done by several "competent" astrologers. I rewrote them and
went back to each astrologer with one of the others' charts. I
explained that a friend had done it for me, and why were the
results different.
Amazing critiques, comments about incompetent amateurs, etc.
Seems no astrologer thinks any other knows what they're doing
when the information about the author is withheld.
SherryeLin
Wedemeier) writes:
>Easy: It prooves that you can easyly deceive people with false
horoscopes. So
>the
>fact that many people beleive in astrology does not mean that there is
>anything
>behind the concept of astrology. You can tell people whatever you want
(given
>it
>is not too detailed, what horoscopes never are) and they'll beleive it.
People who are easily deceived by false horoscopes are also easily
deceived by just about anything -- like meteorologists who only seem to
get their weather report right 50% of the time, or scientists who can't
decide from one day to the next which type of cholesterol is really the
bad guy, or even astronomers who once said there were canals on Mars.
People with truly scientific minds (unlike yours, perhaps?) explore the
possibilities, and learn about the inner workings of a topic in order to
gain some understanding of it, instead of simply dismissing it. People
who simply dismiss astrology without thoroughly investigating it are
either lazy (it does take work!) or hopelessly dogmatic, rigid, and narrow
minded. If you live your life in denial, you're going to miss most of it!
SherryeLin
Paul Schlyter
Robert Roosen <roo...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>> saf...@minerva.minerva.berkeley.edu (pedro n safier 431) writes:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>
>>>I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
>>>on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
>>>appreciated.
>
> Try this quote from Albert Einstein:
>
> "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating
> body of knowledge.
> "It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it.
> Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in
> relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to
> some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to
> mankind."
I've seen that quote before, but I've never seen any original reference
to it. Did you ever see it somewhere else than in some astrological
publication? Or did you at least see some pointer to an original
reference? If so, please supply the original reference.
In a way this quote, even if false, is right: astrology can teach you
many things. Ancient astrology tells you a lot about the beliefs and
the worldviews of ancient people. Modern astrology teaches you a lot
about the gullibility of people, of how superstition works, and also
of how these can successfully be exploited commercially. It's not a
nice lesson, but it can nevertheless be useful.
> Or, you can do as Professor Mike Zeilik does with his astronomy class
> at U of New Mexico. Invite a competent local astrologer to give a
> lecture.
:-) .... is that really appropriate? Astrology has very little to do
with the stars and and the universe. If the class was about the
history of astronomy it could be appropriate (but then he should
also invite a member from the Flat Earth Society for a lecture!),
otherwise it simply doesn't belong there.
> I happen to be an astronomer myself (PhD University of Texas, 1970).
> I learned about astrology and its value in 1978, and hence am one
> of the few present day professionals certified in both fields.
>
> As for UFOs, I have never personally seen any convincing evidence
> that they contain travelers from "outer space". I HAVE seen many
> misinterpreted and misidentified natural and manmade phenomena that were
> brought to me as possible UFOs. So far, investigation has identified
> them as unrecognized familiar objects :-)
Well, then there's about as much reliable evidence for UFOlogy as it
is for astrology. Perhaps you should become a certified UFOlogist
as well ???
> PS If you check on alt.astrology, you will find Pete Stapleton,
Did you really have to choose THAT maniac among all the participants
there?
> who used to teach classes in astrology at Berkeley, until the Reaganites
> ousted his work
So they did at least ONE good thing....
> and that of all others with any sort of imagination or sense of humor.
If you think the main purpose of universities is to tell fairy-tales
and entertain people, you've gravely misunderstood the whole thing!
It perfectly OK that incompetent people are thrown out of universities,
no matter how much humor or imagination they have!
> Why not invite him to give a lecture?
Yeah, and let him speak about his astrology which he claims yields
"exact predictions that work every time" ..... <grin> He'll
probably talk about why he thinks Immanuel Velikovsky's ideas are
true as well.... Finally you could make a bet with him, on his
terms, which looks like this: he makes one prediction. If he's
right, he'll get $10,000 from you. If he's wrong he'll admit that
he's wrong, but you won't get any money from him....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Nybrogatan 75 A, S-114 40 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se
Silvestre Prado de Souza Neto fea - ead 3331 - ap 601
: >: >
: >: >Hi,
: >: >
: >: >I want to devote the last class of my astronomy course to a discussion
: >: >on astrology and UFOS. Any pointers (besides the FAQs) will be greatly
: >: >appreciated.
: >
: > Try this quote from Albert Einstein:
: >
: > "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating
: >body of knowledge.
: > "It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it.
: >Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in
: >relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to
: >some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to
: >mankind."
: May I ask for the location of this particular quotation? I.e., is
Carl Fink
roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote:
> About 15 years ago, a fellow astronomy professor was making fun
>of my Astrology research. He wrote a horoscope analysis for himself
>(without casting a chart). I heard him reading part of it, and found it
>to be an amazingly accurate description of his chart, which I had myself
>calculated.
What the heck does this mean? That he described his own personality,
and you found it matched the description your chart predicted? I just
don't follow this, sorry.
> It is too bad that Nova would spend time on an astrology course
>taught by a professional fraud (magician) and ignore the courses taught
>by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
>that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
That's a truly meaningless description of the Nova episode.
Have you ever conducted double-blind experiments to test the validity
of Astrology? What were the results?
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Assistant Sysop, GEnie's First and Fourth Science Fiction RoundTables
The SFRT page has moved to http://sfrt.greyware.com/sfrt
Peter Tranter
: >achepak@interaccess (Pete Kimball) wrote:
: <Most of excellent argument snipped>
: >> is no such process... Most importantly, there is no process whereby
: >> astrologer A can say, "Astrologer B says that Venus does this and that,
: >> but he/she is wrong and here is why." Where there is no power to identify
: >> false "knowledge", how can there be true "knowledge"?
: >
: > Well, this is a nowhere argument that keep creeping up on alt.
: >astrology. I sure wish you ya-hoos would read this ng more regularly
: >so you can stop saying this.
: >
: > You see, P. Kimball, you are dealing with an unstable popula-
: >tion; one that cannot be measured because it changes! Nothing IS
: >predictable because of human nature, choice, etc. Get it? Now go blow
: >your nose. Your mommy's calling you for dinner.
: Eh???? What is astrology about, if it's not about making
: predictions? You know, stuff like: "This person's chart
: indicates personal characteristics a, b, and c. September
: will be a favourable month for activities x, y, and z."
: I appreciate that this is a very broad-brush, general picture,
: but surely you're not saying that astrology doesn't and
: can't make predictions?
Well yes.
Furthermore, given the subject's date, time and place of birth, and the fact
that the positions of the planets etc are calculable, why not just have a
computer program to churn out the horoscope? Why should anybody need an
astrologer these days? I suppose there could be research astrologers pushing
back the frontiers of astrological knowledge and refining the quality of the
predictions made; however, that's never been my impression of the way it
all works.
I knew someone who was very keen on all this stuff once, and suggested this
to him. He agreed that not only was this possible, but that it had been
done; but you still had to have someone with the right powers to interpret the
results. I couldn't see what these powers might be if not those of invention.
The other thing that always intrigued me about astrology is the discovery of
new planets. Presumably, all horoscopes up to the time of the discovery of
Pluto in 1930 were wrong, and those before the discovery of Uranus and
Neptune, complete rubbish. Who's to say there aren't more planets further out?
Maybe the discrepencies between astrologers' predictions and fact are due to
the influence of undiscovered planet(s) and astrologers working back from
discrepencies could thereby predict the positions of the new planet(s) -
a bit like J.C. Adams and the discovery of Neptune made by calculation from
anomalies in the orbit of Uranus. Now that would be interesting.
Pete Tranter.
J.T. Foote
Earth" By T.W. Adorno. (It has recently been reprinted in paperback as
_The Stars Down To Earth and Other Essays on the Irrational in Culture_.)
Adorno deconstructs popular newspaper astrology columns by Carroll Righter,
looking at the psychological basis for their popularity, and (among other things),
showing their similarity to Fascist propaganda. Highly recommended to sceptics
and true believers alike.
-J.T. Foote
KaleenReed
<cha...@stanifor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Eh???? What is astrology about, if it's not about making
>predictions?
Astrology is about probabilities, not predictions. It offers insight
which can help people understand what the probable outcomes will be if
they do not exercise their free will.
Regards,
Ka'leen
Sam Bonderoff
>
> I saw an episode of "Kids In the Hall" where three of them were getting
> drunk and talking about the Moon...Saying things like, "The Moon
> laughs...knowingly!" And, "I wonder who OWNS the Moon?"
>
> Would you consider that to be astronomy?
>
> SherryeLin
I'm about to fly way off the topic here, but--
I saw that episode. "The Kids in the Hall" was a brilliant show. Anybody
got birth data on
Bruce McCulloch, Scott Thompson, Mark McKinney, Kevin McDonald, David Foley?
Ah, the memories...
--
SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG
SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG
SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG
SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG
SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG SIG
Richard A. Schumacher
> Actually, it was his wife that used it. The book "What does Joan
>for both men and found that they would be able to get along really well.
>The astrologer was right.
Ah, of course. I can just picture Gorbachev cheerfully agreeing to end
the Cold War by dissolving the Soviet Union.
> Reagan hated intellectuals, and did everything in his power to
Astrologers are not intellectuals, they're intellectual wannabees.
>injure them. When he was governor of California, he had any one with
>humor or imagination suppressed in the UC system. When he became
Evidently "any one with humor or imagination" is used here as a
euphemism for "goofball".
>Reagan's enemies list was a real thing. I was on it myself for a number
>of years.
Uh-huh. Mild paranoia is a classic symptom of crankism.
Richard A. Schumacher
>>I saw an episode of _Nova_ where The Amazing Randi talked about a course
>>he taught in Astrology where he told the students to fill out a form with
>>their date of birth, etc. At the end of the next class he gave each of
>them
>>a horoscope "individually prepared by an experienced astrologer." The
>>horoscopes said things like "You have much untapped potential." He asked
>>for a show of hands at the next class meeting of how many people thought
>it
>>was 90% accurate. Most people raised their hands. He then told them
>that
>>everyone's horoscope was exactly the same.
>What has this got to do with astrology?
It demonstrates that people are willing to believe any collection
of vague but generally positive statements about personality traits,
provided that they are presented in a convincing manner. This is a
demonstration that horoscopes (like palm readings, spirit or
"channelled" communications, et cetera) need not be accurate or
precise in order to be accepted as true.
M.D. O'Leary
Robert Roosen <roo...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
> Let us remember that the MacArthur Foundation is paying the
>Amazing Randi 50 thousand dollars a year for five years to carry out his
>debunking. He is a professional magician, so it is not surprising that
>he is able to fool people.
Where exactly did he 'fool' people in this?
He gave them a chart, and the majority of them
felt that this chart was 90%+ accurate. Had he then left
it at that, his performance would be on a par with the best astrologers
in the world: wouldn't any astrologer be proud if his/her customers felt they
were 90% correct?
It only gets upsetting when he points out that these 'individual charts' were
mass-produced: it's terrible to realise that someone expecting to read
something that applies to their secret lives and has access to facts only they
and the stars could know will _see_ just such secrets in any text written in a
certain manner.
As you say, he's a pro magician, and he should be expected to know the
linguistic and psychological tricks that persuade people that what they read
applies to them personally rather than just to 'human nature'.
So, a question: how do you tell the difference between a sham astrologer like
Randi, who's just using language tricks, and a real astrologer (like yourself?)
who is honestly interpreting the stars? Quite difficult, as both get rated as
90% or more accurate by their clients/victims. This is a serious question -
what can astrology do that Randi couldn't?
> About 15 years ago, a fellow astronomy professor was making fun
>of my Astrology research. He wrote a horoscope analysis for himself
>(without casting a chart). I heard him reading part of it, and found it
>to be an amazingly accurate description of his chart, which I had myself
>calculated.
What does this indicate? That he had insight into his own personality and wrote
a deeply revealing 'analysis' of himself that therefore _had_ to match the
chart (which was also correct)? Or that he had insight into the linguistic
ploys that are used, and that by combining this knowledge with a few 'public'
facvts about himself he was able to make what sounded exactly like a 'real'
chart-based analysis?
> It is too bad that Nova would spend time on an astrology course
>taught by a professional fraud (magician) and ignore the courses taught
>by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
>that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
I think if 'Nova' did a special on a doctor claiming to cure cancer who took a
show of hands and everybody said they felt 90% better after taking his pills,
and then the journalist revealed that the pills were just gelatine, you'd say
it was a valid investigation of a dangerous charlatan.
I think the similar proof that people should be wary in telling the difference
between 'real' astrologers and 'fake' ones (if such a distinction exists) can
only be good for the astrology profession, no?
>Robert
M.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark O'Leary, md...@le.ac.uk
Leicester Antibody Group. "Is all that we see or seem
(anti-KDEL & ABP1) But a dream within a dream?"
SherryeLin
cle...@dartmouth.edu (Sam Bonderoff) writes:
>I saw that episode. "The Kids in the Hall" was a brilliant show.
Anybody
>got birth data on
>
>Bruce McCulloch, Scott Thompson, Mark McKinney, Kevin McDonald, David
Foley?
>
>Ah, the memories...
Good question! Particularly Mark McKinney --anyone who can crush heads the
way he does and at the same time do something BEYOND drag -- "The Chicken
Lady" -- has GOT to have a chart worth investigating!
SherryeLin
Charles Staniforth
kalee...@aol.com "KaleenReed" writes:
This is more or less what I was trying to say, in fact.
I'm sorry if the use of the word 'predictions' was misleading,
it wasn't meant to be. I'm going to use the word again below
a bit, because I do feel it's a valid term if taken in context.
Please note I don't intend it to mean cast-iron, 100%,
predictions of what will happen to any one particular person,
or anything like that. I simply mean predictions of probabilities.
If the term really gets anybody's goat, maybe substitute
'forecasts' or 'indications'?
Anyway....
It seems to me that Peter Kimball's argument is still
a good one. Let's try a slightly different angle on it
and see where we get.
Whether or not one believes in astrology, one can agree,
I hope, that probability forecasts, whether by astrologers
or by nuclear physicists, are not always perfect. For instance,
the physicist may fire electrons at a target and predict that
90% of them will be reflected. The actual experiment may show that
only 50% are reflected. The astrologer may notice a particular
conjunction of planets, and conclude that client x would be
well advised to invest in the stock market, that client y
may be prone to illness at this time, etc, but some of these
indications may turn out to be wrong. *NB astrologers
hold your fire! See further below!*
The nub of Dr. Kimball's argument (I think - if not, then the
nub of my totally original argument :) ), is that the physicist
would now try to make sense of the anomalous result. She would
certainly publish articles pointing out the anomaly, and would
certainly have a close look at the theory to try and understand
what was wrong with it. She might come up with a successful
refinement to the theory, which would also make testable predictions.
The new theory would stand or fall on the success or failure of
these new predictions.
We must go carefully here, because it's not necessarily
obvious what kind of event would contradict the
astrology theories. (Hence the flame-deflector above!)
Consider the following.
Astrologer: "Client x, I really think you should invest
in the stock market"
Client x invests in the stock market and blows the lot.
I am _not_! saying that a scenario such as the above would
indicate _any fault at all_ with the astrologer's charts.
I don't for a moment suggest that an astrologer should be
able to make precise, guaranteed, personal predictions.
What I am saying is that there are many astrologers in the
world and many people consulting them. I am suggesting that
astrologers could compare notes, and maybe between them
come to a conclusion like "Yeah, the effect of that
conjunction really didn't seem to be as strong as it ought
to have been. I wonder why not?" From such a basis, the
ground could be laid for modifications of the theories,
and tests of the modifications. In time, as with scientific
endeavour, old theories might be completely supplanted by
the new, and might seem laughable in hindsight.
So, it still seems to me fair, looked at in this light,
to wonder where the 'Flat Earth' or 'Phlogiston' of
astrology are to be found, and where one should look
for the current cutting edge of research and the latest
theories - and if these things don't exist, why not?
Any thoughts anyone?
Darin Johnson
> How come that the moment of birth only matters? Does this mean that
> the mother's body has a shielding influence? If so, one could delay
> the birth by using certain drugs, waiting for a more "favorable"
> astral conjunction.
This was a subplot on an episode of E.R. A chinese couple wanted
to induce labor so the baby would be born in the right year, and
not a few days later (which was dog or pig, can't recall).
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
"Particle Man, Particle Man, doing the things a particle can"
Jeff Inman
The reason you were asked what this has to do with astrology is that,
even if your premise about human gullibility is true, this particular
"test" does nothing whatsoever to validate or invalidate astrology.
In fact, it demonstrates un unwillingness to entertain the notion that
any kind of research is worthwhile.
What if I handed out poorly drawn maps of the sky, with extra stars
where none exist, and absent stars that should be there, and the rest
of them drawn all in the wrong places, distorting all the
relationships, and got a bunch of people to say that it looked pretty
much like the sky to them. Would that "disprove" astronomy?
If you want ot see sheer gullibility, you have only to look at the
stupidly conceived experiments that ignorant skeptics use to convince
themselves that they don't have to think about something. Seesh!
Some of us here are thoughtful people. We're capable of examining the
data we have, and weighing various blindspots that are inherent in
examining that type of data, for anyone. If you are capable of
designing a good experiment to examine this stuff then do it.
--
Jeff Inman
j...@santafe.edu
"Milk those poignant thoughts, my sad little clown."
Ken Arromdee
Jeff Inman <j...@wijiji.santafe.edu> wrote:
>The reason you were asked what this has to do with astrology is that,
>even if your premise about human gullibility is true, this particular
>"test" does nothing whatsoever to validate or invalidate astrology.
It doesn't invalidate _astrology_, but invalidates certain types of
astrological "evidence".
>What if I handed out poorly drawn maps of the sky, with extra stars
>where none exist, and absent stars that should be there, and the rest
>of them drawn all in the wrong places, distorting all the
>relationships, and got a bunch of people to say that it looked pretty
>much like the sky to them. Would that "disprove" astronomy?
It would disprove the idea that average people are capable of accurately
deciding how much sky maps look like the sky. If many people "believed in
astronomy" on the grounds that it produces maps that look like the sky, it
would disprove their particular reasons for belief.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Romana: "But he had such an honest face!"
Doctor: "Romana! You can't be a successful thief with a _dis_honest face!"
Karl Welz
>Robert Roosen (roo...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
>(snip)
>: It is too bad that Nova would spend time on an astrology course
>: taught by a professional fraud (magician) and ignore the courses taught
>: by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
>: that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
>Yeah, it's part of that U.N. conspiracy :( Seriously, who ARE the
>"knowledgeable people"? How did they discover this "knowledge"? See,
>the weakest link in astrology is not so much that there's no physical way
>in which Jupiter's position when you were born can make you accident-prone
>today and so on.
Condemning something without having looked into it -- that's the way of the
quack!
>P. Kimball
>American College of Healthcare Executives
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Karl Hans Welz -- inventor of the Chi- (life-energy-) generator
HSCTI -- Hyper Space Communications and Technologies International
Mind-Machines for Self-Improvement and Technologies for Mind Control
"Magic is action that is caused with the help of
structural links and life energy"
e-mail: Al...@magitech.com
http://www.magitech.com/
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
Grant Edwards
: >Eh???? What is astrology about, if it's not about making
: >predictions?
: Astrology is about probabilities, not predictions.
Damn, that's a stupid thing to say. Sorry to be so blunt, but some of us
have taken statistics courses, and you can't expect to get by spewing
bullshit like that on usenet. At least not in this group.
Probabilities _are_ predictions.
If you don't understand why that is true, you should really take an
introductory stat course. Please don't use the word "proabilities" until
you find out what it means -- otherwise you're just going to make yourself
look even more stupid.
: It offers insight which can help people understand what the probable
: outcomes will be if they do not exercise their free will.
You know, I really, _really_ try to keep an open mind and not assume that
everybody with "aol.com" at the end of their address is an idiot, but it
gets harder every day.
--
Grant Edwards | Microsoft isn't the | Yow! On SECOND thought,
Rosemount Inc. | answer. Microsoft | maybe I'll heat up some BAKED
| is the question, and | BEANS and watch REGIS
gra...@rosemount.com | the answer is no. | PHILBIN.. It's GREAT to be
| ALIVE!!
Robert Roosen
Omarr. He discusses in detail the initial cooperation of astronomer Bart
Bok, who was exiled to Australia for awhile by his astronomical
colleagues for being sympathetic to astrology. Later on, Bok became a
persistent critic of astrology and was welcomed back into the
astronomical "community".
Robert
L. Frederick File
[text deleted] He asked
>>>>for a show of hands at the next class meeting of how many people
>>>>thought it was 90% accurate. Most people raised their hands. He then
>>>>told them that everyone's horoscope was exactly the same.
>>
>>>What has this got to do with astrology?
>>
>>It demonstrates that people are willing to believe any collection
>>of vague but generally positive statements about personality traits,
>>provided that they are presented in a convincing manner. This is a
>>demonstration that horoscopes (like palm readings, spirit or
>>"channelled" communications, et cetera) need not be accurate or
>>precise in order to be accepted as true.
>The reason you were asked what this has to do with astrology is that,
>even if your premise about human gullibility is true, this particular
>"test" does nothing whatsoever to validate or invalidate astrology.
>In fact, it demonstrates un unwillingness to entertain the notion that
>any kind of research is worthwhile.
No it just shows that research must be done properly.
[text deleted]
>If you want ot see sheer gullibility, you have only to look at the
>stupidly conceived experiments that ignorant skeptics use to convince
>themselves that they don't have to think about something. Seesh!
>Some of us here are thoughtful people.
If you are so thoughtful Jeff, how did you completely miss the point of the
experiment? The idea was not do "disprove" astrology. The idea was to show
that certain phenomena - correlations between celestial events and
human affairs - have other explanations and that astrological explanations are
not required. Absolute truth does not exist. We can only deal with
probabilities and the probability that the correlations are best explained by
astrological superstition is low compared to the probabilities that they are
best explained by well known and demonstrated psychological traits of man.
It is simple Jeff just "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"
and you usually get it right.
lff
Steven Howard
> Well, this is a nowhere argument that keep creeping up on alt.
>astrology. I sure wish you ya-hoos would read this ng more regularly
>so you can stop saying this.
> You see, P. Kimball, you are dealing with an unstable popula-
>tion; one that cannot be measured because it changes! Nothing IS
>predictable because of human nature, choice, etc. Get it? Now go blow
>your nose. Your mommy's calling you for dinner.
> Sheila
Sheila, if nothing is predictable, what good is astrology?
--
==========
Steven Howard
bl...@qedbbs.com
SherryeLin
>I saw that episode. "The Kids in the Hall" was a brilliant show.
Anybody
>got birth data on
>
>Bruce McCulloch, Scott Thompson, Mark McKinney, Kevin McDonald, David
Foley?
>
>Ah, the memories...
My last post may have gotten lost...
ANYBODY have birthdata on these guys? As I tried to post earlier, I am
especially interested in Mark McKinney -- anyone who can crush heads so
expertly and also go BEYOND drag as The Chicken Lady has GOT to have a
really interesting chart. (Looking for some Uranian strengths here!)
There have GOT to be fan magazines out there, particularly in Canada, that
have birth info of some kind!
SherryeLin
L. Frederick File
> Let us remember that the MacArthur Foundation is paying the
>Amazing Randi 50 thousand dollars a year for five years to carry out his
>debunking. He is a professional magician, so it is not surprising that
>he is able to fool people.
Sounds like sour grapes to me Bob. Not much MacArthur money going for
astrology research. But then very little money from anywhere to finance
astrology research. Why do you suppose that is? CSICOP is able to do quite
well on private donation for their work. Maybe the big astrology
organization just really don't want to know the truth about astrology.
>About 15 years ago, a fellow astronomy professor was making fun of my
>Astrology research. He wrote a horoscope analysis for himself (without
>casting a chart). I heard him reading part of it, and found it to be an
>amazingly accurate description of his chart, which I had myself calculated.
As a scientist you are of course aware of the value of anecdotal evidence like
the above.
It is too bad that Nova would spend time on an astrology course
>taught by a professional fraud (magician) and ignore the courses taught
>by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
>that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
More sour grapes. Aren't all the junk shows on the networks enough for you?
You want something on public broadcasting. Maybe if you could just
tell us one solid accomplishment of astrology in it illustrious
history.
lff
Karl F. Johanson
In a previous article, j...@wijiji.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) says:
>schu...@convex.com (Richard A. Schumacher) writes:
>
>>>>I saw an episode of _Nova_ where The Amazing Randi talked about a course
>>>>he taught in Astrology where he told the students to fill out a form with
>>>>their date of birth, etc. At the end of the next class he gave each of
>>>them
>>>>a horoscope "individually prepared by an experienced astrologer." The
>>>>horoscopes said things like "You have much untapped potential." He asked
>>>>for a show of hands at the next class meeting of how many people thought
>>>it
>>>>was 90% accurate. Most people raised their hands. He then told them
>>>that
>>>>everyone's horoscope was exactly the same.
>>
>>>What has this got to do with astrology?
>>
>>
>>It demonstrates that people are willing to believe any collection
>>of vague but generally positive statements about personality traits,
>>provided that they are presented in a convincing manner. This is a
>>demonstration that horoscopes (like palm readings, spirit or
>>"channelled" communications, et cetera) need not be accurate or
>>precise in order to be accepted as true.
>
>The reason you were asked what this has to do with astrology is that,
>even if your premise about human gullibility is true, this particular
>"test" does nothing whatsoever to validate or invalidate astrology.
>In fact, it demonstrates un unwillingness to entertain the notion that
>any kind of research is worthwhile.
>
>What if I handed out poorly drawn maps of the sky, with extra stars
>where none exist, and absent stars that should be there, and the rest
>of them drawn all in the wrong places, distorting all the
>relationships, and got a bunch of people to say that it looked pretty
>much like the sky to them. Would that "disprove" astronomy?
>
>If you want ot see sheer gullibility, you have only to look at the
>stupidly conceived experiments that ignorant skeptics use to convince
>themselves that they don't have to think about something. Seesh!
>Some of us here are thoughtful people. We're capable of examining the
>data we have, and weighing various blindspots that are inherent in
>examining that type of data, for anyone. If you are capable of
>designing a good experiment to examine this stuff then do it.
Wake up. Randi's experiment didn't disprove astrology. It showed that
what some people think of as proof that astrology works, isn't proof at
all. Go ahead and believe you have some mystical super power. Just quit
pretending there's anything scientific about it. And remember, the
opposite of 'skeptic' is 'idiot'.
--
Karl Johanson, Victoria B.C. Canada
-It's okay to disagree with me. However, once I explain where you're
wrong you're supposed to become enlightened & change your mind.
Congratulating me on how smart I am is optional.
Rusty Rae
>
> Eh???? What is astrology about, if it's not about making
> indicates personal characteristics a, b, and c. September
> will be a favourable month for activities x, y, and z."
> I appreciate that this is a very broad-brush, general picture,
> but surely you're not saying that astrology doesn't and
> can't make predictions?
>
someone through a current time in the best possible way given a
person's psychological, emotional, and spiritual makeup -- which the
chart indicates.
If you want prediction, read Barron's or the Wall Street
Journal!
Sheila
Carl Fink
roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote:
[describes Davis and Raifsnider's paper on "the correlation between
facial appearance and the Seven Rays of Esoteric Astrology"]
Dr. Roosen, was this study double-blind? You surely realize that if
not, it was without value on its face. (Pun intended.)
> Personally, I do not believe that quantum mechanics "works". A close
>look at the Copenhagen Doctrine indicates that the founders of quantum
>mechanics did not consider it to be a science at all--merely a branch
>of engineering. However, just because I happen to be philosophically
>unable to accept the tenets of quantum mechanics does not mean that it
>does not "work" for others. Debunkers of humanistic studies are, in my
>opinion, in a similar boat.
>Robert
Are you serious? One, why is engineering "merely" anything? Two,
what do you mean by "works" above? (Also, why did you add extraneous
quotes?) It clearly works, in that it makes reliable predictions
about the physical world. What other sense do you have for the word
"works"?
Rusty Rae
An experiment was done with children in an orphanage. half of
the children were fed but not touched, and the other half of the
children were touched and talked to. The half that were untouched
all died within a very short time.
What does this say about medicine? Where's the touch? It isn't.
People need human contact, not a computer terminal to tell them their
future! We are an alienated society and if you would have your way,
you'd make it more so.
Yes, indeed. A rubber mommy to feed Pete's offspring. Why
marry? Do it by computer terminal.
Sheila
Paul Schlyter
Robert Roosen <roo...@crash.cts.com> wrote:
>Bo Parker (Bo.P...@msfc.nasa.gov) wrote:
>
>: roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote, in part:
>
>: [...]
>: >PS If you check on alt.astrology, you will find Pete Stapleton, who used
>: >to teach classes in astrology at Berkeley, until the Reaganites ousted
>: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: >his work and that of all others with any sort of imagination or sense of
>: >humor. Why not invite him to give a lecture?
>
>
>
>: Why did the "Reaganites" oust his work?
>
>: I thought ol' Ronnie believed in this crap, had a White House astrologer, etc...
>
> Actually, it was his wife that used it. The book "What does Joan
>Say?" details how an astrologer coached Nancy and helped him and
>Gorbachev work out the end of the cold war. The astrologer did charts
>for both men and found that they would be able to get along really well.
>The astrologer was right.
...and therefore this story is told. If the astrologer hadn't been right
then very few would have known about this. This is amother case of that
lottery where only the winners are visible.
Why do we never hear stories about the failures of astrology? Or -- even
better -- why do we never see good statistics about the success/failure
rate of astrology? Is it because astrology never fails? <evil grin>
Or is it because all fialures are silenced, to soon be forgotten?
("the lottery where only the winners are visible")
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Btw, there's another (made-up) story about astrology, Reagan and Gorby:
Reagan and Gorby sits at a table about to negotiate. Gorby is dresses
in his usual suit. Reagan on the other hand wears a magician's hat and
coat, and on the table in front of him he holds an astrological chart.
Now, one of Reagan's advicors steps forward and whispers in Reagan's
ear: "Sir! I don't think that's what Premier Gorbachev meant when he
suggested that you and him should explore Mars together....."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Nybrogatan 75 A, S-114 40 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se
Rusty Rae
Let me see if I have this straight. You went to, say, 10
astrologers -- all considered to be local competent ones. Then you
went home, re-wrote all 10 reports and went back to each astrologer
and showed each one a different report. You demanded to know why
the discrepancy.
This just gave you the information you wanted. You wanted to
breed discontent and you did. Had you wanted agreement, you would
have produced an experiment that would have given you that result.
So astrology is not the problem, you be the problem (when you
designed your experiment).
Sheila
WAYNE JOHNSON
>On his study:
>"...we carried out a detailed scientific study of the correlation
>between facial appearance and the Seven Rays of Esoteric Astrology."
On his paper:
>"...The title is, "The Seven Faces of Man: Visual Recognition of
>Astrological Types--A Scientific-Intuitive Approach".
On his boss:
>"...When I showed the results to the Astronomy Department Chairman,
>his immediate response was, "If the people who give us our money find
>out you are working on this, they will cut off our funding...Robert,
those are huge signals."
Just his opinion:
>"...As far as I know, this work is by far the most impressive
>scientific proof that detectable astrological energies are at work
>here on planet Earth."
Well, Robert, let me make you a proposition: Let's quit calling
astrology Science, and put it in with Music.
You don't have to prove anything with Music. It is pleasing to the
ear, and sometimes challenging, and can change people. It does not
need to be proved to be understood. People can listen, and if they
like it, they can all agree that its creators are brilliant, and no one
can question them, as it is subjective.
All these attributes fit Astrology.
See Francis Bacon for a definition of Science. Quit wasting your time
trying to make astrology a rigidly defined, measurable, repeatable
science, and dismiss skeptics as being "too shallow to understand".
Science is as Science does. Okay? An Assistant Professor of Astronomy
that doesn't understand the Scientific Method is unqualified for the
job.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Rusty Rae
> If nothing is predictable, what the heck are astrologers doing then?
>
> Nova is a science program. As such, it does not present shows based
> upon a lot of testimonials and hearsay.
And I say that's too bad. The scientific mind has run away with
its self importance and has been a major cause in the alienation of
society. Science has wrung out all the intuitive ways of knowing
because they cannot be x-rayed or quantified or measured with steel
instruments.
What do we have for all the scientific methodology? Less than
we had thousands of years ago. Look at allopathic medicine, for
instance. It will stand up to all your methodologies and yet it fails
to cure anything. The primitives -- those we put onto reservations
and make sure are extinguished within the millenium -- had better
healing methods than today.
Today we have pills and machines but no cure for cancer. You
say you don't want testimonials and heresay? What about the original
healing "miracles" performed since the beginning of time and done
today? Those are testimonials and heresay. Can you x-ray them? No.
Could you SEE it happening? No. Therefore, did it happen? __.
Put on your scientist hat and do your own research instead of
parroting what someone else has said before you -- come up with some-
thing original instead of the same pooh-pooh argument about something
you know nothing about. That's ignorance, and ignorance, for people
who write things like you do, is bliss. A homeostatic pond breeds
mosquitos breeds disease breeds death to an organism; the scientific
mind as you present it is homeostatic.
Sheila
Roger L. Satterlee
This also demonstates, unfortunately, the intellectual poverty
of the average college student. I know first hand what it is like to be
in a classroom filled with bright people who have not yet acquired
the appreciation for the mind's subtler faculties. (Personally, I
cannot remember a day in my life when I would have accepted
anything the Amazing Randi offered as truth, simply because he
makes my skin crawl-he is anything but subtle.) Bright young
students have a difficult time reading modern literature, for example,
because they are not aware that symbolism actually exists...They are
unable to participate in the 'reality' of an author who is the least
bit
abstract....As well, it is common for the run-of-the-mill Prof. to
declare an author too obscure when a passage presents a challenge,
a 'reading' of the symbolism which is merely facilitated by the
simpler mechanical operations of grammer etc..Many times I have
wondered whether or not if it would have been better for me to
remain in the literal world of my classmates, to actively ignore those
'obscure' expressions which lured me to think critically concerning
the motivation-the individual need which drives each one of us to
express ourselves in a certain way at any given moment. This is
however a moot point--as an awareness is acquired it becomes
incorporated so thoroughly that one cannot return, as we say, to a
simpler time. When I was 18, I would have considered the Amazing
Randi an enlighten, rational, and clever proponent of
reason...something of a role model, but now that I have experienced
the world as an artistic creation, poor Randi seems something of an
embarrassment, like the unveiled Wizard of OZ. In all fairness, he
does a good job of identifying the problems associated with the
study of human behavior, but he is not convincingly adept at sharing
the perception of astrologers. My perception of Randi is not a
cynical one; I don't believe he does what he does simply for material
reasons. Rather it is more likely that he has an honest emotional
response, a type of fear and loathing which dominates his being
when something irration is perceived. The need to be in complete
control seems critical to Randi's sense of well being. His symbolic
behavior seems centered on the spoon bending trick of Uri Geller
because this type of deception is of special interest to him
personally...Randi's fear of being 'spoon fed' any information seems
the most likely root of his response to the world in general...In
search of dragons to sleigh, he seems to have sought out the most
bizarre persons to interact with publically in order to reassure
himself that he is indeed a wise man in command of the 'facts', but
then reacts to their individual expression like a frightened, wounded
animal, as if in defense of his very existence...I must question the
motivation of any man who thrives only when hunting the weakness
of another's mind, whether they be naive college students or slightly
schizophrenic para-psychologists. I would have a lot more respect
for Randi if he could find it in himself to participate in a round
table
discussion of astrology as a human psychological phenomena with
noted authors... well spoken, educated, and experienced persons
who have had an opportunity to appreciate both Randi's reality and
that of the artistic mind...the generalizing, symbolic organization of
of life experience...I appreciate his desire to debunk charlatans, but
the question remains does Randi actually have the ability to
distinguish fakir from faker due to a personal command of
astrological concepts...Does he understand the philosophical
veiwpoint of those he would burn at the stake...or is he an innocent
zealot who will forever remain ignorant due to his God given
nature?...Further, if the Randis' of the world were to complete their
mission by eliminating all fortune tellers (and I wouldn't miss them) ,
would Randi et al ever recognize the existence of our human
participation in a symbolic universe, or the beauty of a philosophy
which has no difficulty in holding any two competing notions as
integral, mutually dignifying facets of 'truth'...? My personal
response to Randi is like my response to the human psychological
phenomenon I have learn to call Scorpio, Taurus, and Virgo, or the
planets Saturn, Neptune, and Pluto....Of course all of nature is
reflected in every creation, but certain things press for dominance
upon my perception as a function of my own nature...that which I
attend do is that which nature allows me to perceive...A good
measure of my progress as a man is directly related to my ability to
perceive Randi as a fellow creation subject to to whim of nature's
generalized desire to express---its need to exist in a particular
fashion in order that it not may lie forever a great sea of mere
potentials for expression-a great pregnant womb without identifiable
fruits in eternal spiritual labor. I am grateful for my understanding
and my perception, and I am more than willing to credit Randi for
his small contribution...In the main, I grateful for my learning to
question the motivation and the perceptual limits of the world's
'Amazing' persons, including astrologers.
Roger
Rusty Rae
11Aug95
Byant Grumble Interview
BG : "Good morning everyone...As you may or may not have
heard, it is rumoured that the pseudo-science of astrology is actually
being practiced by otherwise rational, enviable intellects and
responsible persons in our communities...This trend seems to be a
growing factor in the shaping of the philosphical mindset of our
global community...Today, we have with us a representative of no
particular group, one self-styled astrological hermit who claims to
have been visited regularly by a 25,000 year old spirit (if one can
believe such things)...Annnnd, this 'spirit,' who goes by the classical
sounding handle, Pedantus Pontificus, who is often found babbling
on the internet in the person of one Roger L. Satterlee-is at this
moment sitting next to me.
So welcome to the Someday Show...ahhh, Rog...Tell us a
little about this fellow Pedantus if you will..."[ patting his guest on
the knee..]
RLS :
"Sure....Well to begin with, I don't want to disappoint
anyone, but Pedantus is a pure fiction on my part...And like many
other fictitious creations it is hard to confine him to paper, or to
bandwidth as the case maybe...I just needed a means to tap my own
creativity without having to 'be' the focus of my thoughts...I find
that
playing at Pedantus allows my own persona to remain less of a
fiction...There is an all too common problem with many people who
actually 'believe' in themselves...that is to say, they forget to
separate
their 'self' from their fictional character...Most people tend to live
out their fiction and call it reality."
BG "I feel the need to interupt here. I guess what comes to mind
is--What does all this talk of fiction have to do with astrology or
whatever? [..host lowers brow...gazes intently with one finger on his
temple..]...Are you trying to say that, as many people believe--and I
happen to agree with them--that astrology is pure fiction...?"
RLS "Well, Byant, I don't wish support the position of the
professional skeptics; such as the Amazing Randy, whom I have
seen on this program more than once, but there is a need to address
the element of symbolism involved in the act of perceiving and
communicating. There is a possibility that the average intellect will
engage itself in a mental practice which is the equivalent to a slieght
of hand, a misleading projection or perception intended to fill a need
of the moment...The anxiety caused by a lack of knowledge, or an
ego's insecure drive to compete for a recognized existence, will
often result in a fiction being created...these are usually
unintentional and not in the least bit malific...The trick here is to
recognize the 'whys', and perhaps not the 'wise'.
BG Could you speak more simply...? I'm sure the veiwers are as
lost as I am at this moment...I thought we would discuss astrology."
RLS "Certainly....I'm sorry, there's just so much groundwork to
be layed for a meaningful discussion of Pedantus' philosophical
veiwpoint...I'll try to be succinct. You see astrology is a psuedo-
science, and that I say in an emotively neutral way ...being a
psuedo-science is not necessarilly a bad thing...There is often a need
for the individual to fill the gaps of science 'during' his own
lifetime...or even at a single,crucial moment when a decision needs
be made. Astrology, like any of mans inventions/discoveries, is
mothered by necessity. To tap the total of our own particular
experience we need symbols both great and small...We need to call
our experiences-the peices of our knowledge by some name...And
in doing so we have give ficticious names to such physical things as
gravity, and to non-physical things such as the square root of minus
two, or the Someday Show...Thus the world is an artistic perception
on the part of all who participate in it. Art, perhaps as in 'thou
art',
seems to be the greater catagory, followed of course by the smaller
realms of pseudo-science and objective science. The goal the of
astrology is then to use human faculties to organize our perception
of the world--all the while recognizing our own native biases and
limitations are at play 'bending the spoon' that feeds our intellect.
This the obsessing Amazing Randy has often displayed while
perhaps ironically missing the point or higher purpose of his own
expression...Astrology is then an artform which allows the intellect
to participate in what ordinarilly takes places as a matter of
intuition...as genetic memory...Thus when Pedantus speaks to me,
he could very well be seen as 25,000 or even 250,000, years old in
terms of the symbolic logic employed.
BG [..turning to camera one..]
"I see... [smirks slightly, coyly]...
Before we go to commercial, I want to first apologize to my
audience for placing such a burden on them this morning...What I
had hoped would prove an entertaining and informative piece of
broadcast journalism has degenerated to a hopeless mess of mumbo-
jumbo here. 'Pedantus' has apparently completely taken over the
mind of my guest...And secondly, I'd like to point out that perhaps
there is something to be learned in all of this, in the way of an
example...You see folks, it is apparent that if you, or anyone in your
family, are seduced into the study or even conversations of such
things as astrology...might not 'you' end up as confused as our guest
this morning...? Again my apologies...and we'll be right back with
our update on hurricane Zelda in just a moment...I'm Byant
Grumble.
[..station break..]
went...@dante.colorado.edu
For me, astrology is not for prediction...it's for helping
someone through a current time in the best possible way given a
person's psychological, emotional, and spiritual makeup -- which the
chart indicates.
In other words, astrology predicts a 'best possible way.'
The chart "indicates" the best possible way? So then, the chart
is always right, huh? I mean, all the charts are always right, huh?
All the ways the charts indicate are always right. I see.
paul
--
***********************************************************************
* * *
* Dr. Paul G. Wenthold * "It is easier to swallow knowledge *
* JILA * than to acquire it laboriously *
* University of Colorado * from books." *
* Boulder, CO 80309 * Prof. H.M. Wogglebug T.E. *
* (303)492-7768 * *
* * *
***********************************************************************
* I don't speak for JILA. In fact, I doubt they even agree with me! *
***********************************************************************
Peter Tranter
: In article <40bfuh$j...@nntp.interaccess.com> achepak@interaccess (Pete Kimball) writes:
: >Robert Roosen (roo...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
: >(snip)
: >: It is too bad that Nova would spend time on an astrology course
: >: taught by a professional fraud (magician) and ignore the courses taught
: >: by knowledgable people. Just another part of the suppression of anything
: >: that helps people become aware of our uniqueness, I guess.
: >Yeah, it's part of that U.N. conspiracy :( Seriously, who ARE the
: >"knowledgeable people"? How did they discover this "knowledge"? See,
: >the weakest link in astrology is not so much that there's no physical way
: >in which Jupiter's position when you were born can make you accident-prone
: >today and so on.
: Condemning something without having looked into it -- that's the way of the
: quack!
: >P. Kimball
: >American College of Healthcare Executives
: *---------------------------------------------------------------------*
: Karl Hans Welz -- inventor of the Chi- (life-energy-) generator
: HSCTI -- Hyper Space Communications and Technologies International
: Mind-Machines for Self-Improvement and Technologies for Mind Control
: "Magic is action that is caused with the help of
: structural links and life energy"
: e-mail: Al...@magitech.com
: http://www.magitech.com/
: *---------------------------------------------------------------------*
It's always been my impression that quacks are people who invent things
without looking into them - properly.
Pete Tranter.
Steve Gilham
> I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
> on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
> I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
> publications by these self-appointed "experts".
Have you done a similar check on the cranks also? (what *is* Archimedes
Plutonium's publication history like?)
Steve G. M.A. (Cantab), M.Sc.
and a sole-author paper in MNRAS in 1981
-- st...@windsong.demon.co.uk (home) ---- PGP keys available on keyservers --
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |Lives of great men all remind us
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |We may make our lives sublime
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |And departing, leave behind us
uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)1223-300111x2904|Footprints in the sands of time.
Key fingerprint = 08 8A 67 70 6E 86 09 B4 38 0A BD C4 53 1C 88 99
Bill Hill
How come that the moment of birth only matters? Does this mean that
the mother's body has a shielding influence? If so, one could delay
the birth by using certain drugs, waiting for a more "favorable"
astral conjunction. Or one could make incubators made of steak, into
which the baby is baby is delivered. Once the stars tell you that the
person born on a certain date are going to be winners, take the baby
out of the incubator and celebrate with a barbecue.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Pedro
OKAY: The use of the birth time is an arbitrarily selected starting point
that was chosen when Astrology was in its youth. It was chosen because it was
the most easily pinpointed event in the whole conception process and marked
the new life's first moments of discrete existence. It only matters now
because all of the centuries of empirical data in astrology has been
collected with respect to that single point of reference, something which is
done in all science. In mathematics we all assume and agree that 1 is the
first digit. It could just as well be 134637 or any other number. When
discussing the velovity of an object we must first identify an object or
position that is assumed to be stationery or our discussion will make no
sense. Any marginally intelligent physics student will tell you that in the
grand scheme of things no such point or object exists. Does this make all
science invalid. I think not. However, according to you it does.
See Ya, Bill
Bill Hill
fact that the child needs to be induced is a part of its total metaphysical
and is an integral part of the learnong process for which it was born at this
time.
Martin Veasey
> So, all you "graffiti artists", tell us about your own scientific
> achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
> knowledgable than yourselves.
Presumably, you believe inclusion in the Citation Index is a necessary
condition for having something worthwhile to say. Bullshit. If an
argument is coherently presented, referenced where appropriate (and
this, I admit, is a weakness with some people) then it's worth
posting.
> I have better things to do than argue with adolescent mentalities
> who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
> harassing serious workers.
Did you throw your rattle out of your pram this morning?
These "adolescent mentalities" have something to say, too; and I'll
read it if it's well constructed.
Martin Veasey
mar...@cheam.demon.co.uk
Peter Tranter
: In article <40fkb7$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
: kalee...@aol.com "KaleenReed" writes:
: >In article <808086...@stanifor.demon.co.uk>, Charles Staniforth
: ><cha...@stanifor.demon.co.uk> writes:
: >
: >>Eh???? What is astrology about, if it's not about making
: >>predictions?
: >
: >Astrology is about probabilities, not predictions. It offers insight
: >which can help people understand what the probable outcomes will be if
: >they do not exercise their free will.
: This is more or less what I was trying to say, in fact.
: I'm sorry if the use of the word 'predictions' was misleading,
: it wasn't meant to be. I'm going to use the word again below
: a bit, because I do feel it's a valid term if taken in context.
: Please note I don't intend it to mean cast-iron, 100%,
: predictions of what will happen to any one particular person,
: or anything like that. I simply mean predictions of probabilities.
: If the term really gets anybody's goat, maybe substitute
: 'forecasts' or 'indications'?
: Anyway....
: It seems to me that Peter Kimball's argument is still
: a good one. Let's try a slightly different angle on it
: and see where we get.
: Whether or not one believes in astrology, one can agree,
: I hope, that probability forecasts, whether by astrologers
: or by nuclear physicists, are not always perfect. For instance,
: the physicist may fire electrons at a target and predict that
: 90% of them will be reflected. The actual experiment may show that
: only 50% are reflected. The astrologer may notice a particular
: conjunction of planets, and conclude that client x would be
: well advised to invest in the stock market, that client y
: may be prone to illness at this time, etc, but some of these
: indications may turn out to be wrong. *NB astrologers
: hold your fire! See further below!*
: The nub of Dr. Kimball's argument (I think - if not, then the
: nub of my totally original argument :) ), is that the physicist
: would now try to make sense of the anomalous result. She would
: certainly publish articles pointing out the anomaly, and would
: certainly have a close look at the theory to try and understand
: what was wrong with it. She might come up with a successful
: refinement to the theory, which would also make testable predictions.
: The new theory would stand or fall on the success or failure of
: these new predictions.
: We must go carefully here, because it's not necessarily
: obvious what kind of event would contradict the
: astrology theories. (Hence the flame-deflector above!)
: Consider the following.
: Astrologer: "Client x, I really think you should invest
: in the stock market"
: Client x invests in the stock market and blows the lot.
:
: I am _not_! saying that a scenario such as the above would
: indicate _any fault at all_ with the astrologer's charts.
: I don't for a moment suggest that an astrologer should be
: able to make precise, guaranteed, personal predictions.
: What I am saying is that there are many astrologers in the
: world and many people consulting them. I am suggesting that
: astrologers could compare notes, and maybe between them
: come to a conclusion like "Yeah, the effect of that
: conjunction really didn't seem to be as strong as it ought
: to have been. I wonder why not?" From such a basis, the
: ground could be laid for modifications of the theories,
: and tests of the modifications. In time, as with scientific
: endeavour, old theories might be completely supplanted by
: the new, and might seem laughable in hindsight.
: So, it still seems to me fair, looked at in this light,
: to wonder where the 'Flat Earth' or 'Phlogiston' of
: astrology are to be found, and where one should look
: for the current cutting edge of research and the latest
: theories - and if these things don't exist, why not?
: Any thoughts anyone?
: --
: Charles Staniforth cha...@stanifor.demon.co.uk
Astrology is not about critical thought. It isn't a body
of knowledge which is being rigorously researched and
developed. It isn't about statistical or any other kind
of reasoned analysis.
The very idea that this approach can be applied seems to
cause many of its adherents pain.
There is clearly, in many people, a deep seated need to believe
this stuff and an industry has grown up plying it. It's a
finished product, there's no point developing it further. Just
sell it and occasionally repackage it.
There are very clear reasons for the existence of astrology -
none of them to do with fundamental research into the effects
that the stars have on life on earth.
Pete Tranter.
Volker Wedemeier
|> What if I handed out poorly drawn maps of the sky, with extra stars
|> where none exist, and absent stars that should be there, and the rest
|> of them drawn all in the wrong places, distorting all the
|> relationships, and got a bunch of people to say that it looked pretty
|> much like the sky to them. Would that "disprove" astronomy?
No, the difference is, that you can always, objectively tell a 'random' starmap
as you describe from a real one. (Even if some people probably are not able to
do so).
In astrology it is obviously (well, in my opinion - and I'd really like to see an
objective test on this) not possible to tell a 'faced' horoscope from a
'real' one. _This_ fact disproves astrology. Obviously, a horoscope only
contains 'background noise', in which every beleiver in astrology tries to find
fitting patterns, but no real information.
By the way, in the same TV-emission, in which I saw the experiment with the
horoscopes, they also told the story of a psychology student who started to make
some money with palm-reading. He didn't beleive in this at first, he just wanted
to make some money (he learned it from a book he had bought.)
But after a while he noticed, that the people he palm-read really beleived the
things he said and that he was mostly right with the things he read in their
palms. So he started to beleive that palm-reading really worked.
He talked about this to a fellow student who wasn't convinced and they made a
bet. The other student said that he would get just the same amount of success, if
he told his clients just the opposite of what he should tell them according to
the palm-reading rules from the book. (So if according to the rules he should
tell people that they've had a relatively happy past, he told them that they had a
relatively unhappy past and so on)
Well, the palm reader tried this and he got just the same amount of success.
Obviously it's just a matter of not being too precise and of being convincing
enough. The clients will always try to find events in their past, that might
match what the palm-reader sais. I think just the same is true for
horoscopes.
Besides, from the physical point of view it's really ridiculous to beleive that
the gravity-fields (or whatever) of distant plantes (or even stars) should
influence our behaviour in any way. If gravity fields really influenced people,
than a passing truck would cause far more intense changes in our lives than the
planets.
Volker
Robert Roosen
on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
publications by these self-appointed "experts".
achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
knowledgable than yourselves.
who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
harassing serious workers.
PS If you need to fight, go play Doom. Do not waste the experts' time.
WAYNE JOHNSON
Don't be so sensitive. At best, your ideas are on the fuzzy fringe of
science. It's OK not to be in the mainstream, but when even a layman
can easily question the scientific procedures you use (An Intuitive
Approach, indeed!) I wonder what paper mill generated your PhD.
By the way, where'd you get it? I'd like some warning about where not
to send my kid.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
William S. Lawson
In article <DDABC...@crash.cts.com>, roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) writes:
|> I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
|> on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
|> I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
|> publications by these self-appointed "experts".
|> So, all you "graffiti artists", tell us about your own scientific
|> achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
|> knowledgable than yourselves.
|> I have better things to do than argue with adolescent mentalities
|> who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
|> harassing serious workers.
|> Robert G. Roosen, PhD
|> PS If you need to fight, go play Doom. Do not waste the experts' time.
Will you please make up your mind as to who (if anyone) is allowed to
criticize your ideas? Those who you can't find in the citation index
(how many years back did you look?) are out, but so are those with
"credentials", because they are part of the conspiracy (oh, I forgot,
you won't get this because you wrote to me personally to make sure I
knew I was going into your killfile -- perhaps some kind soul will
forward the above question). In any case, if you can't find me in the
citation index you aren't looking hard enough.
By the way, while I am an intuitive thinker myself, you have entered the
Oxymoron Hall of Fame with the term "scientific-intuitive" in your
previous post.
-- Bill Lawson
Rusty Rae
xe...@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu
roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) writes:
> I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
>on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
> I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
>publications by these self-appointed "experts".
> So, all you "graffiti artists", tell us about your own scientific
>achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
>knowledgable than yourselves.
> I have better things to do than argue with adolescent mentalities
>who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
>harassing serious workers.
>Robert G. Roosen, PhD
>PS If you need to fight, go play Doom. Do not waste the experts' time.
Are you a "serious worker", Roosen? What exactly is it that you're
an "expert" in? I don't recall having ever seen a single posting
from you before.
- x
Rifle River
>
> I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
> on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
Meaningful communciations are encouraged.
> I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
> publications by these self-appointed "experts".
Maybe you haven't searched enough names.
> So, all you "graffiti artists", tell us about your own scientific
> achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
> knowledgable than yourselves.
Look up J.D. Gunstream MS, Journal of Neuroscience, 1995.
> I have better things to do than argue with adolescent mentalities
> who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
> harassing serious workers.
> Robert G. Roosen, PhD
I looked up R Roosen on MedLine and came up empty for the last 5 years.
What is your area of work?
I think you've missed some important logic. Advanced degrees and
publications do not guarantee that someone is not a crackpot. On the other
hand, the lack of advanced degrees and publications does not guarantee
credulity either.
> Do not waste the experts' time.
What are you an expert at?
Rifle River
jst...@girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu
Grant Edwards
: OKAY: The use of the birth time is an arbitrarily selected starting point
: that was chosen when Astrology was in its youth. It was chosen because it
: was the most easily pinpointed event in the whole conception process and
: marked the new life's first moments of discrete existence. It only matters
: now because all of the centuries of empirical data in astrology has been
: collected with respect to that single point of reference,
What empirical data?!?! Point us to some empirical data that was collected
by astrologers over the centuries in order to test their theories.
--
Grant Edwards | Microsoft isn't the | Yow! The fact that 47 PEOPLE
Rosemount Inc. | answer. Microsoft | are yelling and sweat is
| is the question, and | cascading down my SPINAL
gra...@rosemount.com | the answer is no. | COLUMN is fairly enjoyable!!
Carl Warnell
cia...@ix.netcom.com "WAYNE JOHNSON" writes:
> (Robert Roosen) writes:
> >Robert G. Roosen, PhD
> >PS If you need to fight, go play Doom. Do not waste the experts'
> time.
> Approach, indeed!) I wonder what paper mill generated your PhD.
>
> By the way, where'd you get it? I'd like some warning about where not
> to send my kid.
Erm, whilst I in principle agree with you, R.G.Roosen is the author of the
paper "A Photographic Investigation of the Gegenschein and the Earth-Moon
Libration Point L5" in Vol. 9 of Icarus, p429. Of course, in 1968 he clearly
wasn't looking hard enough, as he failed to identify the libration clouds
despite successful sightings by Kordylewski (1961), Simpson (1967), Vanysek
(1969) and Winiarski (1989) -- the last of whom identified the size.
Still, just coz you've published a few papers and got a PhD doesn't make
you entitled to put people down who haven't been around for as
long as you, nor to behave like an arsehole.
:-)
--
_____ . . <|
Carl Warnell ' o/ FORE! . . |
b...@bogart.demon.co.uk | . . . . |
/| . . ...o
t...@hplb.hpl.hp.com
| I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
|on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
|publications by these self-appointed "experts".
|achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
|knowledgable than yourselves.
|who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
|harassing serious workers.
A boilerplate response to naive arguments like that...
Typical arguments proposed by those who propose quaint or crackpot theories are
along the lines of:
- "you should examine my theory to see if it's correct", usually with
the emphasis on _you_, and/or
- "my theory has not been disproved"
These arguments are naive and ignorant, and this is why.
1) the scientific method[1] (which seems to be very poorly understood by most
laymen and teachers) has been proven _many_ times to be the most effective way
of separating truth from untruth, and of promoting understanding.
2) there are many things in this world and universe that we really _need_ to
understand better, and many things that really _need_ to be improved. It is my
(self-imposed) duty to personally address these issues as best I can.
I could easily spend my life looking at all the quaint or crackpot theories,
BUT WHY SHOULD I WHEN THEIR PROPOSERS CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO USE THE PROVEN
METHODOLOGIES to verify their own theories.
IT IS UP TO THE PROPOSER TO JUSTIFY THE THEORY, NOT UP TO THE AUDIENCE TO
DISPROVE THE THEORY.
[1] scientific method 101
- observe to find a _repeatable_ phenomenon
- propose explanation for phenomenon [the leap of creative intuition]
- use explantion to make _prediction_ [the logical deduction]
- devise experiment to check prediction [the experiment]
If experiment does not "work", i.e. predicted result does not materialise, then
adjust the theory.
The critical points that separate the scientific method of determining truth
from all other methods: PREDICTION plus EXPERIMENT
--
===============================================================================
Tom Gardner Hewlett Packard Laboratories, Filton Rd,
t...@hplb.hpl.hp.com Stoke Gifford, Bristol, Avon, BS12 6QZ, ENGLAND.
Fax: +44 1179 228920 Tel: +44 1179 799910 ext. 28192
Too many Heritage Centres make you go blind.
===============================================================================
New York Theosophical Society
: Astrology is not about critical thought. It isn't a body
: of knowledge which is being rigorously researched and
: developed. It isn't about statistical or any other kind
: of reasoned analysis.
: The very idea that this approach can be applied seems to
: cause many of its adherents pain.
: There is clearly, in many people, a deep seated need to believe
: this stuff and an industry has grown up plying it. It's a
: finished product, there's no point developing it further. Just
: sell it and occasionally repackage it.
:
: There are very clear reasons for the existence of astrology -
: none of them to do with fundamental research into the effects
: that the stars have on life on earth.
Please, before you put something down, find out a little about
it, first. This is not to say that astrology has any validity, but to
make claims about astrology that the astrologers themselves do not make,
and then declare them as false, is just phallic posturing.
The second paragraph has some truth, but only because many does
not necessarily mean most. If you had said most, that would have been
untrue, as well. The first sentence in the third paragraph also has
validity. Other than that, none of your statement has anything to do
with astrology as practiced.
Please note that making up lies to convince people not to do
something is a very tricky practice. A significant part of an entire
generation turned to mind-altering drugs, and the efforts to stop them by
exxagerating the dangers only ensured that none of dangers would be taken
seriously.
Bart Lidofsky
Rusty Rae
Let me see if I've got this right. Because you are a
scientist you have the right to debunk anything you wish (even when
you know nothing of the subject) but we don't have the right to
debunk you or your vicious, malicious, violent attacks on something
you know nothing because you use the scientific method.
Is anybody else as confused as I am over this guy's post?
Is it because I'm female, or because I've only been to biz school,
law school, and I'm only a therapist and a mediator -- and a mother
and wife?
Oh...I get it. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know diddily
squat. Huh?
Sheila Hunter
Camilla Cracchiolo
have had the resources or inclination to pursue advanced scientific
degrees? God help the rest of us, then. We already are fighting an
uphill battle trying to bring basic scientific literacy and the tools
of logical argument to the average person in the US. What we need
are more regular folks on the street who are capable of distinguishing
fraud, medical quackery and pseudoscience from valid science. Limiting
logical arguement to scientists is a step backward.
BTW, I've never been published in a peer reviewed journal, although
I have contributed to lay publications on occasion. But I can still
see through bullshit.
Robert Roosen (roo...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
: I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
: on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
: I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
: publications by these self-appointed "experts".
: So, all you "graffiti artists", tell us about your own scientific
: achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
: knowledgable than yourselves.
: I have better things to do than argue with adolescent mentalities
: who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
: harassing serious workers.
: Robert G. Roosen, PhD
: PS If you need to fight, go play Doom. Do not waste the experts' time.
--
*Stop the execution of Mumia Abu Jamal: A new trial now!*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Camilla Cracchiolo, RN cam...@primenet.com
Shrine of the Cybernetic Madonna BBS 213-766-1356
"The board that Hates Rush Limbaugh *and* Newt Gingrich With A Passion"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Inman
>j...@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>> What if I handed out poorly drawn maps of the sky, with extra stars
>> where none exist, and absent stars that should be there, and the rest
>> of them drawn all in the wrong places, distorting all the
>> relationships, and got a bunch of people to say that it looked pretty
>> much like the sky to them. Would that "disprove" astronomy?
>
>No, the difference is, that you can always, objectively tell a
>'random' starmap as you describe from a real one. (Even if some people
>probably are not able to do so).
Notice your qualification(s) in the previous sentences. That's part
of what I am trying to get at. In the first place, you acknowledge
that some people are incompetent to make certain judgements. The
criteria of competence is something you call "objectivity". And yet
you seem to be willing to trust anybody to make judgements about
astrology, such as a bunch of people given "random" charts.
>In astrology it is obviously (well,
>in my opinion - and I'd really like to see an objective test on this)
>not possible to tell a 'faced' horoscope from a 'real' one. _This_
>fact disproves astrology.
("Faked", you meant.) Here you apply a rhetorical tool that, as you
acknowledged above, with respect to astronomy, is probably not in your
power to wield. The parenthetical statement acknowledges that the
strength of your argument rests on opinion. Nothing particularly
wrong with that, but I'm presuming that your opinion is not founded on
any familiarity with what astrology even claims to be, and especially
is not based on any kind of experience or knowledge of astrology in
practice.
>Obviously, a horoscope only contains
>'background noise', in which every beleiver in astrology tries to find
>fitting patterns, but no real information.
QED, right? Just for perspective, suppose that I were to make the
same claim about "scientific skepticism"? Your argument above is so
flimsy that it looks to me as though you are just throwing out the
arguments for form, when it is really a foregone conclusion that the
subject is not worth your consideration.
>By the way, in the same TV-emission, in which I saw the experiment
>with the horoscopes, they also told the story of a psychology student
>who started to make some money with palm-reading.
[... his skeptical friend sets out to give readings opposite to
"convention" ...]
>(So if according to the rules he
>should tell people that they've had a relatively happy past, he told
>them that they had a relatively unhappy past and so on) Well, the palm
>reader tried this and he got just the same amount of success.
This is the same format as the astrology experiment, and the same
critique should be applied to it. Next you'll be measuring literary
value by the NYT bestseller list.
>Obviously it's just a matter of not being too precise and of being
>convincing enough. The clients will always try to find events in their
>past, that might match what the palm-reader sais. I think just the
>same is true for horoscopes.
I am well aware that you think this. Many other people think it, too.
The question is whether the world is the way you think it is. It
seems to me that in order to resolve this question, what is needed is
a really good empirical experiment. The domain is a correlation
between certain facets of human experience, and "astronomical" events
of different varieties. (I use quotations so that no one will
interrupt to point out that some astrological systems use "contrived"
or ficitonal points. This is off course irrelevant to the point of
whether the things observed correlate with human experience.) The
criteria for such an experiment include some form of objectifying
individual human experience. This extremely difficult. If different
attempts at this produce different results, even that is not
sufficient to make a conclusion. For example, we don't reject
psychology on the grounds that there are different interpretations of
the psychological state of the same individual. They may each have
some validity within a different framework.
>Besides, from the physical point of view it's really ridiculous to
>beleive that the gravity-fields (or whatever) of distant plantes (or
>even stars) should influence our behaviour in any way.
Such a premise is not at all necessary for astrology to be valid, even
theoretically. When you begin to think about astrology, you will fin
this to be an interesting issue.
>If gravity
>fields really influenced people, than a passing truck would cause far
>more intense changes in our lives than the planets.
Yeah, yeah. And the gravitation of the delivery-room doctor is
stronger than that of the moon. What makes you think that this has
anything to do with analyzing the validity of astrology?
Keep thinking about this stuff.
--
Jeff Inman
j...@santafe.edu
"Milk those poignant thoughts, my sad little clown."
Jeff Olson
> Sheila Hunter
Hi Sheila,
I'm not certain whose article you're referring to here. I agree with you
that everyone has the right to debunk anyone they wish. One's credentials,
degrees, publications, etc, are irrelevant. I believe, though, that the
general way the sci newsgroups tend to go is that someone will post some idea
about how the Universe is composed of "dipolar magneton ether discharges" or
some such thing, which gets followed by a few legitimate scientific criticisms
("Your model predicts that all matter is repelled by each other", "The Simpson
experiment demonstrates that your fundamental premise is flawed", whatever),
which are followed by a bunch of whining about how the "scientific elite" are
trying to keep others from being heard.
The problem is that those who put forth these new theories aren't willing
to make even the tiniest effort to justify their idea by doing a comparison
with reality. Many things are testable, and science is really simply a
description of things which are testable. (For example, science's best
description of a plethora of atomic and electromagnetic phenomena is quantum
mechanics, but if at some point a different description is found that more
closely explains reality, that description will be adopted. The key point is
that the new description must _explain_reality_.) For someone to feel that
they don't have to do the very fundamental things of science (test their
theory with observation, make and test predictions), but should still be
accepted by scientists (or anyone, for that matter) is ricidulous.
Jeff
Jeff Inman
>If you are so thoughtful Jeff, how did you completely miss the point
>of the experiment? The idea was not do "disprove" astrology. The
>idea was to show that certain phenomena - correlations between
>celestial events and human affairs - have other explanations and that
>astrological explanations are not required.
You almost make ignorance sound like a virtue. The problem with
Occam's Razor is that the explanation that seems "simplest" has a
certain dependence on the things that people already believe.
Anomalies are so damn complicated, why not just stick with what we
already think? This works in some areas, to sweep annoying problems
under the rug, but when one is faced with new theoretical domains it
is simply not a responsible mode of thought. One has to expend effort
to understand what the limitations (or, if you prefer, the range) of
one's theoretical understanding might be. Beyond that range, the more
complicated approach is required, before can begin simplifying again,
in the new world.
>Absolute truth does not
>exist. We can only deal with probabilities and the probability that
>the correlations are best explained by astrological superstition is
>low compared to the probabilities that they are best explained by well
>known and demonstrated psychological traits of man.
"Probability" is a word for the attempt to try and get a glimpse of
relationships among things in an area where one lacks sufficient
knowledge. Absolute truth does indeed exist. If you mistake your own
uncertainty for objective "probabilities", then you might also presume
that absolute truth couldn't exist.
Jeff Inman
>More sour grapes. Aren't all the junk shows on the networks enough for you?
>You want something on public broadcasting. Maybe if you could just
>tell us one solid accomplishment of astrology in it illustrious
>history.
You must've forgotten the times that it was suggested that this is a
ridiculous question. It amounts to nothing more than a statement of
your premise. Trust me, I know what your premise is, but it doesn't
constitute any kind of point in this discussion, more than an
opinionated opening statement. The answer will (obviously) be that
astrology *IS* an accomplishment. The (claimed) fact that it works,
would be the obvious accomplishment.
Your move.
Rusty Rae
My post was in answer (see tree) to Tom Gardner at Hewlett
Packard in Avon, England -- t...@hplb.hp.com.
Sheila
Stephanie A. Hall
misunderstanding about the phenomenon of divination, common among
"skeptics." That is, the assumption that if divination experience is
principally psychological, then it is useless and invalid. Astrology,
tarot, and many other divination systems (whether intended as predictive
or advisory) often take powerful symbols and their associated meanings,
derive specific meanings from them for the querient, and then allow
discussion between the querient and the diviner concerning the querient's
response to the reading.
Setting aside for the moment the possibility there is anything "magic" or
"psychic" going on (and granting for the time being that there might
be), this is a powerful psychological experience -- folk healing or folk
therapy if you will. The reading gives the individual an opportunity to
talk about his/her life and feelings in a special context. This opportunity
is clearly useful, professional therapists do it all the time. In fact, a
number of therapists are experimenting with using astrology and tarot in
clinical settings these days.
I co-authored a paper with Camille Bacon-Smith presented at the American
Folklore Society meetings several years ago (unpublished) that was a
study of tarot card readers reading for each other for mutual
assistance (not for money). We asked them how they thought the cards
worked. Many of them responded with "Have you ever read Carl Jung?"
Interesting.
As a folklorist, I am not into debunking belief systems (apparently a
pastime among some posters). Folklorists generally assume that people do
things because they are useful to them (allowing that some behaviors may be
dysfunctional). If we are to understand divination practices, it is
important to understand why people find them useful (and have found them
useful for many thousands of years), what meanings they have in their
particular culture, and how the practice functions in society. Positing a
false dichotomy -- that either some supernatural event is occurring or
else the practice is fraudulent -- is _not_ a scientific way of going
about such research.
Stephanie
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Stephanie A. Hall, Archivist The Library of Congress
American Folklife Center preserves and houses
Library of Congress countless ideas and opinions.
Washington, DC 20540-8100 Those expressed here
sh...@loc.gov are my own.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Darin Johnson
> People who are easily deceived by false horoscopes are also easily
> deceived by just about anything -- like meteorologists who only seem to
> get their weather report right 50% of the time, or scientists who can't
> decide from one day to the next which type of cholesterol is really the
> bad guy, or even astronomers who once said there were canals on Mars.
- Meteorology is not an exact science when it comes to predictions.
Especially when done by TV meteorologists. On Tv, you never hear
"it will rain", only a percentage chance. (although I must admit,
meteorologists have a great record in comparison with astrologists)
- Cholesteral - this was blown out of proportion by the news media.
Ie, one group has an experiment that claims a significant
correlation and it makes the big news, and the health food advocates
run with it. I never saw any newspaper actually print the
scientific report. You forget the oat-bran controversy too, same
effects.
- Canals on mars. One scientist claims this, everyone jumps on the
bandwagon. The original scientist and the few that made similar
claims failed to get any verifiable evidence.
These are all human errors or misunderstandings. They don't disprove
science. They certainly don't disprove that one should abandon logic,
insistence upon verifiable and reproducible experiments, and
statistical analysis. The failures here are precisely those sorts of
things that get people hooked on astrology - a "science" that abandons
logic, can not be verified, and has no valid statistical basis. Yet
given scores of fakes, fuzzy results, and debunking, few leave
astrology; a few scientific goofs and the astrologers start pointng
fingers though.
> People with truly scientific minds (unlike yours, perhaps?) explore the
> possibilities, and learn about the inner workings of a topic in order to
> gain some understanding of it, instead of simply dismissing it.
You are incorrect. A scientific mind does NOT mean merely a mind that
is open to possibilities. That is absurd, and would imply that the
most gullible person is also the most scientific. One must also
verify the possibilities, not accept them blindly. If one explores
the possibilities of a cause and effect, science says that one must
try diligently to prove this link by eliminating alternate
explanations, removing experimental error, and seeking
reproducibility. One must also seek a valid model if one is to be
scientific and then seek to verify the model. Certainly the vast
majority of astrology leaders and followers do not fit this definition
of a scientific mind.
> People
> who simply dismiss astrology without thoroughly investigating it are
> either lazy (it does take work!) or hopelessly dogmatic, rigid, and narrow
> minded. If you live your life in denial, you're going to miss most of it!
People dismiss it because there is no evidence to suggest it is worth
pursuing; while there is plenty of evidence suggesting it is bunk.
While astrology will take two people born a day apart who have similar
personalities as evidence of astrologies validity; they offer a lame
excuse when twins born within minutes have vastly different
personalities. In the latter case it is often claimed that the
stellar bodies have moved ever so slightly between the births; yet
ignore the fact that they've moved *vastly* more for people born more
than a day apart. *If* astrology is true, and the given explanation
for twins is true; then astrology would be a USELESS science, because
one would have to know the very second of birth or less to make any
use of it. Being off by an hour would result in useless results.
Could the ancients who developed astrology (er, I mean the many
diverse and incompatible forms of astrology) have had this accuracy?
We only now are just getting the capability of determining accuracy
this precise for the positions of stars and planets.
Also, the light from any star takes YEARS before it arrives at Earth.
The stars have already moved on by the time we see them. Some may
even have exploded millions of years ago. *If* astrology is true,
then effects from star must be discounted; leaving possibly purely
cyclic effects from which stars are only a symbolic means of
calculation. That last doesn't hold water, since the various
astrologies were invented and promoted with the belief that it was
thee starts, not some biological cycle; and current astrology (within
the last century) still maintains basically the same theory. If
biological cycles is the reason, then why hasn't astrology changed to
match?
Ignoring the stars, consider the planets, the sun and moon. Their
gravitational effect is so small as to be negligable to a newborn
infant. The gravitational effect of the mother is stronger!
Finally, why the moment of birth? What if labor is delayed, or even
if the labor is extraordinarily long? Why not conception? Why not
a continual effect based upon significant events that must be taken
cumulatively before a horoscope may be given?
So what *IS* the astrological model? *WHY* should people with a
scientific mind follow it? What evidence is there to suggest that
the system of the ancient Greeks (or Chinese, whatever) is worth
spending time investigating? Surely you don't suggest that just
because a bunch of people believe in it that it's enough?
The scientific mind sees no reason to investigate this beyond a
few simple tests based upon the daily newspapers (which, if they are
so inaccurate, are still the means by which most people get hooked
into astrology - bait and switch I say).
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu -- Toy cows in Africa
Carter Butts
> I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
>on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
Hmm, an interesting claim. How about some evidence for it? (Such as: a list
of all "meaningful" communications, as well as a full list of those "jumping
on" them, so that we may determine whether, indeed, a "handful" of individuals
are debunking "just about all" "meaningful communications".)
Oh, and, BTW, I'd like to see some definitions of "meaningful communication,"
"handful," and "just abour everyone." Thanks.
> I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
>publications by these self-appointed "experts".
Who would these "experts" be? Names, please.
> So, all you "graffiti artists", tell us about your own scientific
>achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
>knowledgable than yourselves.
This presumes that there are "graffiti artists" who are "running down those
more experienced and knowledgable" then themselves. Why don't you post some
evidence in support of this claim?
> I have better things to do than argue with adolescent mentalities
>who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
>harassing serious workers.
>Robert G. Roosen, PhD
Do you? What _do_ you do with your time? What makes those things "better",
and from whose perspective? Evidence, please.
>PS If you need to fight, go play Doom. Do not waste the experts' time.
Is someone fighting? You've provided no evidence! Hmm, one would expect
better from someone who is presumably so knowledgable....
-Carter
Darin Johnson
> An experiment was done with children in an orphanage. half of
> the children were fed but not touched, and the other half of the
> children were touched and talked to. The half that were untouched
> all died within a very short time.
Nothing to do with astrology - but I challenge you to come up with
proof that this experiment took place! Is it just hearsay, something
your read 10 years ago, or are there facts we can verify?
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
Support your right to own gnus.
Richard A. Schumacher
>>>What has this got to do with astrology?
>The reason you were asked what this has to do with astrology is that,
>even if your premise about human gullibility is true, this particular
>"test" does nothing whatsoever to validate or invalidate astrology.
>In fact, it demonstrates un unwillingness to entertain the notion that
>any kind of research is worthwhile.
It reminds us to make any tests rigorous, by basing them on objective
facts and not subjective evaluations. The only attempts at an
objective test to date were the "Ares Effect" studies. They were
negative. If you are aware of better evidence in favor of astrlogy,
or of a theoretical basis for a mechanism, please share it with
us.
>What if I handed out poorly drawn maps of the sky, with extra stars
>where none exist, and absent stars that should be there, and the rest
>of them drawn all in the wrong places, distorting all the
>relationships, and got a bunch of people to say that it looked pretty
>much like the sky to them. Would that "disprove" astronomy?
No indeed; the failed counter example would only strengthen astronomy,
since astronomy makes testable and correct predictions. Where are the
testable, correct predictions made by astrologers?
>examining that type of data, for anyone. If you are capable of
>designing a good experiment to examine this stuff then do it.
Why do the astrologers not provide such tests? Surely they
have strong motivation to do so: anyone who could repeatably
demonstrate the correctness of their work could do enormous good
for the world, or make a lot of money, or make all us skeptics
look real stoopid. (Choose your favorite motive.) The fact that
they do not strongly suggests that they cannot. It certainly
gives intelligent people no reason to believe.
Carl J Lydick
=[1] scientific method 101
= - observe to find a _repeatable_ phenomenon
Repeatability is not always necessary. See below.
= - propose explanation for phenomenon [the leap of creative intuition]
= - use explantion to make _prediction_ [the logical deduction]
This prediction need be only about an aspect of the phenomenon which has not
yet been observed. Such predictions can be made even when dealing with
nonrepeatable phenomena. For example, the Big Bang theory makes certain
predictions about the cosmic background radiation. At the time the theory was
formulated, observations to confirm or deny these predictions did not exist.
= - devise experiment to check prediction [the experiment]
Note that in the case of the Big Bang theory, the "experiment" had already been
performed, except for collecting the data. The same is true for much of
evolutionary theory: Darwinian (as opposed to Lamarckian, for example; not the
idiotic strawman used by creationists where they call only the material in
Darwin's own treatises Darwinian evolution) evolution required some means of
imperfectly transmitting genetic material from generation to generation. That
material was eventually found to be DNA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Richard A. Schumacher
>principally psychological, then it is useless and invalid. Astrology,
>tarot, and many other divination systems (whether intended as predictive
>or advisory) often take powerful symbols and their associated meanings,
>derive specific meanings from them for the querient, and then allow
>discussion between the querient and the diviner concerning the querient's
>response to the reading.
If astrology is actually psychotherapy, religion or sociological
study technique, then call it that. Don't wrap it in pseudo-physical
trappings.
>particular culture, and how the practice functions in society. Positing a
>false dichotomy -- that either some supernatural event is occurring or
>else the practice is fraudulent -- is _not_ a scientific way of going
>about such research.
When astrologers claim a physical basis and make testable
claims, they open it to investigation as a physical science.
Why do they do this if they don't want scrutiny?
Richard A. Schumacher
>Science is as Science does. Okay? An Assistant Professor of Astronomy
>that doesn't understand the Scientific Method is unqualified for the
>job.
Indeed. I notice that Bob won't say where he is _now_ employed
as an astronomer or professor of astronomy, so perhaps he is one
no longer.
Paul Schlyter
> Furthermore, given the subject's date, time and place of birth, and the fact
> that the positions of the planets etc are calculable, why not just have a
> computer program to churn out the horoscope? Why should anybody need an
> astrologer these days?
Because different astrologers make different interpretations on the
same horoscope. To simulate THAT on a computer would require very much
information on how human astrologers interpret this, plus some kind of
randomness built into the program to decide which of all possible
interpretations to choose.
A human astrologer can also do something a computer program cannot
(easily) do: (s)he can, during the chart reading/interpretation,
interview the customer about additional details -- usually the customer
won't notice the interrogation, and the end result will be a chart
reading that the customer considers much more accurate. The customer
will usually be happily unaware that this accurate chart reading didn't
originate from "the stars" but from him/herself!!! This is hard to
simulate in a computer program.
> The other thing that always intrigued me about astrology is the
> discovery of new planets. Presumably, all horoscopes up to the time
> of the discovery of Pluto in 1930 were wrong, and those before the
> discovery of Uranus and Neptune, complete rubbish. Who's to say there
> aren't more planets further out?
According to the latest astronomical data, if there's a new planet
out there it must either be very small or very distant. It's very
unlikely that a large, fairly nearby (i.e. not that far outside
Pluto's orbit), planet exists that haven't been detected.
On the other hand there ARE a large number of very small planets
outside Neptune's orbit. They are sdmall enough to be labelled
asteroids. The first one was discovered only 2 years ago -- so far
about 22 such asteroids have been discovered.
> Maybe the discrepencies between astrologers' predictions and fact are
> due to the influence of undiscovered planet(s) and astrologers
> working back from discrepencies could thereby predict the positions
> of the new planet(s) - a bit like J.C. Adams and the discovery of
> Neptune made by calculation from anomalies in the orbit of Uranus.
> Now that would be interesting.
You're not the first one suggesting this possibility. There have been
a fairly large number of such "astrological predictions" of additional
planets -- unfortunately (for the astrologers) none of them have been
found in the real world. Some astrologers claim this is because these
planets are "etheral" and therefore invisible in the "material world".
See the text below for additional details:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A list of hypothetical astrological planets
===========================================
Uranians (Witte, "Hamburg school")
----------------------------------
Cupido period 262y (community, marriage, art)
Hades period 360y (lowness, dirt, antiquity, secrets)
Zeus period 456y (physical leadership, cerativity, Uranus upper octave)
Kronos period 522y (authority)
Apollon period 576y (expansion, science, commerce, peace)
Admetos period 617y (raw material, circulation, death)
Vulkanus period 663y (power, strungth, upper octave of Mars)
Poseidon period 740y (mind, spirit and ideas)
According to Witte (reverse engineered from ephemerides in [B]):
P a Mean longitude dlon e Perihel i Ascnode
sidereal 1900.0 1950.0 /100y lon lon
Cupido 262.50 40.99 105.026 174.294 138.535 0.0045 300 1.08 130
Hades 360.63 50.67 337.180 27.790 101.219 0.0024 305 1.05 342
Zeus 455.64 59.21 104.172 144.375 80.406 0.0011 295 0 -
Kronos 521.75 64.81 17.298 52.495 70.394 0.0028 205 0 -
Apollon 589.4 70.3 138.060 169.297 62.474 0 - 0 -
Admetos 631.8 73.6 351.334 20.521 58.374 0 - 0 -
Vulkanus 679.1 77.3 55.900 83.104 54.407 0 - 0 -
Poseidon 765.3 83.7 165.521 189.739 48.435 0 - 0 -
According to Matrix (from Walter's Astrolog 4.00):
Lon 1900.0 n/100y a
Cupido 104.5959 138.5369 40.998370
Hades 337.4517 101.2176 50.667443
Zeus 104.0904 80.4057 59.214362
Kronos 17.7346 70.3863 64.816896
Apollon 138.0354 62.5000 70.361652
Admetos 351.3220 58.3468 73.736476
Vulkanus 55.9826 54.2986 77.445895
Poseidon 165.3595 48.6486 83.493733
According to James Neely was Zeus considered to be in his node-position in
1911 though it remains unclear if it was the as- oder descending node.
Ram (Dutch astrologer)
----------------------
Demeter (rules Cancer, spiritual aptitudes, art, music.
upper octave of Saturn)
pos. 1925 10Sag lon +4.30 lat 17.32 decl. 249.03 RA
Hermes (rules Gemini, spiritual/ideal/occult,
upper octave of Jupiter)
Persephone (ruler of Taurus, spiritual performance, creativity,
upper octave of Mars)
Longitude Yearly Period Ref: [3]
1925 1929 motion
Demeter 10 Sag 12 Sag 0.40 deg 900 y
Hermes 27.30 Leo 0 Vir 0.50 deg 720 y
Persephone 10 Aqu 13 Aqu 0.60 deg 600 y
Maurice Wemyss
--------------
Dido period 365y (ruler of Virgo)
(existence doubtful, even admitted by Wemyss himself)
Hercules period 654y (ruler of Leo)
Jason period 45y (ruler of Sagittarius)
Wemyss-Pluto period 1366y (ruler of Cancer)
Longitude Yearly Period a Ref [1]
1850.0 1900.0 motion years a.u.
Hercules 20.5 Gem 18.0 Can 0.55 deg 654 75.3
Jason 13.2 Leo 23.7 Vir 8.01 deg 44.9 12.6
Wemyss-Pluto 13.96 Leo 27.13 Leo 0.2634 deg 1367 123.2
Thierens
--------
Bacchus/Horus (future ruler of Cancer)
Pluto/Osiris (future ruler of Aries)
Vesta/Isis (future ruler of Taurus)
Hermes/Mercurius (future ruler of Gemini)
Vulcan/Vulcanus (intramercurial)
Sutcliffe
---------
Isis period 360y
Osiris (ruler of Aries)
Vulcan (intramercurial, 'explosive')
Horus (No.3) and and anonymous No.4. are described in
Sutcliffe's book: The New Astronomy and Cosmic Physiology,
London, 1930. Data about these two is highly differing
depending on the source you use.
Isis: period 360 y [13], 350 y (The New Astronomy and Cosmic Physiology)
distance: 50 AU (T.N.A.a.C.P.), 50.6 AU [13]
07/05/1929: 228-230 deg (heliocentric, (T.N.A.a.C.P.))
01/01/1906: 00 deg 42 min AR [9]
01/01/1930: 24 deg 46 min AR (A.E.Thierens:"Elementen der esoterische
Astrologie" - Dutch book)
(rules news and the fashion, also grammophones, typewriters)
Osiris: period 990 y [13] and 600 y (T.N.A.a.C.P.)
distance: 90.3 [13] 70 AU (T.N.A.a.C.P.) 99.43 AU [9]
09/09/1929: supposed in conj. with the sun (heliocentric 165 deg)
01/01/1906: 3 deg 01 min 49 sec LI [9]
yearly motion: 0 deg 21 min 08 sec [13]
0 deg 21 min 49 sec [9]
Horus: (T.N.A.a.C.P.):
period 5 y
between Ma and Ju, supposed to be in its infancy and gaseous
distance: 2.91 AU
BUT: according to other sources this planet is behind Osiris.
yearly motion: 00 deg 09 min 49 sec [13], [9]
0 deg 10 min (Thierens)
01/01/1930: 2 deg 11 min AR (Thierens)
period 2200 y (Thierens)
01/01/1906: 28 deg 09 min 49 sec PI [9],[13]
distance: 169.2 AU [9]
(is the super-physical in ultra-violet area)
No.4 : beyond the orbit of No.3 (Horus)
period: 5658 y [13]
yearly motion: 0 deg 3 min 49 sec [9],[13]
01/01/1906: 22 deg 05 min 49 sec VI [9],[13]
01/01/1930: 23 deg 41 min VI (Thierens)
Jayne, 1962
-----------
Isis (transplutonian)
Lion (transplutonian)
Midas (transplutonian)
Minos (1962 in Aqr, sighted in 1850)
Moraya (transplutonian)
Pan (transplutonian)
Charubel, discovered by clairvoyance 1897
-----------------------------------------
La Croix period 340y (higher properties of Mars)
Ov period 297y (longevity, magnetic power, probably same as Melodia)
Longitude Yearly motion Period a
Nov 1905 years a.u.
La Croix 5.55 Ari 1.05 deg 343 49.0
Ov 17.75 Aqu 1.20 deg 300 44.8
Goldstein-Jacobson
------------------
Lilith period 126d (temptations,betrayal,abortion,stillbirth)
"Dark Moon", "Esoteric Moon"
Geocentric longitude of Lilith can be computed like this (reverse engineered
from ephemeris in [E]):
Entry data: JD, the Julian Day Number of the moment, including fractional part
MJD = JD - 2415021.0
lon = 262.294 + MJD * 3.019554294 degrees
If MJD is greater than (about) 23800.0 subtract 3.00 degrees from lon !!!
Strange? I agree, but this discontinuity more or less mimics the figures
in Delphine Jay's "The Lilith Ephemeris", where the longitude actually
DOES jump by this amount during a few months in 1965! Note that 3.00 very
nearly corresponds to the daily motion of Lilith -- the most likely cause
of this is therefore an error of one day in the calculation of this
ephemeris -- perhaps a leap year error somewhere. Nevertheless, if you
want to mimic this error in "The Lilith Ephemeris", include this
discontinuity. Delphine Jay says that the "lesser cycle" of Lilith is
63 years, meaning that Lilith returns to the same longitude on the same
date after 63 years. During 1900->1963 and 1901->1964 Delphine Jay
uses 23010 days for "63 years", but starting from 1902->1964 all the
way through 1937->2000 she switches to 23011 for "63 years". Now during
these 63 years Lilith is supposed to travel precisely 193 revolutons or
69,480 degrees. The resulting daily mean motion will thus be either of:
69480 / 23010 = 3.019556714 deg/day (tropical motion)
or 69480 / 23011 = 3.019425492 deg/day
Probably 23010 is the "correct" value for 63 years -- Delphine Jay lost
a day somewhere in 1965. So the expression for the mean longitude
should probably be:
lon = 262.294 + MJD * 3.019556714 degrees
with no discontinuity in lon araound 1965. This will of course disagree
with Delphine Jay's ephemeris at dates after 1965, but will probably be
more consistent with Sepharial's original ephemeris.
Add the periodic term below to lon (degrees):
-1.55 * sin( ((MJD - 272.0) / 354.00 ) * (360_degrees) )
* sin( ((MJD - 333.5) / 11444.0) * (360_degrees) )
Yes, this is a product of two sinusoidial oscillations, one with a period
of 354 days (very close to three times Lilith's period = 357.669 days),
the other with a period of 11444 days or 31.3 years (very close to 31.5
years or half of the 63 years mentioned above).
(There's another Lilith too - the apsides of the orbit of our normal moon.
Joelle de Gravelaine writes about the second one in her book: Le retour de
Lilith (German translation: Lilith, der schwarze Mond, Wettswil, 1990). In
the appendix of her book Gravelaine gives tables to compute the apsides of
the moon 1900-01-01: 4.28 Vir, 1950-01-01: 28.53 Ari, 2000-01-01: 23.20 Sag,
period about 8 years. The interpretation of both Liliths is quite similiar
though. The "dark moon" Lilith is more the American Lilith while in Europe
Gravelaine's "apside line" Lilith seems to be more popular. )
Harris
------
Melodia period 297y (diam 50000 miles, probably same as Ov, see above)
Nov 1905 6Gem42, yearly motion 1# 13'
At the same time Ov (which could be identical with
Melodia) is supposed to be at 17Aqu45 [13]
Polyhymnia (in orbit beyond Melodia)
Vulcan (NOT intramercurial)
Pagan, 1911
-----------
Pagan-Pluto (ruler of Scorpio)
Landscheidt
-----------
Transpluto (transplutonian: P=686y/a=77.75au/e=0.3 by M.E.Sevin) [D]
Kitzinger
---------
Transpluto/Persephone (transplutonian: P=676y/a=77.0au/e=0.073) [D]
M w N i e dlon a P RA Dec mag
deg deg/yr a.e. 1960
83.1 358.3 205.7 38.0 4.2 0.5238 77.0 675.7 21h30m +19 10
Weston, 1920
------------
Vulcan (fiery, explosive, etheral, tends to nullify the
effect of all planets except Sun/Merc in conjunction,
rules the atmosphere, produces storms. Strange freaks
are produced in human nature, mentally/physically,
usually in malevolent form) [C]
Weston 1908 Weston 1920
Sid. period 18.584 18.58415 days
Syn. period 19.5804 19.5804 days
Semi-major axis 0.13744 0.13744 a.e.
Daily motion 19.3715 19.3714 deg/day
Desc node 102.38 102.92 degrees 1907-06-25
Node motion (not given) -16.7058 deg/year
Inclination (not given) 7.50 degrees
Mean longitude (not given) 318.3869 degrees 1911-01-00
Eccentricity (not given) 0.019
Perih. lon (not given) 10 degrees 1907
Mass (not given) 1/37E+6 solar masses
Zecharia Sitchin, 1976
----------------------
Nibiru period 3600y Perihelion in 0 AD, in the asteroidal belt.
Inside the solar system 100 BC - 100 AD
Semi-major axis 235 a.e.
(rules balance, possible ruler of Libra) [D]
I received an email about nibiru, from megat...@aol.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My name is Jesse D. Weiss. By chance on my first look into the net I
happened to read your post on Mythical Planets. The path of intuitive
reasoning led me to think Niburu rules Libra (I Am a double Libra) as well
as my research into establishing why this planet was so identified with
equilibrium of the solar system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hawkins, 1978
-------------
Transpluto/Bacchus (transplutonian) [D]
Period a e i T Perih lon
julian a.e. 1947.0
years
685.65 77.755 0.300 0.0 1772.76 0.7 deg
Blavatsky, Bailey, Bessant
--------------------------
A complicated system of "esoteric planets", "sacred planets", "non-sacred
planets", "seven rays" etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
[A] Fred Gettings "The Arkana Dictionary of Astrology", Arkana/Penguin
1985,1990 - used as a source where no other source is speicified.
[B] The Uranians: "Immerwahrende Ephemeride fur Mondknoten, Uranus, Neptun,
Cupido, Hades, Zeus, Kronos", Alfred Witte, Witte-Verlag Ludwig Rudolph,
Hamburg. Year of print not given but probably in the earlier parts of
our century. That booklet, which I found in an occult bookshop in London
back in 1973, also had an appendix giving ephemerides for Apollon, Admetos,
Vulkanus (note the spelling!) and Poseidon. Positions are given for the
four inner uranians from 1350 to 1960, and for the four outer from 1600
to 2000. And, yes, there are ephemerides for Uranus and Neptune there too,
but NOT Pluto! This booklet was obviously published before Pluto was
discovered....
[C] Weston's Vulcan: "The planet Vulcan - History, Nature, Tables",
L.H. Weston, American Federation of Astrologers. A reprint of Weston's
publications in 1908 and 1920 - contains the orbital elements as given
by Weston in 1908 and 1920. Also speculates about the "personality" of
Vulcan. The orbital elements I gave here are the 1920 Weston elements.
This book too was purchased in London 1973.
[D] Transpluto: "Transpluto or Should we call him Bacchus, the Ruler of
Taurus?", John Roberk Hawkings 1976/1978, ISBN 0-86690-386-0. Hawkings
tries to give "scientific" evidence (he e.g writes: "This (transpluto)
is no Uranian") by pointing out earlier small residuals in the orbit of
Uranus, and then over-interpreting those very insecure data (Hawkings
need to attend an elementary course in error analysis!!!). Whatever
little evidence there was for such a transplutonian planet has now
completely vanished, since new orbital integrations by JPL, using updated
masses of Uranus and Neptune from Voyager, causes those residuals to
essentially disappear. In addition, despite many seraches, no such
planets has been found -- instead ASTEROIDS outside Pluto's orbit have
been found! However, since astrologers are unaware of or is ignoring
this, Transpluto must be counted among the hypothetical astrological
planets...
[E] Lilith: "The Lilith Ephemeris 1900-2000", Dolphine Jay, 1983,
ISBN 0-86690-255-4. Contains mostly an ephemeris, and a short text which,
among other things, gives dates of claimed observations of Lilith, the last
one listed was in 1898 (...why haven't anyone seen Lilith since then ??? :-)
The book also gives some physical data about Lilith: mass = 1/80 Earth mass
or almost the same as the Moon, diameter 700 km or 40% of the Moon's diameter,
distance about three times the Moon's distance. These data would imply that
the density of Lilith would be more than 50 times the density of water, or
about 4 times the density of lead or mercury! Yet, Lilith is described as
being "cloudy" and mostly invisible.... (a pretty dense cloud! :-), visible
only close to opposition, or when passing in front of the Sun (but nobody
seems to have seen Lilith, in front of the Sun or otherwise, during our
century...). The book also vaguely mentions a third Earth satellite,
claimed to have been seen by someone at one or two occasions, but give no
further information about it.
Sources which Andreas Bunkahle (bu...@mibm.ruf.uni-freiburg.de) possesses
and from which he can quote:
[1] Wemyss, Maurice: "The wheel of life" Vol.3, London, 1930
[2] Esser, E.I.K.: "Dutch Astrology" in _The Astrological Journal_ (UK),
Vol 15 No 1 p.26-32 Winter 1973
[3] Ram Th J J, "Dutch Astrology" in _The Astrological Journal_ (UK),
Vol 15 No 2 p.41 Spring 1973
[4] ten Hove, J. H.: "Bode's Law and the Mystery Planets" in Astrological
Journal: (UK), Vol 4 No 3 pp25-28 (1962)
[5] Weston, L H:"The planet Vulcan", Oregon, 1909 and a reprint by the AFA,
Tempe, AZ no year
[6] Wiesel, Max:"Vier bisher unbekannte Planeten entdeckt" in _Kosmobiologie_,
Feb. 57, No 5, 23. Jahrgang
[7] Neely, James:"Die Orbital-Elemente der Transneptun-Planeten" in _Hamburger
Hefte_ II/81
(Quite an interesting article. Neely examines if the suggested hypothetical
bodies by Witte obtain the rules of Kepler. He concludes that they do so.
The suggested hypothetical bodies by Sieggruen also do but is quite amazing
that these move completely regularly (no inclination, circle-orbits instead
of ellipses)
[8] "Ephemeriden 1850-2050 Ceres - Pallas - Juno - Vesta - Cheiron - Isis, Text
deutsch und englisch", ASTRON-Ephemeride, Hamburg, 1985
(gives positions of Transpluto/Isis (Landscheidt)
[9] _Les Cahiers astrologiques_: "No special sur les Planetes inconnues"
(Ce numero donne tous les elements pour le calcul des 17 planetes
hypothetiques), Mai-Juin 1958, 11. Annee, No 74 (Nouvelle Serie)
(includes in French a bunch of quite interesting articles:
"Le probleme des planetes inconnues" (A. Volguine)
"Kore, la dixieme planete" (R. Ambelain)
"Planetes inconnues en Amerique" (P. Colombet)
"Les 'Transneptuniennes' de l'Ecole de Hambourg" (L. Rudolph)
[10] Witte, A.:"Der Mensch - eine Empfangsstation kosmischer Suggestionen"
Hamburg, no year
(includes all articles Witte has ever written in Astrologische Rundschau)
[11] Ephemerides for intramercurial Vulcan can be found in
_Les Cahiers astrologiques_ Mai-Juin 1938 No 3
(includes also the article "Le mystere de Vulcain")
_Les Cahiers astrologiques_ Juillet-Aout 1938 No 4
" Septembre-Octobre 1938 No 5
" Novembre-Decembre 1938 No 6
" Janvier_Fevrier 1939 No 7
[12] "Notre enquete sur la Combustion et Vulcain" in
_Les Cahiers astrologiques_ Mars_Avril 1939 No 8
" Mai-Juin 1939 No 9
" Juillet-Aout 1939 No 10
" Novembre-Decembre 1939 No 12
" Janvier-Fevrier-Mars-Avril 1940 No 13-14
" Mai-Juin 1940 No 15
[13] Becker, Wilhelm:"Die Hamburger Schule" in _Astrale Warte_
Heft 10/1937, p.224-231
(includes a review not only of the Uranians but also of Isis, Osiris,
planet Nr.3 (Sutcliffe), planet Nr.4 (Sutcliffe), Pluto (Duncan-
Macnaughton), Jason, La Croix, Ov, Melodia)
[14] Transneptun-Ephemeride 1890-1990 von Alfred Witte, neu bearbeitet von
Ruth Brummund, Hamburg, 1972 (this is supposed to be the original
ephemeride for the Uranians published by Ludwig Rudolph (WITTE-VERLAG))
[15] Uranian Transneptune Ephemeris 1850-2050 by Neil F. Michelsen,
Franksville, 1989
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Swedish Amateur Astronomer's Society (SAAF)
Nybrogatan 75 A, S-114 40 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pau...@saaf.se paul.s...@ausys.se
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
WAYNE JOHNSON
>
>I have been browsing this thread and it seems to me there is a
>misunderstanding about the phenomenon of divination, common among
>"skeptics." That is, the assumption that if divination experience is
(Interesting comments on psychological aspects of belief systems
snipped)
>As a folklorist, I am not into debunking belief systems (apparently a
>pastime among some posters). Folklorists generally assume that people
>do things because they are useful to them (allowing that some
>behaviors may be dysfunctional). If we are to understand divination
>practices, it is important to understand why people find them useful
>(and have found them useful for many thousands of years), what
>meanings they have in their particular culture, and how the practice
>functions in society. Positing a false dichotomy -- that either some
>supernatural event is occurring or else the practice is fraudulent --
>is _not_ a scientific way of going about such research. >Stephanie
The fraud we are attempting to "debunk" is that there is a scientific
basis for the belief system. The problem comes from the need of
astrologers and others to posit a scientific standard to the belief
system.
Science asks for repeatable, recognizable results to impartial
experimentation. Belief systems ask for intuitive, self-referential
information. To try to "validate" astrology by calling it a science is
a mistake, made by those who don't truly believe in it themselves, yet
need to convince others that they know what they are doing. Witness
Mr. Roosen's ludicrous attempts to establish himself as a scientist,
then write a paper based on an intuitive approach to his data.
Suggesting to the unsuspecting that such bunk is science is fraudulent,
just as claiming to be an M.D. without undergoing training and
certification by qualified fellow professionals is fraudulent. Anyone
can treat an injury; you can't call yourself an M.D. and do so. You
can pray over a person, or resort to various psychological means, and
even be successful at it, but if you claim to be an M.D. you are a
fraud and should be exposed.
Likewise, to claim that astrology is a science without subjecting it to
the same tests and prodecures scientists make for all other areas of
research, is to perpetrate a fraud.
The corollary? To snipe at a belief system because it does not meet
scientific standards is disrespect. It may be unscientific to believe
in astrology, or God, or acupucture, or chiropractic, but if it
satisfies the believer, let it be so. Just don't call it science.
Wayne Johnson
cia...@ix.netcom.com
Thomas S. Zemanian
Cracchiolo) wrote:
> So in other words, critical thinking is to be limited to only those who
> have had the resources or inclination to pursue advanced scientific
> degrees? God help the rest of us, then. We already are fighting an
> uphill battle trying to bring basic scientific literacy and the tools
> of logical argument to the average person in the US. What we need
> are more regular folks on the street who are capable of distinguishing
> fraud, medical quackery and pseudoscience from valid science. Limiting
> logical arguement to scientists is a step backward.
>
> BTW, I've never been published in a peer reviewed journal, although
> I have contributed to lay publications on occasion. But I can still
> see through bullshit.
>
Well said, Camilla! I wonder, though, which of those among us he deemed
worthy of investigation? Which would be more irksome: having somebody dig
into your professional life looking for dirt or the semblance of it, or
being considered not worth the effort?
> Robert Roosen (roo...@crash.cts.com) wrote:
> : I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
> : on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
> : I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
> : publications by these self-appointed "experts".
> : So, all you "graffiti artists", tell us about your own scientific
> : achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
> : knowledgable than yourselves.
> : I have better things to do than argue with adolescent mentalities
> : who have themselves contributed nothing and can only get their kicks by
> : harassing serious workers.
> : Robert G. Roosen, PhD
> : PS If you need to fight, go play Doom. Do not waste the experts' time.
>
> --
> *Stop the execution of Mumia Abu Jamal: A new trial now!*
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Camilla Cracchiolo, RN cam...@primenet.com
>
> Shrine of the Cybernetic Madonna BBS 213-766-1356
> "The board that Hates Rush Limbaugh *and* Newt Gingrich With A Passion"
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--Tom
--
The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone. Keep your filthy hands off 'em!
Andre G Isaak
Jeff Inman <j...@chaco.santafe.edu> wrote:
>we...@x4u2.desy.de (Volker Wedemeier) writes:
>>j...@santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>
>>> What if I handed out poorly drawn maps of the sky, with extra stars
>>> where none exist, and absent stars that should be there, and the rest
>>> of them drawn all in the wrong places, distorting all the
>>> relationships, and got a bunch of people to say that it looked pretty
>>> much like the sky to them. Would that "disprove" astronomy?
>>
>>No, the difference is, that you can always, objectively tell a
>>'random' starmap as you describe from a real one. (Even if some people
>>probably are not able to do so).
>
>Notice your qualification(s) in the previous sentences. That's part
>of what I am trying to get at. In the first place, you acknowledge
>that some people are incompetent to make certain judgements. The
>criteria of competence is something you call "objectivity". And yet
>you seem to be willing to trust anybody to make judgements about
>astrology, such as a bunch of people given "random" charts.
>
Well, why don't you pick the qualified astrologers, and let Volker pick
the qualified astronomers. Why do I get the feeling that the astronomers
might actually reach a consensus on which star charts were real and which
were faked?
I'm still waiting for that rush of holistic new-age
astral confidence in your astrologers reaching a similar consensus
(without consultation, of course), and its just not coming... :-)
Andre G Isaak | Opinions expressed herein are likely not those
University of Massachusetts | of my employer. They may or may not be my own.
Darin Johnson
--
Darin Johnson
djoh...@ucsd.edu
My shoes are too tight, and I have forgotten how to dance - Babylon 5
Richard A. Schumacher
>schizophrenic para-psychologists. I would have a lot more respect
>for Randi if he could find it in himself to participate in a round
>table
>discussion of astrology as a human psychological phenomena with
>noted authors... well spoken, educated, and experienced persons
>who have had an opportunity to appreciate both Randi's reality and
>that of the artistic mind...the generalizing, symbolic organization of
[etc.]
Oh, fiddle. Large numbers of people think that astrology has some
factual basis, many more than are interested in it as expression of
human psychology. In such a climate, debunkers are far more necessary
and useful than metaphysicians. Randi and others are trying to keep
people grounded in physical reality. This is the more honest, helpful
and ultimately more enlightened course: if we do not perceive the
world as it is, we will be unable to remake it as we wish it to be.
Carl Fink
roo...@crash.cts.com (Robert Roosen) wrote:
> I have noticed that the same handful of debunkers seems to jump
>on just about everyone trying to communicate meaningfully in these groups.
"Communicate meaningfully" taken to mean "say things I don't want
challenged", right?
> I have checked the Citation Index, and do not find any refereed
>publications by these self-appointed "experts".
I make no claim to expertise in your area, astronomy. You'll notice
that I haven't mentioned astronomy once in pointing out the obvious
flaws in your arguments.
> So, all you "graffiti artists", tell us about your own scientific
>achievements before you start running down those more experienced and
>knowledgable than yourselves.
Congratulations! You've just used the "argument from authority",
first stated to be valueless by Aristotle. Of course Aristotle never
published in a peer-reviewed journal, so his opinion doesn't matter
either, right, Dr. Roosen?
--
Carl Fink ca...@panix.com madsci...@genie.com
Assistant Sysop, GEnie's First and Fourth Science Fiction RoundTables
The SFRT page has moved to http://sfrt.greyware.com/sfrt
Michael Loughlin
Newsgroups trimmed to sci.skeptic,alt.astrology
j...@chaco.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) wrote:
<snip>
>For the record, I try to keep my mind open to the possiblity that I'm
>deluding myself somehow.
The comparison between astrology and, say, physics is very interesting.
If I wished to debunk a claim made by physicists it is comparatively easy.
There is a consensus on what those claims are. If a claim is tested and
found to be false then it is abandoned. On the other hand, in astrology, if the
claims of one astrologer are found to be false there are often other
astrologers who say "He is not a competent astrologer but I am and
you must test my claims." It is thus a never ending task to test astrology
and the claims of each individual must be examined.
So there is no option, it seems to me, but to ask Jeff Inman to specify exactly
what he thinks astrology can accomplish and to put those claims to the test.
I therefore propose that, with Jeff's help, we devise a test that can be carried
out here and, should astrology fail that test, he accepts that he was deluded.
What I propose is as follows. I will post the birth data of two people. An
astrologer who, in Jeff's opinion is competent, will glean what information
they can from this data. If the information is inaccurate, or accurate only
to within that expected by chance, then Jeff's version of astrology will
be judged to have failed the test.
One criticism made of astrological readings is that the readings are vague
and that the information applies equally well to everyone. To get round this
I suggest that the astrologer picks out those characteristics (or whatever)
that apply to one person but not to the other.
A second common criticism is that the astrologer gleans information from
his clients' responses. I will post only the birth data and no other information.
I am interested to see what information can be deduced from birth data alone.
This is, of course, the core of what astrology is, and it is this one aspect that
I am interested in testing.
I will welcome any refinements to this test that people can suggest.
Mike L
E-mail: m...@jet.uk
===============================================================================
The above article is the personal view of the poster and should not be
considered as an official comment from the JET Joint Undertaking
===============================================================================
Rusty Rae
Darin,
Not heresay. We studied the case in grad school when I was
working on my psych degree. It's a very well-known case.
` Sheila
Rusty Rae
BTW it's called failure to thrive.
Sheila