|
On January 03 2009 06:57 skyglow1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. How am I admitting that? Btw I don't believe in any of that sort of stuff. I'm just pointing out how self centered it seems to me. Yup it's entirely possible that our sun has some sort influence, but I highly doubt it is in the way of affecting personalities and such. The claim seems to be that the month you were born in has an influence on your behaviour in later years (correct me if I'm wrong), and I can't even begin to think up of a possible mechanism for how this would work using varying sunlight from the sun. If anything, living on different lattitudes would have a much greater importance than the month in which you were born in regards to sunlight. If we consider gravity, then the moon should be of much more importance than the sun and stars. You'd still be hard pressed to think up of a way taht gravity can affect personality, considering how minute the variations are. Yeah the arrangement of stars influencing our lives is just outright nonsense to me.
Im not saying that its not bullshit either way, I just don't see how it's self centered.
|
On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos).
Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now).
For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles.
|
The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos).
|
United States44230 Posts
On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos).
Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem.
|
On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles.
The sun also shrinks 5ft every hour.
|
On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing.
Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist.
You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially.
On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid?
It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology.
On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are
a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science
b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely
a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works.
b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about.
PS Frits that thing you took about unwanted members of society bla bla bla could be applied to 90% of the people in this website. I hate the concept of counter culture. It completely horrifies me to think that for one second I am part of a predictable sect of no hopers in society. Besides, I'm in Sussex Uni on my second year and I have a 16 hr a week job, so I don't really see how I fit into that group anyway. You don't know anything about me, can you please stop being so supercilious and confrontational?! For god's sake I'm not going to be drawn into a repeat of the Jibba episode...I am definitely a fringe member of society...it will seem quite predictable but I am like that voluntarily. I decided early on, after my first gf, that I hated parties, hated social gatherings, hated the idiocy and banality of the life of all my fellow students.
Draw whatever conclusions you want to, but from the looks of your picture I doubt you are exactly prom king.
|
United States44230 Posts
On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles.
No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!".
|
On January 03 2009 06:58 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:57 skyglow1 wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. How am I admitting that? Btw I don't believe in any of that sort of stuff. I'm just pointing out how self centered it seems to me. Yup it's entirely possible that our sun has some sort influence, but I highly doubt it is in the way of affecting personalities and such. The claim seems to be that the month you were born in has an influence on your behaviour in later years (correct me if I'm wrong), and I can't even begin to think up of a possible mechanism for how this would work using varying sunlight from the sun. If anything, living on different lattitudes would have a much greater importance than the month in which you were born in regards to sunlight. If we consider gravity, then the moon should be of much more importance than the sun and stars. You'd still be hard pressed to think up of a way taht gravity can affect personality, considering how minute the variations are. Yeah the arrangement of stars influencing our lives is just outright nonsense to me. Im not saying that its not bullshit either way, I just don't see how it's self centered.
I was wrong about it being self-centered. I guess I just get a bit annoyed when I talk to someone who believes in the star pattern stuff and I take it the wrong way.
|
On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are
a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science
b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about.
There have been plenty of tests. Here's one.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htm
I'd be glad to show you more.
|
On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!".
That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist.
|
On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!".
Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates.
Intersting, thanks.
On January 03 2009 07:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist.
|
On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are
a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science
b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more.
Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point.
PS can you find me the paper for that.
I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway.
|
United States44230 Posts
On January 03 2009 07:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist.
Or maybe the decline of an empire is based around a change of sunlight intensity rather than for perfectly logical structural reasons!!!! Ignoring all the empires which don't decline despite the change and the empires which rise as others decline obviously.
|
On January 03 2009 07:10 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are
a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science
b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more. Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point. PS can you find me the paper for that. I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway.
Here's some more. I think these are all webpages, but you can look to find the papers.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defense
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk
http://web.archive.org/web/20070522093713/http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030817-105449-9384r.htm
|
Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates.
Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner.
Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool.
|
No test has ever been done to completely disprove astrology because it's pseduoscience. There's no test you could do to disprove astrology, because believers will always invent some garbage reason why the test wasn't valid. When you say "I only believe in astrological things that are backed 100% by evidence" that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read (or close to it).
Religion is outside of science because it is supernatural (anything dealing with a god or an afterlife has to be). So whether or not it is true, science doesn't really say anything about that one way or another, even if some people believe it does.
On the other hand, astrology isn't by any means outside of nature and the excuses made for it are pathetic.
|
On January 03 2009 07:10 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are
a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science
b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more. Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point.PS can you find me the paper for that. I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway.
You just destroyed your argument against us with that sentence. You are arguing that we are casting aside your 'science' without giving it a chance. We aren't, we are just asking for something more than anecdotal evidence, which you have yet to give out.
However, you just said, without reading an article contrary to your viewpoint first, that that article is wrong, and you will show us why.
Leaving alone the fact that the guys that wrote the article are probably professionals in their field and you are...some guy..., you are being more closed minded than you are accusing us of being.
|
On January 03 2009 07:18 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote:
Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are
a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science
b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more. Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point.PS can you find me the paper for that. I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway. You just destroyed your argument against us with that sentence. You are arguing that we are casting aside your 'science' without giving it a chance. We aren't, we are just asking for something more than anecdotal evidence, which you have yet to give out. However, you just said, without reading an article contrary to your viewpoint first, that that article is wrong, and you will show us why. Leaving alone the fact that the guys that wrote the article are probably professionals in their field and you are...some guy..., you are being more closed minded than you are accusing us of being.
That essentially proves the element of confirmation/selection bias.
|
United States44230 Posts
On January 03 2009 07:10 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Intersting, thanks. Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote:
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist.
There's a difference between coming up with theories that are logical and can be demonstrated consistantly and just claiming things.
For example, if I drop an object it falls. From this I conclude that objects unsupported by other objects fall and therefore theorise gravity. I can prove this by picking up an object and dropping it. I can repeat this experiement as often as I like.
Your sun and empires example is akin to dropping an object to see if it changes the shape of the moon. Furthermore your conclusion that it does, after all you dropped it and the moon gradually became more crescent ignores the fact that it does that whether you drop it or not and that the reason it changes shape can be demonstrated much more logically without random objects.
And empires still don't rise and fall in 300 year cycles. I just don't know where you're getting this from. You'd be an idiot for assuming correlation if it were true. But it's not. And I don't know what that makes you. An aspriring idiot maybe? Someone so desperate for something utterly retarded to believe in that they'd make up a coincidence between two absolutely unrelated events.
|
On January 03 2009 07:15 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner. Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool.
I'm glad you are so passionate about this subject. You're correct criticize is the wrong word...I meant dogmatically reject. You know, this old quote:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.vulomedia.com/images/918251229623869361.gif)
