BS: does your zodiac suit you?

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Feb 07 - 01:03 PM

I agree,Bill. We have to take care in this.

"Has to be evaluated carefully." And to repeat one point,'evaluated' from which position? You are taking the position of the scientist who does the evaluating as beyond examination.

Instead of 'acquiring knowledge'( I take your point),I'm casting doubt on the scientific method being the only acceptable method of 'testing claims'.

'the accuracy of the observations'? Wouldn't be the case that the longer the period of accumulating data in a particular field, the mor ethey'd tend towards greater accuracy?

   'replicable' Repeatedly in interpreting horoscopes,the same elements (position of Sun,particular angular relatiuonships between given planets,etcetcetc give rise to the same or very similar or closely-related outcomes. A delicate balance between hard,pinpoint accuracy and uniqueness of every person/horoscope.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 05:18 PM

"Statistics" I read once showed there was an almost perfect correlation between the sale of alcohol in the US and the salaries of college professors. ;^)

Wasn't there a book once called "How to lie with statistics"?

Data of ANY kind has to be evaluated carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 04:40 PM

The only profound surprise that zodiac statstics ever gave me was the study that compared motor vehicle accidents by astological catagories.

Cancer was 3 times safer / fewer fatalities than Libra.

Car insurance might take a page from this recent finding.

Granted I heard it on a MSNBC fluff piece this past fall but it was compelling to a degree. The sample population was only 1,200

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 02:41 PM

"several thousand years"....yes, I understand that. And we know these are accurate observations how? Are they replicable?


"I don't think our dispute is semantic. I think it's about whether the scientific method is the only appropriate method of acquiring knowledge."
    hmmmm...we'd have to sit and compare some notions on that idea. I don't even agree with the phrase "acquiring knowlege" as used in that sentence. It is at least partly semantic if we found we didn't agree that acquiring knowlege is the same as 'collecting data' and/or 'observation and correlation' that you refer to.

Since you like to consider yourself agnostic about 'influence' and 'prediction'- (a good sign.. *grin*), I suppose my next direction of inquiry would be into the value and accuracy of correlation and the process of extracting really useful information that went beyond generalities that applied to almost anyone. To my mind, it gets really slippery and fuzzy there, and it is there where some quite detailed critiques have claimed the 'correlation' breaks down.

Yes...maybe enough for now, as it takes a lot of careful phrasing and explication for either of us to present an explanation that is neither ambiguous nor equivocal.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 Feb 07 - 01:45 PM

Thanks Bill, I do appreciate your responses.

I'm glad you've said more about the 'crank' post - it was quite unclear that you were pointing to examples of 'extreme' astrology.

I don't think our dispute is semantic. I think it's about whether the scientific method is the only appropriate method of acquiring knowledge.

What,in your weltanschauung (world view),appears beyond examination is the status of the tester and their methods. For you,the scientific method itself is to be taken for granted. I can easily understand why anyone who stands by it,for job,past experience,psychological,philosophical or other reasons, would resist or object to the method itself coming into question. As I heard somebody say once,'if astrology is true then science is false.' Obviously if you think that then you'd not really going to take any argument for astrology seriously,however rationally,level-headedly or sensibly they might be put.

You used two indicative words. 'Predict' and 'influence'. A lot of us astrologers are agnostic or atheist about 'influence'. That's because of a different understanding of the universe from the scientific one. Astrologers talk more of 'correlation' i.e.the same thing at many levels.That is because of a view of the unverse where at each moment,the universe has a pattern,discernable at every level from the universal to the subatomic.So the planetary pattern of the moment is a way of 'reading off' that pattern.

Work has and is being done about 'influence',and I could cite examples,but correlation is the astological preference.

Prediction has many aspects to it. Astrologers don't go in for precise prediction on the whole because,alas,charts/horoscopes have to be interpreted,and because everything in astrology is multi-symbolic,so you don't have the one-for-onr correspondences that science would look for (That's another part of science's ideology,perhaps.). Timing gets interfered with by the fact that astrologers believe people have free will, so how a pattern will play out is from a range of possibilities.

And when astrologers are dealing with individual clients,well some of us are about encouraging our clients to see the choices available from forthcoming patterns,so that the clint can choose both realistically ('that's the pattern') and nourishingly and with awareness.

Now that is problematic because as us psychotherapists know,people,by and large,find the idea of taking their responsibility in their lives tremendously difficult. Loads of people don't want to,hence blaming,where in shifting responsibility,they can be annoyed with others and be helpless victims all at once.

Lastly,astrology got to many of its findings thru several THOUSAND years of observation and correlation (quite apart from a different take on the universe from our scientific one,as sketched above)

That's part of an answer to what the alternatives to the scientific method mught be.

Enough for the moment.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Cluin
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 08:09 AM

"...oooo that sounds so appealing, though!... we're here to make each other go aaaaaahhhhh..."

Yep, it's allllllllllllllllllll about sex.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: TIA
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 08:01 AM

"what DO scientists do with recalcitrant data?"

If by recalcitrant, you mean data that does not support an existing hypothesis, then they back up and revise the hypothesis. Nearly all great advances in science happen because of unexpected (relcalcitrant?) data.

Remember the story of Galileo dropping two balls of different weights off the tower? He fully expected them to fall at different speeds. Instead, I believe he got recalcitrant data.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: *daylia*
Date: 31 Jan 07 - 07:09 AM

your comment about the 'blow-em-all-away' Arian tendency reminds me of my hope to make THE point that settles the matter,(which I sometimes imagine being like dealing a fatal blow with a single sword lunge !!!!!!!!). It's curiously satisfying for me to see th't that's impossible,pure (hope you'll all forgive me) pure Hollywood. Pure Libra.

"...like dealing a fatal blow with a single sword lunge..."

LOL oooo that sounds so appealing, though! :-) I can relate, Cardinal Air (says Cardinal Fire). And I see that as opposing Signs (Aries-Libra), we're here to make each other go aaaaaahhhhh   (or at least, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm).

Among MANY other things, of course.

Thanks for clarifying, Ivor.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 08:07 PM

You know...sometimes it takes a lot of work to hone in on exactly what we are disagreeing about in these matters....data? interpretation of data? facts? (not always the same as data). Over & over again, it seems to me that much of it (the disagreement) has a basis in language and definitions: ambiguity and equivocation...that is, just arguing past each other.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 07:57 PM

"...arguments I've put forward about scientific uncertainty (what DO scientists do with recalcitrant data?),the limits of science etc..."

Science is not supposed to be about absolute certainty. Mathematics is...sorta...and logic is in some ways (testing internal consistency of syllogisms)...but science merely keeps refining tests and examining theories to SEE if they merit acceptance. Naturally, one set of researchers can get different results using different tests, but this leads (or should) to newly designed tests.

'Some' tests are physical...like chemistry or physics or botany or astronomy does....measurement of light in various spectrums, etc. (lots of work on 'black holes' going on these days which is 5% measurement, and 95% speculation). But some tests are statistical and logical. Obviously, *IF* certain claims in astrology were demonstrably true, it would be of great benefit...even to science...to help humans sort out issues of competence, fitness, awareness, predictibility...etc.

The problem we have had with various tests of astrological claims is that, for every set of claims of 'success' it is way too easy to find counter-examples and flaws which make the idea of **depending** on the claims quite awkward. It is possible to learn a lot about 'character' by examining folks behavior and tendencies...attention allows more awareness....but to claim either 'influence' or 'predictibility' based on the positions of astronomical entities is a pretty serious step, and one that SHOULD be tested....not just by hearsay and belief, but by some dependable method; and as I ask above, what IS this method, if not science? (My assertion, as before, is that if a good test is found, it is, by definition, science.

If someone finally states.."well, it has not been proved wrong, and I shall continue to give it credence until it IS proved wrong", there is little I can say. Someone can assert and believe that elves come out at night and tend the flowers in their garden, but I'm sure YOU can...and likely would...suggest some tests to find out. And that would BE science. If they assert that the elves are invisible and never allow themselves to be seen, you finally just shrug. If someone INTENDS to believe, he will find reasons...good or bad.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 07:00 PM

gosh...It is never my intention to insult anyone, but merely to critique ideas. Let me think of how to approach an answer. I think it may basically involve a difference of opinion of the definition of 'science' and some other confusions about semantics. There are many learned papers written on the topic of just what it MEANS to have a valid test and to use non-ambiguous language in designing the test.....and all this is before we debate the place of various statistics involved.
When you say "...querying the possibility or appropriateness of the scientific method..." I suppose I'd ask what other ways it is possible to test claims if not by the scientific method. I know of a couple, such as 'polling of folks who have had successes' but that hardly seems a good test.

   A real discussion of these issues would involve hours of 'live' discussions, with back-and-forth clarification of terms.
   

(The other thread is a link to a 'general' collection of varied silliness, which then note some quite extreme examples of Astrological attempts. If you look at them, they go way beyond the standard claims.)

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Blindlemonsteve
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 02:42 PM

Mine never did, so i bought a Zephyr, its much better....

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 30 Jan 07 - 02:18 PM

Bill - what claims would you say cannot be tested by the scientific method? If any?

   You made the point which us at the crux of the disagreement.

   I needed to sit back a bit and contemplate.

   Till I realised you mwere repeating a point I'd already responded to more than once. I've already suggested that repeating thoughts ad nauseum isn't useful.

   I can,I really,really can, see with clarity your point about testing claims scientifically. You needn't think I haven't grasped what you're saying.

   No,it's not that I can't understand what you're driving at. It's just that I beg to differ with your view that whether ANY claim stands or falls by whether it satisfies scientific examination. (Please correct me if that's not what you were saying.)

For all the reasons I've already given.



   Now I see you've started a thread about cranks in which you indiscriminately (inscientifically) lump together all sorts of e.g.astrology. I agree that there are any number of cranks. I gather there were some in the field of science who have subsequently become accepted in science.

   So *daylia* and I can see th't that's that. And I feel not a little hurt that for all the arguments I've put forward about scientific uncertainty (what DO scientists do with recalcitrant data?),the limits of science etc.etc.etc. that you've shown that lack of discrimination.

   Best wishes






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 01:51 PM

"I'm querying the possibility or appropriateness of the scientific method here."

yes, I see that, but the WAY you do the querying indicates to me that you still view the scientific method as just one of several ways to evaluate the critical questions about certain claims....and at the end you continue as if you accept Astrological analysis as accurate & meaningful no matter what science says.

I am trying to somehow make the point that ANY claim in ANY field needs to be objectively investigated and analyzed in all its ramifications, and understood and given status based on objective criteria....and that properly understood and done well & thoroughly, good objective study & analysis IS the scientific method.

It is not as if the scientific method is just one odd type of opinion in a list, like political candidates. The scientific method can be done well, carelessly, with subjective bias, or with limited understanding....but the basic rules of theorizing, devising tests, conducting tests, evaluating results and re-formulating theories, **IS** the scientific method.
If one sees careful analysis that indicates that a favorite notion (flat earth, ether waves, Phogiston, Phrenology, Tarot, Crystal balls, seances, tea leaves, reading entrails, black cats, and forgive me, even Turtles all the way down) has problems, there are two ways to approach it....more research, or abandon it. But it doesn't make sense to base much of importance on it while you are doing more research.

Is Astrology fascinating? Sure! Does it have a long, complex history? Agreed... Do many people who 'seem' to be reasonable people accept it? It does seem so! Does this validate it? .....ummmmm, not exactly.
Will my appeal to reason and sense and restraint make much difference? *grin*...I am not THAT optomistic!

Have fun....but take it all with a grain of salt.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 08:41 AM

Thank you so much. At least we're seeing how a discussion of light motored by heat can work compared to to one of heat motored by ?????????????

I,too,am enjoying discussing all this with Tia,*daylia*,Bill and Captain.

Bill - it may look like that but it's not what I meant, and isn't a necessary deduction. I'm querying the possibility or appropriateness of the scientific method here. i no way mean that therefore astrology is true.

I was strongly influenced by the whole questioning of orthodoxy (authority?) in the 60s and 70s,which,as everywhere,was a mishmash of the ludicrous on the one hand and the pursuits of
understanding,knowledge and so on,on the other. I was also affected when I read someone's horoscope with them,and afterwards they told me that I'd said things which they didn't think anybody knew. Naturally,there are many ways to interpret that remark. I didn't know her or her family particularly well,hadn't tried to find out about her beforehand,and asked her very little during the reading.

I agree with the point about authority. And about the flaws of great men. (I'm going to have to be more careful than my Mercury in Leo likes.) We're all flawed,scientists,astrologers,'catters,even those we love and celebrities. I'll have to come back in 10 years when I've studied Plato,Goethe,Newton,Jung (perhaps not Reagan) and the others to explain how they thought about astrology and why. It might be something to with being open to others ways of conceiving of the nature of the universe than those we do. My point was more about great minds than authority per se,tho' i can see th't that doesn't sound immensely convincing.


Captain - the beginnings of the revival of interest in astrology starts psychologically with the works of people who were dubious of the unflawed merits of rationalism like Schopenhauer,Fechner and Nietzsche,and later the psychologists. More materially,astrological works of Renaissance times were being issued in fresh editions in the 1850s,for example Lilly(1602-1681)'s Introduction to Astrology in s1852 (Bohn Library).

A next step was the Theosophical movement (the answer to anyone's jumping-to-conclusions thought is 'no') of Madame Blavatsky. One of her followers was 'Alan Leo',who subsequently wrote a small library of astrological introductions at the turn into the 20th century. Practical Astrology appeared in a New edition in 1911.

Another was the growing interest in the sources of beliefs in the late 19th century in books on religion,magic,(yes yes,I know what I writ),other societies(anthropology).

Leo was one of a new breed of astrologers producing manuals,journals and almanacs from the end of the 19th c.                                                                                                                                           Tia, it's very nice to do business (as it were) with you,too. Your remark has made my day;at least. if not year.

In astrology we're dealing with individuals who among an infinity of elements are lacking self-knowledge,unfulfilling of their potential,over-socialised,in the grip of goodness-knows-whose ideas and beliefs etcetc. Not material that the scientific method would deal with well!!!!!!

*daylia* hi and thanks. My Sun's actually late Cancer,and I have my Moon's in Libra. Also,having a predominance in cardinal signs and in Air signs gives me a predominance of Libranness.

on Mudcat,I need all the delicateness me mercury in Leo can find (ha!). We never know where the next post is coming from, so this place doesn't half keep give us opportunities a-plenty (great tune,that)for openness,doughtyness,learning (not least about ourselves if we're up for that),and making decisions about whether to be firm or adaptable,etc.etc. It's positively an educational establishment.

your comment about the 'blow-em-all-away' Arian tendency reminds me of my hope to make THE point that settles the matter,(which I sometimes imagine being like dealing a fatal blow with a single sword lunge !!!!!!!!). It's curiously satisfying for me to see th't that's impossible,pure (hope you'll all forgive me) pure Hollywood. Pure Libra.

What I actually seem to go in for is the Cancery watery drip-drip effect. 'Cos there's always Taurean superior strategic approach and persistance;Geminian cleverness and sophistry;Leonine Royal pronouncements about the Big Picture;Virgoan hammering away at the slightest fleck of objection;Libran paralysis (I once played a game of Monopoly which I paralysed by refusing to sell anything after I couldn't win !!);Scorpioic threats etcetc






                                                                        Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Scoville
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 01:17 PM

Lightbulb jokes by sign.

The smart-ass astrologer. Oddly, my college boyfriend, no matter what anyone says, was still the world's biggest Taurus.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:54 AM

PS -- Ivor, correct me if memory fails but your Sun is in Libra, right? Oh thou Master of the Delicate Art of Balance, Compromise and Harmonious Relationship?

(if it's not in Libra, it should be!    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:13 AM

First, while we may disagree on this issue, you are an awfully pleasant person to have a dsicussion with.

Isn't he just!!    :-)

Ivor, I've been admiring how you've handled this discussion. Wonderful! And most educational, for someone who comes by the full-speed-ahead-blow-em-all-away Aries-type approach just naturally.

I have Mercury as well as Sun in Aries -- a real quick, impulsive, and original thinker/communicator. And Mars (ruler of Aries) is exactly conjunct my MC. Right down to the very minute, no less. Its opposing Uranus, too. So I tend to take my ideas and thoughts and opinions very personally, as if they are ME. And if people take issue with my thoughts and opinions it feels like they are attacking ME -- which they are not of course, but it FEELS like they are -- so I get overly defensive/explosive and .... and ... (well, just see the Zodiac thread that went well over 1000 posts last year)

Now, I know that I am NOT my opinions. That is only logical -- of course I am not my opinions!!! I do know this, very well, in my head but emotionally?!?

HA!!   Still workin on it.... and I'm glad studying my own natal chart helped me to recognize and understand this about myself, too.

Anyways, way to go Ivor and please, keep it up!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: TIA
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 03:56 PM

Ivor,

First, while we may disagree on this issue, you are an awfully pleasant person to have a dsicussion with.

Here's my response to the great minds question:

I don't need to be concerned if a great mind believes differently than I do. In science we do not take anything on faith - even the beliefs of our heroes. We can do our own testing of claims. I can only speculate as to why any particular person might believe any particular thing (in this case, I might point out the antiquity of some of these great minds, and the fact that they believed all kinds of things that I do not...e.g. a heliocentric universe, the universal ether, etc....). But if faced with a specific claim, and if there is a way to test that claim, and if the test contradicts one of our dear heroes beliefs, it does not invalidate *all* of their other beliefs, nor their other contributions that may to this day withstand testing (although testing the beliefs of even an icon such as Newton is scientific fair game --- which is exactly what Einstein did with relativity: found situations where Newtonian physics are invalid!).

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 02:45 PM

it's demonstrably incorrect to say the mainstream media were the SOLE reason for the resurgence of astrology in the 20th century.
Please demonstrate!
What other factor, aside from the inclusion of horoscopes in penny newspapers as a means to boost circulation, can you give for the rise of horoscopes in the 20th Century?
Is your demonstrable phenomenon the same moving force behind the huge interest in sudoko puzzles in the UK as well? And crosswords?

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 01:04 PM

It sounds awfully like I hear Astrology being defended with logic like: "If science can't prove it's wrong, it's perfectly ok to assume it's right."



"Can you suggest why minds of the quality of Plato,St.Thomas Aquinas,Newton,Goethe,Kepler,Jung and Reagan would think there's something in astrology if there isn't"

Yes..certainly. (and that is the fallacy of appeal to authority)...The amazing thing about the mind is it's ability to hold and assert mutually incompatible premises, and thus come to conclusions on one topic using reasoning that it would reject if applied to another topic.
One of the very hardest things to do is to grimly maintain the most consistent internal reasoning in the face of competing needs, concerns and wishful thinking. This is partly because careless reasoning is often embedded IN our language as we use ambiguous, equivocal or tautological terms and fail to notice that we have slipped into fallacy.
   Just consider a mother, confronted with evidence her son is implicated in a crime, refusing to believe it's true...or that "someone must have forced him...or he was temporarily insane"...etc.

Even great minds have their weaknesses....

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Jan 07 - 12:33 PM

Captain Ginger - it's demonstrably incorrect to say the mainstream media were the SOLE reason for the resurgence of astrology in the 20th century.

Tia - thanks for that. Just to be clear,your post of 12/1 responded by saying the astrologers did the same thing and otherwise didn't deal with my point. Your 18/1 post , by contrast,did deal with my point - that's all I meant by 'sidestepping' the first time.

i never said or wished to imply that scientists were 'mental lemmings'. As you say,they do take the scientific method for granted as the route to knowledge (have I got that right?),and I'm exactly questioning that statement,(not the same thing as saying it's nonsense or useless,which I don't believe). And of course,questioning that statement is the heresy.


   There are many reasons why it simplifies unto distortion to say that a person's character can be accurately delineated (sorry,described) from the horoscope alone in a quasi-scientific manner.)Astrologers regularly fall into the trap of trying to do that in attempt,perhaps to look more 'scientific'?

Can you suggest why minds of the quality of Plato,St.Thomas Aquinas,Newton,Goethe,Kepler,Jung and Reagan would think there's something in astrology if there isn't?



   I've resisted quoting till now.

   "When all possible scientific questions have been answered,the problems of life remain completely untouched."

    Wittgenstein, Tractatus 6.52.



   I'm assuming interested parties will prefer to read previous posts rather than be bombarded with endless repetition.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 04:50 PM

And the mainstream media are not likely to report it if it proved favourable to astrology.
But the sole reason for the resurgence of astrology in the 20th century was the mainstream media. The newspaper horoscope was uniquely responsible for that.
And the Daily Mail in particular is extraordinarily sympathetic to astrology and all sorts of 'parascience'. It stems mainly from the delightful dottiness of the late Lord Rothermere, but only in the Mail will you find quasi-serious articles on the Bible Code, Nostradamus and other such stuff. Patric Walker was paid a fortune both for his jobbing '12 sizes fit all' horoscopes and his personal work for Vere Rothermere. Believe me, if there was a scintilla of a suggestion that there as any scientific basis for astrology, the Mail and other mid-market tabloids would wet themselves with excitement.
As for the big why are we here question; it's totally irrelevant. There is no 'why' necessary. We do not exist in a purposive universe; all we need to know is the 'how'. The why exists only in the minds of those who seek a deeper 'meaning' than the possibly banal scientific explanation. And, in the absence of a 'meaning', we invented god.
Mind you, that banality and sleight of invention did give us J.S.Bach, Giotto, Dante and eventually Mahler, Courbet and James Joyce, so it's no small thing. So, for the wondrous nature of humanity, including its potty irationality in believing in horoscopes, perhaps we should all be thankful!

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 04:21 PM

Sorry I'm dense, but I'm still not sure what it is I am side-stepping. I'll take a guess if you agree to forgive me if I am not answering the actual question.

My 01/12/07 post was a response to:

"The hardest flaws for scientists to spot are those they all share."

I agree that if all people in a particular group think alike, there will be things outside of their way of thinking that they will be completely unaware of. However, as I've stated before, the scientific method, unlike any (?) other way of thinking, is self-correcting. Science takes absolutely nothing on faith. Nothing is ever proven beyond all doubt. Any theory, proposal, or even "fact" can be demolished by the next well-designed test. In fact, the best route to lasting fame (and funding!) is to upset an "established" idea.

So, the idea that scientists are in some way mental lemmings doesn't make sense to me. They love to pick at each others ideas, looking for the flaw.

But, it's not just about bashing people's ideas or tearing things down. Science is used for testing specific claims. I (and many scientists) agree with Ivor that there are questions that science cannot answer (e.g. "why are we here?"). There is no test that can answer that question. But if someone asks "can an astrologer accurately describe a person knowing only their birth date, time, place and gender?", that specific claim can be tested. And if the test method and results are peer-reviewed or made public, other scientists will not simply accept the results - they will try to spot the flaw in the method.

So, I'm not sure what is the flaw that all scientists share that would cause them to inappropriately accept or reject an invalid test of a specific claim (which, to reiterate, is all that science can do).

Gave it my best. Sorry if I still miss the point.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 02:25 PM

hello Tia. Please see your post of 12 Jan. Looks like a sidestep.

   As for your own point there;yes,i think astrologers are quite capable of not being able to see flaws 'coe they all share them.Mind you,there is great difference within the astrological community,even to the level where a volume appeared in the late 70s by a couple of astrologers casting much doubt on much astrology. So astrologers,like scientists,don't present a water-tight,united front.

   Captain Ginger. Ignorance is no defence in this subject as in the law. Because I do not know something,it doesn't follow from that th't it doesn't exist.

Actually,there are businesses/corporations, share/stockholders and the like who use astrology. Many of them no doubt keep it quiet for fear of ridicule. And the mainstream media are not likely to report it if it proved favourable to astrology.


Science is no doubt good at dealing with people. it doesn't follow from that th't it is flaw-free, nor that there cannot be other methods that are good,too. i suspect science is best when dealing with the socialised aspects of people. When it comes to feelings,self-contradictions that humans are riven by,the spiritual side,the unconscious,the therapeutic needs and so forth, i'd wonder if the scientific method is the route to take.


lastly,I've resisted offering another way of understanding/relating to/conceiving of life,the universe and everything than the scientific one. There are loads of books on such matters. There is so much to show that every point of view is limited, that we don't have the answers to basic questions of living,that there is disagreement about practically everything (Mudcat threads demonstrate that with blinding clarity). And perhaps we're all here for different purposes - some to be scientists,others to be mystics,yet others to make things, some to be musicians etc.etc.

Therefore,I'll go with Bill D. on another thread,and agree to differ.

We are no more all of us ready or suitable for alternative metaphics than for understanding Einstein,Polynesian music or laying bricks. Those who want to study other knowledge than scientific (or AS WELL AS) will do,others won't.





If you read this far,I want to thank you just for that.






       ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: TIA
Date: 18 Jan 07 - 09:12 AM

Forgive me. I am occasionally dense. I do try to answer all questions, but I fear I may have missed one from Ivor. Did not mean to sidestep. Please clarify.

Thanks

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Marion
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 01:12 PM

I've looked over the posts but not the links, so pardon me if this has been said already, but...

Our eating habits vary with the seasons - as do drinking habits, use of medicines, exercise, sources of stress (with accompanying hormone surges). Assuming that our mothers' lifestyles affect our prenatal environments, and that prenatal environments affect our brain development, isn't it reasonable to consider that the month of our birth (or more to the point, the month of our conception) might affect our personality?

Seasonal lifestyle variablity might be different in different locations - for example, the time of year when we have the most fresh produce in Canada may be the opposite in Australia - but serious astrologers incorporate location of birth into their work, not just time of birth.

For the record, I don't believe in astrology - I think what makes people find it convincing is the natural human ability to see yourself in a nonspecific and mostly positive description. However, it's interesting to consider ways that it might be valid, and I find the influence of food more likely than the influence of stars.

Marion

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:10 PM

I'm at a loss where to start. Accepting that no scientific study has ever found any basis in astrology, you claim that this is because scientific method is somehow 'wrong' and incapable of dealing with people.
Science is very good at dealing with people. it uses lots of boring statistics and number crunching, but it comes up with results. Psychology is a science. Companies and instutions all over the world use tests like the Myers Briggs to assess personnel. It is based on boring science, and it's about people.
I know of no reputable company that uses astrology as a means of staff assessment or recruitment. Doesn't that in itself tell you something?

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Jan 07 - 12:02 PM

just to conclude,I note the number of times points I've raised have been ignored or,as in Tia's last post,sidestepped.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:56 AM

... And she does display typical Taurean traits ... Just like every other cat I've known.

And that's NO BULL, I hasten to add.   

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Jan 07 - 07:49 AM

Oh phooey, Scoville.   ;-)

My cat was born in early May, so I suppose that makes her a Taurus. And she does display typical Taurean traits -- she's very stubborn, sensitive, sensual, set in her ways and loves comfort, tasty food and luxury to the max.

Just like every other cat I've known.

Astrology does not apply to animals. Much less complex creatures, they do not have to deal with human emotional, mental, spiritual or social needs. So they have about as much use for astrology as for religion or science or computers.

And it really doesn't take much of a brain to see that, does it???????

(No offense to the people at that site -- in all fairness, I didn't even bother to click that link).

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Scoville
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM

Pet Astrology.

I don't know what year my dog was born, never mind month or day, but if I had to choose I'd suspect she was an Aquarian. If I put any stock in astrology, that is . . .

But it says Virgo cats are bad mousers and that was definitely not true of mine, who topped out at 8 1/2 pounds and still managed to bring in a blue-jay.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: *daylia*
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:27 AM

And btw, I don't know anyone who "follows" astrologers or astrology. I know some people who study it and apply the wisdom/insights gained thereby to improve their lives ---- but "follow" it?

Nah.

There's nothing to "follow" that I've come across yet; astrology is not a religion, a cult, or a science.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:17 AM

...but not for cats, I find.
By the way, have we touched on animal astrology yet? If not, why not? It's got to be worth a punt, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: *daylia*
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 11:11 AM

True for all human beings as well.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: TIA
Date: 12 Jan 07 - 08:17 AM

"The hardest flaws for scientists to spot are those they all share."

True also of astrologers and their followers I presume.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 11 Jan 07 - 03:02 AM

For more examples of how the scientific community can contain

scientific (?) disputes, see out "What scientists think about " thread.

   Not everything in life can ,in priciple, be encompassed by the scientific method;astrology is one,any discipline where the object of study is the human are others;so is art.

   The hardest flaws for scientists to spot are those they all share.






      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:54 PM

Well, if you dont have two Pollux, I pity you....*G*

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: GUEST,Pollux
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:48 PM

I want two of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: GUEST,Castor
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:47 PM

I want two of everything.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 10 Jan 07 - 03:19 PM

"A cynic is somebody who,when he smells flowers,looks
for the coffin." H.L.Mencken





      Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Rowan
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 11:34 PM

If you look at the zodiac as a circular mandala, there is a 13th sign right in the centre of the circle. All birthdates have access to it.

It's called "Cynic"

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 10:38 PM

While it may be true that "...Science has many assumptions and blind spots and beliefs embedded in it, many of which practitioners may be unaware of..", other scientists delight in spotting these assumptions and blind spots and thoroughly exposing them. Science is hugely self-correcting in this regard. Publish a study with poor assumptions or unconsidered factors ("blind spots"?), and someone is certain to take you to task without remorse (and often without tact). Scientists are properly heartless at these times.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: autolycus
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 06:13 PM

Tia. Thanks,I made a mistake thru relying on memory. I meant that the source of the profiles could easily belong to the 90% of astrological sources who aren't much good.

Astrologers have to distort what they do to fit scientific tests.

Owing to the general tendence not to look at oneself and explore same (hence the fear of counselling/therapy), people have highly variable and inconsistent and distorted views of themselves,of friends, of family members,often.

And I hope we can agree that any number of scientific experiments in history have been shown to be flawed by other scientists. That's part of how science develops,I thought.

Science has many assumptions and blind spots and beliefs embedded in it, many of which practitioners may be unaware of,having bought the package in oder to get on with their job.(There is a respectable subject of study called The Philosophy of Science which explores these things. [I did it at uni.] There are 2 other disciplines relevant - the sociology of science, and the psychology of science.)

Astrology has some major obstacles insofar as its own exponents seek solid foundations. One is that there is little money available to put into the task. Mainstream science which has the bulk of the money isn't going to do it. Another is that the scientific and main press, being against astrology, by and large gives space only to opponents. A third is that astrology that might be given some credence can be suppressed (much of Kepler's astrological stuff,e.g.)

We all learn a great deal about the world thru experience and instruction from parents and friends as distinct from via the scientific method,e.g.th't cars are dangerous,the sun is hot,you mustn't eat just anything etc. ad infinitum.

That is not to say by any stretch of the imagination that the scientific method is valueless;of course it is valuable.

The best I can do briefly about the "Well it's true for me" line is not "That's an inherently mistaken view" , but "It depends." (Many of the questions our discussion raises could be chewed at book-length.In no way do I want to go on and on like .......... so
to save bandwidth, virtual space and time,I won't repeat earlier points I've made that are being ignored. I do understand the ignoring - we all do it.

And I now how difficult it is when anything we are stone-cold certain about is disputed. All of Mudcat if nowhere else shows how we can be prone to think we've made the points that settle the matter,obviously, and then find others disputing them together or severally.






       Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: GUEST,S. Hawking
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:14 PM

n e e d e d c o r r e c t i o n

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:25 PM

And both of them bear awesome testimony to the terrifying power of the deep-fried peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I prefer the Prof's voice to the King's, though - not so much vibrato.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:04 PM

(oh...by the way, [he said with tongue in cheek]....I note that Stephen Hawking shares a birthday with Elvis Presley!)

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:30 PM

Thank you, TIA...I had been sitting on my hands, trying to figure out how AGAIN make the point about what is tested and what counter-examples to astrological claims look like. Your point about REAL tests showing NO particular discernable pattern is what genuine testing means.

This quote: "We all gain knowledge about our daily world without the use of a scientific method. I think the 'scientific method' is not the transparent, non-contestable,self-evident concept that you both appear to believe in. " had me puzzling at length about how to approach the misunderstanding embedded in it.

The best way I can say it is that.....the 'scientific method' is NOT a set of clear rules, like a checklist for inspecting a car, but rather, a guideline for basic testing of any kind. IF one thoroughly examines all the questions about a claim or theory and asks enough relevant questions, one HAS applied the scientific method. Therefore, any "knowledge (we gain) about our daily world without the use of a scientific method" is, by definition, weakly supported and subject to suspicion.

What other 'methods' ARE available? Too often, they are only superstition, acceptance of authority, wishful thinking and simple reliance on coincidence.

I wish there was an easier way to say it, but there isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 11:35 AM

You're right Ivor. You don't test a physicist to see whether the physics is correct. In science, what one tests is a particular claim. I think my experiment was a completely valid test of the specific claim that a reputable astrologer can accurately describe a person based on knowing their gender, birth date, birth time, and birth place. Our test subjects clearly could not recognize themselves in the profiles provided by the astrologer when they were presented "blindly" (i.e. without knowing which one is "correct"). The comment from the student about "not being good at astrology" was a little funny (IMHO) because, for the claim to be correct, the person being profiled should not have to know anything at all about astrology - let alone be "good at it". Modern science has built airships that can safely keep me aloft even though I know nothing about how they work - let alone am any good at flying one. :)

Subject: RE: BS: does your zodiac suit you?
From: Slag
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 03:30 AM

No, I need to let it out a little in the celestial equator. My nodes are shifting, if you know what I mean!