BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?

Subject: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Martini
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:14 AM

I don't believe that being " virgo " makes me one thing or another, or that I am good to have a good day today because I am a virgo. I wouldn't care that other people believe it, if it wasn't for the fact that it annoys me that just about every " decent" magazine or newspaper gives up space to tell you your " star signs ". It seems like something from centuries gone by !

What do other mudcatters think ?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: JennyO
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM

I'm inclined to think there is something to it, but the "Your Stars" sections in the magazines are just for fun really, IMO.

A few years ago, my singing partner was writing a song about new age ideas - she's a Virgo and like you, she is also quite sceptical (It's a common Virgo trait;-)). I contributed a couple of verses here and there, and my last line of the song was: "but I'm a Virgo and I don't believe in all that stuff!" Best line of the song, I thought.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:25 AM

It's a load of rubbish....

Especially given that "Pluto/Charon" is most likely just a big pair of comets from the fringe of the Oort Cloud and not even a 'planet' at all...

Smart people, publishing garbage and making money off the DLDs of this world....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:27 AM

My stock answer to threads on this topic:

History of Astrology

Many Mudcat opinions on astrology.

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:44 AM

My sign is Faeces.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Peace
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:45 AM

No shit!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:47 AM

Thanks for the link Alice, I enjoyed the article - but then again having been born a Virgo I guess I was pre-disposed to enjoying it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 11:57 AM

I would take issue with the article regarding what it said about no research having ever supported anything to do with astrology. Thats simply not true there are many pieces of research that show that the time of year you are born affects various traits. Most of these are expainable by other means than astrology though.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Emma B
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:00 PM

I'm in two minds.........but then I'm a Gemini :)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:03 PM

" there are many pieces of research"

Put up or shut up....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM

http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/wiseman/papers/Born%20lucky%20PAID%202005.pdf

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:09 PM

Extract from above:

Season of birth is known to be associated with several psychiatric and neurological disorders
(Torrey, Miller, Rawlings, & Yolken, 1997, 2000), including schizophrenia (Davies, Welham,
Chant, Torrey, & McGrath, 2003; McGrath & Welham, 1999; Tochigi, Okazaki, Kato, & Sasaki,
2004), epilepsy (Procopio & Marriott, 1998) and brain tumors (Brenner et al., 2004). The most
striking and well-documented empirical observation is an excess of winter–spring borns among
persons with schizophrenia as compared to those in the general population, both in the Northern
hemisphere (Davies et al., 2003) and in the Southern hemisphere (McGrath & Welham, 1999).

PS I am NOT an astrology believer, just pointing out that season of birth is associated with other factors, which may have been the starting point for astrology, in trying to explain these differences.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Martini
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:11 PM

Right, you see I think that is really intersting, Guest. I can believe that seasons can make a difference.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:17 PM

Do I believe? Short answer is no.
Do tend to the view that a capacity to see patterns where none exist virtually qualifies as a defining characteristic of our species & am inclined to interpret belief in Astrology as adding preponderance to this hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:17 PM

"A recent study indicates that people born in summer consider themselves luckier than those born in the winter."


Key word... CONSIDER themselves....

Interesting study nonetheless.... but it hasn't changed my mind....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:21 PM

Surely that constitutes a personality difference? A different outlook on life. Might indicate whether you are an optimist or a pessimist. Read the whole article, or at least the whole introduction to get the flavour that there is a fair amount of research out there showing differences in people born at different times of the year.

(PS Wisemans other research has shown that people who consider themselves lucky ARE actually more lucky, mainly due to their behaviour around areas of life affcted by luck and chance - eg risk taking etc.)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:36 PM

"...known to be associated with..." is a biased statement on the face of it. "claimed to be associated" is at least 'formally' honest.

You can find statistical evidence to prove anything, if you pick & choose the data.

For every Aries you show me that is short-tempered and resourceful, I can find one who isn't....and I can find a palm reader and a Tarot reader who will agree with me! *grin*

This is just another case of people "placing the dart, then drawing the bullseye around it." They decide what they'd like to believe, then look for supporting evidence, with the parameters for "supporting" pre-defined.

Still, it's a relatively harmless game....until you get high officials using superstition to make decisions for the country!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:38 PM

"placing the dart, then drawing the bullseye around it."

well said!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: frogprince
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 12:58 PM

With all the factors that can actually be shown to affect our personalities and propensities in substantial ways - heredity, birth order, parenting, education, economic background, you name it - I kinda crack up at hearing people ask "What's your sign" with the apparent expectation that that will actually tell them something about someone else. Hey, guys: we're talking about the relative positions of blobs of gases and solids millions or jillions of miles away.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 01:06 PM

The difference is that the scientists actually test their claims. One study might not be enough to prove anything, but it adds to the amount of data available. There is of course the problem of publication bias skewing the research, but that applies to any area of science you could care to mention. If you want to dismiss the whole of science too, be my guest and go try and sail off the edge of the earth.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 01:25 PM

I know too many people who share the same "sign" as I do whose personalities are polar opposites of my own to put any store in it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: cool hand Tom
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 04:48 PM

Can i just BUTT IN folks.Jees i allways give me capricorn sign away.

      Regards Tom,just off to eat the washing off the line..

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 04:55 PM

I don't know. I think some people can read a chart accurately, but is that because astrology works or is it because those people are highly perceptive or have some psychic ability?

Anyway, astrology basically just doesn't interest me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 05:13 PM

What happens to Astrology when the constellations change to totally new patterns?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 05:29 PM

I think it's all wet...but I'm Aquarius.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 05:29 PM

That question was addressed in Alice's link to a very interesting article, here is an excerpt:

Another hilarious aspect of astrology is due to the astronomical phenomenon known as the precession of the equinoxes. This was known to Greek astronomers by 150 B.C. and may have been known much earlier. It completely destroys the framework of astrology. The problem is that the early astrologers, for whom the sun rose in Aries at the spring equinox, defined the sign of Aries to be centered on the point of the spring equinox. But as the ancient Greeks knew, the equinox swings in a great circle, taking about 26,000 years to complete its cycle. Thus, today, the sign of Aries is nowhere near the constellation Aries! This detachment of the meaning of the symbol from the random scatter of stars whose arbitrary name originally gave the symbol its name and significance is ludicrous even to many astrologers, who thus disagree with all other astrologers by keeping the sign fixed to the constellation instead of letting it move with the equinoxes!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 07:28 PM

I don't really believe in anything--it occurs to be that beliefs are suppositions and confabulations that get in the way of observation--which, faulty though it may be, is the only tool we have to acquire knowledge.

Given that, it has been observed that the shifting of gravitational fields has a major impact on human behavior--and the unpleasant fact (for all you smug skeptics who don't realize you are just as irrational as all the "believers") is that when we observe the movements of astral bodies we indirectly observe gravitational changes--so, based on what we know, planetary movement would be a significant factor in human behavior--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Kaleea
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 08:27 PM

If new planets (or whatnot bodies) have been discovered, are there more out there in our Sol system? Since these planets were not figured into the current zodiac charts, would they not be altered by that fact?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 08:37 PM

...and there is this butterfly in Brazil who may flap at a certain velocity and cause cattle stampedes in Texas.

*sigh*.. M. Ted...the point is, although *strong* Macro events 'may' affect behavior in developed nervous systems, (just as they can help birds navigate...etc..) what we "smug skeptics" object to is generalized claims that tiny 'micro events' (in the case of influences beyond the solar system, VERY micro-events) can **determine** behavior patterns at birth! (Not at conception...at birth...as if moving outside Mommy's womb suddenly makes us susceptible.)

Do they REALLY think they can show that every baby born in Mercy Hospital in Denver, on 20 May, 1939 is going to exhibit similar "smug skepticism" to mine? I have news...many, many polls have been done that show little to no correlation over a large, random population.

My skepticism is not 'smug', it is a result of looking at all the evidence I can find and evaluating various claims based on science, statistics and common sense. In almost all cases, it is almost glaringly obvious that attributing similar personalities to those born on specific days is highly subjective and easy to refute with slightly different points of reference. In the cases where sincere attempts are made to NOT be subjective, correlation is still often unclear and subject to variations in selected data. Where clear correlations ARE found, they are usually within the boundaries of chance. (some babies from 20 May, 1939 are bound to be skeptics...☺...the lucky ones..*grin*)

In spite of appearances, I am open to new evidence, although cleverer folks than I have done the math, the science, and the sociological studies and pretty well shown that those cattle in Texas most likely just were spooked by a wolf, just as my 5rd grade teacher who sold me my 1st encyclopedia most likely had as much to do with my skepticism as the stars & planets.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Feb 06 - 08:43 PM

"A recent study indicates that people born in summer consider themselves luckier than those born in the winter."

Because they get to have beach parties and pool parties and barbecues for their birthdays.
In the winter, everybody's too overdrawn from Christmas to get you a nice present or throw you a big wingding.

So say I, with my birthday in mid-January.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:02 AM

Well, first off, BillD, I never said that you were smug--I was thinking of Clint Hammond, who makes a studied point of it--

We humans understand very little of the mechanics of the universe, and even less about the nature of relationship between our inner universes and the outer one--

For the sake of arguement, let us say that, rather than having a single soul, we are a confluence of many souls--let us say that all the souls are really manifestations of one of say, twelve different overarching consciousnesses, each with a bunch of subsets. And let us say that, by contractual arrangement with the creator of the universe, the mix of souls in each human is dictated by the position of the planets at the moment of conception.

Now the question is, supposing for a moment that this were true, how would we ever figure it out?
We, as humans, wouldn't be in a position to be able to see it happening--no means of measuring, and of course, no idea what it was we'd have to measure in the first place. Our minds would probably be unable to conceptualize the mechanism, because it would be so complex.

So the system of order would be there, but, because of our narrow perspective and limited information processing capacity, it would be obvious to us that nothing was going on at all--

As I am fond of saying, "All I know is, everything you know is wrong!"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:43 AM

Of course they're a load of rubbish that have no bearing on reality, but many people belive in them.

Some people belief that as they're a Capricorn, they should behave as if they are. As those who don't believe don't know what a Capricon should be like, they shouldn't display any bias in how they behave. The whole population of Capricorns is now, on average behaving in the manner astrology predicts.

It is also a form of madness that has no bounds. I know rational, intelligent, sceptical scientists who belive in astrology, and numpties who swallow all sorts of rubbish who reject it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:51 AM

I like the story of the physicist in the 1930s, one of the pioneers of nuclear research, who had a horseshoe nailed on his lab door. Someone asked him, "Surely you don't believe in such superstitions?". He answered, "Of course not. But they say it works whether you believe in it or not."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:55 AM

What's usually found in newspapers and magazines are solar horoscopes - predictions based on where the sun was when you were born. Interesting, maybe good for a bit of fun but seriously, any "horoscope" based only on the position of the sun is so general and vague they are best described as "silly". IMO.

Natal astrology, on the other hand, is much more detailed and accurate than a solar horoscope. In natal astrology, a complete chart is drawn up showing the position of the sun, moon and all the planets at your exact moment of birth. Place of birth is also very important - it gives the sign of the Ascendant (the constellation appearing over the horizon as you were born) and the position of the 12 "houses" on your individual chart. The sign and aspect of the sun, moon, the Ascendant and (some say) Saturn are the most important factors on any chart. And that's why some people born while the sun was in "Aries", for instance, do not show many typical "Aries" traits.

Like me. I was born March 24 -- (sun in the Fire Sign Aries) --- but --- the moon (ruling emotions) was in the Earth sign Taurus, and the constellation appearing on the horizon (the Ascendant) was in the Air sign Gemini. So my "fire" (ego, will) is often dampened by a penchant for pleasure, laziness, relaxation and all the "good things in life" (Taurus) and by a need to dig out and investigate and understand "both sides of the coin" in all things (Gemini). I'm actually more like a Gemini than an Aries ....

But again, a natal chart is NOT a prediction. It's more a description of the "house" you live in, the "playing field" it's on and the basic equipment you came in with. What you choose to do with that particular equipment, in that particular house on that particular playing field is totally up to you. Free will rules!

This is one the best astrology sites on the web, imo --- Astrodienst. Enter your birth time and place, and the computer calculates your complete Natal Chart, free of charge. Then you can study your Personal Portrait, for a detailed description of your Sun, Moon, Ascendant, position of houses and most important aspects (the angles planets make to one another). Try it for someone you know well too, and see how accurate the description is. But you WILL need the exact time (up to the minute) and place of birth. Have fun!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:50 AM

So you now have three or four different factors, each one of which can be predicting something diferent. All you've got to do is pick the one that fits. As noted above, throw the arrow, and then draw the bulls-eye....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:26 AM

I was meandering above--my real point is simply that, given what we know, the basic idea behind astrology, that the position of the planets has an effect on human behavior, is not unreasonable.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: kendall
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM

Believe it or not, "The truly wise man is never sure of anything."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:41 AM

So you now have three or four different factors, each one of which can be predicting something diferent.

Bunnahabhain, if you'll read my last post a bit more carefully, you'll see that "... a natal chart is NOT a prediction. It's more a description of the "house" you live in, the "playing field" it's on and the basic equipment you came in with. What you choose to do with that particular equipment, in that particular house on that particular playing field is totally up to you. Free will rules!"

Funny how people see only what they want to see, mostly. And what they want to see is usually based on individual expectations and prejudices, rather than honest first-hand investigation and experience.

(Actually, the "factors" of influence in a natal chart are about as endless as the universe itself. I only mentioned what's usually considered the "top four" -- sun, moon, ascendant and Saturn).

All you've got to do is pick the one that fits. As noted above, throw the arrow, and then draw the bulls-eye....

Whatever turns your crank, B. If you're not interested or don't like even the idea of astrology, well then don't look at it. If, however, your neighbour does find it interesting or helpful, or enjoys studying it, what do you gain by ridiculing it (or them?).

WHen you know diddley-squat about a subject, having never personally investigated or studied it, you do risk looking like an idiot when you go ahead and present "opinions" about it anyway. Opinions are like armpits. Everyone has a couple, and sometimes they stink.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:52 AM

" that the position of the planets has an effect on human behavior, is not unreasonable"
Except that there's no evidence to support it...

"what do you gain by ridiculing it"
You've stood up for intelligence... Hopefully towards an end to Oogy-boogy-ness....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:10 AM

K, I just checked my personal daily horoscope at that Astrodienst site. I find it quite accurate and insightful, most days. That's because the Astrodienst computer uses the person's complete, unique natal chart for the daily horoscope feature, and not just the sun sign.

Here's what it says for me, for today --- (I usually check it at night, so I can see how it may or may not have "fit" with the days events. And I've learned alot about astrology and come to have great respect for it as a result).

Phony issues ***

With this influence, you have to show other people that you are someone to be reckoned with. Or you may have to defend yourself against an attack from someone, whether or not you have provoked it. This influence is most likely to produce conflicts, anger and resentment. The best thing to do, if a conflict situation arises, is to have it out immediately. If you do not find a satisfactory outlet for your energies at this time, you will be easily angered, resentful, irritable and quick to take offense. If you must blow up at somebody, make sure that you understand the real source of the conflict, so that it can be aired. All too often, conflicts occur over phony issues that are only symbols of a much more profound problem."

HA! Having been duly warned, I'm outta here shortly. Not gonna waste time and energy over "phony issues" people really care nothing about except as a chance to argue!

But I will say this -- my ex is an identical twin, and I have identical twin sons. My ex and his twin are like peas in a pod -- they get along great, are very similar in taste and personality, have been very "close" all their lives. By contrast, my identical twin sons are quite dissimilar, do NOT get along very well. I always wondered about this, and what I found out when I did their 4 natal charts was quite interesting.

While both sets of twins have almost identical charts (of course), the 10 minute difference in my twin's birth-times put their Ascendants into different signs. So while both twins have Sun in Pisces and Moon in Scorpio, my older twin's Ascendant is in Scorpio, the younger in Sagittarius. ANd yes, there is and always has been quite the difference evident in their personalities! However, my ex and his identical twin DO have the same Ascendant (Leo) as well as the almost identical placement of sun, moon and planets seen in twin births. And they always have been more similar and got along MUCH better than my own.

And I say ... Vive la difference!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:14 AM

Surely the best way to predict the future is to help create it?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:20 AM

WEll, we "help create it" anyway by everything we say, think, feel and do every moment of our lives. Whether we recognize that or not.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:42 AM

PS -- I find the ideas, insights and counsel offered at Astrodienst to be most wise and helpful anyway, with or without the astrological slant.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: SunnySister
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:25 AM

Daylia- thank you so much for taking the time to write and share about your knowledge and exeriences with astrology. I've always been intrigued and have had my natal chart done too.

I'm looking forward to looking at the site you referenced for a refresher course on my natal chart as it's been a few years and I have no idea where I put my original printout. I will say that the chart and my friend who shared what all the houses meant in my natal chart were not only right on but actually helped me understand myself better and answer a bit of why some things "really" matter to me and some of the choices and journeys I've chosen to take in my life.

How fascinating about the twins in your life! I do hope that your sons come to understand and celebrate their differences so they can get along better with each other instead of the friction.

-- SunnySister, who very much is cancer

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: SunnySister
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM

Just in case- I think the link Daylia gave us is connected to her account. Best to use this one and create your own as there are limited amounts of free charts the site will make:

http://www.astro.com

It's an easy to use and interesting site! Thanks Daylia!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM

The link in the 28 Feb 06 - 12:06 PM post is well worth reading. Richard Wiseman is a fine scientist of a quite skeptical kind. He looks for natural explanations instead of paranormal in all sort of reports/data/experiences. He's the man to go into haunted houses and to look for natural causes like temperature changes ("makes me shiver"), draughts ("felt like a cold hand"), noisy rafters ("there was a knock but nobody was there al all"). In the above mentioned article he first looks whether the data are there at all and then goes on to find natural explanations. He mentions a few but not all at the end of the article.

His findings, however, have nothing to do with the predictions of the usual birth chart astrology, and his explanations even less so.

Gravitational effects of the planets are so small it makes no sense at all to look for an explanation along these lines. When your dog comes into the room near to you, its gravitational pull is larger than that of all planets combined.

Now if the astrologers has said before 1930 that something was missing in the equation for the best of their horoscopes were still a bit off target and a ninth planet could explain the deviations, we would regard their theories with awe. However, it was not them but the astronomers making this prediction.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:52 AM

Maybe we could do a little experiment? All of us give our birth details to one person (someone sceptical) who enters them into the site mentioned above. That person gets everyone's charts, and prints them here, without attaching the details of who they belong to. The we all try to guess which horoscope is ours. Its just a bit of fun, but it is something I have tried before. Using an astrology site, people were terrible at getting their own charts correct, but for some reason, the kabalarians seemed to be uncannily accurate. We are too small a data set for it to mean all that much, but it would be interesting.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:06 PM

That site offers good quality printouts of all types of charts, complete with excellent explanations/interpretations, absolutely free of charge. I really like it -- enjoy, SunnySister! And thanks so much for your kind words and hopes for my twins.    *sigh*   Sun in Pisces, Moon in Scorpio is not exactly the easiest combo to reckon with under any circumstance (as you can probably well imagine, oh Watery One!)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:14 PM

Sometimes it's the Oogy-boogy-ness that makes life worth the living.

Astrology however is pure squidge.... in my opinion, of course.

I believe in nasal astrology.
Pick a booger out of your nostril first thing in the morning and predict the day's outcome based on it's shape, colour and configuration with regards to the prevailing wind.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:25 PM

SunnySister, thanks for posting the link to the Astrodienst home page. Much easier to navigate for first-time users. Should have logged out before I copied the URL, I see now. And you're right -- the site is very easy to use.

Bagpuss, I think that's a great idea! And I nominate Wolfgang, or BillD to collect and post the info, if either would be so kind.

I see people still don't get my point about the importance of interpreting astrological information as "descriptive" first,
"predictive" second. Astrology is "predictive" only insofar as the free will of the individual allows.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM

There are better methods.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:32 PM

"When your dog comes into the room near to you, its gravitational pull is larger than that of all planets combined."

What if ya don't have a dog? Does my cat count? What if it's both of them at the same time?

"pure squidge..."
Nice word, squidge...

" I believe in nasal astrology."
It's very good to know that you're still in touch with yer inner 6-year-old, mate!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:49 PM

He peed his pants yesterday.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM

The site gave a remarkably accurate description of yours truly.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:18 PM

Yer not supposed to peek yourself! You'll spoil the experiment.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM

I believe that the true dimensions of the universe include multiveres whose gravity leaks into ours. I also believe that from where ever we are, across an unseen brane there are dimensions that have the unique hyperdimensional quality of virtually touching all other points in space simultaineously.

However astrology has the usefullness of a crock of warm urine.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 01:48 PM

Too often the only thing that people know about astrology is sun sign astrology. As a person who was born 20 minutes before my twin I can testify that sun sign astrology only is a bunch of bunk.

And as for those mass media newspaper & magazine astrology columns-almost total garbage!

However, a skilled astrologer or even a credible astrology progam can provide an accurate personality profile of an individual by examining the relationships, if any between the signs & degrees of a person's sun, moon, ascendant, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, North Node, and South Node.

As a Sagittarius with an Aquarius Moon, and a Virgo Rising {Ascendant}, count me among those who know that astrology is a valid tool that provides information [along with the nurture-environmental-free will continuum-as to why people act and think and feel the way they do.

As to whether astrology can predict events-maybe. Maybe not.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:02 PM

"can provide an accurate personality profile of an individual by examining the relationships"

Bullflop

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Azizi
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:05 PM

Let me clarify that in the case of my [deceased]twin sister and me, I believe that I believe that environment and free will played much more of a role in the way we are different than astrology.

Though we were raised together, I left home to attend college at age 16 years, and I never lived in my home town after that. In contrast, my twin sister remained in our hometown all of her life.

But -complicating this-I don't believe that individuals come to life as a blank slate. IMO, what happened in past lifes also impacts this life. Astrological placements may or may not signify this...

I believe that they do. But maybe they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:08 PM

Good point about the dog's gravitational field, Wolfgang. I understand that cutting edge astrologers are now doing pet-based astrology in which dogs and cats and other common household pets often prove to be the most vital and determining influences upon human destiny.

And that explains everything. These three dachshunds here have totally screwed up my whole life.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:20 PM

Azizi, I am so sorry to hear about your twin. I too lost a sister - my sister's identical twin. You're absolutely right about the relative influence of nurture, environment and free will. Thank you so much for sharing your story here.

But -complicating this-I don't believe that individuals come to life as a blank slate. IMO, what happened in past lifes also impacts this life. Astrological placements may or may not signify this...

Blank slates? I think not. And yes -- Saturn's placement, pre-natal eclipses, the Nodes of the moon, even certain of the *fixed stars* are often cited as "karmic indicators" (ie the influence of other incarnations). If the astrological "map" (so to speak) is interpreted correctly - a task which most unfortunately requires nothing less than a lifetime (or several) of study.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:25 PM

"what happened in past lifes"

So it's bullflop on top of bullflop....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM

yeah   and sometimes we come in as floppettes

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

even flippin flappin floppettes!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:30 PM

sorry   my Mercury is in the 12th house   confers a rather 'subconscious' sense of humour they say    hee hee

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:31 PM

Some souls are such shits by nature that they can't face the thought they might've been here before and been even worse bastards than they are now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:38 PM

Some people are so gullible and desperate they'll take any answer that's fed to them

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:40 PM

about natal astrology: Sure, I can see that IF it all had any basis whatsoever, the more detailed the data, the more accurate the prediction would be..(that's why I made the point of 'where' in my example)

But then *daylia's* explanation that it is not a 'prediction', but a description of the "playing field", (leading to certain tendencies, I suppose) merely provides a simple disclaimer for charts that don't seem to 'fit'. If many other obvious factors can influence behavior, personality, conflicts, oportunities, etc....why include star positions at all? No one that I have ever read or talked to about this can offer an explanation of HOW such distant, minuscule 'influences' might work their spell. (and I still don't comprehend why the precision required is for the moment of birth, not conception. Aren't my influences, if any, already determined? Is there some auxiliary notion that my mother is in control until the umbilical cord is cut?...or is it that we seldom KNOW the exact time of conception, and thus the practitioners have just ignored this and use what is easiest?)

Telling me, as M.Ted does, that it's all potentially so complex and hidden from our perceptions that many things might be affecting us simply begs the question....his statements are true...but trivially
true. If 'X' might be true, so might 'Y', 'Z' and all the rest of the alphabet....and if a potential infinity of things might be true, then we have little reason to pick and particular set to latch onto.

   I have no doubt that there is much left to discover about the processes, chemicals, physics, biology, sociology etc...that make individual humans what they are, but the sort of attribution prevalent in astrology fairly reeks of gratuitous, subjective, artificial parameters. Discoveries that demand our attention and consideration because they specifically can BE shown to cause and/or affect certain aspects of Homo sapiens are one thing...presumed influences based on semi-mystical concepts invented by our remote ancestors to satisfy curiosity before they HAD modern science are quite another thing.

If, as *daylia* suggests, you "... find the ideas, insights and counsel offered at Astrodienst to be most wise and helpful anyway,...", fine. No doubt 'suggestions' about dealing with personal problems can be useful...and insights come in many forms. If flavoring your insights with an overlay of symbolism suits you..*shrug*. I like mine kinda bare....I'll salt & pepper them to suit, thanks. ☺

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:44 PM

So you favour a dissipation theory over a distillation one?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:47 PM

That's true, Clinton. "Some"? Hell, make that "most". They join armies and go off to spread democracy and end war. They buy lottery tickets, hoping for the big win. They vote for the major political parties, thinking they really have a "voice". They drink diet drinks, thinking they'll lose weight that way.

Really no end to it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

Salt and pepper's great -- just please, no ketchup!   

Bill, why do you think the sun and moon have such "distant, miniscule effect" on this planet and everything on it, living or non-living?? If you're talking about Pluto ok ... maybe ... but

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:49 PM

He thinks that because they have not yet fallen into his backyard.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM

"please, no ketchup!"

Well, there's something we CAN agree on! LOL

"why do you think the sun and moon have such "distant, miniscule effect" on this planet"
Because one can 'measure' their effect, and SEE how small it is....

And well, as I said above, Pluto/Charon probably isn't even a planet anyway, so all 'astrology' that took "Pluto" into account so far has been wrong...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:56 PM

If you think the sun has a miniscule effect on this planet, let's try turning it off for a week or two and see what happens. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM

I went to the Astrodentist site, and it wasn't about astrology at all?????

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM

I tried, but the ball-chain is too short for me to reach

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 02:58 PM

I still don't comprehend why the precision required is for the moment of birth, not conception.

The moment of conception is unknowable without technology of recent times, and an individual's life is (generally) said to commence with the first breath.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:02 PM

LOL!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:03 PM

Interesting. Are there any pro-life/anti-choice believers in astrology then?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:06 PM

WEll, I bet most Catholics wouldn't admit it but    ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

"an individual's life is (generally) said to commence with the first breath"

So, yet more bullfop, holding up the bullflop that's on top of the bullfop....

You should do something useful with it and plant pumpkins or something....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

Are you as short of real stuff to do with your time as I am, Clinton?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:17 PM

ok   lemme see    In general, life is (traditionally) said to commence with the first breath.

Bet there's good reason for that, too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:20 PM

Got all kinda of 'real' stuff to do.... I'm doing some of it right now...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:31 PM

Oh, good. Well, me too. Gotta go to the bank now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

"..an individual's life is (generally) said to commence with the first breath."

??? yes....so? That's how we measure birthdays. It provides no answer as to why it would be the point at which all the heavenly influences 'get ahold' of a life!

"...if you think the sun has a miniscule effect on this planet, let's try turning it off for a week or two and see what happens. ;-)"

sheesh, LH...talk about a straw man! (yeah, I saw the ;-) )

The sun & moon obviously affect the earth....we KNOW how they do, and there would be NO life without one, and a lot different environment without the other, so life with no moon 'might' be different...The outer planets? *shrug*...no science I know of claims to be able to measure anything from the gravitational pull (and that's really all we CAN measure from most of them)of more distant bodies that would seriously affect/influence/control subtle things like personality.

If astrologers limited themselves to claiming Sun & moon influences, I could see their point, even if I disagreed about details....but that wouldn't be very interesting, would it? All the mixed up mythology and presumed 'observation' and pretty diagrams and symbols and complex analysis of a myriad of 'forces' gives it a flavor, like an interesting recipe book. And, of course, like all pseudo-sciences like phrenology, palmistry, Tarot and crystal-ball reading, no one can exactly 'prove' it isn't 'getting' something we need to know.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This "you can't prove it wrong, so it must...ummm ...might.. be true" attitude is what really scares me. Stuff you live your life by ought to have a firmer basis. I am told that there is good evidence that Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers and seriously inserted various opinions into Ronnie's decision making process. No one, least of all Nancy, will confirm this...but.....lawsy!

There are reasons why I poke & prod at people's Sacred Cows and favorite superstitions....what people believe affects how they act, vote, buy, teach, and pass on to their kids, and I'd like to think that each generation KNOWS more than the last...not just plays the old tunes a little differently.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM

I do the mix-up-the-horoscopes-and-see-if-they-can-correctly-identify-their-own game with my 6 through 8th grade science club every year. Of course they can't get it right at a rate above random chance, but when the game is over, they read their "real" one and invariably, many say something like "Oh yeah, this fits much better". Just got through showing what hooey it is, and they draw the bulls-eye around the dart anyhow. Powerful stuff this belief.

Now, about dowsing...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM

dowsing...

More hogwash

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 05:48 PM

dowsing is useful if you need to wash a LOT of hogs.... *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:15 PM

Now look, Bill D, I have held off talking about it till now, but the real fact of life on this planet, the one fact that really matters, the one beside which all else pales into insignificance, is this:

In Tibet there is a holy dog. He is known as "L'i the Enlightened One". He dwells in a secret cave that the Chinese Army was never able to find. L'i is in charge of all humanity by means of a sort of mind-meld that he does with the human cerebral cortex. He is attempting to gradually wean us away from our destructive and materialistic nature and toward universal brotherhood. L'i manifests on many different worlds in different forms, but on this world he is in the form of a dog. L'i moves in mysterious ways. No one can comprehend the things he does, but without him all would fall into chaos. If humanity fails to be receptive enough to L'i's guidance in the next 7 years, then gigantic cataclysms will be unleashed that will eliminate 99.3 % of the human population. Sceptics such as yourself will be among the first to go. After that, if it happens, humanity will be given another chance to start from scratch in a world swept clean of high technology, corporate logos, an pizza. Total philistines like Clinton Hammond are not expected to survive the cataclysms, but if they do they will be put to work as beasts of burden (it's all they're really good for). One way or another L'i is going to see that the Plan is implemented successfully on this planet before the year 2013. So it's all or nothing. I know that you won't believe any of this, so tough shit. It's going to happen. Doesn't make any difference what you think about it. Your opinions are superfluous. I've paid close attention to everything you have said over the past few years on this forum, and I have to say it's a darned shame when I think of the time I wasted in so doing. I could have been learning how to juggle jelly beans instead! That would have been of some use in the times to come. Now call up Bobert, see if he can send you one of those Wes Ginny slide rules, and calculate your chances of survival when the shit hits the fan. They're not good.


(cackling madly as I oil the hinges on the escape pod...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 06:25 PM

I think yer escape pod escaped without you LH!

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:01 PM

wow! I had no idea! ...and you say L'i transmitted the knowlege of this impending doom to you personally? Channeling Shatner again, I presume!

Gigantic cataclysms that pick skeptics out of the crowds of brain-dead sheep ....uhhhh, open-minded seekers, huh? What WILL advanced technology come up with next?

*sigh*...I can see I'm gonna have to work up an escape pod of my own...one that doesn't rely on rusty hinges...☺

Seven years oughta be enough time to lay in a supply of pizza for the trip to this new planet....you DO realize I'll follow you wherever you go, don't you? (They got Enlightened Dogs up there?)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:03 PM

LH

Have you been reading Lobsang Rampa again?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:14 PM

As someone who does astrology, I'm really not sure at all if it's worth entering the fray, but just a few random comments.

A philosophy tutor of mine once said that the views of anyone who has not studied the subject they are discussing can be pretty safely discounted as of no value.

Autolycos's law of astrological ignorance states that anyone who is a fierce adverse critic of astrology is certain never to have made any kind of serious study of it.

Most of the post here show the posters speak of that which they know not. All their over-familiar views have been dealt with repeatedly in reputable astrological works. Please return when you made some decent examination of astrology - the material is easily available.

Of course most of the posters are not going to - that's your right and priviledge, as is freedom of expression. However that doesn't give weight or add weight to your views. As it happens.

Real astrologers, incidentally, don't predict in the ways you seem to be demanding. Prediction is not the heart of the subject. Nor is planetary influence. The weltanschauung of astrology is somewhat different from standard western science.

It might be worth pointing out that, amazingly enough, science is and has often had fierce arguments, some still unresolved. A site worth looking at is www.edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html, where there are many contributions from scientists on the question "What do you believe even though you can't prove it?". And for an interesting discussion about how science has often progrssed in its history by some decidedly dodgy and not very rational procedures, se Pauk Feyerabnd's "Against Method".

I sometimes use astrology therapeutically, as did Jung (he saw it as a useful short-cut. I do so because astrology is far more complicated than your notions of prediction allow. Proper astrologers these days do not say your horoscope lays out what will just happen. That's because they think we have free will. A good analogy. Your horoscope, which details your planets in their signs,houses and relationships to each other etc.etc., is THE HAND YOU WERE DEALT. However, you have free will, which is about HOW YOU PLAY YOUR HAND.

To those interested, having Gemini rising may have something to do with my wordiness;a Libran Moon has some connection with my wish for level-headedness, and fairness in this debate (NO Shambles, but anger anyway); a Taurean Mars means a tough fighter; and Cancer Sun/Libran Moon could lead me not to bother and retire in despair to the sofa after a while if there is no fairness in the debate, but MERE anger or vituperation.

Yes, I'm aware I started angry - more frustrated, really, at prejudice (pre - before;judice - judging =   i.e. like delivering the judgment at the BEGINNING of the trial).

I'm up for open-minded debate. Otherwise, it'll be Gordon Allport's "The Nature of Prejudice" at 3769 paces.

Or we could talk about something else. Not obsessive, me.

That's it for now,I'm off to bed. 'night all.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: kendall
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:43 PM

One day I read my horoscope and it said I would be getting a considerable sum of money. I went to the post office as usual, and there was a royalty check for a pretty tidy sum. Co incidence? sure, but it was nice anyway.
On balance, I have had a lot more days when NO checks came in the mail.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 07:56 PM

" anyone who is a fierce adverse critic of astrology is certain never to have made any kind of serious study of it"

I've studied it enough to know it's a load of bullshit....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:13 PM

golly, Clinton...you give skeptics a bad name...☺

I know, I know...you just 'calls 'em like you sees 'em'....

(we Western boys call that "shootin' from the hip")

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:15 PM

Har! Har! Yeah, bobad, I read a whole bunch of Lobsang Rampa years ago. All of it. Pretty intriguing stuff. Makes ya wonder, doesn't it?

And if it doesn't....well, too bad! L'i the Enlightened One ain't gonna waste valuable spiritual energy keepin' your sorry ass safe when the walls cave in. No more pizza, baby. And no more nachos either. Just good, clean macrobiotic food grown out on the land and picked fresh by the hands that grew it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:37 PM

The burden of proof is upon the claimant.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

You want to really prove/disprove this? Here's how.

You randomly select batches of say 20 people, all born in the same year. You produce a reasonable number of sample groups, with a good age spread, fom children to the elderly, say 15 groups. That's 300 people, which is a reasonable size for a preliminary trial.

You have a panel of expert astrologers, with the exact infomation of the births, and they produce predictions, which are compared to a log of significant events of the subject's day, by a neutral third party.

If there is anything in astrology, there should be a better than random maching made between the logs and the predictions.

You repat a trial like that a number of times, prefably in Western, Asian and African countries, and you might get a reliable result.

Can anyone else think of a better way to do something approaching a double-blind trial in this area?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:45 PM

A philosophy tutor of mine once said that the views of anyone who has not studied the subject they are discussing can be pretty safely discounted as of no value.

Autolycos's law of astrological ignorance states that anyone who is a fierce adverse critic of astrology is certain never to have made any kind of serious study of it.


Exactly. And that's why I'm taking Clinton's last comment with a big grain of salt. Anyone who has seriously studied astrology for even a short period of time knows -- not believes, but knows (there's a mighty important difference between those two words!) -- the valuable truths and insights it has to offer.

And yes, I do know all about wordiness and Gemini Rising, Ivor. Gives a bit of the "jack-of-all-trades" syndrome too, at least in my case.

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 08:51 PM

That's only if you think there has to BE a burden of proof in the first place, TIA...I don't necessarily see that there does.

There are many wonderful things in life which cannot be proven and never will be, but can only be experienced. In saying that, however, I am neither defending nor attacking astrology. I don't give a dang about astrology one way or another.

The concept of "burden of proof" is one most beloved by sceptics when they can trot it out as an objection to things that can't be proven anyway (or disproven), but which they don't believe in or care for (for their own emotional reasons). It's like a suit of armour. It appears very strong. A suit of armour, however, is of no useful application in a jello wrestling contest.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 09:16 PM

Actually in real life, the onus of proof is always on the one who needs or wants or makes the demand for "proof".

You really want "proof", TIA? Do what I do. GEt off your butt, get out there and find it. Don't trust what others say, no matter how lettered or respectable or whatever. Go find it for yourself.

And if you can't be bothered going to all that effort, well then it's really not all that important to you, is it? And that's just fine too, as long as you don't bother people who have made that effort with "extraordinary demands".

I gladly share knowledge and experience gleaned through a lifetime of study and effort and experience with those who are honestly interested. By the same token, I'm certainly never obliged to relieve anyone else of their own ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:00 PM

Astrology is a cottage industry that poor people can play with a minimum of education. Goof for them if it improves their situation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:03 PM

So is growing pot plants. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:13 PM

Donuel, the most knowledgable, powerful and wealthy have always indulged themselves in the very best of all things; including, quite regularly, the very best of astrological information and counsel.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM

No doubt about that.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 01 Mar 06 - 11:12 PM

I'm astounded how strongly otherwise intelligent seeming people can cling to their stupidstitions....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:17 AM

It was once thought absolutely stupid for anyone to say that the earth moves round the sun.

"Look sonny,"they'd say,"In the morning, the sun's THERE "(pointing one way)."In the evening, it's there" pointing in the opposite direction)"OBVIOUSLY the sun goes round the earth."

Clinton "I've studied it enough to know it's a lot of bullshit."
As the 'tec says in "Farewell,My Lovely" ("Murder My Sweet" in the US)(1944, screenplay John Saxton),"That's a very interesting comment, but it leaves me rather in the dark." Would care to , I think you'd say 'Put up', I'd rather say, offer expanded information about your study of astrology?

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:54 AM

Ah Ivor -- you're back. Good! I've been pondering your comment -

Real astrologers, incidentally, don't predict in the ways you seem to be demanding. Prediction is not the heart of the subject. Nor is planetary influence. The weltanschauung of astrology is somewhat different from standard western science.

- and wondering, would you expand on this a little please? If not prediction or the influence of the stars and planets, what do you see as the heart of the subject of astrology?

(PS I see that transiting Mars entered my 1st House yesterday - Aries energy firing up the ole Gemini Rising. Hmmm.   No wonder I'm still wrestling with the mood for wrangling. Bring it on I say! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: kendall
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

"Never trash another's religion, it's no sillier than your own." Same goes for any belief that can't be proven.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:57 AM

*daylia* says:

"GEt off your butt, get out there and find it"

See my earler post regarding annual (failed) testing. Spend very little time on my butt. As a working scientist, spend a whole lot of time "out there finding it".

*daylia* also says:

"Don't trust what others say"

*******Exactly!********

Trust me, I have no "emotional armour". I just made a decision years ago to apply the same standards of judgement in all phases of my life. If someone says they can predict a lot about me just by knowing my exact time and place of birth, I will apply the same standard of judgement as I would if someone told me I could safely step off the roof holding this here carpet 'cause it can fly. And *I* am not going to step off the roof to prove that it *doesn't* fly.

I will revise:

For me, the burden of proof rests with the claimant.
For me, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

As a purely hypothetical, if I were to PM a volunteer my exact (to the minute) time and date of birth, as well as the latitude and longitude (to the ninth decimal place in degrees) of my birth, could this volunteer PM back any information about me that I have not already revealed in a prior posting? (Not actually posing this challenge, nor "baiting a trap", just truly curious whether anyone thinks astrology could pass this test).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM

kendall, "proof" is plentiful, and very easy to come by. The only ones who think otherwise are those who demand that someone else provide the "proof" for them, or who'd rather wait all safe and snug and sound, for the Blessings and Approval of the Great God Science before they investigate it for themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:02 AM

OOPS. That was me at 7:57. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:08 AM

Science is a method.

It is (subconciously or unknowingly) used even by its detractors when a truly life and death decision is made.

No one sets foot on a flying machine that has not been proven (in the scientific sense) to actually fly.

I am not denigrating anyone's personal experience, nor claiming that science can know everything. But I am comfortable with being surrounded by a vast array of phenomena that are as-yet unexplained, and am willing to wait for explanations that are true for all observers.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM

The fact that other people believe in things you do not believe in (and they virtually all do...) should not be the cause of offense or confrontation, it should not demand that one rise in opposition or contradiction, but rather stimulate one's curiosity. Wouldn't that be a more useful reaction than continually attacking and deriding other people's beliefs just to prove that you are smarter, wiser, more realistic or better informed than they are? What if you are? Does that mean you get a special prize or something? Who really cares? (Remember, EVERYONE thinks that what they believe makes sense....and it does, to them. That will never change. You can't change it, and it's not your business to browbeat everyone else in the world into agreeing with you about everything. It will not win you any awards at the conclusion of your limited existence here nor will it succeed in making you a better person than those you have disagreed with.)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

WEll, studying astrology is not a life or death matter, TIA. It's more of a curiousity; an area of study that many people find revealing, fascinating, helpful, insightful -- but it's certainly no threat to anyone, or necessary for survival.

As a purely hypothetical, if I were to PM a volunteer my exact (to the minute) time and date of birth, as well as the latitude and longitude (to the ninth decimal place in degrees) of my birth, could this volunteer PM back any information about me that I have not already revealed in a prior posting? (Not actually posing this challenge, nor "baiting a trap", just truly curious whether anyone thinks astrology could pass this test).

Natal charts provide detailed information about every aspect of life, but I have no idea how much info you've already posted about yourself on this site. So I'm not sure such a "test" would be worth the effort.

Suggestion: go to the site I linked to (Astrodienst), type in your birth time and place, and go over the personal chart, analysis and interpretations for yourself. THat should take you about 15-20 minutes, and you'll then have an answer to your own question (or at least, a very good start towards finding that answer)

Other people can't possibly know you or your personal life circumstances half as well as you do yourself. So why give undue power and authority to other people's perceptions/opinions about you?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM

Why is it that most people know their birth time that accurately? The time of my birth has remained a bit uncertain, being only known in an approximate way. (could have been either before or after midnight, and no one knows for sure)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:06 AM

LH have you checked with your mother?   Having been quite present and very involved at the time, I do remember my own kid's exact birthtimes very well (I made it a point to look at the clock!)

My own mother remembered mine as well, although not all my siblings are as fortunate. Natal charts are often drawn up without the exact birth time (I think 12 noon is most often used as a last resort). Such reports still provide information that's useful in a general sense, but accuracy is definitely compromised without the exact time of birth.

Also, I'm still thinking about Bill's question about using the moment of conception rather than the moment of birth (first breath) to calculate a natal chart. First, it seems to me that until the first breath is inhaled and exhaled, the baby has yet to "make it's personal mark" on the universe (ie interact with the physical universe as a viable, independant and unique human being.

And second, even if the exact time of conception could be determined (not too likely outside a laboratory), how would it work for twins, then? Would the moment of conception be used, or the moment the zygote divided into two (in the case of identical twins), or possible two separate moments of conception (as in the case of fraternal twins)?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: kendall
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

No amount of belief can create a fact.

No one can, with certainty, say that astrology is either true or false.
Since it can't be proven either way, all we have is opinion, and my opinion is as good as yours. My opinion is; I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

Just submitted my details at astrodienst who assure me my town of birth does not exist.Ah well

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:23 AM

LOL! That's very astute of you, kendall. Much wiser than airing blind, unsubstantiated opinions, comfortable long-held prejudices, or other people's second-hand anecdotes as "proof".

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:29 AM

Purple Foxx, the town may be so small it's not listed at that site. If you do honestly want the info, you could calculate and enter the latitude/longitude of your birthplace instead. Or just use a neighbouring city/town, the closest one possible, and know that the results will be slightly less accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:13 AM

Took your advice Daylia.
Some assertions broadly correct.
Some assertions completely wrong (both women currently in my home highly entertained to hear of my "Highly religious nature" for some insight into why this might be check out my postings to the ongoing thread on belief in god.)
All assertions (from Astrodienst)were couched in very elaborate conditioning clauses.
B.T.W. Would like to clarify that neither this nor any other posting from me is intended as an attack on you personally
I'm not really a grumpy old git I just write like one.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM

Man am I feeling nitpickly today!   :-) But I just wanted to ask TIA why she thinks the tenets of astrology are so "extraordinary" that they require "extraordinary proof". Is it "extraordinary" only because it cannot be explained, proven or disproven via scientific methods of
investigation (yet)?

From a historical perspective, it is not astrology that's "extraordinary", but modern science and technology!

Astrology has been around and evolving for thousands and thousands of years. To the best of my knowledge, every culture in history on this planet developed some form of astrology. It is hardly "extraordinary" in my view -- rather, astrology is a very common, everyday, well known, ever evolving and extensively practiced area of study, research and discovery.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

No attack percieved, PF! Glad you took the time to check it out for yourself. Did you use the latitude/longitude, or a neighbouring city?

I know what you mean by the "highly religious nature" bit though -- that came up in my twin's chart too, and it's not very accurate. Yet, anyway. Time will tell. Not many under-25's are "highly religious" these days.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 11:48 AM

Used neighbouring city (Only 20 miles difference.)
I'll be 44 next month!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM

All assertions (from Astrodienst)were couched in very elaborate conditioning clauses.

Sorry bout all these posts, but I just reread your post and noticed this, Purple Foxx. I'd like to point out that human beings are very complex. Individual reactions/responses, even to identical conditions/stimuli (ie Mars conjunct the Sun in the 1st House, to use an astrological example), are as varied as human nature and the circumstances of life itself.

So for example, while Mars conjunct the Sun in the 1st House always implies an abundance of energy and passion, a fiery personality and a strong will, people will express these qualities in highly individual ways. One might become a star athlete, another the passionate outgoing "Don Juan" type, and yet another the most determined, flamboyant, accomplished and influential Buddhist monk imaginable.

Computers are wonderful as time-savers, but they only "see" as progammed. A computer does not take into account subtle nuance, and it cannot "read between the lines". It is not a psychologist or a counsellor. And that's why, for the sake of being as useful as possible to as many people as possible, the computer at Astrodienst is programmed to "couch it's assertions in very elaborate conditioning clauses". Humans are very elaborate creatures, the products of ongoing and extremely complex conditioning and circumstance.

Even so, I find the analyses and interpretations at Astrodienst very helpful and accurate, most days. But if I wanted the very best analysis of my natal chart possible (and I could afford it!) I'd take it to the very best HUMAN astrologer I could find.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:07 PM

WEll, a twenty-mile difference would put your Ascendant (and therefore all your house cusps) a couple degrees or so off, I think. So some of the interpretations are likely also a little "off". I'm no expert though -- Ivor probably knows more about this than I do.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

"every culture in history on this planet developed some form of astrology"

Every culture THOUGHT the world was FLAT and at the center of the univers too... Every culture THOUGHT they were the only ones too...

Every culture treated women/children as property at some point.... Should we go back to that?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM

Every culture developed certain means and methods for making music, for acquiring, cooking and sharing food too. Should we give those up as well?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

"... until the first breath is inhaled and exhaled,..."

Isn't that just an off-the-cuff guess? It seems to me that answers like that are precisely how the entire 'theology' of belief systems, religious OR astrological, are developed. Someone confronts a puzzle in the schema and chews on it and comes up with a plausible, poetic, but non-testable reply.....and if they have any influence, or bother to weave it into the rest of the concepts cleverly enough, it eventually gains nodding credence by others.

The history of mankind is **FULL** of elaborate, competing systems for explaining and predicting how life works and the rules and formulas for dealing with it. Some of them directly contradict many of the others....some are just 'awkward' to correlate...(like competing versions of Christianity).

   When I hear that astrology is thousands of years old, and that I should not presume to judge anything that I "have not personally studied in detail", I shake my head in frustration at the presumption that I cannot see basic, fundamental flaws in those admonishments. That is, even **IF** astrology happened to BE accurate, it cannot be supported using the notion that "many clever people for years have worked it out and agree on the basics". Like Tarot, Ouija boards, Crystal Balls and various religions....you just believe and accept because you feel like it.
   If I began preaching and teaching that Irish Elves living in secret underground passages really controlled most of our lives, and got a BUNCH of followers and wrote some sacred texts with elaborate detail, based on personal visits from the Supreme Elf....you would use exactly the same arguments to explain why you shouldn't believe me that I employ to doubt and question other belief systems!

Explaining why you think certain metaphysical concepts are 'valid' to others implicitly suggests that others ought to believe them also. There's no way around it....if you go beyond saying it is 'just fun and an interesting game', you are telling me that I am either stubborn, lacking in understanding, brainwashed, or locked into some purely arbitrary competing notion of how things work.

In fact, I have studied the basics of "how stuff works, and how you can tell IF you are using the right methods" for almost 50 years...and under very close scrutiny by some pretty high-powered experts for about 12-14 of those years.
   That is why I almost NEVER say "you are 'wrong' in your conclusions", but merely say "you have claimed more than you can defend reasonably".
   I SEE why the history of the race is full of 'beliefs'...it is in our nature to want answers, and my attitude gives fewer 'secure' answers. It is in many ways easier to just pick a comfortable set of premises and navigate in a smaller pond with a clear formula, rather than be told "we can't really answer that kind of question, and maybe will never be able to!"

....*shrug*...it just doesn't bother me to 'not know' a lot of stuff.....there's SO very much that can be learned that I can't be sidetracked into a lot of areas that require 'belief' before 'proof'.......and I'm sorry to report that 'proof' is a hard, technical concept that is pretty inflexible, and is NOT some arbitrary set of guidelines that applies differently when someone doesn't like challenges to their favorite notions. It is so very important to be totally aware of the difference between 'valid' and 'true' and the implications of claims about either.


ah, well....there I go again...*smile*...............I suppose I did this once again mostly to help myself clarify my own position....in a forum like this, most will skim over it and either ignore or pick out some line to object to.

It ain't easy, folks, to wrestle with 5-6 lines of thought at once...and issues like this HAVE that many to consider!

no easy way to stop, either............so.................

∞

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:19 PM

I think of astrology as kind of a self-help version of stone soup.

Most everyone knows this story, in which someone, a person or group of people is/are seeking food and the person or people they are seeking food from endeavor to hid it. By pretending to make soup from a stone, the stranger or strangers manage to get the necessary ingredients for a feast that benefits everyone.

The astrologer(or, nowdays, the astrological program) takes birth information and creates a personal map of celestial bodies--a dynamic maps that reflects influences and effects--and then the subject correlates their life and experiences with the overarching chart to fill in the picture.

It can make it possible for a person to get a bit of distance from the elements in their life, and to get some insight into what's happening and where it's going.

You may say, who needs that phony construct stuff, when they can go into therapy?

The deal is that people, being what they are, often will keep things from their therapists for years--whereas they will spill their guts to someone named "Karma", who has a silk scarf wrapped around her head, at the drop of a hat.










There is an old idea that you can predict about 50% of what will happen based on what you know about what is going on--astrology is useful, at least for certain people, in organizing and assessing the 50% that we can figure out.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM

"Should we give those up as well?"

No... because those have been shown to work...   Unlike Divination, Dowsing, Sailing Off The Edge Of The World.... all of which fail any decent double-blind test at a rate that consigns them to the realm of random chance

You wanna throw dice to decide your action, go right ahead... Don't try to tell me that "The Force" is controlling those dice.... Cause I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen anything make me believe in one All Powerful Force, controlling every thing... There's no mystical energy field controls MY destiny... It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 01:48 PM

Yep, M.Ted....you said that well. That IS one of the few explanations/justifications I can see that make sense. If that were all that were claimed, I'd not fret....too much ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 02:15 PM

Isn't that just an off-the-cuff guess?

Hmm=. It's more of a suggestion, Bill. And it's quite testable.

A baby's first breath is the first time a viable (ie living and capable of sustaining that life independantly) and unique human being personally exchanges very physical, observable and testable elements (ie air) with the physical universe.

The proverbial "Breath of Life" is (obviously) just that, in other words. Unless you can think of a time prior to the first breath where a human being directly exchanges (testable) physical matter with the (testable) physical universe. I haven't, as yet!

So, really it's no wonder that traditionally, physical human life is said to begin with the first breath (and not, say, after the cutting of the umbilical cord or at the moment of conception as you suggested). Guess I'll find something else to wonder about!

That is, even **IF** astrology happened to BE accurate, it cannot be supported using the notion that "many clever people for years have worked it out and agree on the basics". Like Tarot, Ouija boards, Crystal Balls and various religions....you just believe and accept because you feel like it.

I don't "believe" a thing about astrology, Bill. I know (not believe, but know) what I do to date through direct first hand personal observation and experience. There's a big difference. Some people use astrology, Tarot, Ouija boards, hypnosis, meditation, prayer etc because --- guess what!! --- they've found these things really do work for them and they enjoy it. I see no problem with this. What does it matter if science can not or will not explain these things? Notta --- except to a scientist on a bad hair day, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM

"they've found these things really do work for them"

No... they've deluded themselves into THINKING that they work.... Cause all that fullblop fails all the double blind tests.... It only works as often as random chance allowes it to work... Science HAS explained it... The problem is you refuse to see the explination....

again... refusal/inability to see something despite evidence is the 'classic' definition of deluded....

From dictionary.com

de·lu·sion Pronunciation Key (d-lzhn)
n.

   1.
         1. The act or process of deluding.
         2. The state of being deluded.
   2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
   3. Psychiatry. A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Note #3....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

There's no mystical energy field controls MY destiny.

Don't think so? Look in the mirror, Clinton    :-D

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 02:26 PM

Just did.... no mystical energy field... just light reflecting off a couple of different surfaces before reaching my optic nerve....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 03:31 PM

Just some random musing on the first moment of life.

The whole concept of 'life' is simply a human construct to distinguish one state from another (death).

That a baby doesn't have life until it's first breath because it hasn't exchanged physical matter with the physical universe is not really true. In the womb the baby is sustained with physical matter from it's mother who is of the physical universe.

Life can be considered as a continuum in that every cell in the living body is living. A new entity is created when two living cells fuse to form a new living cell which in turn......ad infinitum. I suppose if one wants to establish the exact moment of the creation of the new entity it would have to be at the moment of cellular fusion and the exchange of genetic material.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM

That's true, bobad. A baby is very much alive before it is born. Hmm.

Perhaps the first breath was said to mark the beginning of life for a much simpler reason. Childbirth was a much riskier experience for both mother and baby, before recent times. After a baby is born, until it breathes on it's own it's life remains uncertain. And unless it breathes, it dies. So the first breath proves that the baby is indeed viable.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM

Well, of course I've checked with my MOTHER about my time of birth, daylia, for flip's sake! Who else would I have gotten that information from? Nobody else has a clue about it, I can assure you, because she was the only one present in the room at the time, and for awhile afterward.

This is complicated somewhat by the fact that I have never known my mother to tell any story about anything without significant and quite exaggerated distortion of the facts... (It's not that she deliberately lies, she just has a tendency to unconsciously embellish things, which makes for a better story. If she says that 500 people died in a train wreck that destroyed 50 rail cars, you will presently find out it was closer to 15 people and 5 rail cars.)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:12 PM

For those with great faith in the acuity of science, a bit of food for thought here Parapyschology research more scientific than hard science research--

It is an article about a study done by parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake, who, possibly fed up with the scorn of scientists about the legitimacy of his, reviewed hundreds of published papers and interviewed a large number of researchers in a variety of fields to determine the extent to which the "Gold Standard" of double blind testing was used in "Hard science"--

He found that, while it is used more that 80% of the time in parapsychological research, he found that it is only ocassionally used in medical and psychological sciences, and nearly never in biological and physical sciences--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM

"Cause I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and I've seen a lot of strange stuff..." - Clinton Hammond


AHA!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it! You're finally admitted it, Clinton, you're a goddamned alien. Probably cold-blooded too. Maybe even green-blooded. This explains your total lack of human empathy and your ruthless, arrogant disregard for people.

Well, the cat is out of the bag now, buster. I have informed the authorities. You will shortly find unsympathetic men in black suits at your door, and will get to spend the next few months being subjected to vivisection and genetic testing and being spun around in giant centrifuges to see if it gives you motion sickness and other delightful stuff like that.

They'll probably try irradiating you too and see if you can take 80,000 rads. They do stuff like that with captured aliens.

If you've got any gigs next month, I'd suggest cancelling them now, cos you ain't gonna be there, sucker.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:15 PM

It's a quote from Star Wars, you heathen

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:16 PM

How's this for a blind test:

Went to the Astrodienst site and got my "real" profile. Then did three others with a) false birthdate, b) false birthplace c) false gender.

I am posting all four on the bulletin board above the coffee machine, and will ask all who work here (who know me quite well) to vote for which is the "real" description of me.

I will undoubtedly learn something, but in the spirit of LH's earlier post regarding beating people over the head, I will keep it to myself.

But, to believers and non-believers alike: try a similar test, and perhaps you will learn something as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:18 PM

Sure, sure...try and wiggle out of it. I didn't see any quote marks around it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM

Wiggle out of what?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:22 PM

That is a cool idea, TIA. I'm kind of curious to see what results you get. What would be even cooler would be for someone else to generate several such charts for you (only one of them being based on your real birth date, etc)...then have you read them all and decide which one is most like you...then see how it came out.

And then do that with several other people.

Sort of a double-double-blind test.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM

I smell and 8th grade science fair project!!!!!!!!!!!!

You'll be listed in the references of course LH.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:24 PM

TIA, no one is in a better position to judge those results than yourself. Other people can't possibly know you or your life circumstances half as well as you do. So I ask again, why give unmerited power and authority to someone else's opinions/perceptions about you?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:33 PM

Not giving them any power over me whatsoever. I will still be who I am. What I am giving them power over is Astrodienst. Their responses will be a strong indicator (for me of course) of the accuracy of the "real" profile. All of the profiles make some pretty specific statements about my modus operandi and outlook that people who have worked closely with me for 15 years ought to be able to spot if.

The main reason I am having others judge the profiles was stated best by Richard Feynman: "the easiest person to fool is yourself", and from my life history and prior circumstances, I know that I am quite capable of fooling myself.


Besides, anything else would be a little bit like playing the shell game with myself. Not much fun or challenge if you already know which cup the pea is under.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 05:41 PM

The easiest person to fool is definitely oneself.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:09 PM

interesting article, M. Ted...and your summation of it is clear. It is, however, reporting 'about' presumed statistics gathered by Sheldrake, who is also reported thusly:
"Rupert Sheldrake is far from being a reliable source, and on the basis of his previous escapades, anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt the size of a Ford Explorer. He may have misrepresented the hard sciences' stand on experimenter blinding, and his report may be unbalanced or exaggerated, especially in light of the low number of parapsychology studies represented in his survey."

Now, he may be absolutely right on in the survey he reports, but not all 'standard' scientific tests require "blind" comparisions....and of course, we hear nothing about the results of 'blind' testing in the 'standard' sciences compared to parapsyhchology.

I, myself, was once part of a study of drugs in which there were 3 control groups, one of which was given a placebo, and the others given different strengths of the actual drug...and not even the techs doing the test knew who got what...... In that case, 'blinds' were required, in other types of experiments they are not. It all depends on what you need to prove, test or discover....then the NATURE of the results becomes important...are you wanting statistics, or 'happenings'? (i.e....if all the participants in group 3 in my study died, conclusions could be drawn!...If 52% reported they 'felt better', MUCH different conclusions are appropriate.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*daylia*...."
I don't "believe" a thing about astrology, Bill. I know (not believe, but know) what I do to date through direct first hand personal observation and experience."

I never doubt that a person HAD the experiences they report, but I always 'take with a grain of salt' (that one the size of the Ford *grin*) most claims about the source and implications and conclusions to be drawn. When you say you "know" in this context, it is clear that you are using the word in a much looser way than I would like to see. In the scientific method, it is a pretty dicey term, reserved for times when absolute certainty needs to be talked about.

    Even in general discourse, one needs to be wary of the context. There is a BIG difference between saying "I know that tossing a lighted match in gasoline is likely to cause a big flare." and telling me "I know I saw the ghost of my grandfather" or "I know that the analysis of my astrological charts have been accurate."

Even the match/gasoline statement is not as precise as "I know that 2+2=4" because that is true by definition, and 1 time in a million that match may not cause a BOOM....but it is still pretty reliable, and we can easily agree to say "I know it is dangerous" because we agree on the basic rules in that case.

When we DO use words differently, then the logical problem of 'equivocation' can rear its head as people continue a debate, never stopping to note that one definition is more rigid than another.


"Is all this nitpicking necessary", she asks? *grin*...."well", says the stodgy philosopher, "only if you want the answers to be useful."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:34 PM

Daylia,

Sorry for the delay - today is one of my two days off, and I've been out hunting LPs.

I first thought of doing this as a pm, then thought I'd be a bit braver than that.

The alternative to "influence" is that at any moment, the universe has a pattern, existing in every particle of it (vaguely like my own 'pattern' being identifiable in every cell of my body, leg and liver and ear alike, tho' legs, livers and ears don't look like each other). The horoscope was simply discovered to be a way of reading off the pattern. So, correspondences between planetary events, and those here, are about synchronicity (the "same" thing going on in different places), rather than influence.

As I said before, prediction in the precise, scientific sense, is not sought or possible a lot because we do have free will. Astrology speaks more of tendencies (bit like scientists can't predict the exact time of climate collapse - and don't even agree th't that is inevitable - scientists, mark you).

Do I lack free will because I can't announce I'm going to jump off a cliff and fly and that be true?

No, it's just that actual constraints have to be taken into account. One's horoscope shows one's personal constraints and tendencies, the hand one has been dealt (in my earlier analogy).

So it's tendencies, not predictions, tho' it is these tendencies, not those. Each of us has a different bunch of talents, different temperaments. Did we choose our temperaments? Our talents?

Incidentally, when the object of a study is a person or people (psychology, astrology, anthropology, sociology etc.), it is difficult/impossible for the study to be truly scientific. That is, if for no other reason, because the subject and object of the study are, uniquely, of the same species (like trying to see your mind with your eyes), and axes are going to be ground, like it or not.

Dahlia, I'll leave my response to your kind request there for the moment. I'll be happy to share more, on piste or off, as we decide.

Most of the other postings have ignored one part or another of the earlier posts of us astronauts (hey, that could fly.) And there aint a durn thing we can do about (cept say it aint worth going on. You have free will, so it's your choice.)

Just a small point. Clinton, very feisty in asking others to provide answers and evidence (as I agree is oft valuable), may I prod you just once more to enlarge on your statement that you know enough about astro. to know it's bullshit. Don't be shy. We're not enemies, are we? What have you got? Best wishes

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:41 PM

I think you are absolutely right, autolycus. It's sychronicity of the whole system, not the detection of an influence or causation by various heavenly bodies. Any method of divination works for that very reason, provided the person doing it is sensitive enough to tune in. The degree of their sensitivity is the key to a good reading...NOT the method they use.

I've seen marvelously accurate readings done with tea leaves, for instance. One does not need astrology to do readings at all, but if one likes it, it's probably as good a method of divination as any.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM

The questioning of Sheldrake's credibility is a bit of hyperbole--he is actually a fairly reputable biologist, who advocates that science is a method, not a position-

He also contends that a lot of what passes for science is merely habit, and his critical point is that scientists tend to think that double blinds are only needed when there are human subjects involved--to cancel out their bias, and are completely oblivious to the idea that experimenter bias has a great effect on the outcome of research.

This is not a new idea, not even a controversial idea--most scientists generally forgo acceptance of what seem to be new discoveries until they have been independently verified many times.

The trick is, they recognize experimenter bias can be a significant in the work of others, but not in their own work.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:09 PM

Just to add a little to what BillD has to say on the subject of double blind studies. This methodology is used primarily to test the efficacy of therapies, drugs, treatments etc. ie. does the drug, therapy or treatment have an effect that is SIGNIFICANTLY different from that of a placebo, and by SIGNIFICANTLY I mean by using accepted statistical analysis to measure significance.

Another way to test efficacy is by evaluating the effect something may have by measurment. For example take a blood anti-coagulant, it's efficacy is easily measured by testing it's effect on the amount of time it takes to clot a subject's plasma in a laboratory procedure.

That would be a pretty straightforward way to say that something does what it claims to do. On the other hand if one wants to determine whether this effect has an effect on mortality or morbidity a double blind study would be used to answer that question.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:21 PM

Thursday March 2

Mar. 2, 2006. 01:00 AM
Thought for the Day: Mercury is always an elusive planet to pinpoint visually, but its astrological influence is unmistakable. Today it comes to a full stop in Pisces and begins its once-in-four-months retrograde cycle until the 25th. Be as adaptable as you can.


Wednesday March 1

Mar. 1, 2006. 01:00 AM
Thought for the Day: It's all excitement and high energy. The moon moves into feisty Aries, Uranus is positively electric and Mercury comes to a standstill as it squares off with intense Pluto. This month is off to a flying start.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 07:24 PM

"Uranus is positively electric"

No comment.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:27 PM

There's likely a good joke about AC/DC in there somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 08:36 PM

"Be as adaptable as you can."

working on it....even when Mercury is zipping in his usual manner and not standing still.


"...they recognize experimenter bias can be a significant in the work of others, but not in their own work."

yep...a common error...but not a universal one. It is not about whether experts sometimes are careless; it is about what good methodology is, whether followed carefully or not. If a basically flawed method is scrupulously adhered to, ALL its results are suspect. (NOT proven wrong...just not proven right)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM

The main reason I am having others judge the profiles was stated best by Richard Feynman: "the easiest person to fool is yourself", and from my life history and prior circumstances, I know that I am quite capable of fooling myself.

Likewise, TIA. Everyone's great at fooling themselves! And yes, there's been a few times when other people's observations and opinions about me and/or my personal life have proven helpful ie during a particularly difficult or crisis situation, when it's hardest to stay objective and keep a level head.

But honestly, other people's opinions usually turn out to be a distraction at best, harmful and misleading at worst. A few decades of trial and error have shown that life is much easier when I avoid seeking out other people's opinions and "advice" (??) about my own personal affairs as much as possible.

I shudder to think that I'd allow anyone else to direct, least of all dictate my choices or decisions or judgements re websites, or personal astrological reports, or posting on Mudcat, or playing the piano, or anything else I might be interested in pursuing! But then again, I do make it a point to trust nothing but personal hands-on observation and experience when investigating subjects like astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:27 PM

Bill, I know that you don't really believe that I know what I know. Maybe you don't even think that anything is really knowable the way I go about knowing. This, however, does not mean that I don't know what I do know or that you don't know what you do know. All it means is I know that I know things that you don't know. And you know that you know things that I don't know, because we've chosen different paths in life.

ANd y'know what? Whooooopty-doopty! C'est la vie! I like you anyway. I know that. YOu may not think that I really know this, but I do. I can't prove scientifically that I know that I like you, or even that I do like you. But I still do know it anyway. And I do still like you.

Y'know?    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:31 PM

To know that you know that I know that you don't really believe that I know what I know makes me know that you don't even think that anything is really knowable the way I go about knowing that you know. This, however, does not mean that I don't know what I do know or that you don't know what you do know. All it means is I know that I know things that you don't know that I know I know. And you know that you know things that I don't know that you know I know, because......because.......awww, screw it!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:42 PM

I view astrology as a relatively harmless hobby.

I very much doubt the movements of some very distant lights in the sky have a significant effect on individual futures as long as little things like free will and chance are around.

And if you think poring over star charts and silly arcane symbols will bring you to to some sort of higher consciousness, you can probably get the same result by staring long enough at a bowl of Alphabits.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 09:54 PM

Hunting LP's instead of grinding axes here on the Cat? Good for you!
Hope you enjoyed a successful blast from the past.

"The alternative to "influence" is that at any moment, the universe has a pattern, existing in every particle of it (vaguely like my own 'pattern' being identifiable in every cell of my body, leg and liver and ear alike, tho' legs, livers and ears don't look like each other). The horoscope was simply discovered to be a way of reading off the pattern. So, correspondences between planetary events, and those here, are about synchronicity (the "same" thing going on in different places), rather than influence.

As I said before, prediction in the precise, scientific sense, is not sought or possible a lot because we do have free will. Astrology speaks more of tendencies (bit like scientists can't predict the exact time of climate collapse - and don't even agree th't that is inevitable - scientists, mark you)."

Yup! Thanks for posting these intriguing ideas re synchronicity, Ivor. Never considered the astrological "map" quite this way before. Rather like a holograph ... hmmmm ... Little Hawk probably has some interesting comments about this. Thanks again!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Peace
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:05 PM

You are probably right, Daylis. Gravity is everywhere all at once. The star-croosed lovers in Romeo and Juliet, the desire of people to leave the 'surly bonds of Earth'--there is stuff going on we don't at all understand. If astrology helps you make sense of it all, then good for you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:05 PM

Sheesh LH I just saw your post(s). And I knew that you'd have something interesting to say about Ivor's post, even before I saw your post! Now, I know that I knew this before I saw your post, but I can't prove it scientifically for Bill or anybody. That, however, doesn't change what happened or the fact that I knew. Or that I know that I knew even though this is unknowable for anyone else but me.

K. I think I've known enough for one day. Nitey nite all!




hey ....maybe I'll get to dream about mars conjuncting uranus ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:28 PM

"Bill, I know that you don't really believe that I know what I know."

nawwwwww...you don't know that! You BELIEVE that....*big grin*

well, anyhoo, it's good to .....ummmmmmm....'know' that you like me, in spite of my pedantic nit-picking. You are not shy about speaking your mind, and you always keep a sense of humor about it all. Valuble traits! No one 'need' convince anyone else of their point of view, just 'maybe' we will all think and understand a bit more from all this debate....

(well...except for CH...*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:33 PM

Not to worry Daylia. I'm not seeking anyone's opinion or influence on me or my behaviour or judgements. Simply have asked them which of the Astrodienst profiles best fits me. Their judgements will reflect far more upon astrology than they will upon me. I don't need astrology to tell me that I am actually quite difficult to influence (my spouse tells me this often and in many planetary alignments).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:48 PM

Peace, I know I'm supposed to be asleep but I forgot to say thanks so here I am again. Those "Thoughts for the Day" are so very timely! Believe it or not as you choose of course, but I was wondering if Mercury had gone into retrograde earlier this evening, while I was at work. Little semi-trivial frustrating arrrgghhh stuff has been happening all day -- miscommunication, delays, devices not functioning no apparent reason -- and the Moon just entered Aries, too.   
Well!   Take it back, I say!      all this grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I've been feeling ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Mar 06 - 10:58 PM

Yeah. Every time L'i gets that hind leg going and scratches his left ear really fast things tend to get a little weird for a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 03:44 AM

Since some have questioned TIAs method of doing things, how about I do it the other way around?

Could someone volunteer to make up 4 or more charts and post them here. One for me, and some with other random details. make one of them close to but not identical to mine, just for fun and the others very different details. I will judge which best fits me.

My details Born: 09/10/1972 at about 9am in Felling, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, England (not sure what level of detail they will accept for place of birth).

If you are the kind volunteer, make sure you keep a note of which horoscope is which.

You might need to hide details of which sun sign comes up, as I obviously will know this, but I don't know any other details.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 08:32 AM

TIA, thanks for clarifying your purpose and method so patiently. I was seeing you and your idea from the only vantage point I really have, and that's my own. I was concerned about giving undue power and authority to other people's opinions/perceptions, because that particular issue brings up unpleasant "old stuff" for me. However, this may or may not have anything to do with your typical mode of operation, and I can see that you are confident it does not. So, I'll go with it!

And I think your results will be interesting, bearing in mind the following factors affecting validity. Your co-workers are just as much a measure of these 'variables' as they are of the accuracy of the Astrodienst reports:

1. The extent and quality of their knowledge and personal perceptions of you (which is sure to be colored by their own personal vantage point and "issues", just as mine was earlier)

2. The co-worker's vocabulary (those reports ARE couched rather elaborately, as PF pointed out)

3. The amount and quality time and effort they put into studying the reports formulating an answer for you, and

4. Their personal opinions/feelings about astrology in general.


Bagpuss, I'll gladly do that for you. Can't do it immediately though -- stay posted! I'll be back ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM

K Bagpuss, here's your 1st choice. (I'm only posting the 1st 2 sections of each report, as they are quite loooooooooong and involved ...)

Sun in XXXX, Moon in Cancer

You were born with the Sun in XXXX and the Moon in Cancer. Your personality comes under the rulership of the Moon which indicates one who is attached to the comforts of his home life. You are friendly in manner and gesture. You are highly sensitive to nature and your surroundings. You should be careful not to fall under the influence of other people so readily.

You have the capacity to escape the confines of self and empathize fully with the feelings of others. The Moon in cancer always creates a personality overflowing with sensitivity and emotions. In order to feel secure it is very important that you have your family and social affairs completely settled and running smoothly.

Coming under the influence of the Sun in XXXXX, your core is intellectual, seemingly in opposition to your personality. Internally you are less emotional than appears by the role you have assumed in society. You need to have more determination and self-reliance in whatever you do.

The key to a better integration of your personality is to become more detached and independent of your family and home affairs and to acquire a more solid psychological focal point, so that you follow your goals with more determination.

Ascendant in Leo, Sun in the Eleventh House

At the time of your birth the zodiacal sign of Leo was ascending in the horizon. Its ruler the Sun is located in the eleventh house.

People with Leo in the Ascendant seem to possess a flair for the life of nobility and regality. Your life will be in many ways influenced by decisions you make that have been motivated by your pride, desire for power, for authority, and your need to convince others of your courage.

In life you will act with a rather frank, generous, and amiable disposition. The course of events in your life will unfold themselves swiftly, and a life full of chance and circumstances will be the outcome of your desire to rule, to organize, to hold the keys of authority. You should be aware that as a result of overly strong impulses there is the danger of failures and upsets in life. You will be generally regarded as an amiable, sincere and generous person who, however, has much pride and sensitivity. Egocentricity is one of the prices of being born with the Ascendant sign of Leo. Another aspect of this zodiacal sign is that your personality becomes excessively charged with passion and sexual desire. On the other hand, these zodiacal signs grant in life a large dose of vitality as well as a fine physical shape and a strong, healthy constitution.

Willpower is a characteristic of your personality. You seek opportunities and when you find them you go to it, using both your mind and your emotions to strive for success with zeal and determination. You are very self-assured and you implement ideas with a self- assurance that lets nothing get in your way of success.

It would be beneficial to you, however, if you were not so candid and frank and if you did not expect others to act and feel as you do.

Leo will grant you very sincere and affectionate relationships in which you desire to bring happiness and an overall feeling of charitable spirit and warmth to your loved one. In your sexual relationships you appear as happy, strong, playful and even a little innocent.

You will always act better as a leader than a subordinate.

This position denotes that friendships will have a direct bearing on all your important events. The position is rather favorable. You should obtain the sympathy and approval of superiors and persons of authority, or any of those who in some degree are more powerful than you are in your professional circle. Whatever profession you may be engaged in, you will rise due to your own inborn traits. You are very sociable, ambitious respectful, and attracted to conventional fashions and customs.

**********************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:50 AM

Here's the 2nd:

Sun in XXXX, Moon in Scorpio

These astrological positions indicate a clever and shrewd personality. You tend to be aggressive and are often downright blasphemous. When crossed you wreak revenge in full measure. You relish displaying your wit and knowledge and make a point of telling others of your various successes and victories. These shows of your achievement, however, are to your detriment because they earn you the ill will of others. You lean toward the darker sides of life, and your imagination can be morbid. You are fascinated by the mysterious, malignant forces in the universe. A nocturnal individual, your thoughts often turn to death, finalities, and the mysteries of life after death.

The key to a more harmonious self lies in developing optimism and recognizing the good that exists in the world.


Ascendant in Sagittarius, Jupiter in the First House

At the time of your birth the zodiacal sign of Sagittarius was ascending in the horizon. Its ruler Jupiter is located in the first house.

Sagittarius rising denotes lives which are very dualistic; situations come and go as if divided into two sides - success and failure.

If you are able to raise the interests of your mind from common and trivial things to more profound subjects, your intellect will become very philosophical and attracted by law and peace, and it will be more intuitive than rational. In any case your life will be colored by impulsive and rather stubborn tendencies on your part, creating some inclination to go to extremes,

During the course of your existence you must try to develop intuition and human understanding so that you may be in a position to assist other people with your advice.

Sagittarius gives you a rather strong love of nature and makes you somewhat extroverted, demonstrative and passionate, falling in love frequently and without reservations. You are an intellectual, an intelligent person who has been fortunate enough to be granted also a good development of the emotional functions.

Your romantic life will be intense and varied. Your object of love may find you difficult to understand. In one aspect you will appear as passionate and energetic but because of the mutability of the sign you will also have an opposite tendency that will lead you away from involvement in the love affair and the latter impulse will be caused by a more inner trait, which is personal freedom.

Generally speaking, the sign of Sagittarius will incline you to exist in environments in which your physical body, emotions and thoughts are allowed total freedom for development. On a higher intellectual level you may find yourself inclined to dwell in the deep complexities of philosophy, metaphysics, religion and law. You are versatile enough to study more than one discipline simultaneously not forgetting to keep your body in physical movement, since you require both intellectual and physical exercise.

The general meaning of this position is that any success in life will be achieved through personal effort and merit. There is also a tendency for dignity and respectability caused by your strength of temperament.

You give an impression of spontaneity, frankness, and good disposition. Your temperament is innately honest, truthful, kind and courageous.

**********************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:53 AM

Here's the 3rd:

Sun in XXXXX, Moon in Aquarius

This astrological combination lends you organizational ability and the likelihood of success in large undertakings that involve the public. You are highly independent in your thinking and progressive in your ideas. Perceptive and aware, you arrive at much of what you know through intuition. You always remain somewhat detached from others, but you are a keen observer of human nature.

You could gain financially from some official position in which you deal with very large groups of people.


Ascendant in Capricorn, Saturn in the Twelfth House

At the time of your birth the zodiacal sign of Capricorn was ascending in the horizon. Its ruler Saturn is located in the twelfth house.

The sign of Capricorn denotes an existence in which temperament is very important. You will give an image of ambition, persistence, will power, consistency and perseverance. You were born with the tendencies to seek material, social, and, perhaps, even political power.

Capricorn tends to a challenging life which forces you to exert all your resources in order to triumph. Because of your tact and prudence, you will be favored with the good will of important people.

Your mind is egocentric, rational and you have a natural tendency toward scepticism. Able to work hard, you will bear obstacles and frustrations with patience.

You will proceed with prudence in your love life and in all other activities. You will seriously consider all of the ramifications of a relationship, especially the aspects of your independence, and you will not commit yourself to a partner until you are sure of your choice. After that however there is a tendency to conduct a peaceful and quiet life.

You are very economical in your daily activities, and if you do not exert some control over this trait, it could appear as rather mean.

You are best placed in governmental, municipal, political, or large business organizations where hierarchy is very exactly defined. The key word for your professional orientation is responsibility.

This position indicates that your life is conducted in darkness and you are inclined to plan in the shelter of loneliness. You don't mind seclusion as long as you can think and express yourself freely.

You may be able to amass considerable amounts of money in a manner which is not acceptable to your acquaintances

************************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM

And here's the 4th choice for Bagpuss! Will the REAL Bagpuss please stand up????

Sun in XXXX, Moon in Scorpio

These astrological positions indicate a clever and shrewd personality. You tend to be aggressive and are often downright blasphemous. When crossed you wreak revenge in full measure. You relish displaying your wit and knowledge and make a point of telling others of your various successes and victories. These shows of your achievement, however, are to your detriment because they earn you the ill will of others. You lean toward the darker sides of life, and your imagination can be morbid. You are fascinated by the mysterious, malignant forces in the universe. A nocturnal individual, your thoughts often turn to death, finalities, and the mysteries of life after death.

The key to a more harmonious self lies in developing optimism and recognizing the good that exists in the world.

Ascendant in Scorpio, Mars in the Eleventh House

At the time of your birth the zodiacal sign of Scorpio was ascending in the horizon. Its ruler Mars is located in the eleventh house.

Your life will be marked by your shrewd, secretive, obstinate, clever, and reserved disposition. You remain an enigma: with these traits, your life events could be either very tragic or very fortunate. To which category of Scorpio do you belong? There are two types, the extremely emotional, attracted by those pathological aspects of biological relationship, or the highly mystical, concerned with spirituality.

You are a person of extremes, very sensitive and desirous of attachment. There is some attraction to the occult or to psychic phenomena. You are active in the sense that there is a psychological struggle going on inside you between the positive and negative poles-those of affirming and satisfying or rejecting and repressing. You are very intense in your feelings and remain passionately attached to the person you love. Similarly, when you dislike someone you are very fixed in that feeling. However, there is room for optimism in that: whatever type of Scorpio you may happen to be, there exists a desire deep in your inner self for psychic regeneration.

At some point in your life, after the occurrence of a major dramatic event that will affect you deeply, the goal and entire expression of your ego may alter entirely. The intensity and profundity of your passion, however, will always be constant. You have a tendency to go into the shadows and secretly plan the course of action you will take, reluctant to let others know the exact nature of your mood or feelings. In your sexual affairs you are full of passion and strong attachment.

Exert more control over your passions; don't be so resentful of others. Use your strong will and character for favorable and beneficial things.

You have a strong inclination to be involved in medicine, perhaps even surgery. You are attracted by research and investigation in general.

This house signifies the most intimate and subtle aspirations of the native and is basically a house of friendships and acquaintances. People with their rulers here are individuals who, for better or worse, rise in life, supporting themselves by the assistance of friends. In any event, Mars is not an influence indicative of a person who has many friends.

It is likely that you are going to be struggling in life for the realization of your most intimate wishes. Many of these have to do with securing a substantial livelihood. If you can exert a good degree of control over your passions, you may fully succeed.

***********************************************************************

Now, will the real Bagpuss please stand up??   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 12:48 PM

Thank you daylia. I shall have a thorough read and get back to you.

Bagpuss

PS. Why was the final one in bold? I hope it was just an error and not some attempt to unconsciously affect my choice.... ;-)

[fixed missing /b-mudelf]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 02:53 PM

Thanks, mudelf, for fixing that tag. Bagpuss please be assured that mistake wasn't intentional - I was rushed this morning and didn't preview those posts. Sorry, and enjoy your 'research'!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 02:58 PM

PS   darn I wish I'd bolded ALL the headings for the second half of those reports (where it says Ascendant in XX, PlanetWhatever in XX) Please know that was just an oversight too, and not intended as any kind of "clue".

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM

Okey Dokey.

Well I can honestly say that none of the profiles sounded particularly like me. None of them hit on any of what I consider to be key aspects of my personality. Some had some minor bits that could describe me, but equally some contained bits that were really unlike me. I won't bother mentioning bits that were neither like nor unlike me.

Profile 1: 3/10
The bits that fitted were about being friendly and sensitive and liking my comforts and empathising with others. Also the bit about me having an intellectual core. The bits about desire to rule, organise and hold keys to authority are nothing like me, ditto for the willpower bit.

Profile 2: 2/10
First section extemely unlike me, except perhaps the morbid imagination bit. Inclination to extremes, again unlike me. Love of nature is correct, but not extroverted, demonstrative etc.

Profile 3: 4/10
Organizational ability, definitely not. The only bit in the first section that rang true was keen observer of human nature (I studied psychology). Abition, persistence, willpower etc - totally wrong. Tendency towards scepticism, correct. Prudence in love life section fairly accurate, same with being economical in daily activities.

Profile 4: 3/10
First section same as for 2, so again, couldn't be more unlike me. Second section. Second section - Not an extremes sort of person, and not attracted to the occult or psychic phemomena particularly. Passionately attached to those I love, but conversely, NOT fixed in dislikes. Inclination towards medicine is correct, but definitely not surgery. Definitely attracted by research and investigation.

So I didn't feel any of them fitted me like a glove, but if forced to choose, number 3 was least unlike me.

Bring on the result...

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 03 Mar 06 - 08:25 PM

Bagpuss, the birth data you gave above generated profile #4.

For #2, I made a minor adjustment to your data (date/time of birth became 10/10/1972 at 12 noon)

#1 is an old profile from my file (I chose the male closest to your age).

And #3 is a hypothetical person born Jan 1 1960 at 12 noon in Los Angeles California.


*egads*   


how morbidly disillusioning


;-)

But then again, I felt the same way you describe about the first natal chart I had drawn up. I'd used the "around 8am" birthtime given by my mother -- just as you gave the "around 9 am" time above. Some parts fit almost like a glove, others seemed to be describing someone else entirely. But a few years later I found my exact birthtime, and that 35 minute difference generated quite a different chart - one that did seem to be describing me reasonably well, most of the time.

And the 8 years elapsed between the two charts seemed to make a difference too. Certain descriptions I'd felt strongly were nothing like me back then made a lot more sense in hindsight. Of course! People change over the years, express different parts of their nature at different times in their lives; a natal chart, being a 'snapshot' of the heavens at the (hopefully exact) moment of birth, does not.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 10:20 AM

But surely an hour either way would not change the first part of the chart, the the sun in Libra, Moon in Scorpio bit, would it? It didn't change that part for the one you altered slightly from my details. This was the part which was so completely unlike me. And I find it very unlikely that in the future I am going to become a person who is aggressive, blasphemous, vengeful and morbidly obsessed with death (I paraphrase).

So I think you might have to accept that my personality does not conform to that which is predicted by astrology.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 10:43 AM

One of the flaws of astrology is that the zodiac signs and planet characteristics (female, male, warlike, peaceful, etc.) are completely arbitrary to the culture that invented them. In one culture a planet represents war, in another culture THE SAME planet represents peace. So, which zodiac or astrological belief is right.... the Mayan, the Chaldean, the different American Indian tribes who had differing beliefs about the stars, the Chinese, the many tribes and cultures that have come and gone over history that we don't even know about? Look back at the revival in Britain after World War I of the Chaldean zodiac and how it is now what we call "astrology".   The fact is, people project meaning onto symbols. Humans have a great capacity to imagine and find patterns to fit what they imagine.
Astrology is best understood by learning how it began.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM

The vital thing as far as I'm concerned in any system of divination is the individual doing it, not the method they use. They either have the ability to relax and put personality aside and tune in or they don't. I do not believe in the science of astrology particularly, but I do believe that some people can use it effectively as a tool to express their natural psychic abilities. The same thing can be done by reading a person's tea leaves or the lines on their palm...if you have the ability.

This is why astrological predictions from a computer or a newspaper column strike me as totally useless except for entertainment.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 12:11 PM

Too wordy...

"One of the flaws of astrology is that (it's) completely arbitrary"

Says it all...

Or

"astrological predictions (are) totally useless except for entertainment"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 12:37 PM

Bagpuss, I gave those 4 reports no more than a quick glance before I posted them. Didn't read them through till last night in fact. I was surprised with the negativity of that kick-in-the-butt Sun/Moon description; almost regretted that I didn't PM the results instead of posting them here.   Who in their right mind would stand up here and declare "Oh yes folks, that sounds just exactly like me folks!!!"

It bugged me so much I snooped on you --- read through a few of your old posts here on Mudcat. And I must say, Bagpuss, I found nothing "downright blasphemous", absolutely no indication that you "relish displaying your wit and knowledge and make a point of telling others of your various successes and victories". I think if you did, it would be quite apparent here on the Cat!   Your posts give the impression of a respectful, well-spoken, well-mannered, good-hearted and knowledgable person - to me, anyway.

But surely an hour either way would not change the first part of the chart, the the sun in Libra, Moon in Scorpio bit, would it?

NO, it doesn't. That was the "clue" I knew I could not avoid when I posted the reports, so I just hoped it wouldn't occur to you.

You may be interested to know that the first section of my own report is the part I find least accurate as well. An Aries Sun implies aggression (which I'm not unless provoked beyond reason), and a Taurus Moon suggests a very "traditional", "conservative" person who's stuck in their ways and finds it difficult to change (.... uh ... NOT!!!)

But this is because while the computer instantly generates a very brief, general description of the person's sun and moon placements in the opening section, certain vitally important astrological "qualifiers" (ie house, aspect, dignity etc) are not addressed until subsequent sections of the report. And that's if they can be addressed at all, in those "short reports" offered free of charge (as a "first peek" for newbies) at Astrodienst. It's unfortunate, because these "qualifiers" are the very things HUMAN astrologers consider first, when analysing a chart. These variables make every natal chart as individual and unique as the people they attempt to describe.

THe second part of my report (re the Ascendant) is much more accurate. And it's very interesting, to me, that a career in medicine was mentioned in the second half of yours, Doctor.

(You are Dr. Bagpuss, right?)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 12:43 PM

" it's very interesting, to me, that a career in medicine was mentioned in the second half of yours"

You blather long enough, and something is BOUND to be close...

Again... no more than random chance....

Or as my grandfather was fond of saying, "The sun shines on every dogs ass sometimes...."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 01:15 PM

Alice, I am just as skeptical of articles by "skeptics" as I am of articles by "psychics".

Prejudice, bias, slant, and partial (if not total) ignorance of the subject at hand are so common in such articles, they are best taken with a grain ... better yet, a mountain .... of salt.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 02:40 PM

"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind."

- ALBERT EINSTEIN


"Synchronicity does not admit causality in the analogy between terrestrial events and astrological constellations ... What astrology can establish are the analogous events, but not that either series is the cause or the effect of the other. (For instance, the same constellation may at one time signify a catastrophe and at another time, in the same case, a cold in the head.) ... In any case, astrology occupies a unique and special position among the intuitive methods... I have observed many cases where a well-defined psychological phase, or an analogous event, was accompanied by a transit (particularly when Saturn and Uranus were affected)."

- CARL G. JUNG (click here for more of Jung's views on astrology)

LH, Jung's observation re the effects of planetary transits on human psychological states and behavior (ie events) illustrate one of many differences between the subject of astrology and, say, palm-reading or using a pendulum.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 04:40 PM

Those are interesting quotes, daylia. Einstein was always saying things that would bother the hell out of materialistic types if they knew he'd said it.

Well, I think the planets can reveal much, but not because they are the cause of events...because they are part of the one interconnected reality: like in a hologram. What is here is also there, showing itself in a different outer form.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 05:19 PM

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 04 Mar 06 - 05:28 PM

Oops sorry -- that post didn't "take" for some odd reason.

LH, that's very true. And my last sentence should have read "...the relationship between planetary alignments and human psychological states and behaviour (ie events) ..."   and not   "... the effect of planetary alignments on human psychological states ..."

*sigh*    old mental habits can be real tough nuts to crack    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 05:36 AM

Actually, no I am not a doctor. I just have an interest in health and illness. I have a psychology degree and most of my research work has been in health (mainly mental health) related fields. So yes, it did manage to get something right, but then so did the other three.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 08:14 AM

Well, Bagpuss, are you sure it's 'scientifically wise' to make a final judgement about the vast and ancient art (or as Einstien says, 'science') of astrology based only on your first impressions of the first few sentences of a computer-generated "trial" natal report, even knowing that it was generated with an inaccurate birthtime?

I'm not!

You considered only a fraction of the info in that short report. I posted only the first 2 of about 8 sections here, to save bandwidth. You could order your complete report, interpreted by the highly respected human astrologers at that site. Don't worry - it's only about 60 pages long. ;-)

I do happen to have your entire short report on file now, right here. You can click on any of your planets, houses, aspects, angles etc on your chart for a detailed description of each factor, and in so doing uncover some interesting food for thought about yourself and your life, PLUS get yourself an excellent introduction to the field of astrology, free of charge.

I hope you don't mind, but I couldn't resist going over your chart last night -- very interesting! I'm certainly no expert (astrology is just a hobby to me) but the first thing I noticed was WOW, in the sign of Libra, you have a stellium (three or more planets) - your Sun, Uranus, and Mercury in the 12th House, PLUS Pluto and Mars in the 11th. This combined influence (all in Libra, an Air sign governing the intellect and usually much concerned with working toward social 'balance', peace and fairness) is so strong it governs your whole chart.

A stellium usually indicates tremendous strength of character, great powers of focus and drive in the given area of life. Does this sound like you?

Your chart has an obvious "Bucket" configuration -- 9 planets filling one-half of the horoscope circle and the remaining planet (in your case, Saturn) on the opposite half, forming the 'handle' of the 'bucket'.

'Bucket' people are said to be driven toward their goals with much energy, and the Singleton planet (Saturn) can indicate the goal of direction that a Bucket type pursues. Saturn is a 'heavy' planet, traditionally considered a "malefic" (difficult influence). Saturn's placement is said to indicate the individual's karma, limitations, responsibilities, burdens. In your case it's in the 8th house. Saturn actually "rules" the 8th House - it's Scorpio's house (and your Moon is in Scorpio), the house of passion, death, 'rebirth' (ie total transformation).

To me, all this adds up to what you called a tendency to be morbid, toward pessimism and perhaps even depression, plus a strong interest in /association with death. Does this sound like you?

And here's two short excerpts from your "short report" to consider as well, if you like. I know I enjoyed considering them, after reading some of your old posts!

Mercury in the Twelfth House (Incidentally, I have this placement too, and I also have a degree in Psychology)

Mercury was in the twelfth house at the time of birth. Psychologically you are continually trying to analyze others in order to find their motivation. A natural human researcher, you spend time projecting your interests and in faultfinding. It may be very desirable to reverse these tendencies and turn your mind's eye on your inner self. There are many good things about your mind; it is alert and subtle. It is very intellectual really, but you do have some talent for understanding the exotic. There is not much place in the world for your practical and efficient knowledge. This can lead you to anxiety, worry, self- depreciation, and an intense absence of self esteem. Feel more, think less, work harder."

Moon in the First House

The Moon is in the first house. This position indicates that you are strongly influenced by your feelings and moods.

Your awareness of yourself is influenced by your momentary feelings, and this perception is subject to rapid changes of mood and emotion. In time, you will learn to understand why you react as you do to various situations, and then you can begin to change your response patterns and take more control of your life.

Others sense your lack of emotional self-sufficiency and tend to get involved in your personal affairs, even if you try to prevent it. You express your sensitivity through an emotional need to nurture and be nurtured by others. While you would like to have guidance and supervision concerning your goals and objectives, it would be better to achieve your aims independently so that you will not feel obligated to others.

The advantage of this position lies in your ability to sense other people's needs and desires.

In fact, you have a calming effect on people who are under stress, and this makes you ideally suited for working with the public."

I'd vouch for that last claim, just from hobnobbing with you here on the Cat. Remember that thread about gay marriage? I do! Your calming, level-headed fair-mindedness was quite apparent as you took me on for days on end a couple summers ago!

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 08:47 AM

PS   Sorry that last post is so long. I'm really not trying to convince you of anything even if it appears otherwise, Bagpuss. You are most welcome to your own opinions and judgements - they has nothing to do with me, or even with astrology (I say this not out of disrespect but because you know so little about it).

I can and often do get carried away studying astrology though, for days on end even -- it's a fascinating and seemingly infinite source of information, insight, and discovery. To me. (not to mention a great way to snoop on people too ;-)

And all of this has nothing to do with you Bagpuss, except that you've given me new astrological "data" to observe and explore. So, thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:09 AM

PPS -- Bagpuss, if you don't mind me asking and just out of curiousity, are you married? Or do you have a "significant other"? And if so, is she (or he) a Taurus? (born April 20-May 20).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

K this is really immature but .... 200!   YIPPEEEE!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:19 AM

If you generate enough data (eg 60 pages worth), you are bound to come up with a fair amount that fits. maybe thats why there are so may believes in in depth astrology. If they look into it deeply enough they are bound to find bits that fit like a glove. Very easy to forget about or explain away all the bits that don't quite fit, or are completely contradictory to your nature. I am sure if you did the long report based on one of the fictional people, I would find something that equally sounded very like me. In science if we do experiments with hundreds of statistical tests, if we used the ordinary tests, many of them would come up positive without there being an actual true phenomenon, just a statistical blip. This is called comprimising your confidence levels (also known as a "fishing expedition" which is very bad science). In these cases you have to choose between changing your level of proof to be very high for each individual test, or limiting the questions you ask beforehand and making just a few testable predictions. In the silly pseudo experiment we did here, I really did the second. I limited the prediction to one - that my short report generated from the site would be more recognisable to me as me than 3 other reports. You did not raise any objections to that test before the experiment, only once it had failed to support what you expected. It is very human to move the goalposts after the fact, but not very good science.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:23 AM

Yes I am married, and no he is not a Taurus. But I'm sure if you analysed his chart, he would have something in Uranus that would make you say, ah that explains that... ;-)

PS I have no problem with people believing in astrology or whatever; they can believe the earth rides on the back of a huge turtle if they want. I just don't agree with anyone trying to convince me of anything in the absence of any evidence.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:55 AM

I'm not trying to convince you, Bagpuss. ANd I did know that the "experiment" was silly, anyway, being based only on the first 2 (very general sections_ of a computer report, your own personal opinions (which are obviously biased AGAINST astrology) and an inaccurate birthtime. But I went along with it anyway, because I just love astrology, and looking at new material. It's fun!

I asked about your partner because according to your chart, your "Descendant" (the 7th house cusp, directly opposite the Ascendant, said to indicate partnerships and marriage) is in Taurus. However, it's on the very cusp of Taurus (lemme look again ... yup, 1 Taurus 10').

So, if you were actually born before 9 am (say, at 8:45), that 15 minute difference moves your Ascendant to 29 Libra, and your Descendant to 29 Aries. Curious -- is he an Aries?

I'm asking because the Descendant is one of many places on my own chart that IS highly accurate. With Gemini Rising, my Descendant is in Sagittarius. WEll, I've been 'married' three times so far -- and and two out of three of those partners -- in fact, the fathers of my children -- are both Sagittarians. (And I knew nothing about astrology till years later, though, or I might have made different choices!)

I also have dear ole 'malefic' Saturn sitting plunk in the middle of my 7th house -- the house of partnerships. And I have suffered extreme limitations and sorrow through my relationships in this life. None of them lasted more than 5 years. I'm single now, and loving it, and I've finally learned to accept my troubles with "significant others" with philosophical resignation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:11 AM

Nope he is not an aries either. Keep going, if you keep repredicting, you should get it in at least 10 more goes...

And it shouldn't matter whether I am biased against astrology (which I wouldn't be if there were any evidence for it....) because it was a blind test, and I didn't know which one was meant to be me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM

Egads not another PS -- sorry people but here it is anyway --

Just thinking -- even if he's not an Aries, Saturn is sitting in your 8th house, at 20 degrees Gemini (nowhere near the cusp, so this placement is unaffected by a few minutes difference in birthtime).

The 8th house is the house of sex and passion as well as death (highly related life experiences, it seems :-) while Saturn signifies difficulties, hardships, limitations, sorrow, karma.

Would you agree that a same-sex relationship is more difficult, more of challenge in many ways than the more usual variety (which is challenging enough already for most people)?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:15 AM

Sorry, I am confused, what have same sex relationships got to do with me?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:23 AM

I wasn't predicting, I was asking because I was curious. There's a difference.

If you really think your obvious prejudices and biases against astrology had no effect on your judgement of those reports, well then how can you call yourself a "scientist", least of all one with a psychological bent?

Anyone well-versed in psychology knows better than to blind themselves to the effect of a powerful variable like long-held personal prejudices and biases!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:25 AM

And pardon me, Bagpuss, but I thought I was dealing with a male here. If you're a woman, please excuse me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:31 AM

But I didn't know which one I wasn't supposed to choose (if I were subconsciously trying to spoil the experiment because of my supposed bias). And I honestly gave my true feelings about what each of them said.

And I am really not that biased against astrology. If some solid evidence came out that backed it up, I would believe in it tomorrow, regardless of whether I believe in the premises behind it. For example, I thinbk the premises behind acupuncture are all wrong, but I know that it works for certain conditions (mainly pain related). I just think it works for some other reasons which we are still discovering.

Actually I would have been quite impressed if I had read one of those charts and it sounded like me, more than the others. I know I was when I read the kabalarians short report into my name - even though I know that to be an equal amount of hooey.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:32 AM

LOL - I am a lady, I wear ladies dresses... and stuff!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM

ANd if you ARE a woman, that messes up those reports entirely. I entered your sex as male, which makes a big difference not in the placement of planets but in analysis and interpretation.

Anyways, obviously you have no real interest in your chart or you'd read it all through. ANd you don't care to learn anything about astrology either -- why should you? You think you already know it all! You just want to continue throwing mud at it as much as possible here (just like the GUEST who started this "troll" of a thread, probably).

WEll, I'll have no part of that, thanks. I refuse to waste my time and energy on people who are totally ignorant and strongly biased against astrology. Especially when they fail to demonstrate even a smidgeon of honest interest in discovering what it's all about.

So, fare thee well, Bagpuss! It's been fun, and I've learned a bit more about astrology through working with you here. Thanks again, to you and to the Cat.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM

... even though I know that to be an equal amount of hooey.

THere's your bias, again, Bagpuss. Attractive and appealing and very very convincing, isn't it? ;-)

As I said, you think you already know all there is to know about astrology -- and it's hooey. Well, hooey hooey am I to question such a scientific, logical, well-informed 'opinion' as this!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:54 AM

OK, not that I really care but I've known a couple people - with testicles and penises - who enjoy getting dolled up in miniskirts and pantyhose and padded bras and heels and makeup and stuff.

So, you really didn't answer the question of what sex you might be. ANd as I said, gender makes a big difference in the way a chart is analysed.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM

My post about being a lady with ladys dresses was a bit of an in joke, only for those who watch Little Britain. I was trying to keep things light hearted. (By the way I am female - sorry if that mucked up the chart, maybe you should have asked for all the required info before you started instead of making assumptions).

And no, I don't want particlularly want to learn about astrology, as I have been presented with no evidence that it has any truth to it. Otherwise I would spend my life learning about every alternative doodah under the sun, which I would find very boring.

I am sorry you have suddenly taken the huff. I was trying to keep things light hearted, but I know that doesnt always come across in print. Im not sure what I said that upset you. But if you enter a thread which is obviously wanting to debate whether astrology has any merit, I don't see why you would take offense that other people don't agree with it. And I don't know why you think it is a troll thread?

I have probably been one of the more open minded sceptics here - probably more open minded that you have been. You are already convinced in it, and I doubt that anything would change your mind. I have stated what it would take to start changing my mind. I think that makes me the open minded one and you the one who thinks they know it all already.

If you look back at my previous posts on the subjects you would notice that I was the one who brought up the research into relationship between personality and season of birth, and questioning the article that said there was no evidence no matter how vaguely worded was the premise.

Thanks for spoiling what i thought was a good natured disagreement of opinions.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

You don't think this was started as a troll thread? I beg to differ! (Duh!)

You're welcome, Bagpuss. PLease rest assured I'm not in a huff. If I was, believe me, you'd know it. I do have a quite the fiery and determined and willful Aries Sun, plus a bull-headed Taurus Moon. And I do make for quite the worthy adversary, when provoked. ANd I win hands down, too, 9 times out of 10.

Just ask my ex's. :-)

I did what I did as a kindness to you, on a very busy morning, simply because you requested it. I wasn't even trying to be a "scientist", and I'm certainly no astrologer.

I thought you were a guy. Pardon me. I could have asked I suppose, but it honestly didn't occur to me. I don't know too many women who'd choose a handle like "Bagpuss". Sounds like a combination of "ole bag" and "pussy", at least to me. But those are just my own preconceptions and biases, of course.

I did spend quite a bit of time and effort honouring your request to the best of my ability, on the off-chance that you were truly interested in learning about astrology -- and, more importantly, because you might have gain something beneficial from my efforts here.   Well, you're not interested, and you won't benefit, and you just confirmed all this once again, without a doubt. And that's perfectly ok too. Like I said, I've learned a learned a bit more about astrology myself, just by going over your chart. So it was more than worth it!

YOu have yourself an absolutely wonderful day now! I'm outta here -- it's Sunday, the suns shining, the snow's sparklin, the chickadees are cheepin and I'm going out for a long, long LOOOOONG walk on the Nature Trail with my son! YIPPPEEEEE!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:01 PM

ummmm...Bagpuss made it clear in several posts that she was female...

but, to the point:
"... are you sure it's 'scientifically wise' to make a final judgement about the vast and ancient art ... of astrology based only on your first impressions of the first few sentences of a computer-generated "trial" natal report,"

If you were considering eating at a restaurant, and you looked into the kitchen and saw unclean conditions, plus a menu of items that looked unappetizing , would you have to try it 17 times anyway, on the chance that they might finally serve you something that you liked?

If you were invited to join a church, and they told you that "communion" required co-mingling of blood in order to 'establish spiritual connections' and wearing of tinfoil hats to enhance the experience, would you need to 'try' it for a few years, as they insist, to really *see* and experience how it works?

Or in both of those cases, could you decide for yourself that the very conditions and acceptances necessary to participate were outside the boundaries that you recognized as safe, sane and reasonable?

Yes, I know that metaphorical examples can't quite pinpoint the exact issues involved, but they do show how difficult it is to convince someone of the value of something when they cannot accept the very basic first premises of the argument necessary to go a lot deeper into the experience.

Astrology requires suspending belief about certain rules of physics, logic and scientific method in order to grant credence and validity to a system based on hearsay, Gerrymandered statistics and ambiguous, emotionally loaded language.

I looked up my own chart on that page (based on precise time and location) and saw some things that 'seemed' to fit me, as well as some that didn't...and when I looked at daily 'readings', I read suggestions and generalized 'wisdom' that are, indeed, pretty good advice for almost anyone. I can easily see why many people get some 'help' and ideas for looking at their life from these writings.

It is a VERY common and understandable habit for people to look at an event, discussion, religion, political platform, etc., and extract from the complex format those things which feel relevant, applicable, and comfortable to themselves, and conveniently ignore or rationalize the stuff that they don't like or can't deal with.....
As you have seen, I (and some folks like Bagpuss) require more than elaborate charts and persuasive exponents with extensive 'history' to persuade us that the ***BASIC PREMISES*** are well founded. It is, like religion, a belief system.... stuff is claimed that cannot be verified or measured directly, and people like me, with built-in filters, can only shrug when we are told that "if we'd only study more detail and 'open ourselves' to the entire gamut of the knowledge base, we'd realize it's power to explain.....

Sorry...*smile*....but it all boils down to "you have to believe before you can know.", and some us just don't work that way...just as some are predisposed to be comfortable with it.

as one friend of mine said many years ago when she was looking up my chart, and I explained that I didn't put much stock in that stuff......"Oh...yes...that's JUST what your chart says you'd say!"

*grin*...can't argue with THAT much!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:08 PM

True enough Bill.
Slightly off topic - Bagpuss was the central character in a British children's TV show.
This Character was adored by many who were very young at the time including I suspect the bagpuss who is a guest here.
Am I right?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM

And Bagpuss gave a big yawn and settled down to sleep...

Now if my chart had said that I was baggy and a bit loose at the seams - the I WOULD have been impressed.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

Ah. That explains it. I could not imagine why anyone would freely choose the member name "Bagpuss".

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:14 PM

Ah,well Emily loves you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:15 PM

OOPs, I have just realised that in my early posts, I mustn't have been logged in, so I came up as Guest. So Daylia wouldnt have known the earlier posts were me.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM

I have noticed, Bill, that you seem to be irresistably attracted to threads about things you don't believe in or are sceptical about. You can always be relied upon to show up (as can Clinton Hammond, Pied Piper, Wolfgang, and a few others) Why is that? Does it satisfy some deep emotional need, do you think? ;-)

I am suggesting that sceptics are by nature very desirous of things to be sceptical about, and they look around for them like a dog searching hopefully for something really smelly to roll in...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:28 PM

Debate requires at least 2 perspectives Little Hawk.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:33 PM

Aw... he's late .... here I still be ... gee, Bill, I *wonder* (but not tooooo hard :-) why you didn't choose to phrase your questions this way instead?   
   

"If you were considering eating at a restaurant, and you looked into the kitchen and saw unclean sparkling clean conditions, plus a menu of items that looked unappetizing appetizing , would you continue to ignore 17 times anyway, on the chance that they might finally serve you something that you liked disliked?

If you were invited to join a church, and they told you that "communion" required co-mingling of blood goodwill in order to 'establish spiritual connections' and wearing of tinfoil hats whatever you pleased to enhance the experience, would you need to 'try' it for a few years, as they insist, to really *see* and experience how it works?"

Could it be, just possibly, that your words are slanted, biased and prejudiced against the subject of this thread???!!!????   oh noooo      not a scientific logical soul like Bill    notta chance    :-)


I'd like to add that I learned much more about astrology from Ivor's posts, the info Peace provided, and from Einstein and Jung (via the interesting ideas, observations and quotes I discovered and posted above) than by going over the reports I copied for Bagpuss (although that was interesting too, even though all are based on faulty data).   

So again, thanks all!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:36 PM

I think Bill phrased it that way because what I saw in the shop window so to speak (the brief report) gave me nothing to interest me further.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM

Whenever ANYTHING claims "you have to believe before you can know", it's snake-oil....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

ANd you weren't interested to begin with, really. *yawn*

You already know it all, and it's a lot of hooey. Remember?

And Einstien? Oh well, he was just a hooey tooey. Jung? Phooey phooey! What do I care what they say? Gullible ole simpleminded farts!

Now Bill, and Wolfgang, and Bagpuss, TIA's co-workers, the Skeptics Dictionary --- THESE are the definitely most reliable, informed, enlightened, and accurate sources of wisdom and truth the Cat has to offer on the subject of astrology!   

:-)


"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and the planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind."

- ALBERT EINSTEIN


"Synchronicity does not admit causality in the analogy between terrestrial events and astrological constellations ... What astrology can establish are the analogous events, but not that either series is the cause or the effect of the other. (For instance, the same constellation may at one time signify a catastrophe and at another time, in the same case, a cold in the head.) ... In any case, astrology occupies a unique and special position among the intuitive methods... I have observed many cases where a well-defined psychological phase, or an analogous event, was accompanied by a transit (particularly when Saturn and Uranus were affected)."

- CARL G. JUNG

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM

yep...that's kinda the way it is...like Bagpuss says.

Gee, Little Hawk....I'm not sure how to respond to your 'suggestion' that I look hard for stuff I know nothing about in order to 'roll about' in unpleasantness......

well, maybe I do after all.....Piffle! ;>)

This here place is a FORUM, where people put out ideas for discussion..(and some silly stuff just to make noise). I assume that both sides of all issues are fair game. You'll notice that I VERY seldom start threads to promote scepticism, just as I don't go knocking on the Jehovah's Witnesses doors in order to show them that Atheism is 'better'. (quaint idea, hmmm?)

Just consider Wolfgang, myself, Pied Piper....and even Clinton...as potholes to negotiate as you drive the Highway of Generalization and Subjectivism. We aren't barricades, we just slow you down a bit and 'maybe' let you look for smoother pavement and possible detours when the ride gets bumpy. You can (and do) 'keep on truckin' if you've a mind to, and you may not even notice that some of those roads are just long, interesting circles! 'S alright....it's a metaphorical freeway, and you can even ignore the warning signs about "falling logic" "soft premises" and "foggy conditions". You can even drive slowly and miss most of us potholes...all we hope is that others on the road who are not sure of the route will see you trying to PATCH those holes, and examine why there ain't an easier way.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:19 PM

"Einstein? Jung?"

Again, you show yourself guilty of logical fallacy.... Just because someone is an authority on ONE thing doesn't mean they know jack-shit about something/everything else...

So, Einsteins opinion of astrology doesn't matter a hill of beans... Nor does Jungs.... John Carpenter might make a damn good movie, but does that make him an authority when it comes to baking a cake?? (I donno... maybe Johnny is good at that too... Whenever I've sat down for dinner with him, he's never offered home-made cake for desert... )

The 'fact' is your 'facts' are debunked... But like a post-James-Randi-encounter-dowser, you cling to your belief, despite evidence to the contrary... The dictionary definition of delusion...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM

(Einstein & Jung had important stuff to say ....that doesn't make them the final answer on matters outside their areas of expertise. I could find as many quotes from equally famous folks on the other side of the argument.)

"accurate sources of wisdom and truth .... on the subject of astrology! "

That's not the point...we...or at least I... are not commenting directly about Astrology per se, but about rules of logic and scientific method and belief systems in general which require certain presuppositions and mindsets. It is not about whether someone can write a description of me based on complex rules about astrological positions, but whether ANYONE can show that ANY system of this nature is objective and relevant, or subjective and inapplicable.

Those who believe simply have different notions of proof, data, testability and relevance than those who do not....the question is, do 'different' standards have equal status? How can we tell? Who decides? This is not something we just vote on. If I am right, I am right...even if 6 billion disagree. History is full of stories of what happened to some who chose to stubbornly refuse to 'believe' when they were told the 'truth'...Galileo and Giordano Bruno are a couple of examples.

Yep...I am stubborn...but it is based on many years of thinking about it and deciding that certain claims required more than just elaborate schemas.

Whether the title of this thread is trolling or not, it asked.....and I have my answers..*smile*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:16 PM

I am merely suggesting, Bill, that a person can gain more far wisdom from self-observation than from debating endlessly with others about the things they believe or don't believe. Such debates usually change nothing, except that they harden people in their established positions and cause them to dislike one another.

Now, again....why are you so attracted to threads about things you are sceptical about? Why do you think you would be? No, I was not suggesting that you necessarily know nothing about those things (although that might sometimes be the case). I was suggesting that you are drawn to these debates for specific reasons. (as are we all)

What do you think those reasons might be? I could suggest some, but I'd rather you come up with them yourself.

Or would you rather just continue debating the relative merits of astrology...which will change nothing? Those who believe in it will go on believing, and those who don't won't.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:52 PM

"gain more far wisdom from self-observation"

Omphaloskepsis is a worthless endeavour...

Unless you're looking for lint

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM

And "the unexamined life is not worth living"...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

You found life in your belly button??

Take more showers!

:-P

Heh

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:06 PM

well, LH...I have posted more than once..several (5-6-7??) different times why I bother to debate and critique....and at least a couple times have been in direct response to you.

1) To force myself to think thru the issue and refine what I really think about it and why. You gotta work a bit to be sure you say what you mean and be relatively clear.

2) Because it would both dull and dangerous to let only one view of some of these issues grace these wide-ranging threads. These are not silly, neutral, irrelevant topics...They are about something, and the way we approach them is in many ways a mirror of how we act, vote, care, buy, support...etc., in the 'real world' where a few hundred votes in Florida can affect the entire way the country and the world are run for years to come. We make whatever waves we can, in the ways best suited to our status. 'Maybe' my exhortations about careful patterns of thought will have ripple effects...if Mudcat lasts as long as Max says it will...*grin*.

3) Because I feel I can be a moderating voice between the believers and claimers who unwaveringly support some of the arcane and abstruse claims that are made, and the loud, insulting, cynical notes of some of the naysayers who tend to ridicule rather than discuss & debate. (Why, some of them even from Canada..*grin*)

4) Because I have this background and a piece of paper that SAYS I am certified to meddle gently in areas where HOW to think and reason are legitimate issues! (Wolfgang is in many ways even more certified than I am, and has **credentials** ! *grin*..I know he can cite counter-examples more explicitly)

5) Because....and this is not meant to be cute or sarcastic....since I do realize that I am NOT likely to change many minds, I'd like to see people who DO continue to believe just as they always have understand what defenses and arguments are good and valid and relevant for their positions! Astrology and 'intelligent design' and religious doctrine and Tarot and Ouija boards and pre-cognition...to name a few...all have their history, backgrounds, studies and anecdotal reports to support various aspects of their claims.....and it is important to present whatever supposed evidence there is in the best way possible, as it may help to convince skeptics like ME someday as more information becomes available.

If I was to start over, I might say all that a little differently, or have 2 more reasons, but that's close.

oh....

6) because it's interesting to learn & compare ideas!!! And that could be the ONLY one if I was pressed about it!

3)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:17 PM

Just consider Wolfgang, myself, Pied Piper....and even Clinton...as potholes to negotiate as you drive

Ok, I'll do that, Bill. It'll be fun! ANd talk about synchronicity - as we speak, the two feet of snow that's fallen over the last couple weeks here is quickly melting in the bright afternoon sun. So my son and I spent a good deal of time navigating our way around the biggest, darkest, deepest, iciest, absolutely filthiest potholes of the season yet. (Hee hee!   Sure you ain't a psychic, Bill?)

In fact, some of those potholes are causing small lakes covering half the road, threatening every vehicle and passerby. So our little excursion did take a bit longer, but hey. We were out for the sunshine, fresh air, company and exercise anyway. Hardly noticed 'em in fact, except to make a bit of extra fun!

And next time I encounter those deep dark icy filthy dangerous potholes, I'll be sure to remember you fondly, Bill. And Wolfgang too, and TIA ... and ... look, look! They must be her co-workers!

Hey let's name that one Bagpuss (after the ripped up bag floating in it) ... and *egads* this really reminds me of Clinton's grandfather's dog's asshole ... and .... and ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 04:21 PM

So... more Ad Hominem attacks...

It only speaks to how weak your case is...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 05:07 PM

OK , Bill D., one or two 'detours' around the potholes.

There are other conceptions of how the universe is than the one proposed by science as normally practised. Somebody - ah, I've found it.

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." (F.Scott Fitzgerald).

Also, I don't see astrology so much in terms of prediction, more, like Gestalt Therapy, as uncovering potentialities and the choices of the person (or country, organization etc.) whose horoscope is under consideration.(Even tho' I have two serious-astrology tomes, both published 1981, both suggesting the Soviet Union would break up by the end of the 80s, when Pluto would, for the first time, pass over the place in the zodiac where the Sun was when the Soviet Union came about in 1917. Pluto signifies death and regeneration, the Sun the heart or core.)



Someone reading a 'cold' interpretation is likely, as already demonstrated, not to see varying amounts of the reading as sounding like them. That's in part because none of us has realised much of our true being, whereas the chart is really a 'portrait' of the full potential of the person.

I got interested in astrology because I wanted to get to the bottom of things, because I'm left-field/contrary/Uranian enough (Uranus in 12th conjunct Ascendant), and because I was curious how this other world had been so invisible to me up to then. ('Occult'
means 'hidden').

Bill, I've already put some potholes of my own in earlier posts. Discussion is a two-way sort of thing, of course.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 09:27 PM

I like that F. Scott Fitzgerald quote, Ivor....I do suspect we might not see exactly the same wisdom in it, however. ☺

as to "There are other conceptions of how the universe is..." ..indeed there are. What is yet to be determined is whether it can be several of those at once. If not, and it 'is' only one VERY complex, but unchanging way, then we are like the 4 or 5 blind men, all arguing about what an elephant is like after feeling different parts of it.

I, even though partially blind, am willing to share in puzzling out what the elephant 'might' be like from all the other reports, but I'm not willing to base much of a cosmology on any of the individual theories....those 'trunk' worshipers need to come feel this leg!


and that's maybe a wretched excess of metaphor for now.....

I need some sleep before I start musing on "what one should fill potholes with"!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 10:15 PM

Reasonable, Bill, reasonable. Perhaps we should have a thread sometime to discuss why people look for things to disagree about. Could be interesting.

Well, maybe later. Haven't got time for it right now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:53 AM

questioning of Sheldrake's credibility is a bit of hyperbole (M.Ted)

Well, but Bill was only quoting from your link, M.Ted.

That bit of 'research' only adds to the doubts in Sheldrake's credibility. I do not doubt his counting, I bet he's correct in that. His trick is to compare what should never be compared in any meaningful sense.

Double-blind testing is only necessary under some very specific conditions and unnecessary (or even impossible) else. These conditions occur in many of the experiments in parapasychology and not very often in psychology and (nearly) never in the physical sciences.

He found that, while it is used more that 80% of the time in parapsychological research, he found that it is only ocassionally used in medical and psychological sciences, and nearly never in biological and physical sciences

Such a silly argumentation is an advocate's argument, meant to score an easy point with those lacking knowledge. For the others it is a belly laugh. Double blind means that neither the analyser nor the participants in an experiment know in which test condition the participants are run.

The participants in physics are usually particles. They are not allowed to 'know' in which condition they are run in a double-blind procedure. Any scientist submitting a paper to a physical sciences journal explaining how the particles were blinded to the experimental conditions would get a letter back asking whether she was still sane. A double-blind procedure makes no sense at all here. In biology as well, if you state that the rats (monkeys, flies,...) were blind to the experimental conditions the nicest the editor will do is to erase such a nonsensical sentence without further comment.

A simple-blind procedure sometimes can make sense in the physical sciences when the counting has a subjective component like for instance in a cloud chamber. Most of the time, the measurement has no subjective component worth mentioning (or may even by done by an apparatus). In all these instances even a single blind procedure ("we did not tell our automatic counter in which condition it did the counting. It was only debriefed after the experiment was completely finished") is at the very best superfluous, or worse, an indicator of anincompetent.

The whole Sheldrake argument and counting is very obviously fishy and the only question remaining is whether he knows that and still does it for the effect in discussions (that's what I guess) or whether he himself believes what he writes to be sound.

The only subject area in which he may have a point is in medicine which is haunted by sloppy experimenting even in mainstream medicine research.

Speaking about Einstein, here's another quote:
Only two things are infinite, the universe and the stupidity of mankind, and I'm not sure about the former.

As for the quote above "astrology is a science..." one astrology site just copies it from the other. Michael Shermer (editor of SKeptic magazine) once has asked for a source of that quote at the Einstein archive and got the following response:
According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus.

That's about the usual carefulness of astrology.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM

Bill, if your pothole role ever does get too tired and old for you, you could try fixing with exactly the opposite ingrediants that created it in the first place. "Fill" your ignorance of the subject at hand with real practical first-hand knowledge; your
inexperience with experience; and your preconceptions, prejudices and biases with objectivity, tolerance and truth.

ANd if this doesn't appeal, you could fill your potholes with the most difficult and humbling of all ingredients.

Silence.

It's an excellent way of conserving personal time and energy, and ensuring that personal ignorance and prejudices do not mislead, offend, distract, delay or otherwise harm fellow 'travellers' on the road of life.

But seriously, your potholes aren't big enough to bother me. And if they were, I wouldn't be bothered trying to fix 'em for you. THat's your problem!

Nope, I'd just make me another road! Easy. I like doing that, and I've always preferred the 'road less travelled' anyway.

And wow, it's amazing to me how quickly Einstein and Jung are outsmarted, discredited, put in their proper 'place' by the absolute geniuses who post on this site! WHat a fountain of wisdom and knowledge and truth the Cat must be!!   ;-)

Seriously though, if I wanted information about the best Canadian-made guitars for the buck, I wouldn't ask Einstein. I'd (maybe) ask Clinton! That's because while Albert had no experience with or working knowledge of Canadian guitars, CLinton does.

In the same vein if I wanted to learn about astrology, believe me I wouldn't ask Clinton! Or Bill, or Wolfgang, or Bagpuss, or TIA's friends. These people know absolutely diddley squat about astrology, by their own admission; therefore, their opinions on the subject are about as valuable and appealing to me as several big buckets of buttered diarrhea.

No, I look to Einstein, and I ponder his wise words very carefully.   Jung too, and the other great scientists and thinkers throughout history who DID undertake a serious and well-documented study of astrology throughout their lives.

But most of all, as LH pointed out --- I look to my own personal studies, first-hand observations and real physical experiences. Because in the end, that's the only way anything can really be known.   "Believing" just doesn't cut it, and it never has. For me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 11:39 AM

Sorry Wolfie, that claim about Einstein is most likely false. I'll look up that reference again, and post it here when I have time.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM

Fron James Randi's website :

"Recently, an astrology group has been repeating on the Internet an old canard about Albert Einstein, who they claim wrote:


"Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things, and I am greatly indebted to it. Geophysical evidence reveals the power of the stars and planets in relation to the terrestrial. In turn, astrology reinforces this power to some extent. This is why astrology is like a life-giving elixir to mankind."
Former astrologer Geoffrey Dean, writing to Ivan Kelly, renowned expert and critic of astrology, said:


"Re that Einstein quote. This is a good example of astrologers quoting each other nth hand, but with nobody ever checking the original quote. In a letter in 'Correlation' June 1991... I chased it back to a book (in French) by the late Swiss-Canadian astrologer Werner Hirsig, 'Manuel d'astrologie,' where the quote appears in French in the preface, but with no source given. From there it was quoted by Solange de Mailly Nesle (1981), from which it was quoted by Tad Mann (1987) and Percy Seymour (1988), and from there ever onwards seemingly without end.... Various people including Solange, Percy and myself have checked Einstein's writings and biographies but have been unable to verify it, so Solange and Percy have deleted it from later editions of their books. His biographies contain nothing to suggest that Einstein had any interest in astrology, and its style differs from that of authentic Einstein sayings."
Dean ended by suggesting that the purported quotation should be disregarded until authenticated. Dr. Michael Shermer, head of the Skeptics Society, chimed in with:


According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus. In fact, it is in her edited volume THE EXPANDED QUOTABLE EINSTEIN ... under "Attributed to Einstein," along with hundreds of others just like it, such as "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts" and "preparing a tax return is more complicated than relativity theory." ... Under astrology, Einstein did say: "The reader should note [Kepler's] remarks on astrology. They show that the inner enemy, conquered and rendered innocuous, was not yet completely dead."
To amplify the naive opinion of Einstein, expressing his conviction that astrology was not to be taken seriously and was now devalued, I will quote from an 1896 edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica (just donated to the JREF by James Harter) on the subject:


Astrology, the so-called science by which various nations, in various ways, have attempted to assign to the material heavens a moral influence over the earth and its inhabitants.... Even at the present day a few may be found who, from a superstitious reverence for the past, or the spirit of contradiction, pride themselves on their adherence to the belief of stellar influences. It is no longer necessary to protest against an error which is dead and buried ...
Au contraire. Every celebration or assumption of the demise of any specific form of superstition or pseudoscience, whether framed by an Einstein or the editors of an encyclopedia, is followed by a groan of dismay when that notion proves itself a Hydra....

I quote these observations of Dean, Kelly, Calaprice, and Shermer here so that the reader may recognize that when properly looked into, such mysteries readily yield to research and reason."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:10 PM

Daylia,

if you really find a source in Einstein's writings for that quote, you should not only post it here but publish a correction in the journal Correlation to the letter from Geoffrey Dean published in June 1991, 11(1):35-36. Dean had then tried to trace that quote back to where it started and it invariably appears attributed to Einstein but with no exact reference. Dean's candidate for the first appearance of that quote in print is Werner Hirsig, Manuel d'astrologie, publ. in the early 1950s, where this quote appears in the introduction without any reference. Happy hunting.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:17 PM

It looks as if the jury remains out on whether Einstein ever endorsed astrology if I may quote from Robert Todd Carroll's "Skeptic's Dictionary:
April 18, 2000. I received an e-mail today from Ivan Kelly, renowned expert and critic of astrology, regarding a widespread claim among astrologers that Albert Einstein once wrote: "Astrology is a science in itself and contains an illuminating body of knowledge. It taught me many things and I am greatly indebted to it."

Ivan contacted Geoffrey Dean, another renowned expert and critic of astrology, who wrote the following:

Dear Ivan,   Re that Einstein quote. This is a good example of astrologers quoting each other nth hand, but with nobody ever checking the original quote.

In a letter in Correlation June 1991, 11(1):35-36, I chased it back to a book (in French) by the late Swiss-Canadian astrologer Werner Hirsig, Manuel d'astrologie, where the quote appears in French in the preface, but with no source given. From there it was quoted by Solange de Mailly Nesle (1981), from which it was quoted by Tad Mann (1987) and Percy Seymour (1988), and from there ever onwards seemingly without end.

The Hirsig book ends with a postscript dated February 1950, so the quotation must date from before that time (Einstein died in 1955). Hirsig's widow did not inherit his papers, so she was unable to check them to see if they gave the source. Various people including Solange, Percy and myself have checked Einstein's writings and biographies but have been unable to verify it, so Solange and Percy have deleted it from later editions of their books. His biographies contain nothing to suggest Einstein had any interest in astrology, and its style differs from that of authentic Einstein sayings.

My letter ended "Accordingly, until the quote is authenticated, it should be ignored lest it add to the blight generated by Newton-Halley, Evangeline Adams, and other famous-but-wrong quotes."

Hope this helps.

Regards, Geoffrey
Oddly, Google doesn't seem to be able to come up with any reference to the quote that isn't on an astrology site or debating its authenticity. Which is odd, given that almost every pronouncement of the old goat is recorded copiously all over the web.
Stephen Hawking has his own views on astrology. Shall we put him down as a "maybe" then?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM

*daylia*....I'm not sure if you read carefully either my post of March 5- 1:35PM or Wolfgang's directly above. I make the point that 'expertise' within astrology is not what the dispute is about. The world's most famous and widely recognized 'authorities' on Ether Waves.... or on Atlantis ....or on the nature & habits of Elves... must still be asked what ***PROOF*** they have that their subject matter actually exists! Since we haven't FOUND Atlantis, I don't have to be an expert to ask IF the information about it is relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D - PM
Date: 05 Mar 06 - 01:35 PM

(Einstein & Jung had important stuff to say ....that doesn't make them the final answer on matters outside their areas of expertise. I could find as many quotes from equally famous folks on the other side of the argument.)

"accurate sources of wisdom and truth .... on the subject of astrology! "

That's not the point...we...or at least I... are not commenting directly about Astrology per se, but about rules of logic and scientific method and belief systems in general which require certain presuppositions and mindsets. It is not about whether someone can write a description of me based on complex rules about astrological positions, but whether ANYONE can show that ANY system of this nature is objective and relevant, or subjective and inapplicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wolfgang notes an additional problem with the Einstein quote: namely, he doesn't seem to have said that!!!!

According to Alice Calaprice, Senior Editor at Princeton University Press and an editor on the Einstein Papers project for the press for the past 20 years, this astrology quote, like so many others attributed to Einstein by people in order to gain credibility, is totally bogus.

(things like this are why the Snopes.com website is so useful...it investigates whether widely held factual beliefs are actually true)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lastly: *sigh*....

"I look to my own personal studies, first-hand observations and real physical experiences. Because in the end, that's the only way anything can really be known."

...not exactly. One's own experiences are certainly important, and cannot be ignored, but you only have to interview 6 'witnesses' to an auto accident, or ask your spouse what happened on your first date to be reminded that certain aspects of our memories and our knowledge of how we got those memories is regularly flawed and inconsistent.
There are, unfortunately, many ways in which presumed 'experience' can be faked, mistaken, mis-remembered, distorted...etc.

Drugs, dreams, fear, peer-pressure, pain, (and pleasure)etc...can all convince us that we saw, heard, felt and remembered stuff that is not quite accurate. This is why rules for testing, comparing, verifying and repeating experiences are developed! People who 'saw' a ghost have no reason to doubt that they 'had an experience', but they DO have reason to wonder what the precise cause of the experience was.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:10 PM

Daylia, if you looked at a large group of babies born within minutes of eachother, would astrology predict/expect them to be more alike in personality than a group of randomly chosen people?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:11 PM

"I look to Einstein, and I ponder his wise words very carefully"
Except those aren't his words....   Ponder THAT carefully....

"I wouldn't ask Clinton! Or Bill, or Wolfgang"
So you only want to ask people who agree with you!?!? Go right ahead... You can get together in one big circle-jerk of self-delusion...


" Since we haven't FOUND Atlantis"
We're never going to either, because it NEVER existed... Plato was writing FICTION when he invented it...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:20 PM

Well I'm no expert, but I do know that astrology doesn't predict a thing. Astrology is a description, not a prediction. That's been explained several times already on this thread. So the answer's no, Bagpuss. Sure, those babies would have similar charts, but even 10 minutes difference in birthtime or a 20-mile difference in location makes for significant changes as we've seen. And as Ivor explained above, those charts display tendencies, or potentials, which may or may not ever be realized by the individual.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:23 PM

"those charts display tendencies, or potentials, which may or may not ever be realized by the individual"

If I wrote long enough I could come up with a list of "tendencies, or potentials" that would apply to every human on the planet, and (probably even some who believe in astrology)

That it was generalized enough to be applicable in some way to everyone still wouldn't make it worth the paper it was written on....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:28 PM

But surely of a group of 2000 children are born with similar tendencies, they are going to grow up with personalities more similar than if they had completely different tendencies? Otherwise what is the point of astrology, if all it says is that you are born with this tendency, but it will have no effect of the way you are now, as you may or may not realise these tendencies, and whether or not you realise them will be no greater than chance in the general population?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:33 PM

So why then would an astrologer say the following? I am going to quote from astrologers from now on wherever I can in order to clarify what astrology does or does not say/predict/describe. And also because Daylia might consider these people authorities whose word she trusts in relation to astrology.

"According to John Addey (1967), in perhaps themost extensive survey of time twins made by an astrologer, 'one would expect to find really exceptional [his emphasis] similarities of life and temperament only in those born almost exactly at the same time
[within a few minutes] and in the same locality', nevertheless 'the tendency for similarities to appear in the lives of those born on the same day must remain strong and well worth investigating' (p. 14). So births more than a day apart might not qualify."

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM

So say you, Clinton, and a few of the other "potholes" here. Don't need astrology to predict that!

If I can find the source again (the quote is said to be taken from Einstein's personal letters) I'll post it here.

And even if they are not Einstein's words, they ARE the truth. Very poetically expressed, too (don't know if I'd have gone as far as 'life-giving elixir' bit but ...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:46 PM

Bill, I strongly suggest that you leave Elves out of this discussion, okay? ;-D It's a sensitive matter with a lot of people.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 01:47 PM

" even if they are not Einstein's words, they ARE the truth. Very poetically expressed"

See again.. you cannot even admit when you're wrong... You tried to lend credence to your 'side' by calling in an authority (Who wasn't an authority at all as a matter of fact).. When people called BS, you ignored that fact and try to claim it has value anyway... Your backpedalling must be damn good exercise...

Well, on the subject of find a good quote to support your argument....

"You can't always have things like they are in poetry. Poetry isn't what you'd call truth. There ain't room enough in the verses"
--a singers commentary on "The Ballad Of Sam bass," taken from "A Treasure Of American Folklore"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 02:06 PM

ok. strike Elves...I sure wouldn't want to offend anyone's sensibilities here....in place of elves, substitute "fairies"...now there's a neutral subject, goldurn it! ☺

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 02:48 PM

Bagpuss, do these words ring a bell? "I'm no expert." "Astrologer is only a hobby to me." "I'm no astrologer."

YOu want you answers you can trust? Ask an astrologer, or study it yourself till you're satisfied. You want to argue? Bother someone else.

Clinton, when I know I'm wrong, I say so if I feel it's necessary. That is not the case here.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 02:50 PM

" That is not the case here."

But it is... Einstein didn't say what you tried to claim he said...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 03:56 PM

Clinton - it's like religion. Some people have a need to believe in this sort of thing; it's a touchstone against the apparent randomness and inchoate nature of existence. No amount of logic is going to dislodge that belief, any more than an atheist can convince the devoutly religious, because belief lies beyond the realm of logic.
And even if you were to shake someone's belief in astrology, they'd probably replace it with something else.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 04:13 PM

Yup. Same thing that happens when you shake someone's belief in atheism...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM

Athism by definition is about nonbelief.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 04:15 PM

As is atheism.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM

"No amount of logic is going to dislodge that belief"

I have no desire to dislodge any belief... If you want to believe the world is hollow and that the moon is made of green cheese, you go right ahead....    just don't expect me to 'respect' your beliefs-based-on-delusion just because they happen to be dear to you....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:14 PM

Atheism is a belief in nonbelief.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:17 PM

ANd Gervase -- beliefs may be certainly shaken. Knowledge cannot.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:20 PM

At the risk of sounding like a Monty Python sketch, no it's not. Atheism is non belief in a god. Full stop. There is no 'belief' involved.
A belief is simply that which is believed as accepted opinion or which is taken as true in the absence of knowledge based on empirical truth.
Athiests want facts, believers tend not to need them.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:22 PM

Depends what you think you know....

A few hundred years ago, people KNEW the world was flat...

John Nash KNEW he had a room-mate when he was in university....

A good friend of mine KNEW he could fly when he jumped off a 10 story building and killed himself...

So, ill-informed, mentally ill, or on drugs.... what's your excuse Daylia?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 05:46 PM

"Atheism is a belief in nonbelief."

piffle! That is just playing with words and defining concepts narrowly to suit your interests.
Besides, you'll find levels and varieties of atheism, just as you find many modes of religiosity (did I just coin a term?)

Some atheists vehemently oppose 'belief' while others simply say they choose to 'not accept' religious beliefs without more evidence. Others oppose 'religion' but not belief per se. Still others react to specific religious claims, but embrace some sort of Pan-Theism (much as Little Hawk suggests in many posts)...a lot of fundamental Christians would label him an atheist for not accepting God, Jesus and strict interpretation of the Bible)...

we can debate, but tossing "bumper sticker" type slogans around hardly promotes understanding.

(I hope you realize that, much as you said earlier, critiquing arguments has nothing to do with judging you as a person....I'd hope that we could, if necessary, conduct a more detailed debate over coffee and still smile at the end)

(to put it differently, I don't debate with fools that I suspect are not even trying and won't even hear me....I could point to threads I don't go near! *grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:13 PM

"..beliefs may be certainly shaken. Knowledge cannot."

please don't deduce from that shaky notion (if it IS true, it is only trivially true)that "If it's not shaken, it must be knowlege." Then you get stubborness defining fact.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:37 PM

Atheism is non-belief in a certain type of God...the God you imagine in your mind when you make up this idea about the God you don't believe in. That God may in no wise resemble the God of someone else who does believe in what he terms "God".

To put it more simply, Bill...and Clinton...I ALSO do not believe in the God you don't believe in! ;-P But I do believe in God. But not the God of the Bible, per se. And not the God that is separate from you or me or anyone else. And not the God that judges people.

I believe in Life. To me, it's holy. To me it's eternal. To me, it is God. It belongs to no religion, but they do make attempts to describe it now and then or they say something about it.

Atheists also believe in life. Therefore, atheists believe in my God, they just don't realize it!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:52 PM

"I believe in Life"

It's not what it used to be http://www.life.com

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:53 PM

Right...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 06:59 PM

" I believe in Life. To me, it's holy. To me it's eternal."

Talk New Age all ya want, it's old age gonna get you in the end....

Or in the immortal words of GTA3s "Lazlow", "Go hug a rainbow!"

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 07:11 PM

It's already getting my body, man...what a drag, eh? This physical life has its drawbacks.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 07:16 PM

From Chris Rocks "No Sex In The Champagne Room"

Here's a horoscope for everyone-
Aquarius- your gonna die
Capricorn- your gonna die
Gemini- your gonna die twice
Leo- your gonna die
Scorpio- your gonna die f*ckin

"physical life has its drawbacks"
As it's the only life we have any evidence for, it sure beats FK outa the alternative....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 07:32 PM

You know Issac Newton? The first person to explain why the Planets orbit they way they do?

Well, most of his work was actually on decoding the Book of Revalation. He was an expert on it. He still didn't manage to make it into the date of the end of the world, or even a recipe for mushroom kebabs.

Just being an expert and a genius isn't enough to make randomness into anything more.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

Atheism is a belief in non-belief. There is just as much "scientific" evidence of the cherished (and shakey) beliefs of atheism as for the cherished (and shakey) beliefs of religion.

Notta smidgeon.

Atheistic beliefs are every bit as shakey and vulnerable as the theistic variety that spawned them.

However, knowledge - specifically, truthful knowledge - is not. Even in the presence of the deepest, darkest, dirtiest and most dangerous of potholes.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 08:56 PM

You were doing fine there, Little Hawk, agreeing with my explanation of different types of 'atheism'...and even enlarging on my description of you as a Pantheist-- but then you had to end it with the same type of linguistic fuzziness as *daylia* used:

"
Atheists also believe in life. Therefore, atheists believe in my God, they just don't realize it!"

The first part of that, if it means anything, is either trivially true or a rank overgeneralization....or so ambiguous as to be silly.

The 2nd part is both incorrect and a logical fallacy based on unsubstantiated premises.

My God = life,
Atheists believe in Life
Therefore atheists believe in my God.

'life' does not fit the usual definition of a God...1st premise is an equivocation on the term.

Atheists are unlikely to USE the word 'believe' in that way, so 2nd premise commits the 'fallacy of ambiguity' as well as not being accurate.

The conclusion therefore, although it sort of follows logically from the premises, fails because of the status of the premises.

...and no, it ISN'T a matter of opinon how the logic can be applied. The rules of logic are as close to an absolute as anything we can discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:34 PM

Philosopher or not, just like everyone else on the planet you see only what you want to see, Bill. And that's if you can bypass seeing only that which YOU actually are (but are mostly unaware of, as Ivor pointed out) in everything and everyone around you.

Does it bother you to think that I (or LH or Ivor or whoever) really do know the truth about a lot of things you still haven't a clue about? Or that there are other ways of knowing besides the one you happen to be accustomed to?

Or could it be because Venus went inconjunct Uranus tonight?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 09:46 PM

ok, *daylia*...I guess you have outlasted me. You are now just repeating the same unfounded statements and arbitrary 'definitions'. More rounds of "No, it isn't" "Yes, it is" won't serve much purpose.

   I see no evidence that you even see the point I was making, so we can't compare many ideas from here on .....

   Your position about astrology hasn't been DIS-proved by anything I said, so I'll leave it at that. (We Taurans are pretty stubborn, I hear)....there's enough up above to re-read if you ever get the urge.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Mar 06 - 10:10 PM

I was typing while you were posting it seems...

No, I am not bothered by your confidence that, having data about my birth, you might know more about me than I do. Bill Gates probably has more yet.

   You are less likely than 'ol Bill G to try to mess with my life on the basis of your ideas about me, so I'll just let the planets go on in their orbits and conjunct as they will. *grin*...

(That's Denver, Colorado, 5:34 AM, May 20, 1939...Mercy Hospital (if it still exists) Now you can explain, at least to yourself, why I am so tedious about trying to make discussions balanced.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:19 AM

Bill, I know you believe in life. Everybody does...or else they kill themselves. As far as I'm concerned, life is God.

So let me ask you then...what is life? You tell me what you think it is. I think it's conscious being, being consciously aware that "I am" or that "you are". That's life. Without such conscious being there is no awareness whatsoever. Without any awareness there is no life.

That's my opinion. I don't give a frog's patootie if that's not good enough for you or if it fails to meet your stringent standards of "substantiation". I give less than a frog's patootie about that as a matter of fact.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:27 AM

Well Daylia, it seems I now know more about certain basic aspects of astrology than you do. You keep telling me I have to know more about it to understand it properly. Maybe you do too.

You didnt just say you werent an expert, you said you weren't an expert, but you did KNOW certain things. These things that you knew were not backed up by someone more expert in astrology than you. [Well I'm no expert, but I do know that astrology doesn't predict a thing. Astrology is a description, not a prediction. That's been explained several times already on this thread. So the answer's no, Bagpuss.]

Belief can be shaken, knowledge cannot??? If what I quoted to you doesn't shake at least on bit of knowledge you thought you had, then it isn't because knowledge cannot be shaken, it is because you refuse to allow it to be shaken.

And I never managed to get to the point of what I was trying to say which was that given what that astrologer said and given that there has indeed been such a study of time twins which showed what he expected from astrology was false, that should be enough to make anyone question the validity of what they believe/"know".

If you were really interested in whether what you believe in is true, you might read this study as a starting place. If not, then maybe it shows that you are happy to believe in something that is not true because it brings you some sort of happiness to do so. And that's fine, but we will all know where we stand. Here is the study in question.

"You want to argue? Bother someone else."

I am only bothering those who choose to be bothered by participating in a thread which centres on a debate about the validity of astrology. If you never wanted to be part of such a debate, then why were you here all this time. You were fighting your corner, and as much a part of the debate as the rest of us. In fact if you weren't here the thread would probably have died long ago. Debate needs two sides you know.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:35 AM

Bagpuss, I suspect we are talking about different meanings of the verb 'to know' here. Don't ask me why, I just know we are.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:08 AM

Well it was Daylia's use of the words both times, so at least she should be internally consistent?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:40 AM

Atheism is a belief in non-belief. There is just as much "scientific" evidence of the cherished (and shakey) beliefs of atheism as for the cherished (and shakey) beliefs of religion.
Notta smidgeon.
Atheistic beliefs are every bit as shakey and vulnerable as the theistic variety that spawned them.
However, knowledge - specifically, truthful knowledge - is not. Even in the presence of the deepest, darkest, dirtiest and most dangerous of potholes.

Is tht really your sincerely held view? If it is and you're not being ironic, sarcastic or in some way satirical, then I'm aghast.
Aghast at the apparent smug self-satisfaction with an ignorance that effectively snuffs out the Enlightenment and would have us back in the Dark Ages intellectually. You may not like the real world and find it overly challenging, but you can't just make it go away it with such twaddle.
I really do suggest you broaden your reading and challenge yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:51 AM

Sorry - that was a tad ad hominem, but sometimes frustration makes boors of us all. Apologies Daylia if that comes across as a personal attack - it's your beliefs I want to rattle, not your bones!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:52 AM

I know that the universerse was created by a dustbin man called Reg on his afternoon off down in the potting shed. There is absolutely no evidence that the non belief in this is true, therefore it is just as much a faith position as any other. But because I don't believe in Reg, I know him to be true, then it must be so.

Anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:29 AM

I was once attacked by Occam's razor gang. Still feel cut up about it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:30 AM

Just to repeat Kendall's quote,"The truly wise man is sure of nothing."

or,"To know that you do not know is the beginning of wisdom." Some twit or other called, what does this say?, funny name, how do you say it?, Socrates. Wild.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:03 AM

Citation is one thing, but why is it that one just gets a pile of quotations in response when one questions matters of faith and belief? Can people not think for themselves, or do they always have to lean on the gnomic words of others?

Let's get a few more off our chests:
I hate quotations. Tell me what you know (Ralph Waldo Emerson),
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation (Oscar Wilde), and
Quotation: the act of repeating erroneously the words of another. (Ambrose Bierce).

Far better than a handful of quotes, however, would be a reference to a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which said that astrology had any basis in fact. For sure, the time of year in which one is born could have an influence, but the point of astrology is surely the influence of the heavenly bodies (or at least those various stars and satellites on which astrologers agree) on our lives.
Is there anywhere some reputable research which resoundingly proves astrology to be the 'fact' that some here claim it to be? Or should we post-enlightenment types remain sceptical and file it away with chiromancy, tarot, reading the tea leaves, inspecting the livers of freshly-slaughtered sheep and all the other attributes of the deluded and the deluding down the ages?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:04 AM

No, I don´t believe. But I have read a little about it, and didn´t find any astrologer (serious astrologers as they name themselves) who could explain WHICH KIND of energy is somehow influencing or describing the "house where one lives" or the "field where one plays his life". I know, they don't predict, they only describe.

If the birth of a child (why not the conception?) is a physical fact, and some kind of energy determines his/her initial conditions in function of his/her moment and place of birth, HOW SHOULD THAT ENERGY BE MEASURED? Is it gravitational (like the body of the mother) ? Magnetic? Light-related ? Sub-atomic particles ? Cosmic radiation ?

Early astrologers studied only what they saw with their naked eyes, and ignored 99% of what the average student knows today. Modern astrologers should be able to explain the basics of their technique in more modern terms. Complicated calculations are not an answer by themselves.

Otherwise, I understand that most people do need a belief, and if that belief explains how they should behave, it is a real RELIEF and will be more than welcome.

Un abrazo from Buenos Aires
Andrés

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:05 AM

The truly wise man is sure of nothing." What's so special about nothing?

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, he is a fool, avoid him.

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, he is a sage, hear him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows, he is an asset, strip him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows, he is an asshole, f*** him.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:14 AM

From an empirical point of view the endeavour of astrology has failed completely (A. Hergovich, Die Psychologie der Astrologie, my translation), is the summary of Hergovich after a thorough review of the literature.

I've written an invited review of Hergovich's book last month and during that work have reread some of the original studies. Over and over again, empirical studies (some even by astrologers) have found no effect. The few that have found effects (Mayo et al., Sachs, Gauqulin,...) had methodological problems. Astrological literature tends to report the initial successes and skip over the later follow-up work.

Autolycos's law of astrological ignorance states that anyone who is a fierce adverse critic of astrology is certain never to have made any kind of serious study of it.

Ivor, (or Daylia) I have not the impression that you have read any of the many original studies about astrology in a serious (peer reviewed) journal. You seem to be talking from a position of ignorance. Some of your statements could come directly from a chapter titled "The excuses of the astrologers" in Hergovichs book.

The only really interesting question is how a belief survives in the teeth of empirical failure. The "feeling of evidence" acts strongly for astrology, in particular among the practitioners. For someone who, like Daylia, puts "personal experience" over all data, this feeling has a hard to resist strength. A fairly recent book by Vyse, The Psychology of Superstition (I have retranslated its German title, the English title may differ) or even the old same-titled book by Jahoda list a number of factors that can lead to a persistence of belief.

BTW, Daylia, I'm still interested whether you have read the Einstein quote with a reference or without.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:47 AM

You are less likely than 'ol Bill G to try to mess with my life on the basis of your ideas about me

Mess with your life? Awww ... you sound like such the paranoid, misinformed little camper! Why do you think I have any interest at all in your life or your chart?

Let me put those fears to rest right now, Bill. I do not have any interest in you, your chart or your life Bill. ANd even if I did, how I could possibly mess with it?

YOu're the one choosing to discuss a subject you don't care for, one that you know absolutely nothing about save your life-long prejudices and misconceptions about. You choose to read what I have to say, and to have your own say about it. Now, if you think those choices are 'messing with your life', simple. Choose something else.

so I'll just let the planets go on in their orbits and conjunct as they will. *grin*...

Well, the planets go about thier business without your help or permission anyway, Bill. So, good plan - you right about this at least!

Gervase, I know. the truth can seem quite ghastly at first glance. But once the initial shock wears off and your awareness/understanding deepens a bit, I'm sure you'll feel a bit better.

What I said is the truth. Atheistic beliefs are just as shakey and vulnerable as the theistic ones from whose 'loins' they sprang.

And Wolfgang, peer reviewed journals may be your personal version of the Holy Word, but they honestly mean diddely squat to me. Like many other subjects you enjoy arguing about (even in spite of your ignorance and lack of experience), astrology is still beyond the very limited (but improving quickly!) scope of modern science anyway.

And wow, there sure are a lot of potholes around here today. So many, one can hardly see the road! I'll be sure to wear my hipwaders and rubber boots when I check in later. And I see I've missed one of Ivor's posts -- so I'll be sure to return when time permits.

Have yourselves a star-studded day now,

daylia










.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 07:58 AM

Daylia - adding little smileys after snide comments does not actually make them less snide.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:07 AM

Atheistic beliefs from Theistic loins?
Err...no.
As well as presupposing that god(s) created man rather than the opposite.
Atheistic writings predate all of the major world religons with the possible (and highly debatable) exception of Hinduism.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:09 AM

Smileys, TIA? Sorry, I don't see any (in my last post anyway). And as for making snide comments, my expertise in that particular area has grown immensely since I joined the Cat. That's because I have so many thrown at me, so regularly here. You people are great tutors in that regard.

Oops gotta go ... duty calls.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:10 AM

300!!   This is MY DAY!! And the stars didn't even hafta tell me. Although Venus looked so absolutely lovely early this morning, I knew it would be a good one ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:14 AM

I see - I appear to have misread this thread entirely.
Daylia is the one whose intellectual rigour grants her access to the truth, and folk like Wolfgang - just a dumb scientist after all - are ignorant! And my own 'beliefs' are actually shaky and vulnerable.
Now it all becomes clear. In fact, so clear that daylia has won me over. I've changed my mind - I'm convinced; astrology is real and scientific methodology is all wrong. Where can I find out more about the miraculous method of extracting profiles from Uranus?









*sheesh*
But, to return to a dull coda, before I sign on the dotted line, is there any chance of a link to a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible? Or do we really have to go on the admittedly rather more sophisticated basis of daylia's "Cos I said so"?
Hands up those who would want to go down that route for, say, medical treatment?
On the one hand they could have a procedure proven and repeated by practitioners and subjected to empirical scrutiny and peer review, and on the other they could have some procedure recommended on the say-so of someone who admits that they haven't read much about the subject, and no, they can't point to any proof that it works, but - hell - it does work BECAUSE I SAID SO!
Form an orderly queue please...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:20 AM

Daylia -

Smiley follows snide comment on 05 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM.

Now please cite date and time for any post I have made that contains any nasty comment directed at you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:41 AM

Hah, this astrology stuff is brilliant. I can get away with murder, and people will still think I'm lovely. I've just followed *daylia*'s link to get my own reading and it says:
You have a personal chemistry that never fails to stimulate people to be friendly toward you. No one should feel any discomfort with you because you project yourself freely and honestly.
You relate easily to all types of people and are friendly to everyone, regardless of their social status.

In fact it says I'm an all-round, splendid sort of chap. At the risk of embarrassing myself, it went on:
Your mind is versatile but strong...you have sufficient taste to set aside your desires... possess a flair for the life of nobility and regality...rank, generous, and amiable disposition...always act better as a leader than a subordinate...sincere and affectionate relationships...Imagination, a tenacious disposition and ability to relate to the public are among your attributes...Destiny may grant you sufficient strength of character and even opportunities to carry out your wishes to their utmost...
Of course, anyone who knows me will recognise this fine fellow!

But then I started putting in other times and places, and they all came up with wonderful people; people who were honest and true, who had the potential for great success and happiness - I realised that I was all things to all men, and wholly wonderful, whenever or wherever I was born. Oddly, in none of the readings was I told I was a gullible fool to be seeking answers through astrology. There was, however, a link at the bottom of each reading which said: "Making a fortune with Astrology".
Hmm...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:37 AM

Where can I find out more about the miraculous method of extracting profiles from Uranus?

That secret is revealed only when the nose conjuncts Uranus, Gervase. So if you really really need to know, assume the position!

Too inflexible, you say? Tsk tsk. Here's another option, then.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:46 AM

GUEST - Yeah, but who (or what) created that dustbin man Reg????

Well???? (grin)

Life itself is so impressive, why make up an anthropomorphic God figure as the agent of it?

Most chimps, I am sure, would come up with a chimpanzee God. And they'd be right, in a sense, because the highest intelligence identifiable as moving through the chimpanzee archetype would be exactly what gives them life. Fish would come up with a fish God. They'd be right too.

The wisest is s/he who comes up with a God that is the intelligence and energy that brings forth and sustains ALL forms, not just one's one familiar form.

A study of advanced Vedanta (Hindu religion) or Buddhism or Taoism will shed much light on that. Buddhists and Taoists don't personalize God in a human form at all, but they recognize a divine and intelligent order at work in the Universe. Hindus superficially characterize that same divine order in the symbolic forms of many Gods and Goddesses, but they realize that those are simply outward symbols...aspects of something indefinable and omnipresent.

I find the Eastern religions, in general, to be far more perceptive than the Judeo-Christian-Muslim triumvirate when it comes to this sort of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:48 AM

Pleasing analysis there, Gervase! ANd along the same lines, here's the section of my own report that I enjoy most, describing a Gemini Ascendant.

And I'm sure even the potholes here will agree it sounds absolutely nothing like me!


"Gemini is the third sign of the zodiac and among its key psychological influences over life there are the following: intellectual activities, humanism, and abhorrence of violence, constant doubt of all mental concepts, hesitancy and academic interest.

People whose ascending sign is Gemini usually appear as elegant, slender, expressive, and with very humane facial expressions. They are individuals with some literary inclination, dexterous with manual labors and crafts, apt, able, witty, inventive and very curious and subtle.

A Gemini in the ascendant will always distinguish herself by her rather eloquent speech and writing, her much occupied daily life, and her perpetual lack of an ability to effect swift and determined decisions. As a Gemini, you should try to compensate your hesitancy with fast thinking.

Your disposition to life-events will be kind and generous (within bounds) but not always fortunate, because of too much vacillation in decision-making circumstances. You possess the capability of rising in life because of your own intellectual assets.

Your mind is open and generous, and your intellect self-sufficient; yet on many occasions, judgment will appear as "twisted". You should restrain useless discussion, strife, and unprofitable argument as they're your worst enemies.

To achieve success, you should stress your literary and scientific studies, give free hand to your brilliant intellect in warranted circumstances, and apply your diligent nature to writing, traveling, communications, and human analysis. In all these activities you are at your best.

Mercury, the ruler of your life, appears in the twelfth house. This is the house which represents the darker and uncounscious nature of people as well as sorrow. The presence of the ruler here inclines you to be extremely introverted and to conduct your life along lines that are private to the utmost degree.

Because of your Gemini life-traits, your versatile and clever mind becomes very interested in the occult, loving to engender and implement intellectual plans with haziness and ambiguity."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:50 AM

I'm just putting it down to the avoidance of cognitive dissonance.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

...or dissonant cognition?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:09 AM

(Paul Burke....I have tossed Occam's Razor into these discussions a few times in the past...the usual response goes along the lines of "Oh, that's just YOUR belief, and why should I accept it when it has no more basis than mine?" ...it's useless to explain why it's a form of a universal logical principle)

ummm...Little Hawk. The point is, I don't consider *life* to BE something that one "believes in". That is a category error. Life is a scientific, technical term for matter that is so constituted as to be able to replicate and reproduce.
   Do you consider lichen and bacteria and yeast spores to be 'concious'? If you do...(yes, I have read enough of your point of view to see why you might)...then we can't even talk. I do NOT believe, assume, postulate or accept that there is some 'life force' totally indepemdant FROM the material world that gives parts of the material world 'awareness'. Might be some, but I sure don't know how we could even theoretically be aware of it, so just shrug when it is put forth as fact.

So, for me, life is one form OF matter, and consciousness is an aspect of a very complex form of matter...a "critical mass" is one way to say it. I don't believe flowers are 'conscious' when they exhibit phototropism, and I don't attribute 'reflective self-concern' to beetles and sagebrush. I do have a 'reverence for life', (though I worry about the term being misinterpreted) insofar as I believe that humans should not use their complex self-aware status to set themselves above the rest of life and wantonly destroy other forms. It simply is not in their best interest. I do NOT think, however, that it makes any cosmic difference. The Universe simply doesn't 'care' whether this tiny little planet or its inhabitants survive for 100 years or a couple more billion. WE care, because we CAN care..."care" is a word that only makes sense for higher forms of life which do have 'consciousness'..(the way *I* view consciousness)...(I am not sure whether Chongo 'cares', but that is largely a matter of arbitrary drawing of lines ...I'll gladly include him for the sake of the discussion ☺)


...well, this has strayed from Astrology, but in a couple more paragraphs, I could make points about the relationship of beliefs and knowledge and why 'belief' in principles of astrology are related to beliefs about 'universal life force'..etc..but you see where it all leads....


and...*daylia*...if you thought my comments about 'messing with my life' were serious, you really have got WAY too much 'self' invested in this discussion.

(hey,Gervase...I, too, seem to be a pretty good, inteligent, sterling fellow, according to my chart...I wonder why two smart guys like us didn't start earlier and make 'get rich from astrology' if it's so useful & important? Maybe it just ain't in the stars...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:15 AM

"Fish would come up with a fish God."

*big grin*..I actually have a cartoon with two goldfish in a bowl, with one saying."Ok, smarty, if there's no God, who changes the water?"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:24 AM

Anthropomorphic, moi?

Reg is a fish.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:28 AM

"Cos I said so"?

Gervase, those are your words, not mine.

I know about astrology I know - and yes, I do mean know! :0) - through (in order of importance) a lifetime of ongoing, direct physical first-hand observation, experience and study (ie 'intellectual rigour').
Apply yourself to the study of it in like manner, and you will eventually know everything you want to know about it.

Oh yeah ... I remember. You ALREADY know everything there is to know about it via your own ignorance, inexperience, preconceptions, biases and carefully selected scholarly peer reviews. Hmmm ... this is probably how every pothole already knows it all about everything there is to know.

Hey, maybe I'll write my thesis on pothole psychology, just for fun! You folk would make the most excellent of subjects, too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

.if you thought my comments about 'messing with my life' were serious, you really have got WAY too much 'self' invested in this discussion.

Those are your words, Bill, and yup the rest of your words sounded a bit pained, so I took 'em at face value.

Don't like them now? You could always eat 'em then .... ;-)

The only thing I have spent on this thread is way too much time -- but that's becaues it's been so COOOOOOLD here for the last few days I've been housebound mostly. Can't thing of a thing I've 'invested' here though. I'm not here for the 'returns.

Are you?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM

I can see I may regret that 'pothole' metaphor.

ok, eating a few words won't hurt my diet much...I guess I need to learn to carefully avoid any hint of ambiguity in certain situations. I hope Bill Gates doesn't read this and sue me for accusing HIM of 'messing with my life'...he's got lawyers and technicians that might be able to interfere with my............fffffzzzzzzzzzttttttttt..hey, no!....zzzzzzaaaappppppppp.... wait...I didn't mean it!

∞~~~~~~~~~~~~~~glllarg............

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

I consider everything to be conscious, Bill...even atoms. But not everything is capable of expressing that consciousness in a way that is clearly recognizable. A plant, for example, cannot speak audibly. It can move, but only so slowly (and in such a limited way) that we don't see it, except when we use time-lapse film and speed it up. Thus, a plant is not capable of expressing its consciousness in a way that is immediately recognizable to a human being...but...they do react to things in an intelligent manner.

I consider atoms to be alive. All atoms.

That life is what I call "God" (if I want to), and that life never ends, it just keeps changing from various forms into various other forms. I think it's intelligent and aware, not accidental, and I think it is a single unity expressing itself as uncountable numbers of individual and apparently separate forms, right down to the atomic level.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Microsoft tech dept.
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:55 AM

[too late, Mr Bill D. You have gone too far]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

I wonder what Daylia think science is?? Does she think it is simply an area like astrology which uses its own arbitrary rules to think round in circles and has no relevance to anything else?

Well science is simply someone saying: If X is true what would we logically expect to follow from this (Y)? Here is a test which would determine if Y is in fact the case. If Y is not the case, then this undermines the theory of X. How can anyone argue that this has no relevance to any other discipline? One can argue about whether the logic determining the experiment is correct, or whether the experiment is a true test of Y, but not about whether science is relevant or not.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM

TIA, do your own research. Or get your co-workers to do it for you. The snide comments directed at me and at astrology here - from you, and the other resident potholes - have been very entertaining. It's wonderful to watch a bunch of intelligent sounding ignoramuses attempt to throw mud at a target they know nothing about.

And all good things must come to an end .... and the time is now (the walrus said).

THe meaning of this will be revealed to all potholes in due course. And .. *gasp* yes! Even without the help of astrology!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:41 PM

The mutual contempt and sheer dislike creeping through the cracks everywhere on this thread could strip the scales right off a komodo dragon lizard....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM

Just for the record, I feel no dislike or contempt for anyone on this thread. I merely find their logic hard to fathom.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

"you see only what you want to see"
There's the pot calling the kettle black!

"As far as I'm concerned, life is God."
There's a guy living in the Group Home across the street who is convinced that Ronald McDonald is god... I give him just as much creedance...

"Without any awareness there is no life."
So, the grass and the trees aren't alive?!?!
What a load....

" I don't give a frog's patootie"
So then get outa the tread....

" Have yourselves a star-studded day now,"
How's about you go back through this thread and try answering ANY of the questions put to you? Otherwise, go hug a rainbow...

" What I said is the truth."
You wouldn't know truth if it mounted your roughly from behind....

" I consider atoms to be alive."
What a crock.... When I was 5 I thought rocks were alive...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:51 PM

Ditto - though I have to admit that I find it hard sometimes not to feel contempt for those who fly in the face of reason and who argue from such tenuous positions.
But *daylia*, to repeat; is there any chance of a link to a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible?
I would really like to see one.
In fact, show me one and I will change my cynical, sceptical view. Surely, with the benefit of your years of knowledge in the field, you can lay your hands on several...?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

Clinton, the living atoms in your body have been assigned a tedious, vicious, and thankless task, but they are doing it faithfully. Be glad of that.

I really enjoy your nasty attitude at times. I do. It's fun to read. Y'all come back soon, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

"a proper, peer-reviewed scientific study which demonstrates astrology to be sensible"
No such beast exists.... And well, Daylia here has shown she's incapable of answering ANYTHING that challenges her myopic little fantasy-world view... So don't hold your breath....

"the living atoms in your body"
Again... a load of horseshit LH.... You sound like you need to have your meds adjusted...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:14 PM

Ya don't say...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM

You're disappointing, Little Hawk, why do you stop at the atoms? Electrons, neutrinos, quarks are miffed by your atomism.
Look, even the physicists admit life at subatomar level, why else would they sometimes use the expression "the particle zoo".

Wolfgang (utterly dayliuded)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:12 PM

*escaping from from Micro$oft Purgatory long enough to giggle at Wolfgang's control of cross-language turn of phrase*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:13 PM

For some reason, my browser wouldn't let me write, and sent it anyway.

This thread has really become depressing. . Mercury must be in retrograde.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM

"Mercury must be in retrograde."

It has it's ups and downs.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:01 PM

Good point, Wolfgang. ;-D You are quite right about that. Yes, one can go smaller than the atomic level in that analogy.

Hey, Clinton, don't let me disturb you with things that don't enter your narrow range of perception. Look, if it wasn't for the joy of being "right" ALL the time, why else would you even bother posting on this thread? You wouldn't. It's not about anything that really interests you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:25 PM

My perception isn't narrow...

And it's good to be open minded... just not to the point where your brain falls out...

I'm interested in hearing Daylia answer ANY of the questions that have been put to her, in something other than New Agey double-talk and mystic-babble...

You could try thining it out while yer at it too LH.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:28 PM

"I consider atoms to be alive"

If I came here and said "I can fly" you'd certainly expect some proof would't you?

That you consider something to be true doesn't MAKE it so....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

When I started studies on Physics, I did have some elementary questions unanswered because I was simply an ignorant but curious student. You know what ? Teachers and books answered my questions on those subjects that were investigated, and told me how they did the research. When something remained unanswered for science, teachers and books challenged me to become a scientist and find the truth. So I trusted in science.

Nobody answered my most elementary, stupid questions on astrology, as far as I dedicated some weeks to that subject. Each time I ask for an explanation (to someone who says that he/she KNOWS)I am treated as an ignorant and recommended to dedicate my life to the study of astrology before opening my mouth.

That´s why I consider it a superstition that makes many people feel comfortable on how they behave. And a big business like many other superstitions.

Un abrazo from Buenos Aires
Andrés

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:40 PM

No, Clinton, I would assume you meant in an airplane or with a hang glider or something. I don't have such a low regard for your intelligence or sanity that I would imagine you to be under the illusion that you can flap your arms and become airborne.

I don't think there is any mechanism available to either prove or disprove the "science" of astrology. It is unrealistic of anyone to expect daylia to prove it to them. She can't. She can only give a subjective opinion based on her own personal experience.

There are a whole lot of interesting things in life that no one can prove or disprove. Always have been, always will be.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:43 PM

" I don't think there is any mechanism available to either prove or disprove the "science" of astrology."
That's because it isn't a science...
And the onus isn't on 'disproving'... it's on proving....

"There are a whole lot of interesting things in life that no one can prove or disprove."
Nothing unreal exists.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TIA
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 03:53 PM

LH is right. Science cannot "disprove" astrology (in fact, it cannot disprove anything). However, the claims of its proponents can be easily and simply tested. Apparently even proposing such testing is considered snide, and the work of ignoramuses. I apologize to anyone whose feelings have been hurt. I hope you will see that some people search for knowledge using the method of science, and it is not meant as a personal attack. Hmmm. Perhaps it would be best to stick to answering only the rhetorical thread title questions.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:02 PM

"the claims of its proponents can be easily and simply tested"

And every time they are tested, they only succeed at the same rate one would expect from random chance...

But still people try to claim that it 'works'... when there's good evidence that shows, in fact that it does not....

again, the word for that is 'delusion'

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:05 PM

I agree. Nothing unreal exists (except as a thoughtform...an unreal thoughtform can exist, and can affect people profoundly...but that's another whole discussion).

My definition of "life" is just more wide-ranging than yours, Clinton. I am not describing something that "doesn't exist" when I say that atoms and subatomic particles are alive. I'm talking about something that does exist, that has been observed, that behaves in an energetic fashion, forms coherent associations with other such particles, transmits and receives energy, and as far as I am concerned is alive.

Just because you don't think it's alive doesn't prove a darned thing.

There is no burden of proof on anyone, unless they say that you MUST believe as they do or you're wrong or crazy. I don't say that. It's perfectly all right with me if people don't believe atoms are alive or if they don't believe in astrology. What difference could it possibly make? I'm not so all right with them ceaselessly attacking and ridiculing anyone who DOES believe things they don't, though. I mean, what business is it of theirs to browbeat everyone else into their particular view of what is real and what isn't?

That's why I say that the real reason you show up on all these threads about the paranormal or the unusual is not because you're interested in the subject matter, but because you relish the thrill, the ego boost of being "right" at someone else's expense and making fun of them and telling them they're an idiot. You love it. Without people here who believed in things like religion, God, astrology, telepathy, angels, prayer, and a slew of other things like that you find ridiculous and unreal you wouldn't have your daily thrill of coming here to get your jollies by verbally pissing on people who happen to believe something you don't believe.

You'd get bored and probably go somewhere else where you could find someone else to pick on.

However, there will always be such people here, so I'm sure you'll stay. It's a symbiotic relationship. You are the kicker, they are the kick-ee. You're a lot like a born-again Christian. You just WILL not leave people alone if their beliefs don't match yours.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:12 PM

"and as far as I am concerned is alive"
That and a buck 50 will get you a small cup of cruddy coffee....

"Just because you don't think it's alive doesn't prove a darned thing."
And because you do proves what? Nothing... Again... you're caught up in your quasi-mystical-blabber-speak...

"Without people here who believed in things like religion, God, astrology, telepathy, angels, prayer"
This world would be a much better, more intelligent place..... I'll wager we'd even smell better...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM

But, Clinton, I am not trying to prove anything. I am merely talking about something I find interesting. You're the one who is trying to PROVE something all the time. (And Bill too, although he's much nicer about it.) You're trying to prove that you are right and other people who don't see it your way are wrong.

I wager that without THAT nasty little ego habit causing trouble and wars all over the place the world would be better off too.

You're the one who demands proof, you're the one who acts like he has it. But you don't. You're just another big loud opinion. Your knowledge, like that of all people, is limited and fragmentary, and is badly compromised by your culture, your background, and your tendency to ignore or discredit whatever you don't already accept.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM

Clinton is very hostile, which is what I don't care for. There's no justification for it--he seems to feel that he is entitled to be rude simply because he believes that he is right. Bad form.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:31 PM

You wanna see hostile? Fuck off M.Ted.... If ya don't like the thread, you know where the egress is....

"I am not trying to prove anything."
Then why do you cry so loudly when someone dismisses your mystical blatherflop?

And well, what you 'know' about me ain't worth a hill of beans...   You don't KNOW but what I chose to show you here.... So once again, your 'voice' is muffled by your buttocks....   But that's o.k.. I'm accustomed to you sounding like that....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:39 PM

LOL! By God, it would be a treat living downstairs from you. Then I could know so much more about you...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:44 PM

**Bill Gates lawyers decided they'd get in trouble for holding me.....**

(Clinton...where do I send the 50¢ I promised for making ME look like a relatively good guy?)

LH...I hope you don't really believe I am trying to prove anything.

one....more...time... Almost my ONLY claims are about bad and irrelevant arguments and specious resoning. Note my first post in this thread:
""...known to be associated with..." is a biased statement on the face of it. "claimed to be associated" is at least 'formally' honest."

I respond to both implicit & explicit claims. When someone states "...known to be associated with..." they are implying that any reasonable person 'ought' to see that association and thus grasp the 'truth' that those wise folks have so laboriously worked out for centuries!

As we have heard, *daylia*, the most vocal of the proponents in the thread DOES specifically and directly claim that she "knows" and that we who doubt are some combination of ignorant, inexperienced, biased and snide.

You, LH, regularly make other statements that read LIKE claims...then sometimes sidestep and say "no one has to agree if they don't want to"....thanks a bunch...*wry grin*...We snide & biased folks with our blind spots and tricky rhetoric sure appreciate the release from THAT obligation.

Really and truly....all I am doing....my ONLY wish...is to see the argument/debate carried on without dubious claims, bad reasoning and character assassination when disagreement results. As I posted in response to your prodding questions, I am concerned that alternate opinions appear when dubious claims are made...and that it is clear WHERE the crux of the debate lies. (This is almost always the hardest point to make!)

I repeat, I don't expect to have someone who is ^{up to here} in these beliefs change their minds because I poke at their methods and defense. But if I can inject ANY note of concern for what really passes for validation and even statistical support for a claim, then I will be, if not satisfied, at least relieved.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 05:53 PM

So, you are debating mainly for the enjoyment of examining the subject with a critical eye and engaging in the gentlemanly process of rational debate itself, Bill...while Clinton does it mainly because he loves to verbally shit on people and flex his BIIIG muscles online! ;-D Yup, he does make you look like a good guy (and you are a good guy). You should've paid him at least five bucks.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 06:24 PM

He said he'd do it free...the 50¢ was my idea. ☺

I dunno...we all have our styles and notions of how blunt we need to be to make a point. CH has never been shy or deceptive, and he uses his own name ...and seldom swears or starts a fight...*shrug*

   But he does tend (you listnin', Clinton?) to cause opponents to bristle and harden their stance and lash out at ANY perceived insult, rather than quietly explain. It kinda tilts the discussion into a flame war at times.

Free expression can be wielded like a bludgeon....

"You can catch more flies with honey..." etc..

(I know, Clinton, you prefer to swat ALL the flies....but you are just makin' em irritable)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:19 PM

As we have heard, *daylia*, the most vocal of the proponents in the thread DOES specifically and directly claim that she "knows"

Only because it's true, Bill.

I know what I know (which is only a teensy weensy smidgeon of what there is to know) about astrology through direct first-hand physical observation, experience, and personal 'intellectual rigour' (ie study).

To answer the rhetorical troll of a question that started this thread, no. I do not 'believe in' astrology. (Or anything else, in fact).

Kinda feels strange to be on the same team after all, eh?    :-D

Oh, and about them potholes ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

Just wanted to add that what you don't choose to know about astrology can't hurt you. And what you do choose to know about it can be helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:41 PM

at least it wasn't a donkey...(elephant is Republican mascot...blocking the path of progress is normal for them.)

I 'spose you can guess that I'd suggest that what you 'know' is your subjective experience, rather than the source of it or that it represents 'fact'.....

just a suggestion...






I can do WHAT with my suggestion?...Madame!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 08:48 PM

Everything is our subjective experience, Bill. But some things we can be surer of than others. The things that the vast majority of us agree on, for instance....

Still, we might be wrong even then, sometimes.

The vast majority have agreed to all kinds of incorrect things in the past and been backed up by the official authorities of their time. I suspect the same thing is happening now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:02 PM

Mercury in Retrograde Clinton........a bit of astrology might help you about now--


"While people speak of  Mercury Retrograde periods that screw up computers and television sets, today's astrologers believe the mishaps happen in more personal realms (Uranus is the planet that rules television and computers).  Mercury rules communication, but more  informal communications, like writing, speaking, short shopping sprees and other erranding endeavors.  So, while Mercury is Retrograde, don't give that party,  be extra aware of what you say and what you interpret when chatting with or writing to friends, cut back on errands, expect that the check will be in the mail longer than usual.   Since the car is usually used for shopping and errands,  don't be surprised if the battery wire loosens or the fan belt snaps just when you have rush out for that one ingredient you forgot to buy.

The good things to do when Mercury is Retrograde: meditate, contemplate, edit the book/poem/song/essay you've been writing, clean house, talk to your pet, listen to music, paint, catch up on sleep! "

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:02 PM

I 'spose you can guess that I'd suggest that what you 'know' is your subjective experience, rather than the source of it or that it represents 'fact'.....

THere are many, many things that can only be known through subjective experience. I suppose it could be argued that nothing can be known except through subjective experience. That's what you get for being a human being.

Consciousness is still very much a mystery -- an area science (ie neurobiologists) is only just beginning to investigate. And with great difficulty; as you say, as the subjective experience of consciousness is, by it's very nature, quite outside the realm of scientific empirical peer-approvable 'fact'.

But as to 'knowing' the 'source'??   HA!!! I highly, HIGHLY doubt we'd be having this conversation if I 'knew' that particular 'source'!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 09:11 PM

the subjective experience of consciousness is, by it's very nature, quite outside the realm of scientific empirical peer-approvable 'fact'.

That's not really true -- it's way too general.

I think.

Or no ...

....flippin Mercury retrograde!!! Gonna give it up and go write in my journal instead. My oh so UNpeer-reviewed journal   

*whew*

thanks for that, MTed

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Mar 06 - 10:27 PM

in retrospect, things are Mercurial around here.

night, all...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:01 AM

Last night I had a chat with the Fairies that live at the bottom of my garden, and even they don't believe that Astrology is real.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:34 AM

THe meaning of this will be revealed to all potholes in due course. And .. *gasp* yes! Even without the help of astrology!
Hey, you're not related to those odd coves who used to stand on street corners with sandwich boards announcing the immenent end of the world and that eating meat was murder, are you?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 05:14 AM

I believe that aeroplanes are kangaroos. I just happen to be using different definitions of both words than the entire rest of the the speakers of the English language. I am not wrong, I just define things differently to you all.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 05:48 AM

Time for some contemplation and quiet thought till around the 27th.

Escamillo, if you'd like to post me some simple (or not so simple )questions)(maybe after the 27th),I'll see what I can do (after the 27th).

I would like to add my voice regretting the animosity and insult.

There is also PLENTY BESIDES.(Don't know how to do italics and those other typo variants others do, and that's another thread.)

While counting myself an astrologer, I like the joke (steady chaps, please don't chase every rabbit in sight !!) about the meeting of the East Kent Spiritualist meeting next tuesday having to be cancelled owing to unforeseen circumstances.

"A certain awkwardness marks the use of borrowed thoughts but as soon as we learn what to do with them, they become our own." (Emerson)

Best wishes from an Ambrose Bierce fan


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:17 AM

Gervase, no, the description you gave does not fit any of my relatives. Highly inaccurate! What kinda birth data did you use for that one, anyway? ;-)

Seriously though, we don't have street-corner messiahs of any genre in my neck of the woods. You have to make an excursion to big bad Toronto - and even there, they're a mighty rare breed.

BTW what's a "cove"? THe only coves we have around here are the ones that harbour boats....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:36 AM

From the OED:
Cove, n.2
slang (orig. Thieves' cant)

(kv) Forms: 6-7 cofe, 6 coff, 7- cove. [The early variant cofe has suggested that this is identical with Sc. COFE n., 'chapman, pedlar', the sense having undergone the same transition as in CHAP, which is now nearly equivalent in meaning, save that cove belongs to a lower and more slangy stratum of speech. But the phonetic change of f to v, at so late a date, is not usual; and the origin of the word still remains obscure. Cf. also CO n.2]

A fellow, 'chap', 'customer'; sometimes = BOSS n.6 (see quots. 1812, 1891).
Frequent in the 20th century in Austral. sources.

1567 HARMAN Caveat 84 A gentry cofe, a noble or gentleman. Ibid. 86 What, stowe you, bene cofe..What, holde your peace, good fellowe.
1609 DEKKER Lanth. & Candle Lt. Wks. 1884-5 III. 196 The word Coue, or Cofe, or Cuffin, signifies a Man, a Fellow, &c...a good fellow is a Bene Cofe.
1621 B. JONSON Gipsies Metamorph. Wks. (Rtldg.) 619/2 There's a gentry cove here, Is the top of the shire. a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Cofe, c. as Cove.
1737 in Logan Pedlar's Pack (1869) 147 Now my Kinchin Cove is gone.
1812 J. H. VAUX Flash Dict. s.v., The master of a house or shop is called the Cove..; when joined to particular words, as a cross-cove, a flash-cove, a leary-cove, &c., it simply implies a man of those several descriptions.
1838 DICKENS O. Twist x, That old cove at the book-stall.
1891 N. GOULD Doub. Event 115, I am not in the habit of being called a cove.
1891 LENTZNER Australian Word-bk., Cove, master or overseer of an Australian station.
1911 C. E. W. BEAN 'Dreadnought' of Darling xxxiii. 288 Recollec' that cove with a red beard.
1916 Anzac Book 65 Then a corporal called and wanted to know..when would the rubber boots be ready for the coves in the trenches?
1916 J. B. COOPER Coo-oo-ee vii. 84 'He's one of those smart coves,' said Sam.
1944 F. CLUNE Red Heart 67 'Must be a balmy cove,' whispered one of the hangers-on as he tapped his forehead.
1966 'J. HACKSTON' Father clears Out 190 The young coves round about combed their hair back with soap to keep it in position.
1969 Advertiser (Adelaide) 12 May 5/4 You Aussie coves are just a bunch of drongoes.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:38 AM

Escamillo, if you'd like to post me some simple (or not so simple )questions)(maybe after the 27th),I'll see what I can do (after the 27th).

Good plan, Ivor. Ditto for me then. ANd I too regret the animosity here, so please .... *attention* all potholes! Let me clarify the worst of my horrid insults above ... You are obviously stupid enough to throw second-hand half-baked opinion around in spite of your admitted ignorance and obvious prejudices re this subject --- BUT --- this does not necessarily mean you are ignormases in all areas of life.

And if I appear to be ignoring certain of your posts till the 27th (ie those of the troll-and-bait genre) well, that's only because I am.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 07:42 AM

PS thanks for explaining the "cove" bit, Gervase. I thought maybe it meant members of a coven -- (and no, that description does not fit me either)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

You respond to good will and conciliation with more animosity and name-calling. You are a hole, but not of the pot variety.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:33 AM

I checked out what Wikipedia has to say on the subject. As I noted earlier, the interpretation of the characteristics of a planet or constellation depends on the culture in which the type of astrology developed (why Babylonian, why not Mayan?). More on the history...

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
"Astrological interpretation is dependent on the particular culture's prevailing mythology. Most classicists think that Western astrology is dependent on Greek mythology. But the Greeks never claimed to have their own mythology. The Greeks claimed that half of their mythology was borrowed from the Egyptians and the other half borrowed from the Hebrew. But where did the myths of the Egyptians and Hebrew come from? The upper Nile River - Ethiopia. (See "Black Athena", Rutgers University Press) The research of the Gauquelin's, which resulted into Neo-Astrology, has modified, updated, but mainly reinforced the Ethiopian/Greek/Roman word association of behavioral characteristics with the particular planets."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

From Websters:

"know: to perceive directly
: to have direct cognition of
: to have understanding of (importance of knowing oneself)
: to recognize the nature of
: DISCERN : to be acquainted or familiar with
: to have experience of
: to be aware of the truth OR [heads up! this is an very important OR!] factuality of
: to have a practical understanding of
: to have sexual intercourse with (archaic)
: to have knowledge
: to be or become cogniznat -- sometimes used interjectionally with you especially as a filler in informal speech

So just to clarify for the pedants here, when I say "I know" (not 'believe' but 'know') the little I do about about astrology, I mean ALL of the above -- except the last one AND the archaic definition (although I confess I've spent quite a bit of quality time between the sheets with my astrology books over the years, in the soft sweet glow of my reading lamp ....   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM

TIA, i repeat:

You -- and yes, very specifically you -- are obviously dumb enough to throw second-hand half-baked opinion around, even in the face of your obvious ignorance and glaring prejudices re this subject!

BUT --- this does not necessarily mean you are an ignoramus in all areas of life, of course.

I will be ignoring all of your posts here from now on.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 10:10 AM

Alice, say 10 different people were shown a picture of you and asked about their impressions.
The first might say "She's a happy person -- I can see it in her eyes". The second "She has wonderful [fill in colour] eyes." The third "She looks a bit stressed. Does she get enough sleep?" The fourth "She looks about 40." The fifth "Nah, more like 30". THe sixth "Wow, look at those muscles! She must be an athlete!" The seventh "I bet she's a scholar. Look at that all those bookcases in the background". And on and on and on ....

Now, does this mean they are all wrong? Or all right? Or maybe even that you really don't exist at all, because everyone sees something a little different???

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 11:11 AM

attention* all potholes! Let me clarify the worst of my horrid insults above ... You are obviously stupid enough to throw second-hand half-baked opinion around in spite of your admitted ignorance and obvious prejudices re this subject --- BUT --- this does not necessarily mean you are ignormases in all areas of life.

ummmm....I am not an 'expert' with years of study behind me on how to bake cakes using hot peppers, prunes, marijuana and LSD either, but I don't think voicing a cautionary opinion on the practice exactly makes me stupid. Not knowing favorite recipes doesn't make me unqualified to comment on the dangers.

What I DO have is years of experience and college classes in rules of debate and logical discussion and how differences of opinion should be processed....those are the items I have been questioning...NOT as I have said 3-4 times now, not astrology per se.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 11:29 AM

... bake cakes using hot peppers, prunes, marijuana and LSD either

Bill, this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand.

It's just another example of slanted thinking; more evidence of your personal inexperience, ignorance and preconceptions (prejudices) re astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 12:13 PM

Enough of the ignoramus-calling, woman!
FYI I have studied astrology insofaras when I was a teenager I was sufficiently interested in esoterica to read several books on the subject and to draw up charts for my own family. The more I read, unfortunately, the more sceptical I became - particularly when looking at the huge gulfs between tradition western natal astrology and Vedic astrology. The scepticism deepened when I became more interested in astronomy than astrology and realised that the zodiac should have around 20 signs rather than 12 (when was the last time you heard someone say they were a typical Ophiucus or Scutum?) and that precession had thrown a spanner in the works. Add to that the fact that every astronomer I came across thought astrology was crap (and they still do!).
I've always had a scientific bent (Fnarr!) and really did seek evidence everywhere for the supposed 'truths' of astrology. Finding none (though this was in the days long before the internet, when all I had was my local public library) I have to say that I eventually junked it along with most of the rest of the esoterica and pseudoscience. I've still got a lovely set of tarot cards, a mistletoe wand and a few other odds and sods, but more for the aesthetics of them as artefacts than anything else.
So it's probably wrong to say I'm ignorant of astrology. I did give it a go, but decided that it was bollocks. And I'm still waiting for a proper test of astrology which shows it to be kosher; the way that tests like this all seem to show it to be bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM

So, you're NOT going to answer ANY of the questions put to you in this thread Daylia? You're just going to sit there with your fingers jammed into your easy singing, "LALALAICAN'THEARYOULALALA"....

That's about what I'd expect from someone as blinkered as you....

You and LH must get on like a house on fire....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:07 PM

Hi, daylia, your example of 10 different people having 10 different opinions when they each look at a picture of someone is an excellent example.
It is clear that 10 different people interepreting a horoscope have 10 different opinions (10 different cultures having 10 differing myths about the planets and constellations). If that does not make it clear to you what people have been trying to say in this thread, then I don't know how to get the point across so you can understand it. I'm not trying to annoy or belittle you or your point of view. I'm just offering some facts on the subject. I, like many others, seriously studied astrology when I was younger and now see it as a pseudoscience.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:09 PM

Gervase, as I've explained somewhere before on this thread, I am just as skeptical of articles by "skeptics" as I am of articles by "psychics". Slant, bias, prejudice, and partial (if not total) ignorance of the subject at hand are so common in such articles that they are of very little or no practical value / interest to me.

Re cultural differences in astrology (Vedic vs Western etc), please consider my post 10:10 above. I don't want to waste bandwidth cutting and pasting it here.

In any case, I'm glad to hear you do know something of astrology, and those are interesting thoughts re the smaller planets etc -- but for everything, there is a season. It's apparent that somehow, conditions are not ideal for fruitful communication, discourse or debate right now. In light of that, I'll ttyl.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:18 PM

The point Bill D was trying to make, as you should very well know, is that you don't have to be an expert to be able to make worthwhile judgements on something.

I can't juggle. Does that mean I can't say juggling chainsaws and flaming torches is not easy or safe?

None of us skeptics have been saying " No, you're wrong, Aries rising means X not Y", we leave that to the experts. We have been trying to discuss the whole question of if it can be verified my outsiders.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:36 PM

A pseudoscience? Well that's exactly what it is, Alice.

Re individual and/or cultural differences in perception -- isn't this just the very nature of consciousness, of human nature, of life itself?

No one approach or system of thought - including western science - can possibly explain everything there is to know about this (or any other) subject. Least of all explain it in a way that everyone else on the planet can understand! That's why there are many different "approaches".

Does this make them all hooey? I think not.

I really like what Little Hawk said above.

.... a person can gain more far wisdom from self-observation than from debating endlessly with others about the things they believe or don't believe. Such debates usually change nothing, except that they harden people in their established positions and cause them to dislike one another.

So, once again, ttyl.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 01:53 PM

"Keep them doagies rollin', Rawhide...."

This thread attracts Clinton Hammond like roadkill attracting crows and vultures, so by all means keep it going. No sense in depriving him of his fun, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:00 PM

PS -- If you want to conceal your personal prejudices better, or even to stop your writing here from being discredited by slant, simply use neutral "metaphors" for the subject at hand, instead of all the telltale negative, inflammatory ones.

Comparing the subject under discussion with juggling chainsaws, baking a cake with illegal drugs, blood sacrifices and tinfoil hats etc etc    ad nauseum   are such obvious examples of slanted, prejudiced writing and thinking (possibly even good ole hatred and ignorance), I don't see how you let yourselves get away with it!

Such choice of phrase at best discredits, at worst nullifies the rest of your argument(s).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:11 PM

Gervase--

The test that you linked to above, at least at first review, seems not to have been designed very well.
The scientist used the astrologers feedback to structure the research, which seems fair enough at the face of it, but the fact is that astrologers, for the most part, have little to know idea how to structure a valid scientific test for anything, even astrology--they are not scientists--

A variety of practical problems skewed the selection of subjects, so that all had certain similar, and therefore confusing, elements in their charts. Another serious problem was that there was no overarching qualification for the astrologers, they were self-selected, and there was no attempt to discern the competency of the astrologers --or even to determine what the criteria for a competent vs an incompetent astrologer would be.

Mind you, I only read over the description briefly--but it didn't seem like a very good study.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:21 PM

"at best discredits, at worst nullifies the rest of your argument"

So then it's still better then yours, which has been nullified almost from the get-go....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:24 PM

thanks, Gervase, for the excellent links to serious studies by experts, and Bunnahabhain for seeing my point about how one ought to view ANY set of claims.

There seems to be a determination to have a favorite answer here, no matter what the evidence to the contrary. I now repost something I have used several times about such situations.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

..I kinda envy those who just say "Oh, I like THIS answer...I'll just believe it from now on, and avoid all that tedious thinking and juggling."

There is a cartoon strip called "Hagar the Horrible", about a silly Viking type with very modern problems. One Sunday saw him visiting the local wizard, Dr. Zook, who had a huge stone ring leaning against the wall, (like that 'money' on Yap Island).

"What's this?", asks Hagar.
"That's my new scientific measuring device." replys Dr. Zook, "Step in!"
....so Hagar squirms into the center of the stone ring....

"More...hunch down...squeeze tighter..." Zook says, as Hagar tries to cram himself into the tight space. Finally, he is in, awkwardly peering out at the pleased wizard.

"There!", says Dr. Zook with authority, "You are exactly 5 feet tall!"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I submit that much of the claims defending astrology and the credentials necessary to evaluate astrology are involved in a very similar process of 'distorting' to what Dr. Zook used on Hagar....only this time words and definitions and concepts are being distorted so that the desired answer still fits.

I am sorry if those who are doing this distorting don't 'get it. We don't use this careful nit-picking all day to talk with people, and realizing when precise logic needs to be employed is not always obvious if one has not actually studied the rules of discourse & debate.
(And no, it is NOT the same as "not having studied astrology"! Is is not necessary to spend years learning all the details of a complex system of observation and interpretation in order to comment on whether the system itself is based on dubuious principles!)
Flamenco Ted can create an entire religion about his conversations with the fairies in his garden, but neither you nor I need to take it to his level to realize there are problems. (Besides, the fairies in MY garden say that his are all wet!)

(In case anyone is wondering, I still do NOT expect this to change any minds...the **need** to keep believing something that has been used for years is too deeply embedded and emotional)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM

I know slant when I see it, Bill. Why would a fellow as versed in logic as yourself resort to such obvious and useless tactics? Or find any value in articles by "skeptics"? Or "scientific studies" (???) attempted on a subject which, as we've seen over and over on this thread, lies beyond the scope of Western science?

Trying to learn the truth about astrology via current Western scientific methodology and techniques is rather like trying to weigh yourself with a barometer - a misconceived and futile endeavour.

All the best with that, though.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:06 PM

"lies beyond the scope of Western science"

Except that it doesn't....

Just because you want to THINK it does, doesn't make it the case.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:10 PM

no, I'm sorry, you do not know 'slant' by simply skimming over my words and deciding that disagreement = bias. That is a comment, like several others, about ME, not about my arguments. I have made a serious error by continuing all this beyond the earlier exchanges. I now withdraw and will allow what I have said to be enough for any passers-by to judge me by.

take care..*smile*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 03:23 PM

From Websters

Slant ...

: a peculiar or personal point of view or position, attitude or opinion ...

: to interpret or present in line with a special interest : ANGLE : (stories slanted toward youth); especially : to maliciously or dishonestly distort or falsify"


This is slant, Bill:

"mmmm....I am not an 'expert' with years of study behind me on how to bake cakes using hot peppers, prunes, marijuana and LSD either, but I don't think voicing a cautionary opinion on the practice exactly makes me stupid. Not knowing favorite recipes doesn't make me unqualified to comment on the dangers."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 08 Mar 06 - 05:00 PM

Peter Niehenke (one of the best known German astrologers) in Meridian (3/1984), an astrological journal, arguing against those astrologers who think that statistical methods cannot be used to test astrology and that present science has nothing to say about it:

(my translation) Astrologers are doing statistics today and from the very start at least from that moment when they formulated the first astrological rule. Even we assume that this rule has come from 'inspiration' and not from observation: In the moment it is formulated as a rule one makes directly or indirectly a statement about frequencies. For one claims that a certain trait is more often appearing with a certain constellation thatn with others - and this way one has arrived at statistics...
One of the main objections to the use of statistical methods in astrology is over and over again the claim that it is not possible to separate the horoscope into parts and that one cannot study single constellations for this way the wholeness would be lost. This argumentation confuses two things. It is actually correct that I can never state something from a single constellation about the whole horoscope and the person...but this does not mean that one cannot study single constellations in group comparisons.

He goes on telling the example that alcohol is one factor in car accidents. This factor alone can never explain a single accident for there are many many other factors like speed, illumination, state of car, wet streets... that also play a role. So in a single case we can never be completely sure which factor or combination of factors have led to the accident. But in a groups studies with a large number of cases, the role of alcohol can be found out.

What daylia misses in her attempt to argue against using statistical methods to test astrology is that in this case the data base on which the scientists study astrology is in most cases exactly the same as the one the astrologers use: Frequencies of cooccurence of traits and constellations. If there were no pattern where from could come something like 'experience', on what basis are astrological books founded? 'Experience' ist based on seeing patterns (existing or not) and patterns can be translated into statements about frequencies. These can be tested fairly easily as TIA has said.

Niehenke, BTW, has done this and the astrological hypotheses have found no support. He has found no more significant correlations than could be expected by chance. He still does astrology in combination with psychotherapy for he finds that his clients like it and he and them have a 'feeling of evidence'.

(If astrology is done this way it may have its uses like many other methods. If a psychoanalysist talks about his client's dreams, if a cheirologist analyses hand lines or if tea leaves are read, one component that may actually be helpful is to ask the client to contribute own interpretations to the (more or less random in my eyes) pattern. Talking about one's life and trying to interpret patterns as such can be helpful in many personal crises.)

But to argue that 'experience' validates a belief and at the same time dismiss counting methods of cooccurences is intellectually dishonest. However, most astrologers are in that field for another reason. Astrologer Niehenke once more: Astrology becomes a kind of religion, a question of faith. But why not...A world in which astrology is true is a more beautiful world than a world in which astrology does not exist. That explains nicely the very emotional reaction of daylia to any alternative point of view. It is not a simple question of correct or false testable statements for her, it is a question reaching far more deep.

A scientist approaches the field very differently. It would be extremely stupid of him/her to start with the assumption that there are no patterns different from chance. Even if most of the astrological theories make no sense from a scientific point of view there could be interesting truths in astrological statements. It is simply an empirical question. (And by the way, each real scientist would hope to find a corroboration for an astrological statement for that would be much more fun and interesting than boringly 'proving' the null hypothesis)

Why would that be more interesting? The sun, obviously has a tremendous impact on humans via warmth, growth and light. The moon has a tremendous impact on some life forms via tides. It could have an influence via changes in illumination level with its phases. It even (remotely) could have a minuscule influence by its gravitation.

As for the planets, there is no serious causal influence, but nevertheless they could be correlated better than chance by spurious correlations with other more mundane influences. Birth season could play a role both for biological and for nurture reasons. The intrauterine environment could change with the season (different food), the first experiences can vary with seaons (learning to walk naked on the grass feels a bit different from learning it in lots of clothes and on snow). Different social classes have different birth frequency maxima (in Germany, the 9 months past carnival maximum is restricted to the lower classes of catholics). There is also the rumour (I've never found real data) that generals tend to be born in August and September for the simple reason that their fathers have been in the army as well and got a Christmas leave. Many interesting theories could be thought of to explain correlations of traits (or disorders) with season of birth. Knowing these things would be helpful in medicine and many other areas.

Such correlations can be found and have been found but they are not in accordance with astrological theories. The field has been tested very often but with no convincing results or with results with extremely low statistical power.

So the 'experience' and the 'feeling of evidence' must come from somewhere else: illusory correlation, Barnum effect, cold reading, retrofitting of patterns are some of the more promising interpretations where from such feelings can come in the absence of any real correlation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 03:19 AM

Thanks Wolfgang, for an excellent work, it is very appreciated.

Daylia, Autolycus, I prefer to discuss this here rather than dealing with personal messages (however I´ll be glad to receive your PMs whenever you like)

I quote my first elementary question:
"If the birth of a child (why not the conception?) is a physical fact, and some kind of energy determines his/her initial conditions in function of his/her moment and place of birth, HOW SHOULD THAT ENERGY BE MEASURED? Is it gravitational (like the body of the mother) ? Magnetic? Light-related ? Sub-atomic particles ? Cosmic radiation ? "

I would add a simple observation: any kind of light-related or cosmic radiation coming from the sun or from stars beyond the sun to a point on Earth that is eventually on the OPPOSITE side of the Sun, is blocked by the mass of the Earth, and in fact the light and radiation reaching that point comes from the night sky. The only radiations passing across the Earth from the sunny side, are the Neutrinos, sub-atomic particles so small that they pass through the inter-atomic spaces of rocks and metals of the whole Earth and through ourselves from our feet. Of course 99% of the stars which could influence us are not in the ecliptic (the plane of the Earth's orbit) but that is another question.

Regarding things "beyond the scope of Western science" : Today, Western science is "world-wide" science. The Japanese and Chinese and all oriental scientific institutions do not show any difference in methodology. Chinese architects may design houses considering some kind of harmony with esoteric entities, but this is part of their culture and by no means are significant in terms of structure of the houses. There are dozens of oriental medical associations which publish thousands of research papers and no one follows methods of ancient Chinese medicine nor deals with it, while the Western hemisphere spends hundreds of millions per year in alternative supposedly oriental treatments.

Un abrazo
Andrés
(Analyst/Programmer, semi-professional tenor, father and grandpa)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 03:49 AM

Daylia, I find your attitude to the questions and challenges put forward in this thread very enlightening. You have a very strong tendency to view anything which contradicts your beliefs as irrelevant and anything which confirms them as very important. If this is your attitude within astrology too, it explains to me why you find it so convincing. You probably see only the bits of your horoscope which agree with your assessment of your personality and quickly forget the major parts that don't, or find some way to make them irrelevant. I believe this is called the confirmational bias and it seems very strong in you.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 06:49 AM

Bagpuss, there's been absolutely nothing posted on this thread yet that 'proves' or 'disproves' a single thing I've said, scientifically or otherwise.

And you're right -- I have as much use for articles by skeptics - and by scientists on this particular subject, for all the excellent reasons noted above -- as I do for the slanted misinformation posted here by the Mudcat pothole gallery.

Notta smidgeon.

Wolfgang, that article looks interesting although I've only given it a preliminary glance. It does not appear to be one of those biased skeptical time-wasters though -- if that's correct, thanks for posting it and I'll go over it in more detail later.

And wow, look how quickly our resident philosopher professor ducked out of here, as soon as I called a spade a spade and demonstrated his use of slanted metaphor!

Should have done that a LONG time ago. It's one of his regular tactics when discussing things he knows nothing about. LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 07:22 AM

For anyone that is interested (ie not Daylia) Here is an interesting article on hidden persuaders - the reasons why so many people will be convinced by things like astrology. And there are probably a lot more interesting articles on the website it came from: http://www.astrology-and-science.com/

I have always been very interested in powers of persuasion - the ways in which our biased ways of thinking can be used to convince us of something. I once had a psychology lecturer who used to do experiments in which he posed as a psychic when in fact he was using only the principles of cold reading. I saw a video of one of his "shows" with interviews with those in the audience that he "read". Everyone one of them was amazed by his accuracy and when presented with the truth, some of them refused to believe it, and claimed that the experimenter really did use a psychic gift, but that he just wasn't aware of it.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:16 AM

"Science deals with that aspect of reality and human experience that lends itself to a particular method of inquiry susceptible to empirical observation, quantification and measurement, repeatability, and intersubjective verification -- more than one person has to be able to say, "Yes, I saw the same thing. I got the same results." So legitimate scientific study is limited to the physical world, including the human body, astronomical bodies, measurable energy, and how structure work ...

Clearly, this paradigm does not and cannot exhaust all aspects of reality, in particular the nature of human existence. In addition to the objective world of matter, which science is masterful at exploring, there exists the subjective world of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and the values and spiritual aspirations based on them.

If we treat this realm as though it had no contitutive role in our understanding of reality, we lose the richness of our existence and our understanding cannot be comprehensive. Reality, including our own exictence, is so much more complex than objective scientific materialism allows..."

From "The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality" by His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

Interesting too, what he has to say about his lifelong friendship and mutual intellectual exploration with physicist David Bohm, one of the many great thinkers and scientiest with whom he has studied extensively, and exchanged knowledge:

"David Bohm guided my understanding of the subtlest aspects of scientific thought, especially in physics, and exposed me to the scientific worldview at it's best ... In our conversations I felt the presence of a great scientific mind which was prepared to acknowledge the value of observations nad insights from other modes of knowledge than the objective scientific ..."


May all scientists, and all of mankind eventually benefit from these insights and understandings.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:22 AM

If it wasn't for scientists the Dalai Lama wouldn't know what an atom was.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:30 AM

ANd your point, Ted?

If it weren't for scientists NONE of us would know what an atom was.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 08:46 AM

So legitimate scientific study is limited to the physical world, including the human body, astronomical bodies, measurable energy, and how structure work ...

Clearly, this paradigm does not and cannot exhaust all aspects of reality, in particular the nature of human existence. In addition to the objective world of matter...there exists the subjective world of feelings, emotions, thoughts, and the values and spiritual aspirations based on them.

said daylia.

How do you distinguish "feelings, feelings, emotions, thoughts, and ... spiritual aspirations" which are valid from those that aren't? Why is your astrology different from David Icke's patent nonsense? He feels it to be true as strongly as you do.

You are quite wrong about science; if science has nothing to say about various aspects of human experience at the moment, that's not the same as saying it can't say anything in principle. And if there are areas in which it can't say anything in principle, you still have to show that any other approach can.

Why should anyone believe YOUR version of reality rather than someone else's? You must have some tests to distinguish between various models of reality; you've said that they don't involve statistics, what are they? Anything more than the massive egotism of saying "I feel it so it must be true"?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

"version of reality" ia an oxymoron.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:27 AM

Those are not my ideas, Paul. They are the Dalai Lama's, and they have absloutley nothing to with the attitudes you describe.

BTW, an individuals'(subjectively experienced) feelings and emotions are neither "valid" or "invalid". THey simply are what they are.

I have nothing of value to offer about David Icke. I've never read any his work, and so I have absolutely no personal experience or direct first-hand knowledge of his ideas to date. Nor do I allow myself to succumb to the foolishness of 'pothole psychology' -- therefore, I will not be tossing out any useless, uninformed, ego-and-bias-driven opinions about him either.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:31 AM

It is very interesting that you give the word "skeptic" such a negative meaning and assign the word "slanted" to others in the way you do. To also readily admit that astrology is a pseudoscience and still think it has validity is amazing. It reminds me of Shermer's "Why People Believe Weird Things". One element of flawed methodology is to focus on what is not known and ignore what is known, emphasize data that fit and discount data that do not fit. Schools need to be teaching critical thinking more effectively.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:40 AM

Well, it's obvious that not many (if any) of the potholes here, including you, understands - or even wants to understand - a single thing I've said about skeptics, slant, bias, science, subjectivity vs objectivity, knowledge, belief, astrology or anything else.

And that's just fine by me! Whatever makes you happy ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:41 AM

And it makes me REAL happy ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:42 AM

to get 400! YIPPEEEE!! That's the 200th, 300th, and now the 400th post on this thread. The stars are so happy with me today ... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:54 AM

Daylia, I do understand what you are saying. You don't see your belief as something that can be held up to the measure of science. You believe it, so it is valid for you, and does not need proofs or arguments that others come up with.

I still think it is amazing how strong the emotional tie to belief is, but it is not the first time I have seen it, and not even the most extreme example. I know people who have given all their life savings to gurus they believed in, allowed their children to be abused, deferred having children or gave their children up because of their spiritual following of the guru's commands, spent fortunes on psychic readers, given up education and careers to be the unpaid labor of their gurus and even committed suicide for their non-scientific beliefs. We have only to see the planes of 9/11 and the fields of Jonestown to understand how strong belief is in motivating people and how completely opposed to logic people can become when they have a strong belief.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TIA
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:56 AM

Physicist Richard Feynman read a book on cold reading, and then practiced it for fun. He got so good at it that he quit because people were insisting that he was actually psychic, but refused to admit it. They would not hear a word of his factual and truthful explanation of his "gift".

In this particular thread, I am fascinated by the tremendous hostility towards the concept of even testing a claim. Forget bias or slant or whatever in how data are examined or what the data even are. The idea of putting atsrology to any kind of objective test is apparently "ignorant". Little irony in that, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:57 AM

I am going to go one question at a time and really slowly here.

Daylia - when John Addey said (1967), in perhaps themost extensive survey of time twins made by an astrologer, 'one would expect to find really exceptional [his emphasis] similarities of life and temperament only in those born almost exactly at the same time
[within a few minutes] and in the same locality', nevertheless 'the tendency for similarities to appear in the lives of those born on the same day must remain strong and well worth investigating'

Do you agree with him or disagree with him?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:15 AM

"version of reality" ia an oxymoron said Flamenco Ted. What I should have said, of course, is "versions of models of reality". Two assumptions I've made here:

(1) that there is a reality that exists independently of the observer. That's true as far as we can tell so far in all circumstances except those in which quantum lumpiness has not been evened out statistically.

(2) that the reality can be approached by modelling- ne model fits better than another, and that we can (if so desired) devise ways of checking how good the fit is.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:19 AM

That's all right then. We must keep this thread firmly rooted in the real World.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:26 AM

Alice, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said in your last paragraph. But you still completely disregard (or maybe just misunderstand) what I said about the difference between 'knowing' 'believing'. I do not 'believe' a thing about astrology, or anything else! I've explained what I mean by "knowing" at least half a dozen times above too .. even gave the dictionary definition for the sake of the pedants here. What a waste of time and energy ...

Anyway, who gives a frog's patootie (thanks for that, LH :-) what I think, or what I enjoy, or which attitudes/approaches/techniques/study materials work best for me and which do not? It really doesn't matter, except to me!

And like everyone else on the planet, you are also free to explore and use whatever makes you happy, whatever you find works best for you right now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:34 AM

Bagpuss, I honestly don't know. I'm not an astrologer, and I don't care much for the idea of "time twins" anyway. Kinda sounds like "soul-mates" .... eeewwwwwwwwww .....

Please save questions like this for a real astrologer. My personal understanding and knowledge of astrology to date is very limited, and Ivor already said he'd see what he could do to answer honest queries at the end of the month.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

BTW, Alice, there is an endless list of human phenomena that are beyond the present scope of objective scientific materialistic investigation ie the subjective experience of love, compassion, joy, yearnings, the 'source' of Mozart's musical inspirations and genius etc etc etc ...

Knowing that these phenomena are real anyway does not reflect badly on science, or scientists or anyone else, does it?

Hey, just as an aside, has science ever figured out why yawning is contagious? Does anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:57 AM

The phrase 'time twins' is simply a shortened way of saying two children born in the same location and very close together in time. This will have become more common in the West in the last century, as more births are now in Hospital, rather than at home. By having births concentrated, it makes it far more likley that two or more will occur together, ie within minutes and yards of each other.

The only time realistic way this would occur outside of hospital is with real twins, and the whole point of time twins to see look for similarities due to their birth charts,not due to them being brough up together.

Nothing to do with soul mates or such like.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:19 AM

Hmm ... thanks for clarifying, Paul. I will say this, from my own personal experience of twins. IN my understanding of the biological sciences, my identical twin sons (like all other identical twins) have identical DNA. They were born 10 minutes apart, in the same hospital room.

Now, because they have identical DNA, according to science they should be identical in appearance and in every other manner, right? And according to the behavioural sciences, seeing as they were raised together they should be very similar in personality too.

Well, they are not. Not even physically. They are quite similar-looking, but certainly not identical. Strangers have trouble telling them apart at first, but people who know them well do not. And there are significant differences in personality too. Twins or no, born at the same location or no, raised in the same home or no -- they are still two very unique individuals. And as adults, they are "actualizing" whatever potentialities they were born with as their chosen (and very different) life circumstances permit, and of course as they see fit. IN so doing, they will most likely become even more "different" over the course of their lives.

So I'm guessing -- please read that correctly, it does say GUESSING -- that the same conditions apply to astrological "time twins" as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM

Oops, sorry Bunnahadhain. You're not Paul, obviously!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

So how can you completely reject the idea that science can examine the claims of astrology, if you don't even know what claims astrology could make.

I put it more simply the first time. If two people were born within a few minutes apart in the same city, would you expect them (based on astrology) to be more similar in personality (personality traits which are commonly used in astrological chart) than any two random people? If you still claim not to know because you are not an expert, I wonder on what basis you believe (know in your own words) in astrology. This premise would seem to me to be a central tenet of astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:23 AM

*reading...just not making any more detailed comments*

but one interesting phenomena I DO experience is 'serendipity'...

and yesterday, after taking a deep breath and stopping typing, I looked at my daily paper to distract myself with the comics....and there, side-by-side, were these:

The Flying McCoys

Wizard of Id

a message? Perhaps! ☺

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM

Re twins. Yes identical twins are not identical in every way, but they are much more alike than non identical twins. And their environment is not identical, they do not have identical experiences. Also there is a tendency among some twins to want to assert their own individuality, so they become more different from eachother consciously and deliberately. All of this would explain why they are not identical in every way. No need postulate another mechanism such astrology to explain the discrepancy.

As for contagious yawning (of course it depends on what level of explanation you are after), I think the most common theory is that it developed as a mechanism for coordinating sleep times within a community. Interestingly individual differences in susceptibility to contagious yawning is related to levels of empathy, and I think that autistic people are much less susceptible to it.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

"there's been absolutely nothing posted on this thread yet that 'proves' or 'disproves' a single thing I've said"
Then you need to learn how to read....

"My personal understanding and knowledge of astrology to date is very limited"
Holy backpeddle Batman....

"there is an endless list of human phenomena that are beyond the present scope of objective scientific materialistic investigation"
That just shows you don't know fuck all about science...

"has science ever figured out why yawning is contagious"
Ya... it isn't....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

Wow that's just otherworldly Bill, and you still refuse to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM

Bagpuss, I've already explained how I know the little I do know about astrology ad nauseum on this thread. HOw boring ....

Pardon me, but while I used to find this discussion amusing and entertaining, the novelty is beginning to wear off..

Hmph.

*yaaawwwwn*   

the day is too young for this   

and it's raining out there too

and I don't go to back work for another 3 looooong hours   

*sniff sniff*

Oh well, I'm off for greener and more musical (but hopefully dry) pastures. It's been fun, ye *potholes*!   I may check back in after the 27th, if this thread is still around by then. But then again *yawn yawn*   maybe I won't.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

It isn't just yawning that's contagious, daylia, so are most other behaviours.

Arguing, for example, is contagious. (this forum has proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt!) So is smiling. Also laughing. And hurling insults. And being competitive. And so on...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM

Damn, now she's got me yawning.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:02 PM

She's had me yawning since her first post....

But then I find idiots to be very boring....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM

No you don't, Clinton. You love them, because they give you someone to pick on.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:17 PM

I have you for that...

Oh wait... yer one too....

How convenient eh

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM

Why people believe what they believe is not boring to me. It is frustrating, though, trying to communicate with some people about their beliefs. I remember one author on the subject of new religions writing about how extremely powerful belief is. People can be made to kill and die for their beliefs, as the world sadly sees every day.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM

As I have you, Clinton. It's contagious.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:34 PM

You don't have me.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM

We have a symbiotic relationship, Clinton, similar to this one:

Karen and Milkman Dan

I'm Karen. You're Milkman Dan.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:41 PM

You give yourself too much credit... You're as close to nothing to me as one can get without actually being nothing....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM

Precisely. I woudn't have it any other way, because I feel the same about you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:46 PM

Bully for us eh....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:53 PM

Meanwhile, daylia's thread drifts farther and farther off course into the Sea of...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

... Where-It-Belongs...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

and it was GUEST,Martini that started this thread...

not Flakelia....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM

True, but it is daylia who has made it her own, seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 02:43 PM

The statistics would tend to prove that out:

Name                            #posts
*daylia*                         110
ClintonHammond                        57
Little Hawk                         57
Bill D                                 37
Bagpuss                         30
TIA                                 16
GUEST                                13
Gervase                         12
Purple Foxx                         11
M.Ted                                 11
bobad                                 10
Alice                                 7
autolycus                         6
Bunnahabhain                         6
Cluin                                 6
Paul Burke                         6
Wolfgang                         6
flamenco ted                         4
kendall                         4
Peace                                 4
Escamillo                         3
Azizi                                 2
Donuel                                 2
GUEST,Martini                         2
SunnySister                         2
Bee-dubya-ell                         1
cool hand Tom                         1
Dave (the ancient mariner)         1
Emma B                                1
frogprince                         1
GUEST,Microsoft tech dept.         1
JennyO                                1
Kaleea                                 1
Rapaire                         1

Of course this kind of "western science" statistic may not apply here. For instance it might be possible for someone to KNOW that say..."GUEST,Microsoft tech dept." has made the most postings.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 02:54 PM

Proof that quantity isn't all it's cracked up to be eh....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

This gives us both 58, Clinton... ;-P

Shambles would be impressed by the longevity of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:07 PM

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:09 PM

Accidentally posted above-

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:23 PM

Having read many of the articles cited above to disprove astrology, as well as the excellent precis from the always illuminating Wolfgang, I must point out that the abundance of evidence is that astrology works despite the fact that it may be completely unfounded. One article, intended to "disprove" astrology actually provided 34 reasons why astrology works, even though it shouldn't.

This beats science completely, since science has to be right in order to work, and I think that this is what makes scientists so angry about astrology--

I am a little less sure why astrology makes Clinton Hammond so angry, except, apparently, he thinks it is "crap". Of course, he thinks everything is crap, which is, perhaps, why he seems so darned happy all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:26 PM

"why astrology makes Clinton Hammond so angry"

Who said I was angry?

Life is too short to waste it being angry at something posted on the internet...

jeeze...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM

"Rude" is not necessarily angry...or is it?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 08:59 AM

For Alice and the rest of the Mudcat Pothole Gallery: RE the propoganda (ie malicious fallacies) in your posts and how to avoid them in future

This is specifically in reference to Alice's words I know people who have given all their life savings to gurus they believed in, allowed their children to be abused, deferred having children or gave their children up because of their spiritual following of the guru's commands, spent fortunes on psychic readers, given up education and careers to be the unpaid labor of their gurus and even committed suicide for their non-scientific beliefs. We have only to see the planes of 9/11 and the fields of Jonestown to understand ... People can be made to kill and die for their beliefs, as the world sadly sees every day."

Notice how lopsided and negative this argument is! She tries very carefully to avoid the direct use of slanted metaphor (after having just witnessed what happened to poor ole Professor Bill) but still, her entire post(s) is slanted.

Notice how she focuses entirely on certain 'media darlings" -- highly twisted, horrible, tragic and (thankfully) very rare effects of "belief -- while completely ignoring the vast array of everyday positive ones (ie the countless lives saved and people helped via charities run by the religious; the personal hope, comfort and inspiration toward love and goodwill that many many religious people find in their faith every day etc etc)

In so doing, she hopes to create the same lopsided, distorted and patently false impression of the subject under discussion here as she does of 'belief' in general. And a lot of readers are taken in by this no doubt .... but not this one.

So, why do people like Alice and Bill and rest of the potholes do what they do to mislead others? And what can be done about it? From the article I linked to:

"When a propagandist warns members of her audience that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action, she is using the fear appeal. By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hope to redirect attention away from the merits of a particular proposal and toward steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.

This technique can be highly effective when wielded by a fascist demagogue, but it is typically used in less dramatic ways ...

When confronted with persuasive messages that capitalize on our fear, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

    * Is the speaker exaggerating the fear or threat in order to obtain my support?
    * How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is provoking?
    * Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?
    * When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker's proposal? "

Now, certain potholes above claim I've also ignored "evidence" (???) contradicting my views, in spite of the fact that there's absolutely no such thing for me to ignore here, even if I wanted to!

Nothing posted on this thread 'proves' or 'disproves' anything a thing I've said about astrology, scientifically or otherwise! "Proving" or "disproving" astrology via objective scientific methodology is simply not possible to date.

In fact, it may never be possible.

Having read many of the articles cited above to disprove astrology, as well as the excellent precis from the always illuminating Wolfgang, I must point out that the abundance of evidence is that astrology works despite the fact that it may be completely unfounded. One article, intended to "disprove" astrology actually provided 34 reasons why astrology works, even though it shouldn't.

This beats science completely, since science has to be right in order to work, and I think that this is what makes scientists so angry about astrology--

Hear hear, MTed!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:00 AM

Besides public education, I had another motive for posting what I did above ... The word for '4' is 'Ha' in Hawaiian, and I just wanted to say ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:01 AM

444! Ha ha HA!!!!   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

Is it the 27th already?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

Nope -- but I was told to post this in a dream last night, by a transsexual fairy 1000 feet tall wearing nothing but pale pink fishnet stockings and rubber boots.

With 60 stars on his/her head.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:11 AM

And a huge purple booger hangin out his/her nose.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:12 AM

(dripping disgustingly all over the "skeptics dictionary" tucked under his/her arm)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:18 AM

(which he/she happily agreed to donate to the nearest gaping filthy threatening pothole, but only after I agreed to post)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:20 AM

Forgotten your meds again, Daylia?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:24 AM

Who, me? NEVER!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:26 AM

Maybe you need to up the dose, then.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:32 AM

Well, how's your daily dosage doing GUEST?

Maybe you better cut back a bit. YOu might get a handle on yourself that way.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Crystal
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM

Apparently one researcher really thought he had somthing with the zodiac influencing personalities, right up to the point where he sent the profile of a mass murderer out to his test subjects and 90% of them agreed that it had them spot on!

Saying that however I am a pure Pisces through and through (scatty, unreliable, dreamy...), maybe it isn't true, but it is nice to hold on to some faith!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 10:58 AM

Apparently one researcher really thought he had somthing with the zodiac influencing personalities, right up to the point where he sent the profile of a mass murderer out to his test subjects and 90% of them agreed that it had them spot on!

LOL!

Every human being has the potential to become a mass murderer, while (thankfully) only very few of us choose to actualize that potential.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:43 PM

Nothing posted on this thread 'proves' or 'disproves' anything a thing I've said about astrology In partiular, nothing posted by you.
If I were to stumble across this thread as a disinterested observer who had no feelings one way or another about astrology, I would leave it thinking that its adherents were hysterical, foot-stamping shriekers who made Violet Elizabeth Bott look like Ruth Kelly. And I would certainly not consider astrology to be a pursuit for the rationally-minded.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

That isn't terribly helpful to those of us who have no idea who either Violet Elizabeth Bott or Ruth Kelly might be...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 12:52 PM

Don't hold back, Gervase....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM

War, gambling, and football are not pursuits for the rationally-minded either. That doesn't seem to have reduced their prevalence or their popularity.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 02:50 PM

In partiular, nothing posted by you.

Wow Gervase, the perfect accuracy, subtle depth and profound clarity of that particular observation is truly astounding!!

If I were to stumble across this thread as a disinterested observer who had no feelings one way or another about astrology, I would leave it thinking that its adherents were hysterical, foot-stamping shriekers who made Violet Elizabeth Bott look like Ruth Kelly. And I would certainly not consider astrology to be a pursuit for the rationally-minded.

Mm-hmm.

The 'rationally-minded' quite often resort to good ole ad hominems, however incomprehensible, when other less obvious tactics fail.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 02:52 PM

" The 'rationally-minded' quite often resort to good ole ad hominems, however incomprehensible, when other less obvious tactics fail."

And you're the prime exampe of that in this thread....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 03:41 PM

Everyone approves highly of their own rationality and is offended by the apparent irrationality of others who don't (or can't) see it the same way for some reason.

Everyone believes in stuff that other people think is ridiculous or meaningless.

Everyone thinks he's right and those who don't see it his way are wrong.

And thus it has ever been...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 04:07 PM

Oh, yea, another Slagging Fest on the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 03:47 AM

That isn't terribly helpful to those of us who have no idea who either Violet Elizabeth Bott or Ruth Kelly might be
Where are you reading this?
JFGI!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:18 PM

I am reading this in Orillia, Ontario, Canada, and I have no idea what JFGI means either... Jesus F*cking Garment Industry? Jack Fell Gathering Ipods? John Finds Growing Investment?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:21 PM

Wow.. you really are thick aren't you...
JFGI

Just FKNG GOOGLE It....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

Google JFGI?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:23 PM

You can't be serious.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:29 PM

Here ya go LH. Welcome to your online Jewish home.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 02:30 PM

Right then! I Google JFGI...and what do I find?????

The Jewish Federation of Greater Indianapolis.

"Welcome to your online Jewish home!

For more than 100 years, the Jewish Federation has been the voice of the Indianapolis Jewish community. The Federation and its agencies, in cooperation with the synagogues, function to promote the general welfare of the Jewish community and to ensure the creative survival and continuity of the Jewish people."

"JFGI"

LOL! Someone should tell Martin Gibson about this. Naw....he probably already knows about it.

This still sheds no light on the matter of Ruth and Violet Wass's'name...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: labougie
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM

Leave the astrologers alone! OK, they're deluded, but unlike the similarly deluded Christians (and all other Superstitians), they're not actually dangerous. Concentrate on the real problem!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:25 PM

"Concentrate on the real problem!"

Rampant human gullibility and ignorant medievalism IS a real problem...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

It's a bigger problem than you are, Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: labougie
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:33 PM

Amen to that, but astrologers don't have quite the penchant for starting wars that the Superstitians have.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 11 Mar 06 - 04:40 PM

"astrologers don't have quite the penchant for starting wars that the Superstitians have"

True

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

A real shame about the thread drift and then again, Mercury (symbolising communication, inter alia)is retrograde. So hardly surprising.

See you soon

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 03:03 PM

Anyone read Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast by Lewis Wolpert? Might be interesting to anyone interested in the science of belief. He's a very good popular science writer. I really enjoyed his "Malignant Sadness" about depression.

"Why do 70 per cent of Americans believe in angels, and thousands more that they have been abducted by aliens? Why does every society around the world have a religious tradition of some sort? What makes people believe in things when all the evidence points to the contrary? Why do 13 per cent of British scientists touch wood? In "Through the Looking Glass", the White Queen tells Alice that to believe in a wildly improbable fact she simply needs to 'draw a long breath and shut your eyes'. Alice finds this advice ridiculous. But don't almost all of us, at some time or another, engage in magical thinking? Professor Lewis Wolpert investigates the nature of belief and its causes. He looks at belief's psychological basis and its possible evolutionary origins in physical cause and effect. How did toolmaking drive human evolution? Is it the lack of an explanation about fundamental questions which is truly intolerable? Are we born with an evolutionary propensity to believe in things that make us feel better? Wolpert explores the different types of belief - including that of animals, of children, of the religious, and of those suffering from psychiatric disorders. And he asks whether it is possible to live without belief at all, or whether it is a necessary component of a functioning society."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

"What makes people believe in things when all the evidence points to the contrary?"

Humans are stupid and scared

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 04:30 PM

Most people believe most of what they believe on the basis OF evidence....the evidence they gained through their own past experiences. That accounts for the lion's share of what they believe and take for granted in life.

Then there is the stuff they've heard about, but have no little or no evidence for or against yet. They may tend to believe in some of it or they may not, depending on what the want to believe in.

That's what you object to, Clinton. It's got nothing to do really with evidence.

There is no evidence against most of the stuff you automatically reject. If there were evidence for it (and there may be) you wouldn't be imterested. Your mind is all made up already, regardless of evidence, unless that evidence is presented by certain specific official authorities you respect, in which case you would immediately get on board, I imagine.

Like most people, you believe exactly what you already wanted to believe...whether or not there's any evidence for or against it. You are impervious to evidence, in my opinion, unless it fits your belief systems. So are most people.

And anyway, the evidence that most sceptics say they require in order to alter their beliefs is usually NOT clearly available, and if it were, they wouldn't go out and seek it! Therefore they can remain safe and unchanged in their beliefs...just like religious fanatics do. They just ignore, deny, or laugh at everything they don't agree with. That's what you do.

You really ought to become religious, because you've got the perfect mindset for it already. You know all there is to know. Religions thrive on that attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM

Again LH, you prove you don't know shit about me....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 05:11 PM

I know. It saddens me terribly, but what can I do? I'm not about to move in next door to you just so I can know more about you. I can only go by what you type on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 06:07 PM

There's a home across the street from us where you'd probably fit right in....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 06 - 06:46 PM

You figure? Do they allow chimps? If Chongo can't move in, neither will I.

But I don't like Windsor all that much anyway...

Are you willing to sponsor me by paying 1/2 the rent for the first year?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Tabby
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 01:41 AM

Astrology is such trash: Pure fabrication with no sensible basis whatsoever.   But what a hoax. People seeking nifty easy pre-fab identities, and those desperate for cliques to belong to, lap it up. It pretends depth by associating itself with planets and stars, thereby trying to syphon their mystery and grandeur. Universally common traits are slotted into categories anyone can identify with, so no matter what sign you are appointed to, it is bound to fit you. I'm sure if you could convince any dedicated "Capricorn" he/she was actually a "Leo," their focus would shift to identifying with any or all "Leo" traits with just as much enthusiasm and amazement at how well the descriptions fit. To believe that what kind of day/month/year you are going to have can be predicted without consideration of your free will and your personal circumstances is really quite insane. The entire concept of astrology is insane.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:47 AM

Mercury (symbolising communication, inter alia)is retrograde. So hardly surprising.


Nah - the thread hasn't drifted at all. The question was asked and plenty of answers have been given. If thread drift equates to people saying things with which you don't agree then, er...
The gist, for most sensible people, is that astrology is complete cobblers but the simple-minded and gullible cling on to it because people like that have a need to believe in something.
As for Mercury being retrograde - what about absolute twaddle! Mercury is 'retrograde' insofaras it appears to be going backwards. That is an optical illusion caused by the rotation of the Earth. If the thread appears to be taking an unacceptable direction or 'drifting', I suggest that it's more to do with a reaction to retrograde thinking than planetary motion.
However - so as not to sound too cynical - as the heavenly matron seems to have given astrologers a chit excusing them any divination until the 27th, I eagerly await the bombshell that will surely materialise after that date which will prove once at for all the validity of astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 07:51 AM

I eagerly await the bombshell that will surely materialise after that date which will prove once at for all the validity of astrology.

Don't hold your breath, Gervase.

Here's a better approach --- from Essay Review: Tibetan and Western Models of Mind by David Fontana

"For generations the notion that scientific theories represent objective, independent physical reality has been serious challenged by philosophers of science. Indeed, there are few today who adhere to such straightforward scientific realism. Among the many problems with the realist position is the fact that multiple, mutually incompatible theories can often be presented that equally account for a given body of experimental evidence. A philosophically unreflective approach to science gives the impression that objective reality screens out false hypotheses, leading to only one true theory. In fact multiple hypotheses are often put forth, and the choice among them is based on various human factors...

Even Max Planck's famous idea of 'quanta' of energy is just such a proposition. The notion of 'quanta' provides us with an opportunity for explaining diverse and apparently incompatible microphysical phenomena, but more recently Timothy Boyer (see e.g. 'The Classical Vacuum' in Scientific American, August 1985) has outlined a concept which demonstrates that we can explain such phenomena without recourse to the notion of 'quanta'. In the world of microphysics, it has in fact never proved possible to made a direct observation of subatomic entities. We merely infer their existence from circumstantial evidence (e.g. the macroscopic effects - such as traces in a cloud chamber - they produce when they interact with certain measuring devices). In effect, we create a hypothetical concept which has an 'as if' reality, but this is not the same as demonstrating physical realities.

We cannot hide the fact that 'physics has never been able to demonstrate that its theoretical concepts uniquely account for the experimental facts' - hence the presence, common throughout physics, of the multiple incompatible theories which in their various ways can each be used to account for the same phenomenon. Problems arise not because such theoretical concepts only describe hypothetical realities, but because they are presented - at least to the student and the layperson - disguised in the trappings of physical reality.

Upon close examination it appears that no theory is true in the sense of describing or explaining reality as it exists in its own inherent nature. Nor is such an ultimately true theory to be found in any eventual integration of scientific and contemplative insights. If we grasp on to any theory as being true in the above sense, we may become satisfied with that conceptual construct of reality, and that impedes the quest for truth, which finally transcends all concepts. We may avoid this obstacle by asking not whether a theory is true, but by inquiring to see how meaningful it is."


On the other hand, I do eagerly await the bombshell that will surely prove, once and for all, the validity of the scientific hypothesis that Mozart's musical genius, for example, is no more than the random functioning/products of his biological wetware.   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:01 AM

Science isn't about some abstract idea of 'truth' but about what fits. You have to demonstrate some kind of approximation to what happens- otherwise it's not science. And it's what happens that is the ONLY test. So you can come up with many models that fit the observations- and they only differ when you use the model to predict the NEXT observation. That's when the science happens.

You can make up as many different explanations as you like, but until you come up with a test by which you can demonstrate that one explanation is better than others, and it must be a test that other people can repeat, it's just so much hot air.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 08:35 AM

WEll if science does not concern itself with truth, then I will not concern myself with science. (But it does. And I do.)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 10:02 AM

Aye, particle physics has always had a whiff of metaphysics about it; no job for a grown-up, what with all the dead cats and uncertainty...
Nonetheless, the article abstract you copy and paste above bears no relation to the 'truth' or otherwise of astrology. The actions of particles can be seen from their effect in a cloud chamber - the actions or whatever of the planets and other astral bodies involved in astrology can be seen...er...well, only in the minds of those for whom astrology is real.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 12:18 PM

" Are you willing to sponsor me by paying 1/2 the rent for the first year?"

OHIP might very well cover most, if not all, of it....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 12:31 PM

the article abstract you copy and paste above bears no relation to the 'truth' or otherwise of astrology.

Put aside your preconceptions and look deeper, and with a free and open mind Gervase. If you can.

Look how Jung wrestled with the question of reincarnation - a doctrine quite like astrology, from the objective scientific materialistic perspective:

"The question of karma is obscure to me, as is also the problem of personal rebirth or of the transmigration of souls. With a free and open mind I listen attentively to the Indian doctrine of rebirth, and look around the world of my own experience to see whether somewhere and somehow there is some authentic sign pointing toward reincarnation.

Naturally, I do not count the relatively numerous testimonies, here in the West, to the belief in reincarnation. A belief proves to me only the phenomenon of belief, not hte content of the belief. This I must see revealed empirically in order to accept it.

Until a few years ago I could not discover anything convincing in this respect, although I kept a sharp lookout for any such signs. Recently, however, I observed in myself a series of dreams which would seem to describe the process of reincarnation in a deceased person of my acquaintance. But I have never come across any such dreams in other persons, and therefore have no basis for comparison. Since this observation is subjective and unique, I prefer only to mention its existence and not to go into it any further. I must confess, however, that after this experience I view the problem of reincnation with somewhat different eyes, though without being in a position to assert a definite opinion."

(From "Memories, Dreams and Reflections" by Carl G Jung).

This describes very well how I arrived at my present view of astrology, and a few other subjects as well. And I do wish I'd been around to compare dream content with Jung! He wouldn't have felt so 'all alone'    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

PS I really like this metaphor, from the Dalai Lama's The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality -- "Science is but one finger on the hand of humanity".

If we restrict ourselves to using only one finger, we cannot grasp a *blessed* thing.    And we lose our grip on reality, on the seemingly endless diversity of human experience.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 01:03 PM

"with a free and open mind"

Evidently your open mind fled the coop a long time ago....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 01:05 PM

That's ok too, Clinton. I really don't mind you at all.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 01:29 PM

If we restrict ourselves to using only one finger, we cannot grasp a *blessed* thing.   

Well, I can grasp plenty of things using only one finger*. It's not as strong as using my whole hand, but it's a grip none the less.

Just like people, no metaphor is perfect, but some are better than others.


* if there are medical reasons you can't, I'm not trying to cause offense

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 02:33 PM

Clinton, don't you ever fear that people may begin to gather in angry mobs outside your door, start throwing stones, that sort of thing....?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 02:52 PM

Bring 'em on... I prefer a straight up fight to all this sneaking around...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 02:57 PM

All righty then! That's the spirit.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:09 PM

Would you two just get a room!?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Jeri
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

ooh - 500?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:14 PM

We have not really worked out the kinks in our online relationship yet, Jeri. I think "a room" together might be a premature move at this time...

(nice job on the 500 there)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

You couldn't take it LH.... I promise you

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:30 PM

Well, I can grasp plenty of things using only one finger*. It's not as strong as using my whole hand, but it's a grip none the less.

Good point! Hmmm   let's see    how about 'if we restrict ourselves to using only one finger, we cannot fully grasp a *blessed* thing'.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 03:33 PM

Or wait .... any *blessed* thing too large for that one particular finger to grip.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:02 PM

And a weak tenuous grip is better than no grip at all. I'll give you that!

Uh oh    there's a song in here somewhere    I know it    A Jingle For A Single-Fingered Quest maybe An Ode to the Lonely Digit hmmmmm

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

Now you're just posting spam

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 04:55 PM

Spam fingers

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 13 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM

Eeewwwwwwwwwww    :-p

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:26 AM

That reminds me of the old joke about the legless parrot who used to hold onto the perch with his one little "finger"...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 03:42 AM

Having finally admitted that science has a grasp on reality, even if it was a grudging admission that claimed it was one- fingered, it is up to you to show us what precisely it is that you think the other fingers are grasping. I propose that it's not even fresh air, it's simply without substance.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 04:14 AM

it is up to you to show us

Says who, Paul? You??

Do your own investigating, thanks. I do more than enough for one person.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 04:21 AM

PS ANd I propose that if Jung or Freud or Einstien or Hawkings etc etc had sat around demanding that someone else to show them what to think (empirically, of couse), they'd have figured out as much about life as the rest of us have.

Diddley.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 05:12 AM

PPS It's been said over and over again on this thread that this subject cannot be "proven" scientifically. YEt people still demand that I "prove" it to them!

Well, if someone demanded I tell them what I now about music theory as rudely and arrogantly as you folk, I wouldn't be bothered to give them the time of day.

And even if their initial attitude toward music theory and toward myself did seemed to merit some sort of response, if during the course that discussion they turned out to be as malicious, thick-skulled and vapour-headed as some of you folk, I'd simply show them the door.

It's been shown over and over again on this thread that this subject cannot be "proven" scientifically or any other way. YEt people still demand that someone or something "prove" it for them!

HOwever, there's a silver lining in even the thickest, darkest and most annoying of clouds. These observations will become Chapter 3 of my soon-to-be-released "Pothole Psychology".

And I already have the first couple verses of "Jingle For the Single Finger (or, Ode to the Lonely Digit)" too!   Ahhh ... life is good. It says so in the stars!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 06:56 AM

Furthermore, what is the sound of one finger pressing the button?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM

Or one finger on the trigger?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:12 AM

Or one finger in each ear??

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:18 AM

Never discount the Power of One! (finger)

K I'll give it a break now. It's a long long LONG way to 600    *sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:22 AM

Do your own investigating, thanks.
Er, I did, and I discovered that astrology was a load of old tosh. See the earlier message way back in the swirlings mists of wittering...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:39 AM

Er, I did, and I discovered that astrology was a load of old tosh.

MOst impressive, Gervase. A veritable monument of ungenuity!

BTW what is 'old tosh'? We don't have 'tosh' of any age here.
We have lots of nice young tush though.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 07:45 AM

Ah ... I see ... a load of ole tosh. Gotcha.

(HINT: studying any subject is easier and more productive when the student is untoshed).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 08:12 AM

Oh yes, I remember what you were so toshed up about. You found differences between Eastern and Western astrology   (*gasp*    how shocking!) and pondering those differences shorted out your neural circuitry.

Reminds me of how I decided to study language once. Didn't take long to discover that every language is different. Looks different, sounds different, feels different -- and none were comprehensible to me, except my own.

Therefore, all languages are trash. Absolute hooey! And it's up to you to prove they're not. Hurry up now, get typin --- I'm waiting!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 08:33 AM

Actually, I'm experimenting with the One-Fingered Approach right now. Sounds quite thin and shakey, mind you, but it's fun!

He likes it too, I see.   

And no wonder it's so popular around here ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Kweku
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

Faith is a strong medicine for success.

I know people who worship a small piece of stone,which weighs less than a kilogram and this object has brought them so much luck and good tidings.

Be it in the sky or on the ground,be you non-religious or religious,as a human being you need something to hold on to.

You seldom need the opinions of others,because the very people you rely on, "developed themselves from their selves". And the first rule of success is to know who you are,and one of the ways to do that is through having enough time for yourselve by yourselve. Then you might just come up with your own theory on life, and with time others might just conclude that you are also worthy of being followed.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 10:18 AM

... others might just conclude that you are also worthy of being followed.

Ahhh yes    and therein lies the rub

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Edwin Drood
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:23 AM

. . . his gaze wandered from the windows to the stars, as if he would have read in them something that was hidden from him. Many of us would, if we could; but none of us so much as know our letters in the stars yet - or seem likely to do it, in this state of existence - and few languages can be read until their alphabets are mastered.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:53 AM

You found differences between Eastern and Western astrology   (*gasp*    how shocking!) and pondering those differences shorted out your neural circuitry.

No, you daft bint, I found out that astrologers weren't actually playing with a full deck.
They have too few constellations in the zodiac, fudge the issue of newly-discovered planets and can't answer the issue of precession. And that's not even mentioning gravitational effects, relative masses and geocentricity.
It was the incompatibility between astronomy and astrology that led me to believe it to be bunk, not any differences between eastern and western astronomy. Between science and pseudo-science, not between two brands of pseudo-science.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,William
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

Look how the floor of heaven
Is thick inlaid with patens of bright gold.
    There's not the smallest orb which thou behold'st
      But in his motion like an angel sings,
       Still quiring to the young-eyed cherubins;
          Such harmony is in immortal souls,
            But whilst this muddy vesture decay
             Both grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:15 PM

This will probably be my last post on this thread, as it got too much into the name calling for me.

Daylia, you keep saying that astrology cannot be proven scientifically. However, when I provide an assertion taken from astrology that could be tested scientifically (and indeed has been with negative results), you merely claim ignorance about whether than assertion is indeed one which astology would claim. Therefore you must also claim ignorance over whether science can be used to test astrology's validity. If you cannot see the logic in that statement, then there is no point in trying to have a logical debate with you.

If your beef is that science cannot "prove" as opposed to provide evidence for or against, then that is also true for anything science might tackle. Are you arguing that no scientific results should be taken into consideration on any subject, merely because they do not provide absolute proof of anything?

"It's been said over and over again on this thread that this subject cannot be "proven" scientifically. YEt people still demand that I "prove" it to them!"

Nobody is demanding that you prove anything. Merely that you provide some scientific evidence in support of it, or at least openmindedly examine the evidence that has been put to you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:18 PM

*yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*   

Oh go cry me a river, Gervase.

Your posts are so juvenile and TIRESOME   *yaaaaaaaaaaaaawn*   I just can't take it anymore.

So sorry, sweetie, but this is absolutely    *yaaaawwn   YYAAAAAAWWWWWWWN* (oooo pardon me) game over for you.

Done.

Caput.

C'est tout.

Voila.

Capiche?????

And if you think I'm just ignoring you from here on in, guess what?
That'll be the first time you've been right about anything yet on this thread, so go for it!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM

Give it up, Bagpuss. The premises (ie assumptions about astrology) that underlie your so-called "experiment" are fallacious to begin with. Therefore, the whole exercise is a waste of time. You wanna break your brain cells over it? Be my guest. And if you still cannot comprehend what I'm saying, try the following:

1. Study my hundreds of posts here, over and over and over again. WIth enough effort, someday soon a bit of the information might sink in.   

2. Pay very close attention to the links, quotes, and articles from the masters of science, philosophy, spirituality and psychology that I've provided. I mean it -- I'll quiz you on it later!

3. Go back to the Astrodienst site and click on FAQ. They do offer a good introduction to astrology in language even a newbie will understand.

4. Forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 12:49 PM

From the FAQ at Astrodienst:

"This is what astrology can offer you

    * a deeper understanding of yourself, your partner, your child ...
    * clues on your strengths and weaknesses, on challenges and chances in your life ...
    * a closer look at life cycles and topics which are relevant at a certain point in your life ...


Astrology cannot

    * take decisions for you ...
    * tell you whether or not you should get married, are with the right partner or will win the lottery ...
    * know the environment you live or grew up in, the circumstances of your life ...
    * forecast events in the future ..."

Got that last one, folks? Please, read it over and over till it finally sinks in. And remember it next time you come across a "scientific study" (???) attempting to prove or disprove the 'predictiveness' (???) of a natal chart or astrology in general.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 01:55 PM

"This is what astrology can offer you"
You can get the same bullflop from a good 'reading' of a bowl of alphabet soup....

In other words... random chance...

Give yer damn fool head a shake would ya.... Yer scuppered here... and are just too blinkered to see it.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 01:57 PM

What I keep wondering is, who is pulling whose chain on this thread? Or is it mutual chain-pulling all around? Or is it just compulsive reactions to previous reactions? If you snarl at a dog, the dog snarls back. If you snarl back again, the dog snarls back again louder. And so on, and so on, until finally somebody remembers it's time to go and eat or something. But then...if they remember "He snarled at me!" after the meal, then they'll return in a bit and go "Grrrrr!" And the dog goes "GRRRRRRR!" And you go "GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!" And in no time at all we've reached 600 posts and achieved glorious Fuck-All doing it, but everyone has at least had the joy of asserting their opinion, haven't they?

And that's another day on the zodiac thread.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:14 PM

It's the Full Moon ☺ tonight, Little Hawk -- and a Penumbral Eclipse too (quite rare).

All on the fateful Eve of the Ides of March .... ooooooooooo ....

☺☻ Doo ♪ ^doo ♫ doo ♪ _doo    Doo ♪ ^doo ♫ doo ♪ _doo ☻☺

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 02:27 PM

Looks nice. Maybe we'll get a clear sky tonight and get to see it properly.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 04:22 PM

Well, if we can't the weather's not to blame. Apparently the best places to see tonight's eclipse are Africa and Western Asia.

The moon did look so very weird and wonderful last night though ... almost full, it was sailing behind thick swirling layers of orangey-gold-gray cloud and eerie, writhing veils of feathery black mist. At one point, the clouds slowed and a greenish ring formed around the hazy orange glow encircling 'her' bright face. A bright green and orange rainbow wrapped around the moon, sorta ... never saw anything quite like it before.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: labougie
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 08:23 PM

Can't help but agree with Little Hawk - some serious mutual masturbation going on here. Irrationals, eccentrics (and even nutters!) ought to be tolerated. It's only when they want to try and get their notions into SCHOOLS and thus into the mainstream that it becomes a completely different matter and should be stamped on. Otherwise, surely the order of the day is amused indulgence? Doesn't the phrase "Yes, dear" spring to mind?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 14 Mar 06 - 08:39 PM

Indeed, in a reasonably elightened society, one with a bit of social grace, eccentric or offbeat opinions are not just tolerated but valued and enjoyed by most, because they make life more interesting.

Who cares if you don't agree with someone else about astrology or UFOs or whatever it may be? Is it so awful that there are people out there who believe stuff you don't believe? No. It's not awful at all, and it doesn't make them idiots, it makes them interesting. It stimulates thought and imagination.

I like it a lot better than a Puritan village or a bloody dictatorship where everyone has agreed to believe in exactly the same things (or else).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:16 PM

OK, so the rational ones with social grace have set out their stall. As an aside, is it axiomatic that the weaker a position, the more hostile the reaction to having it satirised or questioned? An educated person being lampooned or having his judgement denigrated by a flat-earther doesn't need to get angry - simply pointing to the evidence (whether the evidence is accepted by the lampooner or not) is enough. A believer in astrology (or a theist) similarly baited has no evidence to point to and must perforce take it as an attack on their person/peer group, resulting in fear/anger and (normally enough) hostility. Make sense?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,the animal
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 01:34 PM

Can't believe people like Gervaise who doubt the mighty star signs. I'm am Arian, bit headstrong, impulsive and wonderfully strong and sexually inivitive. The other day I read a horoscope saying I was entering a period of dramatic change, financial reward, exitement, pain and ecstasy.

Next day I picked up a handsome redundancy cheque,went to the pub, got absolutely areseholded, met a buxom young wench in similar inebriated state, had great sex in local graveyard, broke my wrist, was arrested, when I woke up in plaster in the cells with a monumental hangover, the female goaler gave me an amazing blowjob in exchange for the remainder of my redundancy payment. How's that for an accurate prediction.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 02:00 PM

"Is it so awful that there are people out there who believe stuff you don't believe?"

It's not that they believe things that I don't... it's that they CLING desperately to medieval superstition and ignorance... Especially in the face of evidence to the contrary....

The stone around the neck of human advancement and enlightenment....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 06 - 03:54 PM

Clinton, believe me, it doesn't matter... ;-D

I know daylia, and she is no millstone around the neck of human advancement and enlightenment....   She's no threat to things like that at all. She has no significance in that regard. What she is, is a very good piano teacher and musician. Period. That is her useful contribution to this society, and it doesn't matter a rat's ass whether she believes in astrology or not.

It really doesn't. It's as unimportant as what you or I believe in. And lemme tell ya...THAT is unimportant, baby! ;-P We're not talkin' about people on whom the future enlightenment of society depends here, Clinton. Society does not need you to defend it from daylia's interest in astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 03:51 AM

(paraphrasing Clinton)
"Is it so awful that there are people out there who believe stuff you don't believe?"

It's not that they believe things that I don't... it's that they feed multitudes of supposed gurus who make a lot of money out of superstition ! :))

Un abrazo,
Andrés

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:31 AM

"I'm am Arian" said GUEST, the animal...

BURN THE HERETIC:

"The sticking point at the Nicene Council was a concept found nowhere in the Bible: homoousion. According to the concept of homoousion, Christ the Son was consubstantial (sharing the same substance) with the Father. Arius and Eusebius disagreed. Arius thought the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were materially separate from each other, and that the Father created the Son.

Arius and his followers, the Arians, believed if the Son were equal to the Father, there would be more than one God. The opposing Trinitarians believed it diminished the importance of the Son to make him subordinate to the Father."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 05:38 AM

Daylia "The premises (ie assumptions about astrology) that underlie your so-called "experiment" are fallacious to begin with".

How do you know the premises were fallacious? When I asked you about them directly, you said you didn't know because - apparently you are not an expert. You had no comment to make on the fact that other more expert astrologers seemed to think they were good premises for an experiment, and well based on the assumptions of astrology.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:17 AM

Bagpass, your grades here are still insufficient. You still fail to understand this very simple concept: "Astrology is not a prediction. It is a description.", and you just cannot seem to fathom how this might relate to that study.

ANd you call yourself a "scientist"??? What kind of prerequisites does your program of study call for? Do they let anyone in who passed kindergarten or what???

It's sobering to know that the scientific community is overflowing with people who think (??) like this. That's how we ended up with Hiroshima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, the destruction of the ozone layer, genetically engineered disease-causing foodstuffs, the never-ending procession of every more deadly new "super-viruses", the destruction of the rainforest, the annihilation of animal/plant species, the horrible prospect of a world engineered and overrun by a race of genetically-prefabricated super-clones who all look and think like the British Royal Family, Bill Gates or George Bush, etc etc etc.

And you people are terrified of 'gurus'???

Get a grip.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:26 AM

PS Little Hawk, my useful contributions to society are much more than just musical. I'm a parent, remember?

And everyone's thoughts and beliefs affect others, via the ripple effect.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:51 AM

Hiroshima - the military

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island,- the power industry. Don't you use electric power?

the destruction of the ozone layer, - CFCs, fridges, much of it. Going to do without? Or going to trash the scientists who discovered that it was a problem?

genetically engineered disease-causing foodstuffs, there aren't any, but there could be, especially if people shrug their shoulders and start spouting tripe.

the never-ending procession of every more deadly new "super-viruses",

Evolution driven faster by non- scientific (money driven) msiuse of antibiotics and antivirals.

the destruction of the rainforest, the annihilation of animal/plant species, - land greed and human overpopulation. You can partially blame science for that, it has enabled people to live longer. Back to 25% infant mortality in the first year?

the horrible prospect of a world engineered and overrun by a race of genetically-prefabricated super-clones who all look and think like the British Royal Family, Bill Gates or George Bush, etc etc etc. - I'd like to see the results of engineering done by the Royal Family (especially Phil).

Just pile everything you dislike in a big heap and blame science, then go off, enjoy every comfort you have as a direct result of the complex society you live in. But you want that under the carpet, and pretend it doesn't exist. Play at metaphysics, and parasite on everyone else's hard work in your ignorance. Let someone else do the years of study necessary to understand what the REAL problems are.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 06:57 AM

Look, Bagpuss et al, sorry bout the slights. Please know that I really don't care what, or even if you think about astrology, or anything else. And vice versa (or if you do care about what I think, that caring is sadly misplaced).

As patient as almost 30 years of getting paid to listen to, correct and improve upon other people's awful-sounding music can make a person, I'm losing it here. And it's not worth the aggravation.

Bye, all.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:06 AM

Play at metaphysics,

Ahhh .... sounds like quantum physics!

and parasite on everyone else's hard work in your ignorance. Let someone else do the years of study necessary to understand what the REAL problems are.

This will be explored in Chapter 4 of "Pothole Psychology". For excellent examples of this type of behavior, see your own posts here Paul. Bagpuss and TIA's too.

Will scientists ever take full responsibility for all of the horrible consequences of their activities? Maybe someday. But I'm not holding my breath. ANd rest assured till that day comes (if it ever does), there's always be plenty of minions about to help pass the buck and continue deluding the public.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:21 AM

If astrology describes a real effect, that effect can be measured. As to you saying that that astrology is description not prediction, I think you and I are using the words and concepts differently. I am well aware that you dont believe that astrology predicts peoples behaviour etc, but that it describes it. But if it can be described, there are inevitably patterns in the data that science could find. When science talks about making a prediction, it doesnt mean it thinks astrology claims to predict the future, but that astrology makes certain claims (and YES it DOES make claims - claims by astrologers supposedly more expert than you). If these claims are true they can be tested and verified. If they cannot be verified, then the claims are not proven and must be taken as the superstitious nonsense they are. If astrology doesn't make any claims at all, then it really has nothing to say.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:46 AM

Will scientists ever take full responsibility for all of the horrible consequences of their activities? Maybe someday. But I'm not holding my breath. ANd rest assured till that day comes (if it ever does), there's always be plenty of minions about to help pass the buck and continue deluding the public.

Deluding the public? It's what astrology is all about!
Of course you'd be happier without all those nasty scientists messing up your lovey fluffy make-believe world and pointing out the fatuous absurdity of your beliefs.
And doing nasty things like discovering analgesics so you can have your kids with less pain, and antibiotics so you don't die when you have an infection, and...
But no, they're all the work of horrible scientists. Like the computer you're using to post your drivel, lke the devices you use arund the house to give you time to believe in fairies and green-cheese mons, like the...*sigh*
But perhaps you really would rather live back in the dark ages where superstition and ignorance ruled, where irritants like Bagpuss could be condemned as heretics by the hysterical, and where you could peddle your absurd nonsense for the benefit of the gullible?

To recap what appears to be your position...
"*YAWNNN* lalalala. I'm not going to listen. I'm not going to post any more. Oh yes I am. I'm going to stick my head in the ground with my fingers in my ears. Lalalala. I don't care cos I've got lots of people who DO believe this tripe. Your posts are so juvenile and TIRESOME. I'm not going to listen. No, honestly, I'm not. See, I'm not listening. No. I.AM.SO.NOT.LISTENING! Am I bovvered? Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnn. You talk about apples, but I know oranges are made of cheese. "

And to paraphrase: Call yourself an astrologer. Do they let people in from kindergarten to do that sort of thing?
Oh. Clearly they do... In fact, I'll be one myself. Let me pull up a chair and look at the tables...
Ah yes. You were born under a cloud of ignorance, with pseudoscience ascendant. We can be spot-on about the time because your birth was induced as the ob-gyn was playing golf in the afternoon. Your umbilical cord was cut after you drew your first breath, but the nurse didn't log the time for another five minutes. And the clock was fast.
Hmm. I see clearly now. None of this matters yet all of this makes you credulous, gullible and overly defensive of an insecure position.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 07:59 AM

If astrology describes a real effect,

Still comin apart at the seams I see, Bagpuss.

Astrology does not produce or describe either "causes" or "effects", Bagpuss. Astrology is not a prediction. Remember?

I know it's been at least 3 minutes since you heard this last. Did it it fall out of your noodle again, so soon?

You might consider borrowing a needle and thread and sewing yourself up at the seams.

Try repairing the pre-frontal cortex first.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:12 AM

QED ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:24 AM

"Astrology does not produce or describe either "causes" or "effects""

So you would agree with the following statement: "The position of the stars at the time I was born has NO EFFECT on any aspect of the way I am or on any tendencies of my behaviour or personality".

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:36 AM

That's right, Bagpuss.

Say I'd taken a picture of you just after you were born -- specifically, just as you took your first breath. Would that picture "cause" or "effect" a single thing about your body, your mind, your life circumstances, or your personality?

No. It's just an (objective) picture of what you are at that moment, taken from the 'outside in'.

It's the same with the snapshot of the heavens that a natal chart provides. That snapshop displays all of your potentials and tendencies, be they recoginized or unrecognized, interpreted correctly or incorrectly, latent, or manifested, or in the process of becoming manifested - as your life circumstances and free will allow.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:41 AM

And if you consider how seemingly infinite the heavens really are, you may begin to understand the endlessness of the 'potentials and tendencies' that lie latent within every individual.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 08:46 AM

"That snapshop displays all of your potentials and tendencies, be they recoginized or unrecognized, interpreted correctly or incorrectly, latent, or manifested, or in the process of becoming manifested - as your life circumstances and free will allow. "

But surely, if a group of people is born with certain tendencies and potentials, then the manifestation of those tendencies will be more common that those born with different tendencies. Otherwise it really isn't a tendency at all, is it?

For example, I may be born with a genetic tendency to suffer from depression. Now all sorts of other things will affect whether this tendency is displayed in my life, like my family upbringing, negative life events, even the undefinable "free will". But still if you compare groups born with this genetic predisposition or tendency with those who do not have it, you will find more sufferers in the first group than the latter one. The genetic predisposition does dot cause me to have depression, I may or may not display it in my life, but the relationship is still measureable and therefore amenable to science.

You still havent addressed the question of more expert astrologers than yourself agreeing that certain things about astrology are amenable to testing. You seem so certain of your facts and your interpretation of astrology, that maybe now you suddenly decide you are an expert after all, and more expert than those I have mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:03 AM

I'm no expert, as I've said at least a dozen times here Bagpuss. Why are you hounding me? You said you have no real interest in astrology to begin with, it's all a bunch of hooey and you know it all already -- so why do you even bother to post here?

Certainly people born at similar times and places will also have very similar charts, and therefore very similar potential and tendencies -- so what?

I've heard that the greater portion (almost 90%?) of human DNA is identical to that of a chimpanzee. Some of us choose to develope and display those "chimpanzee" tendencies more than others, though.

You could have been born at exactly the time and in exactly the same place as a bedbug. If you were, that bedbug and yourself would have exactly the same planetary placements yon our natal charts. Does that mean you have exactly the same traits, the same 'pre-determined fate' as the bedbug?

Well, maybe .....    ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:10 AM

I am not hounding you, you choose to keep responding to me and I choose to keep responding to you.

Yes we have very similar DNA to chimpanzees, and that similarity is demonstrated through similarities in our behaviours, anatomy and physiology, compared to more distantly related species.

"Certainly people born at similar times and places will also have very similar charts, and therefore very similar potential and tendencies"

Therefore if we compare people born at similar times and places, there is an increased chance that they will display similar traits compared to people born far apart and who therefore are supposed to have different tendencies and potentials. Nobody said anything about them having to be identical, just that for astrology to have any validity, they should be more similar than two randomly chosen people.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:17 AM

Astrologers are in many ways very much like scientists. There are as many "expert" and contradictory opinions, views and interpretations within the (ancient and vast) field of astrology as there are within any of the more modern social "sciences". Some astrologers may indeed consider their field of expertise to be "testable", "amenable" to the scientific method. Others do not. And in the end, it doesn't really matter.

What matters is that throughout the ages, those who study it seriously and use it wisely find that astrology works very well indeed. With or without scientific blessings, approval, explanations or confirmation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

Here's a few more "scientific studies" for you to take a look at Bagpuss. I've waded through a couple of them, and I have yet to form an opinion about them either way. Studies of this sort were never really my cup of tea (I prefer first-hand physical investigation wherever possible), but they appear to be yours. So enjoy! And please remember, I'm not saying anything for or against any of the material at that site, other than it looks interesting! For example ...

Conclusion

Scientific astrology conducted according to scientific methods is only in its initial stages. Astrology suffers from being a taboo subject among many scientists, and people attracted to astrology are all too often seduced by the frequently non-rational elements of our discipline.

Correlations between profession and house position of planets

Lyon Lasson (1946)
        

Number

Mars in the charts of military career people   158

Moon in the charts of politicians      134

Venus in the charts of artists   190

Mercury in the charts of writers and orators   209

Saturn in the charts of scholars   66

Neptune in the charts of mystics   50



Correlations between profession and house position of planets

Michel and Francoise Gauquelin (1955) -- 12 or 18 sectors
        

Number

Mars in the chart of military career people   676

Mars in the charts of medical doctors   576 + 508

Venus in the charts of painters   906

Neptune in the charts of priests   884


Correlations between profession and house position of planets

Michel and Fran�oise Gauquelin -- 36 sectors -- [studies done in 1970 and 1984)
        

Sports champions    2089    432

Military career people   3046   630

Medical doctors   2552    969

Scientists 1095    1095

Painters   1473   217 (artists)

Musicians   866
        
Actors   1409    125

Politicians 1013   643

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:49 AM

It's the same with the snapshot of the heavens that a natal chart provides. That snapshop displays all of your potentials and tendencies, be they recoginized or unrecognized, interpreted correctly or incorrectly, latent, or manifested, or in the process of becoming manifested - as your life circumstances and free will allow.

Pardon me while I bark!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 09:58 AM

It's the same with the snapshot of the heavens that a natal chart provides. That snapshop displays all of your potentials and tendencies, be they recoginized or unrecognized, interpreted correctly or incorrectly, latent, or manifested, or in the process of becoming manifested - as your life circumstances and free will allow.

...and does the same apply to my cat as well? Could you do a reading for Pete? He'd absolutely luurve it!
And what about the tit by the front door. Does it work on the time she hatched from the egg or when the first cracks appeared? And the moth in my attic. Does she have two horoscopes - one for the hatching of the egg, and one for the metamorphosis from caterpillar to moth?
And what about the bacteria round my teeth (I am English, dont you know?)...could you do a reading for them? Based on binary fission, naturally.
Or is it just the species home sapiens that gets its existence mapped out by the random astral bodies visible from planet Earth? What do you reckon a horoscope would be like for the cute but argumentative little green folk of the planet Tharg?
Oh, so many question, and so few answers....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM

Oops, that should have read

"And please remember, I'm not saying anything for or against any of the material at that site, other than it looks like you might find it interesting, Bagpuss. For example ..."

Personal first-hand investigation interests and excites me to no end! On the other hand, other people's second-hand observations and conclusions, however "scientific" or supposedly "expert" they may appear to be, leave me at best very skeptical, at worst asleep (or wishing that I was ...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:12 AM

If you knew just enough to be totally ignorant, you'd realise that those charts ("Mars in the charts of military career people - 158") are totally meaningless. Correlation is a number that varies between 1 (totally related) though 0 (totally unrelated) to -1 (exactly the opposite). It never has values like 158.

To get a correlation, you'd need all the start signs of the military types, and plot them out. If you found that over huge numbers of people, they were all in, say, Mars or thereabouts, you'd be justified in claiming a high correlation. If very few appeared in Mars, that would be interesting too, as although it would contradict the astrological prediction, it would show a different prediction- that astrology had something in it, even though it was interpreted wrongly. But my bet is that the numbers would be spread almost evenly over the year.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

Gauquelin seems to have been the author for most of the studies mentioned, so I will point out the problems with those studies.

There are problems with Gauquelin's methodology. First of all he used the wrong numbers in some of the statistics (using N for number of traits rather than number of subjects) which inflated the findings. Using the correct statistics diminished the effects by a great deal. Secondly, he didn't use a blind procedure - the trait extraction was done by Gauquelin AFTER her knew the positions of the planets. He therefore could have unconsciuosly affected the results. From the astrology and science website: "Gauquelin accepted that a Gauquelin extraction bias had "very likely ... played a role in the [personality] studies", because computer checks of his manual results had confirmed the presence of Gauquelin bias in his sector calculations. But the calculation bias affected his results only slightly, so he felt it was "unlikely ... that [extraction] bias in the studies explains 100% of the results" (Correlation 10(2), 22, 1990). But biassing the translating of trait words (where there is always a range of English words for each French one) is easier than biassing the sector corresponding to a given birth time (where only a small proportion will be ambiguous). And in this case it needed only 1 in 12 translated traits to be biassed to produce the mean observed effect size of 0.10. So Gauquelin could be 11/12ths or 92% unbiassed, at first sight a level not worthy of suspicion, yet enough bias would remain to explain his results."

A replication was done by Ertel (1990) which avoided extraction bias, and no significant effect was found.

There are also apparently problems with older data caused by parents providing birth data and there was evidence that parents faked birth data to suit prevailing beliefs - the effects seem to disappear with newer data when the data is supplied by hospital records.

Astrologers seem very keen to quote those gauquelin studies which found effects, but never seem to mention his negative results...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

Yes Paul, I was being kind about the presentation of the results, as they are nonsensicle without the rest of the study.... But to be fair, gauquelin did find some positive results there (as well as some negative ones), but as described below, they seem to have been wholly explainable by artifacts and biases. Which will mean nothing to a non scientist astrology follower (please note how I manage to conduct this discussion without calling anyone names or making snide comments), so they will continue to blindly believe that this provides support for astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:33 AM

If you knew just enough to be totally ignorant, you'd realise that those charts ("Mars in the charts of military career people - 158") are totally meaningless. Correlation is a number that varies between 1 (totally related) though 0 (totally unrelated) to -1 (exactly the opposite). It never has values like 158.

Paul, thank you so much. Due to your kindness and goodwill toward me, plus your vast knowledge and lifetime of experience with this subject, be it known that I am now convinced. I'm throwing away all my astrology books, burning my natal chart, and I will never say a word like "Aries" or "Gemini" again in my life.

Yup. I just deleted the shortcut to Astrodienst from my desktop too. Halleluiah! What a relief. You've utterly convinced me, Paul! ANd I owe you my very life.

All HAIL to the mighty God Science!! May It continue to reign over us all, dictating our every thought, action, and imagining forevermore!! Oh, to be endlessly showered, every day, with the many, many comforts, the perfect knowledge and all the miraculous blessings of science and technology!

And oh -- the absolute BLISS of never having to be bothered to come up with original, creative, subjective, independent and unscientifically demonstrable ideas, opinions, thoughts or feelings again!

Someday, now that I've cast aside the atrocious, horrific shackles of astrology, I may even aspire to become just as wonderful, caring, convincing, friendly, insightful, brilliant, well-versed, knowledgeable, logical and highly original as, say, ClintonHammond or Gervase!

Hey, I might even make *Pothole Grade* before this earthwalk is over! YIPPPPEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 10:41 AM

Now -- shall we play some music instead? Wanna hear the first verse of my new "Jingle for the Single Finger (or - Ode to the Lonely Digit)"?

Oooo -- that reminds me --- I'm through with astrology for good (what a steamin HEAP that was, and thank you all so very much again for your wise and loving guidance) -- but I'm keeping all 10 of my fingers. I need every last one of 'em for music.

So I probably won't be able to join the Single-Fingered Ranks after all.
Oh well.   *sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:16 AM

This thread is truly about nothing more than the endless predilection of various self-important egos to assert themselves over other self-important egos whom they perceive as lesser than themselves or threatening to their identity (or both). If you would all just develop enough humility to swallow your pride and leave each other alone and SHUT the FUCK UP, it would end.

The relative merits of Astrology are a really trivial issue compared to a number of the more world-threatening issues daylia mentioned in one of her posts back there. I mean, REALLY trivial!

But what is NOT trivial to the people who keep returning here is their fucking ego victory, is it?

Think of the time you've already all wasted on it. Look at my time I am now wasting by telling you how I feel about it. It's not funny. These are our lives going by here, browbeating each other uselessly over our fucking prejudices and utterly vain opinions about stuff that doesn't matter at all anyway, just for a moment's petty satisfaction that, "Oh, I really nailed her THAT time..."

Good lord. It's pitiful is what it is. This forum is becoming a refuge of the mentally addicted and trivially inane.

Daylia, wouldn't it do your life more good to just ignore them all, go play the piano, take a walk, eat a nice meal? Pretty soon they'd all get bored and go away if you did. Competitive ego needs a response to feed on. If you give it none, it wanders off in search of something else to chew on.

But no, the horrid fascination keeps drawing you back, just like it does me, to view once again the auto wreck at the side of the highway that is this thread.

Curiosity killed the cat, didn't it?

(what joy for the troll that started the thread...way back when...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:21 AM

Just beacuse we share 98 % of our DNA with chimpanzees, it doesn't mean we are 98% similar to them. This figure should never have been dropped on to people without the background to understand what it means. I could teach someone how to read music, but unless they know it translates into sounds, it's meaningless, just like the Chimp DNA statement.

We share 60-70 % of our DNA with a potato. That doesn't mean it's 60-70% as intelligent as us, although some of the people round here contrdict that rather.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

Oh -- and I'm so grateful for all the useful new words (ie "cove", "bint", "tosh", "JFGI" etc) I've learned from the friendly, all-knowing and oh-so-very-convincing people on this thread.

ANd also for all the brilliant insights such as "The sun shines on every dog's asshole sometimes."

Might just give that last one a whirl as a meditation device (mantra) someday.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 11:29 AM

Daylia, wouldn't it do your life more good to just ignore them all, go play the piano, take a walk, eat a nice meal? Pretty soon they'd all get bored and go away if you did. Competitive ego needs a response to feed on. If you give it none, it wanders off in search of something else to chew on.

Yes it would, Little Hawk. ANd what you've said has been bothering me deep down for the last two weeks I've been posting here too. I usually don't bother even talking about subjects like astrology -- so controversial and 'unprovable' it's just a waste of time.
But there's a much deeper, more important and highly personal issue here I've been tackling here. One which, as you said, goes way beyond astrology. I'll tell you more sometime, if you're interested ...

Anyway, it's a gorgeous day out there too -- gonna call you in a sec, maybe we can get together this afternoon for some tunes, fresh air, and stimulating conversation? You're warned!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 12:35 PM

"your grades here are still insufficient"
There's the pot calling the kettle black....

" I really don't care what... you think about astrology"
Then bog off outa the thread.... Oh look... yer still here... still full of shit... and still too blinkered to see it....

" Deluding the public? It's what astrology is all about!"
Deluding the public into spending money on their crap...

"SHUT the FUCK UP"
You first, wanker

"a refuge of the mentally addicted and trivially inane"
You're here, aren't you...

"astrology -- just a waste of time"
Couldn't have said it better myself...   It's a total WOMBAT....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:22 PM

Now, on the other hand, the I Ching.....................

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: rock chick
Date: 16 Mar 06 - 04:47 PM

Do I believe, well now that a question....... answer... up to recently I was not so sure, but now, yes I completely believe, and if anyone is lucky enough to meet there soul mate, just check out their star signs with yours and the parallels, it can be very scary, and I bet there are things you would have a great deal of common in, so don't knock it, there is someone out there doing there homework. What ever is meant to be will be, even if it takes years to accomplish.

rc

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Anima
Date: 17 Mar 06 - 07:03 AM

"My life is the story of the self-realization of the unconscious. Everything in the unconscious seeks outward manifestation, and the personality too desires to evolve out of its unconscious conditions and to experience itself as a whole. I cannot employ the language of science to trace this process of growth in myself, for I cannot experience myself as a scientific problem.

What we are to our inward vision, and what man appears to be sub specie neternitatis can only be expressed by way of myth. Myth is more individual and expresses life more precisely than does science. Science works with concepts of averages which are far too general to do justice to the subjective variety of an individual life."

- Prologue, Memories, Dreams and Reflections, C. G. Jung, 1961

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Mar 06 - 05:40 PM

Well said, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 08:03 AM

Ivor, have you ever studied the work of Dr. Richard Tarnas? He's an American scholar who seems determined to raise astrology from the ghettos of ridicule and public ignorance to a subject more than worthy of academic, scientific attention.

Here's his introductory Introduction to Archetypal Analysis.

The basic principle of astrology is that the planets have a fundamental, cosmically based connection to specific archetypal forces or principles which influence human existence, and that the patterns formed by the planets in the heavens bear a meaningful correspondence to the patterns of human affairs on the Earth. In terms of individuals, the positions of the planets at the time and place of a person's birth are regarded as corresponding to the basic archetypal patterns of that person's life and character.

THe rest of the article explores the nature of archetypes, the question of determinism vs. free will, and why/how astrology works. And here's an excerpt from his latest book, which explores the historical correlations between the movement of the planets and major worldly events/upheavals.

Cosmos and Psyche (pdf format)

Just wondered if you've any insights to share about Tarnas' illumninating work, Ivor.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Proud as Punch!
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 09:29 AM

OK, astrologers. We have a new arrival - boy, born 10.13 am on March 19. Place of birth 52:06:56N, 4:38:55W.
Can anyone tells us anything about what he's going to be like (or might be like?)
SOOOO thrilled!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

Congratulations Proud as Punch! :-)   I'm so pleased for your whole family!!

I tried to enter the data you gave at Astrodienst (one of the very best free astrology sites on the web today imo), but you need to give the place of birth (town, country) as it wouldn't accept the lat/long you gave. Maybe it's not specific enough?

Click here, and enter the birth data to generate a natal chart. IF you're a newbie to astrology, click on the FAQ first for a primer. Or just click on "Astro Click Portrait" and/or "Personal Portrait" for a general analysis of the most important factors. THere's a lot of info re basic astrological principles in those explanations.

But PLEASE remember that a natal chart cannot predict what your new son will be like -- it can only reveal major "archetypal" patterns/types/correspondences, and suggest any number of ways these might manifest in his personality and life circumstances in the years to come.

Have fun! And congrats and best wishes again ...

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 11:27 AM

A Lattitude and Longtitude with minutes and second on it is very precise indeed.
At temperate Latitudes, that's accurate to about 35 yards, which should be accurate enough, given it seems to be happy with towns that are rather further than that across...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 03:53 PM

*daylia*. Hello again.

In front of everybody, I'll plead ignorance to Tarnas's work, tho' I've come across the name. I hope to follow that up - thanks.

Meanwhile, till next week, I'll carry on watching the show, and mulling on what goes on.

Carry on, people.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 04:08 PM

I gather you're enjoying all this, daylia...? ;-)

Chongo wants to know if you can do a chart for a chimpanzee?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 04:14 PM

On the subject of Richard Tarnas...

"Not only are 40 million Americans ravenous consumers of astrology and dedicated followers of horoscopes, but, Bobrick says, astrology is reappearing in academe."

Isn't that a wonderful example of the sad decay of academe, in these wilfully ignorant and stupor-stitious times.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Mar 06 - 04:36 PM

There's nothing new about this. You could be living in any past century, and you'd have the same stuff to bitch about, Clinton. You enjoy bitching. That's why you love this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Proud as Punch!
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:22 AM

But we don't live in a town! The lat-long is the only way to describe where we live as it's a farmstead. The nearest town is a few miles away, so I couldn't put that in as it would be inaccurate. Although 'London' is an option on that site you gave us, and that's 30 miles across!!! So does the place where born matter very much?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:20 AM

Proud as Punch, I entered London ENgland as the birth place, and this is the astro click profile for your new baby You can click on any of the symbols, signs, and lines (angles or aspects) for an interpretation of the placement of his sun, moon, planets.

For a printout of his chart and placements, click "Chart Drawing, Ascendant".   They would not do a "personal portrait" for a child under 6 years, though.

The lat/long the site gave for LOndon was 51n30, 0w18 -- pretty close, but not quite. Astrodienst is in Zurich - see how they use a different format? You could mess around with the numbers yourself and see if you can do better ...

Anyway, it would take more than a 20- mile difference to put his ascendant/house placements off by even just one degree, and the ascendant is at almost 3 degrees Cancer - so it shouldn't matter.

I feel so iffy that you are going to look at his chart while he's so new ... please be careful you don't form any preconceptions about him that may turn out to be self-fulfilling prophecies. THe chart only shows "archetypal patterns" and tendencies --- it's NOT the blueprint of his life by any means!

Congrats again and all the best,

daylia

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Proud as Punch!
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 08:27 AM

But as I'm about 235 miles West of London, what sort of effect would that have? Or is that close enough?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:21 AM

235 miles?? ooooo yes it would.

Is there not a small city or town closer to you? Try entering the names of the cities/towns/villages closest to your home - the nearest ones first. Surely they have more places than "London" listed for your locale!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:22 AM

Oops I meant yes 235 miles would put your house placements/ascendant off by quite a bit ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 09:45 AM

Dalia, try Verwick (small), or Cardigan (somewhat larger), Wales.


Place of birth 52:06:56N, 4:38:55W.

London is 51n30, 0w18 in above format 52:30:00N, 0:18:00W

That's over 4 degrees difference, so not close enough if the ascendent is within 3 degress of becoming another sign

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 01:21 PM

Thanks B, and thanks also to whoever changed the place of birth at the link below to Cardigan Wales (52n06, 4w40). Interesting to note the changes in the baby's chart drawing (Ascendant).

The ascendant is now 29 deg 19' Gemini -- still within one degree of the cusp of Cancer. Hmm ... you are very close to Cardigan though. Right, Proud as Punch?

Actually, this child's chart is similar to my own -- Gemini Rising, Sun on the cusp of Pisces/Aries in the 11th house, Venus in the 10th house in Aquarius. And here I was born Mar 24 in Vancouver Canada, decades upon decades ago. Interesting ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 01:25 PM

Hmm -- and I was born in the morning as well (8:35 am), which probably accounts for the similar ascendant/house cusps...

(sorry, still ruminating ... I can get lost in this stuff ...)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:41 PM

I can feel my eyes glazing over..... ;-D (Sorry, I just don't get astrology for some reason. Not opposed to it, just don't get it.)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,proud as Punch!
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 02:55 PM

Thanks, daylia, for going to the trouble to do that. Trouble is, I haven't a clue what the chart actually means. I clicked for the PDF and it gave me something called the 'natal chart' but it could have been in Ancient Greek for all the sense I could make. Is there a link I'm missing?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:01 PM

"I just don't get astrology for some reason."

That's because even YOU are too intelligent to swallow anything so full of crap

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

Whaddya mean "even", you cheeky bastard? You don't know dick-all about how smart I am.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

600!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:54 PM

"Whaddya mean "even", you"
EVEN you....

"You don't know dick-all about how smart I am."
I figure at least smart enough to -appear- to be an idiot on Mudcat...

Then again, maybe that's not an act....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM

Whereas you appear not to be stupid...but to be a rude, arrogant person who loves shitting on people any chance he gets.

Which is worse?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM

Being willingly stupid....

If John Nash had let his delusions win, he never would have won the Noble Prize would he? He'd be a blithering idiot by now.... maybe even prattling on about soul, past lives and astrology....

Maybe he'd even be out looking for Atlantis....


It's your decision LH... The delusions are yours.... what are you going to do with them?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:33 PM

No, Clinton, having a bad attitude toward people is worse. Way worse. Anyway, anyone who disagreed with you about anything at all would strike you as stupid, even if they had twice the I.Q. you do. It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of your bad attitude.

Everyone has delusions, you included. You just have to get to know them well first, and you find out that they do.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:56 PM

"anyone who disagreed with you about anything at all would strike you as stupid"
Not at all LH... Not at all... You're just hurt because I dismiss your psudo-mystical babble... It may as well be baby-blather...

" Everyone has delusions"
Only those who are trying to rationalize their delusions say that....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 06:51 PM

I'm "hurt", as you put it, by the way you express yourself, Clinton, not by your opinions. You heap contempt on people. You ridicule the beliefs of other people simply for your own ego satisfaction. It does no good for anyone to hear you do it. You spread bad vibes and annoyance. You seem to scour the forum for opportunities to show your total contempt for people who believe in something you don't. That receives what it deserves...contempt in return.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM

"You heap contempt on people."
No... I heap contempt on YOU....

"You spread bad vibes and annoyance."
aawwwwww... somebody call Whine-One-One and have them send a Whaaaaambulance for Wittwe Hawk....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:05 PM

I am by no means under the illusion that I am the only person you go after, Clinton. ;-P

I just happen to enjoy sniping back at you, and that keeps it going. You amaze me, because total absolute f*ckheads like you are rather rare on this forum, and I always wonder what nasty thing you'll say next to someone who doesn't meet your approval.

Now go ahead...say something similar about me, only point out the aspects you like to focus on...that I'm sooooo sensssssitive...oooh!..,.and whiny...oooooh!...and delusionary...and a space cadet...just not a real tough, down-to-earth realist like you...goodness no. What a man. My, my.

How young are you, Clinton? You act kind of young. Reminds me of Junior High, your kind of one-upmanship and picking on people all the time. Junior High was full of sadistic pricks like you. That's why I love you so much...it's the memories.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:59 PM

This link works, Proud as Punch. If you click on any of the symbols, zodiac signs, black or red/blue lines (aspects) you'll get the interpretation for that astrological element in a pop-up window (you have to allow pop-ups on your browser, but not to worry. I've never had a problem with spam yet on that site).

For instance, I clicked on the sun symbol (at the top, just below the 11 - meaning the 11th house) and the pop-up window tells me:

Sun in the Eleventh House

You are very social and enjoy being with friends rather than by yourself. You try to find out and emphasize what you and someone else have in common, instead of getting caught up in differences. You are a team player who knows how to make the best possible contribution to the workings of the group. You are quite capable of being a leader, because you understand what is best for all of you, not just yourself, and you are able to get others to work with you for group goals.

You are also an idealist with high hopes for your life.

Your most positive trait is your concern for those who are close to you, as well as for people in general.

Sun in Pisces

You are a very sensitive and emotional person who quickly picks up moods and emotions from other people and makes them part of your own. This trait makes it very easy for others to hurt your feelings. Because you have the ability to put yourself in someone else's place, you have an exceptional understanding of other people's needs. Whenever possible, you try to help others, because it makes you feel good about yourself.

Very often you like to go into your own private fantasy world and think about ideas that mean something only to you. Just don't spend so much time there that you lose track of what is happening outside in the real world.

You may be somewhat shy, because you feel you have to trust people before you can really open up to them. But even though you are shy, you do need other people, for without them you feel lonely, even in your own private world.

Sun Square Ascendant   

The problem you will have to resolve is that if you pursue what you want in life, you may not be able to get along with others. Others may seem to resist your every effort, so that to get ahead you have to cut yourself off from relationships.

But this is only a test, through which you can learn to be yourself honestly with others.

Even if you make a lot of mistakes early in life, as your life goes on you will develop a strong personality and learn to set your own goals. And by pursuing your own goals, you will win people's respect.

Sun Square Pluto   

You must learn to be very careful how you deal with others, especially people in positions of authority. You tend to get involved in personality conflicts in which you have to prove your strength or suffer defeat. These conflicts often arise without your understanding how they came about. Others often misunderstand your actions, which puts them on their guard.

As you get older, you will probably be quite ambitious, and you will work very hard to get ahead. Do not expect to have an easy time, however. Others will continually force you to prove that you are good at what you do. If you can keep trying against all odds, you will probably achieve quite a bit in life."



And the Sun is only one of at least a couple dozen "astrological factors" ... so happy reading Proud as Punch, and all the best to mother and baby too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 08:42 PM

Sorry that should have read "For instance, I clicked on the sun symbol (at the top, just above the 11 ..."      

aarrgghh      flippin mercury retrograde       for 7 more flippin days too

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM

What always amazes me in astrologers has been demonstrated by Daylia here too, namely the argumentative double moral:

In one post she claims that scientific methods not based on personal experience are worthless to test astrology, in another post she cites statistics (however uncomprehensible in the way she displays them) when they seems to support astrology. One should think that if her first argumentation is correct, she also should not quote what she considers supportive evidence, for the way these data are gathered are completely identical in supportive or unsupportive studies (one counts hits and misses and compares them either to chance or, better, to controls). If her use of supportive statistics is taken serious (my personal preference, of course, I love discussing evidence), then arguments along these lines should not be treated the way she does when she considers the results unsupportive. I see no consistency at all in the way she deals with evidence except the 'consistency' that she dismisses negative evidence and quotes supportive.

That's the Amos feint as I call it after the champion. Amos quotes supportive evidence along the quite normal scientific lines for parapsychological phenomena as long as there is no challenge of this evidence. When his evidence is challenged on methodological grounds or with counterevidence he says that the whole scientific apporach is not valid on that field. That always amazes me in such an otherwise intelligent debater.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 05:58 PM

(and you wonder, Wolfgang, why I bowed out of this awhile back..*grin*) I cited my set of logical and operational problems with the way the discussion was going about 4 times in a row, and got huffy and sarcastic replies, along with a couple of 'straw man' remarks...but no attempt at refutation...or even any evidence I had been heard..(well, except for the infamous 'pothole' metaphor..☺)

It's fascinating to read a bit at times. though.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:36 PM

Yup. Entertaining, informative -- hey, even creatively inspiriting inspiring. Ahhhh .... see what I mean? A couple more very *very* special phrases for ♫ Jingle for Single Finger (or Ode to the Lonely Digit) ♫ are presenting themselves right now, as we speak! Ooooooo gotta grab my guitar and try 'em out ... and dedicate 'em to you guys, while they're hot. ttys!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 01:27 AM

Yonder comes the "proof" brigade...doo-da, doo-da
Yonder comes the "proof" brigade...oh, doo-da, day!

My, such seeeeeerious people. Will they ever find proof of any of those mysterious things that gullible New Agers, mystics, romantics, poets, and religious people believe in? One wonders, yes, one wonders.

Aliens, reincarnation, "God", the soul, angels, the zodiac, miracles of all sorts....so much to keep the proof brigade arguing and objecting to things they are sceptical of. Love, telepathy, psychic healing...STOP! in the name of the proof brigade!!! Put down that wand, recant from thy unscientific and unsubstantiated beliefs, lest we bury thee under a barrage of logical objections and quotes from science journals that can bore the balls off a Cape Buffalo. Avaunt ye pagan wretches! Thou shalt be henceforth banished from the world of scientific rationality and made to wander as a wretch in the unproven wilderness, scorned and spat upon by engineers, M.D.s, accountants, sex therapists, and other representatives of the sacred order of empirical PROOF!

Oh yeah. If it can't be PROVEN it isn't real, and it isn't worth talking about or believing in, and we will harass you until you stop talking about it and believing in it. Such things shall not be tolerated nor allowed to be simply enjoyed by anyone, because the world must be as the Proof Brigade says it is and that's all there is to it. We have the AMA and CalTech on our side, so don't mess with us.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:13 AM

Aliens, reincarnation, "God", the soul, angels, the zodiac, miracles of all sorts....so much to keep the proof brigade arguing and objecting to things they are sceptical of. Love, telepathy, psychic healing...STOP! in the name of the proof brigade!!! Put down that wand, recant from thy unscientific and unsubstantiated beliefs, lest we bury thee under a barrage of logical objections and quotes from science journals that can bore the balls off a Cape Buffalo.

LOL! Lookie here, LH ... first you bore 'em. Then if -- and ONLY if - your peers approve (empirically), go right ahead and beset and besiege 'em (scientifically, of course) till sooner or later behold! More scientific blessings in the making ...oh bliss!!!

"Asymmetrical scrota, bulls' penises and date rape by an ostrich: this year's Ig Nobel tour was a risque business, writes Kees Moeliker ..."

HEre's my personal favorite "Ig Nobel" research paper. Reading it at bedtime works quite well as a sleep aid too - even helps inspire creative dreaming.

An Astrology Chart for Bacteria.

    By Karen Hopkin, Ph.D.
    Journal of NIH Research, Washington, DC
    Photos by Tim Hazzard, Ph.D.
    Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, Portland, Oregon

Editor's note: Photos of all twelve signs appear in the original version of this article in AIR 3:6.

Astrological science holds that the differential monthly positioning of the stars and planets controls human mood (DSM-IIIR),1 personality (Goodman, 1972),2 and even fate (Reagan, 1982).3

But what of the daily variations in the location of the star that is responsible for all life on earth-the sun? Might this simple diurnal cycle affect the lives of more primitive, shorter-lived organisms, such as prokaryotes? If the relative hourly positions of the Sun and Earth do influence bacterial fate, a sample horoscope for the common laboratory bug, Escherichia coli,4 might read something like this. Numbers indicate time of day (am or pm) when a bacterium was born...."

Exciting stuff, eh?    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:35 AM

People who believe in astrology are morally inferior to those who do not.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:43 AM

Omigod! THe omniscient Paul has spoken again!! QUick, quick -- do the whole human race a big *big* favour .... carve those precious words deeply into the nearest slab of (fossilized) mammoth dung!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:57 AM

Hey, Paul...I see your tongue poking so far into your cheek it looks like you are hiding marbles in there...☺.

(I, personally, use all the spare mammoth dung I can find for filling potholes!)

(off for 3 days of music in the mountains, lest anyone think I just post & hide..*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:15 AM

Well I thought I was part of the truth brigade, but clearly I'm not. I only care if their supestitions and beliefs cause probelems for the outside world

I really don't care if people choose to believe in God(s), Horoscopes, or that Microsoft is really a huge conspiricy to drive the world mad, so long as they don't let their beliefs get in the way of other people trying to deal with the verifiable world.

If, due to concern over her soul, a 13 year old girl is prevented from having an abortion, then it may be good for her in the next life, but is unlikely to be good for in this one.

Evolution happens, but many people choose to deny this as it does not fit with their unverfiable belief. How do you get them to finish their course of anti-biotics? They stop taking them when they feel well, and they've just created a new Anti-biotic resistant strain. Now, thanks to them, I can't be cured when I catch it.

People can talk all they like about their beliefs and values, but when they start to impose them on others, as they 'know' it's true, then we have a problem.
Nobody feels the need to impose Gravity on everyone else. It's true, we feel it, and can measure it. Love also, we know is true, and we can feel it. It can't be measured, but we know it's there.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:21 AM

Music in the mountains? Good for you! Have ♪ fun ♪ then, Bill!

Just watch you don't drown in your Potholes, or strain that ♪ Lonely Digit ♪ too much -- (but hey, any new strains for ♪ Jingle for the Single Finger ♪ will be taken into consideration ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:24 AM

Wow, that's strange -- where did those characters come from?? In the preview they showed up like this ... ♪

Oh well. Not to worry. Let's just blame it on the stars or something!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:43 AM

Don't forget to bring your crystal with you Bill, you may be wanting to realign your chakras or something.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:15 AM

B, all these controversial subjects people love to argue about are perfectly verifiable - just not through objective, materialistic (and very limited) scientific methods and techniques.

So what??

I easily 'verify' quite a few of them to my own satisfaction every day of my life. So do billions of other people. That's why I love life so much!

A world-view based only on the hypotheses of science may prove to be just peachy for some of you, but I find it so very constraining and impoverishing -- and I do enjoy luxury.

It's a Taurus trait.   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:20 AM

Me, I'm just the last day of Taurus, so I'm not nearly so full of bull..☺ (kind of a CUSPidor, so to speak)

(bobad...got my chakras surgically removed a few years ago, they were swollen, and impinging on my aura. I feel SO much better)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:33 AM

LOL! Your vast knowledge of and experience with vital energy work, chakras, auras etc is so impressive, Bill!   ;-)

That's kind of like saying "I got my heart removed a couple years ago. It was swollen and impinging on the rest of my body". LOLOL ....if you want to avoid being beset by your own Bull ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM

"got my chakras surgically removed a few years ago, they were swollen, and impinging on my aura. I feel SO much better"

LOLOL

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:27 AM

PS   Proud as Punch, if you're still checking in here I'd love to hear how the new baby is doing ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

The only religious and/or spiritual people who don't believe in evolution are extreme fundamentalists, Bunnahabhain.

I mean, hell, I've known hundreds or thousands of people who had spiritual beliefs, and virtually all of them believed in evolution too. So what's the conflict? Physical evolution and spiritual evolution work pretty much the same way...in tandem, in fact. They are different aspects of overall evolution.

The bodily forms evolve. The spiritual consciousness evolves. It all works as one integrated process.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

I think spiritual evolution works rather differently from organic evolution- while the body evolves by gene inheritance, the mind is memetic (1). So the biological functions are subject the darwinist development- genes don't read back the results of the individual organism's lifetime experience- they can be modified, but not in a purposeful way. Whereas the mind/ soul/ spirit undergoes much more of a lamarckian process. We can incorporate our own experiences into received ideas, and pass on the modified version- that's what makes the most developed animals, and particularly humans, such powerful learning machines.

But we are equally not fully in control of our own meme set. Some current thinkers suggest a parallel to the "selfish gene"- just as from the gene's point of view(2), it is its own survival that is the important thing, so the meme has a life of its own- some memes are more contagious than others, and whole communities can be suddenly swept up by a rampant meme. Just as with mutant genes, this is almost always damaging to the host organism.

I thought of this recently, listening to a radio program about the Serb/ Bosnian war. The correspondent described Serbia at the time as having an "atmosphere of evil". The circumstances favoured the propogation of the idea that to do dreadful things to the "enemy" was not just necessary or acceptable, but a virtue in itself.


(1) A meme is a vague sort of thing at the moment- sort of a unit of idea. The whole thing is a bit like talking about evolution between Darwin coming up with it in 1859, and scientists realising that Mendel's genes were exactly what was needed to explain evolution, sometime in the 1930s.

(2) A metaphor. Genes aren't conscious in any way. Memes are not viewed as conscious either- though they are the building blocks of consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:26 AM

There's an extensive collection of articles and studies re Astrology and Science at this link. The articles I've perused so far seem credible (albeit skeptical), and very informative. I can't link to the individual articles though -- click "continue" and select the ones that interest you from the list.

Here's a quote from the article "Astrology as Religion" by David Hamblin. I think if fits quite well with the interesting topic of "spiritual evolution" as discussed above by LH and Paul.

It also gives his interesting first-hand insights into the difficulties and obstacles facing those who attempt to study astrology 'scientifically' ...

"From his letter in Astrological Journal 32(6), 406-407, 1990, with later postscripts.

Abstract -- The author, a former Chairman of the UK Astrological Association, spent much time testing astrological claims but found no evidence in their favour. Eventually he gave up reading birth charts but retained his interest in astrology. He argues that the spiritual dimension is a necessary part of human existence, and that for many astrologers, astrology is a religion rather than a science. It enriches their lives (and the lives of their clients) in the same way that other people's lives are enriched by Christianity. So why not allow astrologers to practise their religion in peace rather than constantly press them to turn it into a science? Even if astrology isn't really "true", it is still a wonderful thing, a fantastically complex and beautiful construct that draws our attention to the heavens and makes us aware that we are a tiny yet still significant part of the universe. Most astrologers are affected by this, and have a quality of beauty in themselves.

... When I first came into astrology from an academic background I was very keen on research, and I spent a great deal of time doing little research projects on my own, trying to prove (to my own satisfaction) a correlation between particular astrological factors and particular personality traits or occupational characteristics. The pattern was always the same: for the first fifty (or maybe a hundred) charts I would seem to be coming up with very exciting results, but as I increased the size of the sample the effect would fade away, until by the time I had looked at (say) two hundred charts there would be no correlation whatsoever ... If astrology was true in the way that astrologers claim that it is true, then the simplest and most unsophisticated piece of research would be able to demonstrate a correlation between (for instance) Ascendant sign and personality traits. Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way.

... I believe myself that the religious or spiritual dimension is very necessary for the enrichment of human existence, and that the development of this dimension necessitates the acceptance of (or belief in) certain truths which have not been (and cannot be) scientifically demonstrated ... After all, what would happen to astrology if it was proved beyond doubt that there is a connection between planetary positions at a particular time and events on Earth occurring at the same time? It would be taken over, not only by science, but by politics and big business. It would become part of the "system" from which so many of us long to escape. It would do great harm, because of the way in which it would be used by unscrupulous people in search of profit and power. It would lose its magic and its capacity to inspire. How much better that it should remain one of those things (like life after death) that are never proved but remain tantalizingly possible, elusive, just out of reach, offering glimpses of a universe that lies beyond our ordinary experience."


Hamblin's concerns about astrology being hijacked by the scientific/political/economic/military "elites" at the expense of the rest of humanity are, unfortunately, well-founded and realistic.

Leave astrology alone, I say! Are there not enough other ancient repositories of human wisdom and inspiration for scientists to milk, dissect, debunk and destroy? As Keats said ...

"Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven;
We know her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things,
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine‹
Unweave a rainbow . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:35 AM

Daylia, could I suggest that you might like to read "Unweaving the Rainbow" by Richard Dawkins? it is a reasoned response to Keats' assertions which might interest you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

Actually, I was going over some of Dawkin's work just this morning, PF. I'll google for "Unweaving the Rainbow" --- thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

S'ok!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

And I guarantee you, PF, that no matter what Dawkins (or anyone else) says, I, for one, ain't gonna be unweaving any rainbows anytime soon. Leave those rainbows in peace too, I say!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM

Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found."
-- Miguel de Unamuno

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:55 PM

" Even if astrology isn't really "true", it is still a wonderful thing, a fantastically complex and beautiful construct that draws our attention to the heavens and makes us aware that we are a tiny yet still significant part of the universe. Most astrologers are affected by this, and have a quality of beauty in themselves."

Well said, BUT it is only part of the truth. Astronomy reveals the beauty of the Universe much more realistically, while opening all doors to imagination and enrichment of the soul. Or are we potholes unsensible to Love, Faith, Beauty, Romanticism ? Don´t you, Wolfgang, feel emotions ? Don´t we love people with different beliefs and education ?

I don´t think that the debate should be centered on beliefs and the world of emotions. That is the terrain where all astrologers want to lead us to, in order to "demonstrate" that science doesn´t have all the answers. No news. Science search for the answers, does not establish them.

There´s only one thing I'll never do for an astrologer or UFO or paranormal beleiver or "alternative" doctor: PAY them for their services (which are widely available)

(Oh, no! I´ve mentioned alternative medicine! Who will save us now??)

Un abrazo a todos,
Andrés

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 01:37 PM

Every form of medicine is an alternative...to some other form of it. What is conventionally accepted, however, varies widely from place to place, and that is dependent largely upon cultural notions...and existing hierarchichal power structures. There are a number of forms of medicine which are considered normal and conventional in Europe or Asia, for example, but are not in the USA...or are even illegal in the USA, despite having gained wide acceptance in equally civilized and advanced societies elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

Romance in stars by RIchard Dawkins

He opens with the following enticing lines

"Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should see it as an enemy of truth, says Richard Dawkins, author of 'The Selfish Gene'. Why, he asks, do so many of us indulge in these pre-Copernican dabblings which are nothing short of wicked fraud?

We should take astrology seriously. No, I don't mean we should believe in it. I am talking about fighting it seriously instead of humouring it as a piece of harmless fun... Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles."

About half way through the article, he admits

"I must make the usual defence against a charge of scientific arrogance. How do I know that there is no truth in astrology? Well, of course I don't know. I can't prove that there is nothing in horoscopes ...."

And finally concludes with

"Why, actually, are professional astrologers not jailed for fraud?"


Well, that's about enough propoganda for one day. And rainbows are still safe, by me!   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

Why are politicians not jailed for fraud? A much more vital question.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:31 PM

Why are politicians not jailed for fraud? A much more vital question.

They frequently are, along with leaders of cults, and everyday, run of the mill con-men. But not frequently enough though....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:55 PM

No, no, Bun.....I mean ALL of them, not just the odd few here and there. ;-D   Politicians commit far more serious and evil forms of fraud than astrologers do, in my opinion, because #1 they know they are lying (whereas many astrologers sincerely believe in what their charts indicate)...and #2 their lies have a far more damaging effect on society and the ecology of the planet.

Astrology is a trivial matter. Politics is not.

And Dawkins needs desperately to be introduced to "the Aristocrats" and given the full treatment. He is an obnoxious man in the grip of an obsession, in my opinion, a fanatic, a crank, a pest, a self-important pompous ass, a character assassin, and a royal pain in the butt for humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:58 PM

There is an annoying tendency among some scientists to believe that they, by virtue of their superior knowledge, ought to be the final arbiters of the human experience. The statements about the beauty of scientific truth seem to be nothing short of an effort to make science into religion and art, all rolled into one--

I don't buy it though--there is no scientific "truth"--every generation of scientists introduce a new set of theories that supplant and discredit the last generation--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 08:54 AM

Yes. The problems created by equating science with truth, and treating it like some onmiscient God (which it most definitely is not) are now presenting a horrific, ever-escalating and all-encompassing threat to this planet and every living thing on it, such as never seen before in human history.

From The Universe in a Single Atom: the Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama:

"One of the principle problems with a radical scientific materialism is the narrowness of vision that results and the potential for nihilism that might ensue. Nihilism, reductionism, and materialism are above all problems from a philosophical and especially a human perspective, since they can potentially impoverish the way we see ourselves.

For example, whether we see ourselves as random biological creatures or as special beings endowed with the dimension of consciousness and moral capacity will make an impact on how we feel about ourselves and treat others. In this view many dimensions of the full reality of what it is to be human -- art, ethics, spirituality, goodness, beauty, and above all, consciousness -- are reduced to the chemical reactions of firing neurons or are seen as a matter of purely imaginary constructs. The danger is then that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction.

It is difficult to see how questions such as the meaning of life of good and evil can be accomodated within such a worldview. The problem is not with the empirical data of science but with the contention that these data alone constitute the lefitimate ground for developing a comprehensive worldview or an adequate means for responding to the world's problems. There is more to human beings and to reality itself than current science can ever give us access to."

Click here for some of the latest exploits in the "Science of Love" - an ongoing attempt to "prove" that "love" is nothing more than the product of certain brain chemicals ie dopamine, vasopressin, oxytocin. Apparently, according to science, human beings "love" in exactly the same manner as the voles they studied. Other current scientific interests re love include investigation how the smell of your 'love' object's dirty armpits (ie phenomes) arouses one's motivation to 'love'.

See how science - in tandem with the rest of Western culture -- reduces "love" to nothing more than sexual attraction and romantic infatuation and attachment! "Love" is a much broader concept in the Buddhist worldview - meaning unconditional compassion, goodwill and kindness toward all living things. Buddhists see infatuation and romantic 'love' (??) as afflictions of the mind, based on selfish gratification and often resulting in unhealthy attachments, cruelty and suffering.

Oooo ... I drifted quite far afield here though ... I'll stop while the stars are still on my side!    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 09:08 AM

PS Apparently some students of science are prone to a more comprehensive view of "love" though - Love in the Brain

Clara begins, of course, with the standard scientific focus on stinky t-shirts and brain chemicals, but at least she concludes with

"Although it is your partner's brain that enables them to act or say those things that trigger your brain to respond with those chemicals of attraction and attachment, everyone's brain is individual and makes up an individual "you" and that unique and special experience that we call love. Although this does not rule out other areas that many believe play a role in love, such as the soul, it shows that the brain does play a vital, if not ultimate role in all aspects of love and that this role is extremely complex and unique."

Sheesh -- I wonder if they flunked her for daring to entertain a concept like "soul"!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 06:08 AM

Don´t you, Wolfgang, feel emotions ? (Escamillo)

Sure, but has this to do with the question whether a testable set of predictions is right or wrong?

M.Ted,
when you speak about science you speak very obviously about something of which you have close to no knowledge. That's a pity. I wouldn't even know where to start to correct your misconceptions. You confuse facts with theories, research methodology with statements about the environment. Science is completely different to a religion in so many respects. If a scientist would start to sound really like a religious person (some do, I know) she does something wrong.

I know that awkward feeling you have that scientists sometimes tell you that your very personal experiences are wrong from my personal experience when doing experiments about human errors of memory, perception and thinking.

If I induce a memory error in a person some of them get really emotionally upset when I tell them they are in error. I know they are for I am in control of the situation and can if necessary replay the situation. Some of them even believe a replay to be a fake for they rather trust their recollection than me. There are some visual illusions so strong that some students never believe me when I say that their perception in a situation is in error. I do it sometimes on purpose without showing them how it was made. I think they can learn something about human nature by noticing that their personal experiences and recollections can be fooled. But asome will never learn that and very< deeply don't want to. I can't help that. A mind has to be at least a tiny bit open to get some things in.

An extreme case which all people accept are phantom limbs. If you had lost your leg, your nerve cells will still represent you as whole and you will have feelings(itch and all that) in a nonexistent limb. That feels so real that some even believe the limb is there (in another sphere) and it itches out there. You are the expert on your personal feelings, so I'd never tell you it should not itch because it isn't there. However, you are not the expert on what happens in your brain and your nervous system you are but the recipient of a final impression. And if you are fooled by your nervous system it feels completely real to you (and you are the only expert about that feeling) but you are not the expert (in some situations) on whether what you feel corresponds to reality or not.

With a certain disturbance in one part of the brain (don't recollect which) people lose the body feeling. We normally perceive the 'I' somewhere behind the eyes or in the breast but that feeling can be lost permanently or (more often) for a short time. In extreme cases people see themselves as a doppelgaenger. The experience feels(according to many reports) as completely real and compelling. But it isn't true in another sense of the word.

For most people and in most situations it does not matter. But sometimes it matters and therefore psychologists can learn (some won't) to distinguish between feelings, experiences and reality. That does not mean not to take the experiences serious. It is true to them and insomuch it has to be taken serious but a real feeling or experience may have in extreme casses no correspondance in reality. Does it matter what the truth is? In many case not.

So if someone believes to have been abducted by a UFO it doesn't normally interfere with the daily functioning of that person (so it would matter on a worldwide level if we would believe that to be true). She may go on believing that and noone is affected in any negative sense. If a bad therapist implants a wrong memory to a client that she has been abused as a child by her father the objective truth matters.

So, yes, there are people who are much better experts than yourself under which circumstances your experiences, feelings, memories are more likely to have no correspondance in reality. Whether you have these feelings or not, you are the expert for and noone else.

So if someone tells me I recollect such and such I can never (yet) tell whether that report about a recollection is wrong. I could not say no, you don't have that recollection for I believe they have. But I may be in a position to tell them that the recollection they experience may have no factual basis.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:40 AM

So, yes, there are people who are much better experts than yourself under which circumstances your experiences, feelings, memories are more likely to have no correspondance in reality. Whether you have these feelings or not, you are the expert for and noone else.

So if someone tells me I recollect such and such I can never (yet) tell whether that report about a recollection is wrong. I could not say no, you don't have that recollection for I believe they have. But I may be in a position to tell them that the recollection they experience may have no factual basis.

This is discussed in the article Star Wars at the site I posted yesterday (Astrology and Science -- click continue, and select the article from the list if you like).

The author points out that astrologers tend to focus on first-hand experience, on the benefits of astrology (how it helps them and helps their clients) and claim (rightly so!) that "Astrology has great value - therefore, it works!"

In the meantime, scientists look at second-hand empirical 'evidence' and protest (rightly so!) that "Astrology is not based on fact, therefore, it does not work!" UNfortunately, in most cases neither astrologers nor scientists realize that they are talking about two different things -- benefits versus facts -- which are not mutually exclusive. And so the shouting match goes on and on ....

The article also suggests that the ongoing media hype over the ongoing argument, plus the ridiculous, distorted presentation of astrology in the media every day (ie the sun-sign horoscopes in every newspaper and magazine that are so obviously silly, overgeneralized and inaccurate) destroys any chance of reasoned debate. A valid point!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM

So, yes, there are people who are much better experts than yourself under which circumstances your experiences, feelings, memories are more likely to have no correspondance in reality.

Wolfgang, are you saying that subjective human experiences are somehow less "real" than the objective, veriable, measureable variety? I'm curious -- under what circumstances would you find it either necessary or helpful to inform someone else that their own personal first-hand experiences, feelings and memories "have no correspondance in reality?"

What an impoverished, limited view of "reality" - but certainly, you are most welcome to it. Trying to impose it on others, however, is destructive and just plain arrogant, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 08:28 AM

PS -- I don't mean the obvious by that question -- it could be helpful to explain to a child lost and dying in the desert, for example, that the "oasis" they "see" in the distance is nothing but an optical illusion. Might save them some steps.

But how is it helpful to tell someone, for example, that the correlations they experience between planetary transits and personal moods/inclinations/daily life experiences are not scientific "facts" and are therefore not "real"??? Such observations and experiences are very "real" indeed -- and delightfully so.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM

K, here's an opportunity for Wolfgang to inform me, expertly of coure, that my personal observations, experiences, feelings and memories are not factual, and therefore not real.

Yesterday, I hosted a performance class for my students. MOst of them are competing in the local music festival over the next couple weeks, so the pressure is definitely on. Well, yesterday's class was one of the easiest, most relaxed and enjoyable ever. I found myself unusually affectionate with and appreciative of them -- even the less accomplished, more unco-operative students who usually frustrate me to no end got nothing but endless patience, kindness and smiles from me. ANd their performances were very pleasing on the whole, too -- afterwards, a couple of the parents even took a minute to tell me how much they appreciate my efforts, complimenting me, telling me what a (favorable) difference they see (or rather, hear) between how their children sound now compared to when they took lessons with someone else, how much more they enjoy their music these days. One mom even gave me a big hug on the way out the door!   :-O

Well, believe me I was walking on clouds after that -- the rest of my day just sparkled it seemed. And last night, I checked my "Personal Daily Horoscope" at Astrodienst. Here's what it said ....

"Things of beauty *
This is a time to take the initiative in all kinds of relationships, especially love relationships. If you reveal your love for someone at this time, it may turn the relationship in a new direction.... The desire for beautiful things is strong during this time, influencing you to buy things of beauty, such as clothes, cosmetics, objects of art, things to beautify the home, or works of literature and musical recordings. Surround yourself with beauty and take advantage of the lighter and more pleasant aspects of life. Under this influence you are affectionate and want to be with friends. You will be in a good mood and able to enjoy almost anything that comes along.

Interpretation above is for your transit selected for today:
Venus Conjunction Venus exact at 07:19
activity period from 24 March 2006 to 26 March 2006."

Venus conjunct Venus, huh? :-) Ooooo .... love, love me do! And as for yesterday's experience, well! How very unfactual, unscientific, unrealistic, and yet amazingly accurate of me (and Venus).

Ok Wolfgang -- lock and load!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 02:22 PM

Sh-booom, sh-booom, da-dum, da-da-dum...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:39 AM

Did anyone watch Derren Brown last night? It was a great example of the Barnum effect at work.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 04:14 AM

K, here's an opportunity for Wolfgang to inform me, expertly of coure, that my personal observations, experiences, feelings and memories are not factual, and therefore not real.

What Wolfgang said was, ( to paraphase) that your feelings of something are real to you, but are may or may not be based on reality.

Your feeling that the stars give insights about you is real to you. What we have been trying to say is that this is not because they provide a concrete and testable prediction, but that you can interpret your chart, to tell you what you know. It may only be telling you what you already know deep down, and the language used allows it to be applicable to very many situations.

What an impoverished, limited view of "reality" - and how are the wonders of the universe any less special if they run according to a handful of basic laws. The more we know, and can question, the more we understand, and find some amazing link between things we never expected. Is it too much to ask these wonders to be real?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 07:32 AM

Your feeling that the stars give insights about you is real to you. What we have been trying to say is that this is not because they provide a concrete and testable prediction, but that you can interpret your chart, to tell you what you know. It may only be telling you what you already know deep down, and the language used allows it to be applicable to very many situations.

WEll, that feels right, B!    :-)   Sometimes those daily horoscopes don't seem to apply, but more often than not they do. And the 25th was a great example of that -- I just realized that all my posts here that day were about current scientific investigation/hypotheses of "love". All while, unbeknownst to me, transiting Venus was conjunct "her" position in my own natal chart - in the 10th house, too. THe house of work and career. And look what happened at my oh-so-loving performance class yesterday!    :-)

Oooo ... way to go, Venus -- you absolutely beautiful thing!

(hat e to disappoint the scientific community but apparently smelly t-shirts were never her style anyway)

how are the wonders of the universe any less special if they run according to a handful of basic laws

Well, does the idea that love is nothing more than the product of body odours, firing neurons and brain chemicals sound as "special" (or even as realistic) as say, a romantic sonnet does? Do you find the current scientific view of "love" wholesome, meaningful, inspiriting? Or even just satisfactory??

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:47 AM

"Did anyone watch Derren Brown last night?"

----
Is Derren Brown a BBC program? More info, please.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 09:59 AM

ANd my question is, once again -- how are subjective experiences any less "real" than empirically reproducible/verifiable ones? WHy do you think the wonders of human life and consciousness must conform to the rigours of Western scientific investigation to be "real"?

My observations and personal experience with transiting Venus this weekend are absolutely real. To me, to my students and their parents (a couple of whom were still beaming this morning in fact - and so was I! :-) and to anyone who reads my posts here on the 25th as well.

YOu can hypothesize about the "accuracy" of that experience being due to my (limited) knowledge of astrology - but I didn't even know about that particular transit till yesterday.

And that's why I usually check the transits/personal daily horoscope only when the day is over (if I feel like checking it at all, that is) -- to avoid the "self-fulfilling prophecy" thing and in so doing, to directly observe and discover more about how the position and movements of the different celestial bodies correlate (please -- not predict or influence or cause or effect, but correlate!) with my own moods, attitudes, and personal daily life experiences. And my ongoing studies, observations and discoveries never fail to amaze and delight me - that's why I love astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:00 AM

Well, does the idea that love is nothing more than the product of body odours, firing neurons and brain chemicals sound as "special" (or even as realistic) as say, a romantic sonnet does? Do you find the current scientific view of "love" wholesome, meaningful, inspiriting? Or even just satisfactory??

Well, all I really know about our scientific understanding of love is that we have only just started to make any real headway on it, and it is a huge subject. People are incredibly complicated, and react to all sorts of things. I don't see why both brain chemicals and sonnets can't be part of the answer. We can think amazing thoughts, on the most intangible things, but they are happening in a mush of cells.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:05 AM

Found Derren Brown's web site. Reminds me of the Amazing Randi.

By the way, from Wikipedia, the search on Barnum effect brings up the 1948 demonstration of this effect by Bertram Forer. You can see a real audio demonstration of the effect using horoscopes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect Click here

"The Forer effect (also called personal validation fallacy or the Barnum effect after P. T. Barnum) is the observation that individuals will give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically for them, but are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people. The Forer effect can provide a partial explanation for the widespread acceptance of some pseudosciences, such as astrology, graphology and fortune telling."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:13 AM

The Barnum Effect also appears on an interesting page listing cognitive biases under the heading social biases.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

One of my favorite titles on the list - Lake Wobegon effect.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:30 AM

That's right, B. Sure, emotions and brain chemicals go hand in hand, but those chemicals are only one very small part of the whole human picture, as you pointed out.

Then there is the dangerous problem of reducing the whole gamut of human experience, and indeed human beings in general to nothing more than the random products of biological evolotion, of the elements (chemicals) that make up our physical bodies.

That's what science would have us all believe. And I, for one, simply refuse. It's easy, I suppose, to mistreat or enslave or torture or rob or kill or otherwise harm oneself and others if human beings are understood only through Western science's construct of "reality" -- ie human beings are random products of evolution, nothing more than biochemical machines.

WHy should I bother to treat some conglomeration of chemicals with compassion or kindess, after all?

On the other hand, if I view myself and all other people as priceless and unique "souls", with exactly the same rights to have their needs met and to be happy / free of suffering as I do, well ... I'll be a lot less likely to cheat them or drop bombs of any kind on them etc.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:32 AM

Oops -- GUEST above is me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 10:56 AM

Whether you (or Barnum) like it or not, Alice, the personal daily horoscope readings at Astrodienst are much more meaningful and accurate than those typically in found in newspapers etc. Why? Because they are, in fact and in reality, based on one's complete and unique personal natal chart and not just on the sun-sign shared with 1/12 (approx) of the human population.   

It doesn't require alleged "effects" or "scientific hypotheses" to observe or understand or explain this. IN fact, I've discovered the differences in horoscope techniques simply through direct personal experience and observation over the years. Do the same, and you'll eventually learn all about it too. Till then, you can devour scientific articles and journals till they're comin out your yin-yang -- and you'll still know diddley-squat about astrology.

Except that you know you feel sooooo smart when you attempt to sling mud at it. And with the bulk of the scientific community supporting you, too! Oooo ... the OmniScient One of the 21st Century is still on your side to date, after all - what more could you ask for!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM

It's exactly the other way around about love and body odors. Love is a state of consciousness, involving profound belief and that belief alters one's reaction to everything.

When you have decided you're in love with someone, it's THEN that you like the way they smell (no matter how they smell). Love transforms the way you react to outer stimulus. For example, you may have always thought you didn't like some nationality very much....let's say...Germans or Italians or English or whatever....then you fall in love with someone who IS German or Italian or English...BOOM! All of a sudden you realize for the first time in your life how totally wonderful the Germans or the Italians or the English really ARE. You become entranced with them. (smile) I have experienced this. So have many others.

You may have always hated Hawaiian shirts. Then you fall in love with someone who wears them as a fairly regular thing, and all of a sudden you realize how great Hawaiian shirts are (until you fall out of love with the person...then you start hating Hawaiian shirts again, only more so).

It's so ironical how subjective we are...how our thoughts control our reactions.

You can be around someone and notice they have some body odor, and it's not too pleasant. You move away a bit. Six months later, for whatever reason (emotional vulnerability? opening of the heart? the right time?) you fall in love with that person. It can happen quite quickly, you just have to be in the right frame of mind, and ready to. Well, the weird thing is, now their body odor smells great! You just want to get closer to it.

That's how love works. It alters one's perceptions of reality.

The really ironical part of all this is that a couple of years later the relationship may have fallen apart...and you notice that, hey, YUCK! They DON'T smell good at all anymore. Sad, isn't it?

The smell of a person is NOT what attracts you, the fact that you ARE attracted in the first place is what makes you think they smell so good.

*****
One possible exception to what I'm saying here: If you're one of those types who is basically attracted to virtually ALL women, though, let's say, which can happen....or all men, which is a bit rarer, then they will probably fairly much all smell good to you.....I've seen some people who think that way. They appear to be pretty much happy with just about anything of the opposite sex, within certain limits of age and appearance. I don't get how they can see it that way, but they do.) *****

It's all subjective. As is love. It's a thought pattern, and it changes everything, every sense perception, every observation, to suit its own present levels of belief and its own interpretation of reality. And that is why "love is blind". That is why love can so easily and quickly turn to hatred or hostility when the powerfully positive thought that brought it forth vanishes and is replaced by fear, disappointment, dismissal, avoidance, blame, rejection.

Thought is the king of our reality. Sense perceptions are merely the menial servants trudging around the castle, carrying plates and sweeping up for the royalty.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 27 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

Wolfgang, assure you that I do have a fairly good understanding of science.   My point is simple, and it is that science does not offer absolute truths, in the deeper sense of that word--science, by nature,is a process that gathers information and continually reinterprets the body of information that it gathers.   "Truth", in the broader sense, has moral, spiritual, and aesthetic elements to it that are outside of the domain of science.   Science may inform these elements, but, it cannot dictate them, any more than they can dictate science.

As to your work, it is interesting, but not necessarily a very new idea--all of art is an illusion, a deliberate deception of the senses--events or objects are contrived to evoke real emotions related to real experiences--

You pride yourself on confounding your subjects by causing them experience things differently than they actually happen. Artists are much better than you, in that their subjects often prefer the simulated reality--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:00 AM

... love can so easily and quickly turn to hatred or hostility when the powerfully positive thought that brought it forth vanishes and is replaced by fear, disappointment, dismissal, avoidance, blame, rejection.

LH, I think these problems arise when sexual attraction/excitement/infatuation/romance - and most importantly, the unhealthy mental/emotional attachments produced from these - are mistaken for "love".

Relationships based only on these are doomed to fail - see the 50-60% divorce rates in Western countries.   Everything in Nature changes; relationships evolve and go through cycles too. And when the inevitable begins to happen --- the rose-colored glasses come off,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      hormone levels drop back to normal, the kids are screaming, the creditors are pounding at the door, and you find yourself hiding underneath that big ole pile of smelly t-shirts on the laundry room floor to get away from it all, well ... so much for "love".

Western style, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:25 AM

M Ted, now we are getting to the nub of the matter. Science, as you correctly point out, offers little in the way of absolute truth. The trouble is that NOTHING else does, either. So in the end, we are talking about what we mean by truth. There must be thousands of definitions, ranging from an unattainable ideal a la Plato to what's most convenient for the state or the individual.

What science has on offer is an attempt to approach a particular kind of truth- a correspondence between causes and effects, that we can be reasonably sure of (within the limitations) because we can repeat it time and again. When it's right, it works every time, and we can be reasonably sure that it reflects something true about the world in the conditions we exist in. And by "true" we mean that it appears to be something underlying, that would remain true even if people ceased to exist.

Now, the challenge for other kinds of truth is to say what are the limits- is artistic truth (beauty?) something that is independent of people, or is it confined to humans, to some human cultures, to sub- groups within those cultures? How can we tell if taking action on the basis of that truth will help or hinder us in different circumstances? By religious truth do we mean something in the same sense as a scientific truth or a metaphor, an artistic truth? And today that last question is anything but hypothetical.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:16 AM

Science may inform these elements, but, it cannot dictate them, any more than they can dictate science.

Yes. And if in turn, the scientific community could be less arrogant and more amenable to being duly 'informed' by the basic tenets of religion/spirituality (ie love and compassion), it's purposes, investigations and accomplishments would finally be directed toward the easing the suffering and betterment of all humanity (not to mention this planet and all the other living things we share it with) instead of just the wealthy and powerful political/economic elites, we would all be enjoying a much safer, kinder and different existence.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:17 AM

Just posting to get rid of that scary number - you never know.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 10:49 AM

Wow, I've stayed out of it for a long time now, but that last post is plain nuts. I believe Daylia gets her info on science from "evil scientist" movies. Scientists are as (or more) deeply involved in easing suffering and bettering all humanity (and the planet) than anyone else. Where in the world do you get the idea that scientists are the lackeys of the wealthy and powerful "elites"? If this ridiculous assertion were true, why has the Bush Administration (can we agree that they *are* the "wealthy elite"?) worked so hard to suppress science and stifle scientists? Guess whose team you have placed yourself on!

You claim arrogance and bias on the part of science-minded people, yet you have spent hundreds of posts basing science, spouting bigotry and claiming insult while dishing out more insults than anyone.

Oddly enough you are doing this with a keyboard (little bit of irony there), and blasting the science-minded people who haunt this *music* forum as not having emotions, or not appreciating art or beauty (even more irony).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:14 AM

"Scientists have a special responsibility, a moral responsibility, in ensuring that science serves the interests of humanity in the best possible way. What they do in their own specific disciplines has the power to affect the lives of all of us. For ;whatever historical reasons, scientists have come to enjoy a much higher level of public trust than other professionals.

It is true, however, that this trust is no longer an absolute faith. There have been too many tragedies related either directly or indirectly to science and technology for the trust in science to remain unconditional. In my own lifetime, we need only think of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, or Bhopal in terms of nuclear or chemical disasters, and of the degradation of the environment - including the depletion of the ozone layer - among ecological crises."

And that's before we even consider the daunting social, political and ethical implications of genetic research.

Today's scientific community does not serve the best interests of all humanity or of this planet. Scientists serve the interests of the political/economic/military/scientific "powers that be" who pay their salaries, give the grants and thereby control and direct their research.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:27 AM

The quote above is from the Dalai Lama's The Universe in a Single Atom; the Convergence of Science and Spirituality.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:33 AM

And who is that a quote from?

Whoever it is is quite correct that none of the problems listed would exist if we had simply remained in the Middle Ages or earlier. Too bad about those pesky plagues. Oh well, we'll burn a few witches and fix that right up.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:38 AM

Cross-posted ... thanks for the citation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:45 AM

Hi-tech tragedies and atrocities like Hiroshima will be a lot less common when scientific activities are informed and controlled by basic human spiritual principles (ie love, compassion, respect for human life and for all of Nature) as well as by logic, rigorous methodology, wealth and political power.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM

Hmmmm .... how bout leaving "wealth and political power" right out the equation? Sounds even better! Difficult, though ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:04 PM

Agreed about the wealth and political power. Scientists struggle with where to get funding, and whether they can reconcile the source with their personal ethics, all the time. If you want to read about one particular program for funding science research Google ISTC. It's a program set up under Clinton to fund research into humanitarian technologies by former Soviet military scientists (not only a good thing to do in general -- swords into plowshares et. al), but it keeps desperate scientists with families to feed, who know how to make terrible weapons, out of the employ of the bad guys, and funded to help humanity. Quite spiritually informed I'd say. And there's nothing like passing a bottle of vodka and a guitar back and forth with the guy who built the targeting system for the missiles that used to be aimed at my hometown.

So, I'm still not sure why you think scientists are not informed by love, compassion, respect for human life and for all of nature. If you really believe this, I am afraid you do not have enough (or any?) scientists as friends. You should. Your perception of them as people is waaaaaaay off. As for the logic and rigorous methodology part, if you're attempting science without these, you won't last long.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:27 PM

You can't lay all the blame for scientific tragidies at the door of the scientists.

For example, when Chernobyl exploded, there was very little done for several days, despite the scientists and engineers pleadings. The politicans though that a major response to it would create a mass panic, and be an admission that Communist engeneering was not as good as that of the West.

With mistakes of that magnitude, there is more than enough blame to spread round evrybody.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 12:50 PM

You are correct Bunnahabhain: Likewise for Bhopal and the ozone layer - but in those cases, it was corporate interests that steamrolled over scientific pleading (no doubt aided by buying politicians).

And genetic research????? Most of us owe our lives to genetic research. The world's population is far above what agriculture could have supported even a few decades ago. Put down that ear of hybrid corn before you bash genetic research. Oh, you might say the solution is population control? Science will be involved there too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 01:32 PM

Then there's the exciting prospect of an entire new industry based on genetic research and manipulation. Can't you just see it all now ....

Order your genetically enhanced custom "Designer" Zygote today, and save 50% on your first 10 litres of hormonally enriched growth-enhancing *HY-CORN INFANT FORMULA!"

Or how about "Need a new kidney, heart, spleen? No more waiting and hoping! Come, view and select your donor from our pristine laboratories today! Our critically-acclaimed selection of healthy living semi-humans are created, designed, cloned and maintained using only the very latest in genetic technology to meet *your* personal medical needs ..."

*sigh*    maybe a vodka with my scientist friends would make everything look brighter. But I doubt it. I can't stand vodka.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 04:38 PM

...or scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:02 PM

I think that it is possible to question whether that stupendous growth in population, caused by the intervention of science in agriculture, is a good thing, TIA--Abundance of food increases population, but food is not the only thing that the increased population requires to sustain and thrive--furthermore, an expanding population demands an expanding food supply--as Malthus observed, food supplies grow arithmetically, while populations grow geometrically--

Malthus correctly proposed that when educated, the population would be able to find ways to produce more food--the problem is that the more food (and water) that is available, the faster the population tends to grow--

And it is much easier to increase food production than it is to restructure the social and economic systems to accomodate exponential growth.


We have used science successfully to increase agricultural output, but it is still an open question as to whether we can accomodate the increased, and increasing, populations that have resulted--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 05:12 PM

put rats in a cage...give 'em plenty of food....let 'em breed.....watch the results. Ain't pretty.

I know, humans are not rats, but the slums of Calcutta can give you a feel for what 'might' happen on a wider scale.

All that love and compassion and other 'spiritual' values become luxuries when just surviving the day is an issue.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:38 PM

I agree with the ultimate goal of population reduction. But if they is here and keep on coming, we gots to feed 'em (... or eat 'em according to Swift).

Anyone think population control can be done without the products of science?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 07:48 PM

Yes. Nature will do it. Just wait and see.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 08:42 PM

I hate to break it to you, TIA, but non-scientific solutions have been devised and applied. Population Relocation/Dispersal, Mass Starvation, Ethnic cleansing, genocide, infanticide--nothing that science would want to lay claim to--

This is not to mention the more passive "Solutions", such as isolating poor populations in places such as squalid slums or flood plains, where they are at the mercy of the forces of nature.

If science has a compelling way to circumvent any of this, it would be much appreciated--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 09:43 PM

Science does have ways...but those ways are not encouraged by the $ySStem, because the $ySStem is run by people who are rich and want to get even richer.

This is why television, for example, is largely a mediocre cultural wasteland used to flog commercial products when it could have been used as a great educational and artistic medium that would lead humanity to higher understanding and a better society.

The people running this society are the people with the most money. They (with a very few exceptions) will only fund that which is immediately profitable to them. This means that science will seldom be used for what it might best be used for.

Not a good situation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Mar 06 - 11:54 PM

Little Hawk is correct..science could deal with the problem, if people would allow it. There are ways to provide birth control techniques on a large scale, but that is considered interfering with nature or meddling in private matters or 'playing God' or any one of 27 other reasons not to cooperate....and $$$ are ALWAYS involved. Many industries and businesses rely on *growth* (i.e., housing) and would not care to have more dwellings than people.

Sadly, Little Hawk is also correct that population WILL be controlled eventually, even if we make no effort to do it ourselves.
Famine, pestilence, war, riots, pollution can reduce the totals pretty fast. We have seen it happen locally...(Ethiopia, Sudan...etc..) but no one seems to be willing to extend the analysis of the situation to global parameters.
   Not today, not tomorrow...not even in the next 20-30 years(probably).....and most likely not in my lifetime. It doesn't make me feel real confident about the situation in my son's old age, though.

Why can't folks get it thru their skulls that because it has NOT happened, it won't happen? We haven't HAD 20 Billion people before...and we don't know what this Global Warming thing will develop into. What does it take to get people to err on the side of caution?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 12:07 AM

It horrifies me when I contemplate the rather near future, Bill...the next 20 to 30 years. I think we are in very, very deep shit, and it's all because of a worldwide system that basically cares only about economic growth and money. It's like a cancer, and it's expanding out of control, and no one seems to have the will to do one single honest thing about it. The people at the top are either very stupid, or insane, or in a state of denial or despair...or they just don't give a damn.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 06:18 AM

Not breaking anything to me...

LH and Bill d are spot - on.

It's a choice between letting nature do it (a nature that has been f-ed up by humans btw) inhumanely, or allowing science to help do it humanely. I've posted elsewhere on Earth's long history of population crashes (mass extinctions - of which we are in the midst of the largest/fastest ever).

In either case, it's not scientists who are at fault. It is (as LH and Bill D have put it) the insane/stupid/greedy asses at the top of the $y$tem - who have worked damn hard to ignore, suppress, distract from, or demonize the science.

Depressing thread drift innit?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 06:44 AM

Here -- these'll bring us back on track ...


When I heard the learn'd astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

                Walt Whitman, 1865


On a starred night Prince Lucifer uprose.
Tired of his dark dominion, swung the fiend
Above the rolling ball, in cloud part screened,
Where sinners hugged their specter of repose.
Poor prey to his hot fit of pride were those.
And now upon his western wing he leaned,
Now his huge bulk o'er Afric's sands careened,
Now the black planet shadowed Arctic snows.
Soaring through wider zones that pricked his scars
With memory of the old revolt from Awe,
He reached a middle height, and at the stars,
Which are the brain of heaven, he looked, and sank.
Around the ancient track marched, rank on rank,
The army of unalterable law.

      George Meredith


Just one more, for Venus ...


'Twas noontide of summer,
And midtime of night,
And stars, in their orbits,
Shone pale, through the light
Of the brighter, cold moon.
'Mid planets her slaves,
Herself in the Heavens,
Her beam on the waves.

I gazed awhile
On her cold smile;
Too cold---too cold for me---
There passed, as a shroud,
A fleecy cloud,
And I turned away to thee,
Proud Evening Star,
In thy glory afar
And dearer thy beam shall be;
For joy to my heart
Is the proud part
Thou bearest in Heaven at night,
And more I admire
Thy distant fire,
Than that colder, lowly light.

   Edgar Allan Poe

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:20 AM

Iiteresting to see the Dalai Lama (unwittingly) described as "medieval"! He was born in "medieval surroundings", quite literally, to a peasant family who still plowed their fields by walking behind their cattle. ANd he grew up in a pre-technological society, always captivated by the few intriguing trinkets of Western technology his predecessor had left behind -- a telescope, a watch, a movie projecter, a car. But he was educated only as a traditional Buddhist monk, until his exile in 1959.

Since then, he has earned worldwide recognition not only as a spiritual leader for the whole planet, but as avid student of science and renowned scholar. He has studied extensively and developed close friendships with the creme de la creme of Western science -- ie David Bohm, George Thomson, Carl von Weizsacker etc etc. And he is currently working with the planet's top neuroscientists in an ongoing empirical investigation into the effects of Buddhist style meditation on the human brain. The results have been surprising, significant and promising to date.

More info here --- The Mind and Life Institute

"With the ever growing impact of science on our lives, religion and spirituality have a greater role to play reminding us of our humanity. There is no contradiction between the two. Each gives us valuable insights into the other. Both science and the teachings of the Buddha tell us of the fundamental unity of all things."

-- The Dalai Lama

Better late than never for the Western scientific community, religious fundamentalists, and the rest of humanity to lend him a respectful ear.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 07:26 AM

PS I've never come across even a single word from him about astrology, though. HA! No doubt he occupies his mind with much more important things ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 10:24 AM

do you suppose it's a sign that I had this spam in my email today?

"Subject: counterpoise hey piece at sagittarius!"

it then went on to say: " boletus. omega at penny or even twice as in bilinear.
castigate was at zomba when that happened inquisitive."

seems like I ought to pay attention, but I'm not sure of the hidden message.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 29 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

Awwww ... well, here's a much simpler hidden message to decipher then, posted in honourable recognition of the Mudcat *Lonely Digit* Brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 02:19 PM

My point is simple, and it is that science does not offer absolute truths, in the deeper sense of that word (M.Ted)

That's exactly the point where I agree and where we part (I just repeat Paul's point with my words, I know). I agree with the first half but I disagree thoroughly with the use of the word 'truth' in the second. It looks the same as it is used in science on the surface, but it is something entirely different, more in the sense of 'it feels true to me'.

I like the following quote of Einstein so much that I have it in my office:
One thing I have learned in a long life: That all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike—and yet, it is the most precious thing we have.

I think the "opposition" would agree with me up to the last couple of words and then we would part, but for me onyl the last couple of words make the thought complete.

M. Ted, I do not compete with artists because we have completely different aims in our work nor do I compete with writers when writing science texts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 02:21 PM

When I was looking for a site to copy that Einstein quote from to save me typing I also found this by him:

The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking

Wolfgang (agreeing thoroughly in particular with the word 'refinement')

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

"Truth is what stands the test of experience."

"Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind."

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."
   
-- Albert Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM

Perfect. Gotta love Mr Einstein.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM

Einstein is becoming like the Bible....you can find a quote from him to support almost any position...☺

Personally, I never saw much 'wisdom' in his Science/Religion comparison. It reads well, but has so many "yes, buts" in it, that it goes nowhere. "Science without religion is lame"??? Why? pooh!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 05:55 PM

Yeah, but you don't believe in King Arthur either, so your credibility is totally f*cked...not to mention your chances of survival for much longer. ;-P My offer of a safe haven in Canada still stands.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,William Shatner.
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 05:56 PM

It's the 700th post. Very cool. Thought I'd step in and say, "Hi". You're all doing a wonderful job.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 01 Apr 06 - 06:19 PM

"Science without religion is lame"??? Why? pooh!

Why? Hmmm ... well for example, the all-new ever-evolving Jingle for the Single Finger is great fun to play on guitar! Trying to play it with just one *Lonely Digit* cripples it, though. In a most empirically verifiable manner.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 09:19 AM

Hmm, just thought I'd check back,and the scent of humbug still hangs over this absurdly long thread.
We really haven't really got much further, have we? Still same the rush towards unreason and the Taliban-like rejection of the Englightenment from the astrology faction. It's almost beyond parody: "Ooh, those bad and wicked scientists; let's all listen to our inner dolphins and realign our chackras to give peace a chance, and meanwhile I've found a quote from someone famous, so it must be true..."
*sigh*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 09:54 AM

(ie love, compassion, respect for human life and for all of Nature)

All inventions of the Hallmark Greeting Card company....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:21 AM

Lovely morning, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:36 AM

Ahhh, see the illustrious stars this thread has attracted! Admiral Kirk, in appreciation of your interest and encouragement, here is your own personal natal chart. No more hiding behind your artificial media personas -- your unique, delicate and charming inner self is hereby revealed for all the world to ooo oooo ooooogle!

For instance, the key factors of your natal chart are an Aries Sun, Taurus Moon and Aquarius rising. Your appearance is demonstrated by Aquarius rising, often short and stocky. Aries energy is typical for male pattern baldness as well.

You have epitomized the phrase "Go where no man has gone before," and no wonder --- you are a living example of the Aries pioneer spirit. Adventure roles as a police officer also symbolize an Aries career choice, and your books also show this direction.

You also have Uranus in Aries. Uranus is the ruler of Aquarius, your Rising Sign. This Aquarian "flavor" speaks of your futuristic visions, your dream of bringing them into the present, and your interest in writing.

An abundance of fire energy (Aries) contributes to your warmth and charm. You are a special and unique individual, even if you do this it a little too well! And you have contibuted a great deal to Western culture.

We will always love you, Bill! And if you'd like to discuss your chart in more depth .... hey, and maybe even humour me with a live demonstration of the "Kirk Kiss" I've been pining away for since I was about 8 years old!! .... just beam me directly into your private quarters, anytime!

And yes, I do mean anytime!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:48 AM

"You also have Uranus in Aries."

Getting a little personal, aren't we?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 10:51 AM

Ooo ... the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced we are a perfect match, Admiral! I too have an Aries Sun and a Taurus Moon, and my Rising Sign is Gemini (an Air sign like Aquarius, except that Aquarius is "fixed" (ie difficult to change) while Gemini is "mutable" (ie constantly changing). Furthermore, I just did a synastry chart for us, and noticed that our Venus is in Aquarius!   Wow -- this indicates a great love affair, an absolutely beautiful and satisfying relationship, one which makes a striking impression on others. We'd make a star-studded couple I know -- so what are u waiting for. Beam me up, quick! ANd damn the torpedoes!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 01:30 PM

I feel a bad, bad headache coming on...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 01:39 PM

"you have contributed a great deal to western culture"
William Shatner?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM

Shatner has contributed much, no doubt about it. If you can't see it, too F-n' bad. ;-P

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:00 PM

Help is on it's way LH.Go to www.gallifreyone.com to learn how to access high culture in North America. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:04 PM

I didn't say he had contributed to high culture, now did I? I said he has contributed, that's all. You have heard of him, right? There's your proof.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:12 PM

I've heard of Mr Ed as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

Yes, but Shatner has made albums with stunningly original interpretations of famous tunes. Can Mr Ed say the same?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:17 PM

No but I bet Mr Ed would have made a better job of "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

Possibly. But would Mr Ed have had the sheer hutzpah to even try it in the first place? I think not. Shatner rules.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 03:33 PM

Leonard Nimmoy recorded a song about Bilbo Baggins.
That was crap as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: brid widder
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:06 PM

Astrology was given a boost today when everyone born under the sign of scorpio was run over by a horse and cart.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:26 PM

The Nimoy song about Bilbo Baggins is enough to drive people to throw themselves off cliffs like lemmings. It's almost unlistenable after a verse and a half. You want to kill whoever wrote it and arranged it. Unlike Shatner's stuff, Nimoy's is not bad enough or weird enough to be interesting on the basis of its very badness...it's just absolutely mediocre 100% dreck.

Nimoy, you see, could sing. Not terribly well, but he could stay on key and carry a tune. This consigns his stuff to the dreadful purgatory of songs that are seriously bad...but not BAAAAAD enough to be any good, if you know what I mean. Kind of like Danny Vinton, only not quite so professional-sounding.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:28 PM

Did DeForest Kelly record anything?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:29 PM

I don't think so. But...man! If he had... I bet it would have been awful.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:32 PM

CONSENSUS AT LAST!!!!!!!
Shall we let this thread sliiiide down the page or introduce (Sigh)Nichelle Nicholls into the equation?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:35 PM

She could have been half-reasonable, I think. What about the guy who played Sulu? He could have done quasi-Japanese Karaoke numbers. I bet that would have been riveting.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:38 PM

I'm holding out for Patrick Stewart's one man tribute to Led Zeppelin.
There's gonna be hell to pay when Daylia sees what we've done to her thread.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:41 PM

Nothing worse could happen to this thread than already has, in my opinion. (whatever way you choose to look at it)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:45 PM

Fair enough.Time I was thinking of turning in.G'night LH.
Watch out for Daleks.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 05:51 PM

Good night, PF.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 08:23 PM

If George Takai (Sulu) sang anything, it sure outa be showtunes! Or perhaps a Cher cover.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 06 - 08:26 PM

How about him doing "I Feel Pretty" from West Side Story?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 03:48 PM

Some may want to read the Einstein


science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind

quote in the context.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 03:53 PM

That's a great link Wolfgang.
Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 05:14 PM

Einstein's thoughts on that matter are very well expressed. Thanks, Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 06:23 PM

This thread has come a long way from the sun-sign beginning.

Personally, I don't demand that astrology be taught to anybody.

      "    , "   "   expect anyone to devote a lifetime to studying astrology (or anything else) before voicing an opinion.

I will keep quotations to a minimum, since someone objected to quoting, not an obstacle I've met before re astrology.

I have a high regard for science in principle - it, and its applications in medicine saved my life.

The thread throws up interesting speculations - where do we get our opinions? how much do we know about the subject? how do we deal with stuff from outside our normal stamping-ground? how much of what's knowable do we know? can we know only what is measureable? how does science deal, if at all, with whatever cannot be measured?

Some strands of philosophy point to ways we might create that which we claim to know about the world out there. There's even such a thing as the philosophy of science, which examines and tests the claims and methods of science.

I doubt if any of us can assert anything that would receive universal assent. Why even science contains disputes - over creation, consciousness, global warming, and much besides.

Surely a fundamental obstacle to clarity in the astrolgy debates (there seem to be quite a few) is that people are full of mysteries and the seemingly inexplicable.

I doubt if people, as people, in the round, are really amenable to usual scientific practices because we are not, in principle , open to the repeatability required by science. (Nearly quoted a Greek there,) Aspects of us are available to science - our bodies, our belief systems vis-a-vis social groupings. As individuals and groups, we are always at some point in our lives/histories, which we never return to.

And there will be nothing I can do about misrepresentation, misunderstanding, ignorance, bias, agendas, misreading, misinterpretation, red herrings.

It's quite likely to be true that 90% of everything is crap. I try not to decide on the value of poetry on the basis of the crappy poetry - Ted hughes and Frost and especially pound and Eliot would be very annoyed by that.

Finally for tonight (I've got to be up too soon), there are involved stories to be told about huamn potential and universal self-deception, and purpose of our lives, and our respective unique processes, and how we do or don't discover them.

i bow to anyone who considers themselves an astro-opponent in the spirit of Japanese fighters.


ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 07:50 PM

Apropos of Japanese fighters....what springs to my mind is the Ki-27 Nate and the A5M Claude, followed by the Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa and the Mitsubishi A6M2 Zero-sen. Then you have in fairly rapid succession the Ki-44 Shoki, the Ki-61 Hien, and the Ki-84 Hayate, and the Ki-100 Goshikisen. On the Navy side we also have the Mitsubishi Raiden and the Kawanishi Shiden and Shiden-Kai. At the tail end we have the mighty Kyushu Shinden, which only reached prototype stage in 1945. And that's only the single-engined fighters.

Aren't you glad you mentioned it? ;-)

As for Einstein's essay (which is wonderful) I think the most interesting thing to come out of it is something I have known for a long time, but had not yet articulated as well as he did. Modern science arose directly out of man's most basic religious impulses...which are the search for knowledge and perfection. Science is founded on the most noble emotions and intentions. It seeks to unravel and explain the greatest mysteries and unanswered questions of life, and this is exactly what motivates the religious quest at its highest level.

It should not be surprising that many of the great scientists were also religious people, because the one does not argue against the other, it arises directly from it.

Both science and a more enlightened approach to religion will find themselves very much at odds with cruder forms of traditional religion which do not seek answers to great questions, but merely lay down a plethora of rules and rituals from ancient books for people who do not wish to seek deeper meanings in life, but merely want to feel "safe" in some kind of organized group.

The traditional notion of a war between science and religion is, as Einstein suggests, foolish. The real war is not between science and religion at all...it's between a natural alliance of science and a more enlightened approach TO religion VERSUS the old fundamentalist religions which still attempt to maintain insupportable mythologies in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Science and advanced religion are natural allies. They ask the same great questions: What is life? Where did it come from? Where did we come from? What is our nature and the nature of other things around us? Why do things function as they do? How can we improve what we see around us? How can we achieve greater things? How can we be happy?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 09:18 PM

"It should not be surprising that many of the great scientists were also religious people, because the one does not argue against the other, it arises directly from it."

From Wikipedia:

Atheism is particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God". The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%; this number is 93% among the members of the National Academy of Sciences. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%.[9](See also The relationship between religion and science).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 09:33 PM

Those poll results probably depend hugely on how the question is phrased -- in particular, what might be implied by the word "GOD". I'm a scientist, and deeply religious, but do not believe in the GOD described by any of the major religions. So, a casual survey would immediately define me as an atheist. But, I do believe in a god (as defined by me).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 09:53 PM

Further to that, one does NOT have to believe in a "God" (an anthoropomorphic diety made in the image of man) to be religious...one simply has to believe that life itself has some sort of spiritual meaning and purpose...some sort of meaning and purpose that goes beyond mere survival to the embracing of higher ideals.

While it is true that the rank and file of present day scientists are likely to include a higher proportion of atheists than some other groups of people would, it does not alter the fact that many of the greatest scientists who founded whole disciplines in science and made historic breaththroughs in it have been religious people with strong spiritual beliefs.

I wasn't talking about the hangers-on here, the little guys in the labs, I was talking about the founding fathers of science itself. They had no trouble integrating the scientific approach with spiritual awareness, nor would anyone with a truly open mind, in my opinion.

Read Sri Aurobindo, read any of his books, then come back to me with a rebuttal. He was a brilliant person, well aware of modern science and absolutely in accord with it. He also became a brilliant spiritual teacher in time, although as a young man he was an atheist.

The two, spirituality and science, are not exclusive, they are not enemies, they fit together beautifully, like hand and glove. They are in assistance to one another, not opposed at all, except in minds that have already been made up after one superficial glance, one hasty conclusion, and no further intelligent analysis whatsoever.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 03:54 AM

There's no point in just changing the meaning of the word "religion". If you change "religion" or "Christianity" or for that matter "astrology" to mean "not what everyone always said it was, or behaved as, but something different", you simply need a new word for all that stuff (irrational belief in magic solutions to physical problems). But they were there first, they've got the word, and aren't going to let it go.

So by claiming to be "religious" when you don't believe the traditional claims of religion, you are simply muddying the water. And, I'd add, being too lazy, or too cowardly, to face up to breaking with the traditional forms. And, should any advances in the human condition come about because of more advanced views, making it all too easy for the traditionalists to tag along behind, and eventually claim any progress as their own. Note that the Church of England, truly reactionary up to the 1950s, is now claiming liberalism and tolerance as their own invention.

I'd say a religious point of view needs subscription to most of the following:

Major claims:

- The universe was created intentionally by a god or a group of gods.
- The individual human has a spirit which is a separate (if associated) entity from the body, and will continue to exist after the body's death.
- There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex.

This belief usually entails a number dependent claims, which are the ones that make religion both powerful and dangerous:

- The rewardable behaviour includes an acceptance of ordinances which have been transmitted, usually in the form of ancient texts, by that power. These include taboos on behaviour, usually sexual or trophic.
- It is desirable that the state should be structured to give those taboos the force of law.

Anything I've misssed out? Anyone claim to be religious without agreeing with most of that?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Gervase
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 06:03 AM

Defining religion has always been a problem.
Ninian Smart is acknowledged to have come up with some of the best defining criteria, but even his terms would come close to including Stalinism and Manchester United!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 07:44 AM

Thanks for the link, Wolfgang.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes ....

To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible....Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature..." (Einstein)

This is why, to date, science has always failed as a method of studying and investigating astrology. The scientific method cannot do justice to the seemingly endless number of complex factors at work in an astrological natal chart - some conscious and expressed (at least to some extent), others unconscious, latent, unexpressed.

I don't agree with Einstein that "religion" must give up the idea of a personal god, though. Human beings - even almighty scientists! - cannot know a thing except "personally" ie via their own physical senses (and technological enhancements thereof), emotions nad thoughts.

And I do wish Einstein had believed in the Paragraph!   8-[


" Major claims:

- The universe was created intentionally by a god or a group of gods.
- The individual human has a spirit which is a separate (if associated) entity from the body, and will continue to exist after the body's death.
- There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex."

I don't agree with any of that, Paul - except partially with the second one, even though it's incomplete. But then again, I'm not a "highly religious" person either.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 07:51 AM

There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex.

THe behaviour of the 'body/spirit complex', as you put it -- including thoughts, feelings, expectations -- IS the 'power which determines the future state' of that particular 'complex'. (Working within the constraints (ie properties and forces) of the physical universe which comprise and surround the 'complex', of course).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 09:19 AM

Dalia, I have to disagree with you post of 05 Apr 06 - 07:44 AM ( copied below)


Einstein was speaking of the weather, a chaotic system-ie one which will proceed in different ways depending on the exact conditions, but we can make certain forecasts with very limited infomation, but we need more infomation ( and processing power ) to do more.

If we say the weather will be the same tomorrow as it is today,we have a 50% chance of being right*, At the end of the second world war, forecasts were about 60% correct, and now are about 75-80% correct.

If astrology is a chaotic system, with a huge number of factors, then it should still be open to analysis. It may not be easy to do, but if the influences are real, they can be seperated and understood, to an extent, anyway.


* These are figures for Britian. I don't know about places with climate, rather than weather...



To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible....Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature..." (Einstein)

This is why, to date, science has always failed as a method of studying and investigating astrology. The scientific method cannot do justice to the seemingly endless number of complex factors at work in an astrological natal chart - some conscious and expressed (at least to some extent), others unconscious, latent, unexpressed.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 09:27 AM

If astrology is a chaotic system, with a huge number of factors, then it should still be open to analysis. It may not be easy to do, but if the influences are real, they can be seperated and understood, to an extent, anyway.

Well, astrology is no more 'chaotic" than anything else in the universe. I am looking forward to the day when the huge number of factors at play in a natal chart can be separated and understood. And I have every confidence that day will arrive - and hopefully sooner than later.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 02:16 PM

Paul Burke - Your version of "religion" is clearly one that derives primarily from the Judeo-Christian traditions.

The Judeo-Christians do not have a world monopoly on religion.

If you think that religion, by definition, requires an anthropomorphic God figure, your idea of religion is artificially restricted to a somewhat narrow cultural range, I can assure you.

"- The universe was created intentionally by a god or a group of gods."

No, I don't think I would agree with that. My view of it is that the Universe IS God...or...it's just one way of seeing what can be termed "God" (if you want to call it "God"). It could also be termed "existence" or "all that is". The Universe is a sense-perceivable aspect of All That Is.


"- The individual human has a spirit which is a separate (if associated) entity from the body, and will continue to exist after the body's death."

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. I've seen some evidence to support it, though not conclusive evidence at this point. I wouldn't say the spirit is separate, though, I'd say it's a different frequency level, that's all. A radio wave isn't physical, but it's real. It can make sound by means of the physical device we call a radio...by being stepped down in frequency. I feel that our bodies are analagous to the radio, and our spirits step down in frequency through the medium of the body, enabling us to act in a world of physicality. The body, like the radio, is inert and useless without the higher frequency transmission moving through it. The spirit is more important than the body, because it is what imparts life and the expressions of life...just as the broadcast program is much more important than the individual radio. The broadcast program and the spirit impart meaning. The body and the radio are simply tools, enabling a certain task to be accomplished.

"- There is a power which will determine the future state of that spirit, punishment or reward in whatever form depending on the behaviour of the body/ spirit complex."

The spirit itself IS that power, and will determine its own future state, according to its own levels of awareness. YOU are the master of your own future development, not some separated conceptual god-being. You ARE the god that most people instead choose to project outside of themselves, and then to fear, bargain with, or worship.

Again I say, your view of what the word "religion" means appears to me to be a view that has arisen strictly out of the Judeo-Christian tradition...and that is a pretty narrow band when it comes to what can be termed the subject of religion...but they seem to think their way is all there is to say about the subject. It's not. Not by a long shot.

If one studies Buddhism, Taoism, Vedanta (Hinduism), and many other non-Judeo-Christian-Muslim systems of understanding one soon tends to look beyond the concepts you have described as being the only way to define "religion".

Anti-religionists weary me, because they first set up a straw man which they call "religion"...a really stupid and limited concept of religion...they assume that that is all there is to religion or ever could be, which it isn't....and they then pat themselves on the back for being so brilliant as not to believe in what is obviously a very primitive notion in the first place. This is like giving yourself a medal for discovering that alcoholism is not good for people or that 2+2 doesn't equal 5.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

If we've moved onto religion, I recall Tia (Ithink)'s statement, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

The existence of a God, especially one who created the world, seems an extraordinary claim.

What proofs, extraordinary, do scientists, or anyone give for such an existence. And where will reproducibility and testability come in?

Ivor

P.S. Should this be a new thread,BTW?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 03:19 PM

LOL! Here we go again...with this supposedly "separate" God somewhere out there, doing this and doing that...creating this and creating that...oh, my...

You really oughta just read Sri Aurobindo. All 20,000 or so pages of one of his books. Then talk about it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 04:28 PM

"The Universe is a sense-perceivable aspect of All That Is."

If a tree falls in the forest............?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM

The quote is actually from Carl Sagan, but I did use it above. As to generic scientific proof of a God - impossible. Now if you were to make a specific claim about some phenomenon, testability may be possible, and the tests should be repeatable (and reproducable by different testors).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 06:09 PM

I thought some people, some scientists for example, were making the claim that a deity exists. Seemingly without proof of existence of same ?

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 10:18 PM

It's an interesting question Ivor. Many scientists do believe in a deity as a matter of faith. Nothing hypocritical about that in general. But, where it can get weird is on matters that are clearly testable. Some scientists undoubtedly believe various things as a matter of faith even when they are, in fact, testable. This requires a mental disconnect, or partitioning that many other scientists are uncomfortable performing.

For instance, is it possible for a scientist to be a true Catholic? This requires belief that the wafer really does, literally, become the flesh of Christ during the mass. This is testable of course. I am not sure how self-professed Catholic scientists handle this. I am not sure it has ever actually been tested (what priest in their right mind would allow it?) But, that's their business. As for me, my religion occupies the spaces and questions that are not testable - and there are plenty.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 12:04 AM

The existance of the universe seems extraordinary, when one gets down to it, depending, of course, on what the meaning of "extraoridnary is.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 12:56 AM

A deity? Must "God" be a deity? Not as far as I'm concerned, but if that understanding of the word is what makes you happy, go with it, I guess... ;-)

I think of God as the entire intelligent process that can also be called "existence". Tell me that there is no proof for existence! Everything we experience and are aware of is proof of existence. Everything is proof of "God" as I understand the concept. That doesn't mean I think I have to pray to this "God", do rituals to appease it, or belong to some organized religion, but if it made me feel better to do any of those things, then I would. And why not?

To be religious does not require belief in a deity, it merely requires a sense that there is an eternal and powerful meaning behind all life and all existence. That life is not an accident. That it is a striving toward perfection in every sense. The completely unreligious person must subscribe to the notion that his life and everyone else's is a meaningless accident...that the only meaning he or anyone else sees is one that was arbitrarily made up...and that kind of belief leads to various forms of emotional dead-ends, such as: cynicism, fatalism, materialism, greed, ruthless ambition, and ultimately, despair. (sounds like a thumbnail sketch of the industrial society in the early 21st century)

That's why it does not strike me as healthy or even sane to have such a philosophy that would dare assert that everything is just an accident or the end result of unthinking processes...unless sanity is to be relegated to mere brute survival and the enjoyment of temporary pleasures. That's okay for a stupid brute with a short and meaningless life that begins and ends in futility. It's not okay for a fully realized human being.

The desire for perfection, the belief in perfectibility, and all the beauty that flows from it in every form of human creativity is precisely what has fueled the noble history of both great spiritual philosophy AND great science. They go hand in hand. They are not opponents.

Their true opponents, however are these:

1. soulless materialism (that would use science only to kill and to dominate other men) and

2. hidebound, unthinking fundamentalist religion (that would act similarly).

You will find those two monstrous forces allying themselves naturally as one behind most extremely vicious political forces in this world, such as the Bush administration and its Islamic fundamentalist opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 04:04 AM

LH, I think you're making my point. I was deliberately including as many religions as I could think of- the Judaeo- Christian family, the Hindu family, ancient religions like Egypt, Mesopotamia, Rome and Greece, animism, Paganism, Zoroastrianism and its descendants, and suchlike; and deliberately excluding some forms of Buddhism, and perhaps Confucianism and Shinto. Not because they don't count, but because they need to be treated separately, along with social beliefs like communism, fascism, and perhaps the Green movement and Darwinism. I'm not sure where astrology comes in this.

My point was that religion as a word has largely outlived its usefulness, because, being so protean, two participants in a discussion will almost certainly have completely different concepts of what the word entails.

So, for my own part, I'm not religious, because that's not a useful word to apply to the process by which I construct my world system; and I'm not a socialist, because that word also is too open to misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:36 AM

Actually some systems are chaotic, and some are, for all intents and purposes, not.

A stars lifespan and eventual fate can be determined when it forms. They only have certain modes of behaiviour, and these depend almost entirely on it's mass. It is a very simple system, with only one major influence.

The Weather is the classic example of chaotic system, with many influences.



Well, astrology is no more 'chaotic" than anything else in the universe. I am looking forward to the day when the huge number of factors at play in a natal chart can be separated and understood. And I have every confidence that day will arrive - and hopefully sooner than later.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:40 AM

Not because they don't count, but because they need to be treated separately, along with social beliefs like communism, fascism, and perhaps the Green movement and Darwinism.

Why do Buddhism, Shinto etc 'need to be treated separately'? 'Treated' by whom? Yourself? And why 'separately' - because you prefer them to, say, Islam?   

Where do democracy, capitalism and atheism fit into your scheme of things, Paul? Snuggled up all comfy cozy with fascism and Christianity? Or do they also merit 'separate treatment' because you, personally, like them better?

My point was that religion as a word has largely outlived its usefulness, because, being so protean, two participants in a discussion will almost certainly have completely different concepts of what the word entails.

WEll, ditto for the word 'love'. Better get rid of 'em both, quick!    ;]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:42 AM

Are human beings as 'chaotic' as the weather then, B?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:49 AM

(I'd say that a human being is a much more complex 'system' than the weather, and subject to a much wider range of influence as well)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 12:39 PM

I don't know about more complex, but certainly harder to measure and classify...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:17 PM

It depends what your point is, Paul...

I think that the traditional organized religions are, to some extent, outliving their usefullness....as are most of our other traditional systems, almost all of which are cultural spinoffs from the traditional religious ideas on which our cultures were founded.

For example: capitalism - the notion that man's proper destiny is to profit through an ever-expanding mercantile activity which generates ever larger quantities of products and cash. That's an idea that is living on borrowed time, to say the least, because Nature is not an infinite source that can be exploited on an ever-expanding basis.

For example: warfare. (Obviously a stupid, self-destructive idea, yet it has been indulged in for all of our recorded history!)

My point was simply this, that the "religious impulse" in humans is that impulse which conceives of higher motives in life than mere animalistic survival. As such, it is the impulse that lies behind art, higher moral concepts of all kinds, every form of social idealism, the scientific impulse to know and understand the mysteries of Nature, our higher concepts of love and brotherhood....indeed everything that really makes life worth living.

That's why the Tao, for example, I see as springing from the religious impulse, and Buddhism as well, although they presuppose no deity, no God, but rather a harmonious "way" of being and functioning that is seen occurring throughout existence, and which can be learned and applied by a wise human being.

All of that is good. It is highly beneficial. And it does NOT require belief in various forms of strange mythology, gods, goddesses, etc.

So, as you say, it all depends on how one defines "religion" or "socialism" or all these other common words. I find that most people define them in a very superficial manner, merely as something on which to hang their established emotional prejudice about the subject, rather than as a way of opening a door to larger possibilities.

Most people have a heavy emotional prejudice either for or against what they call "religion". Their prejudice seems to render them incapable of doing anything except attacking "religion" or promoting it...when instead they could use it as a doorway into understanding human life better.

It makes it useless, basically, to even discuss religion with most people. They don't want to think about it at all. They just want to either attack it or defend it, as a matter of course. Either way, in my opinion, is a waste of time. It achieves absolutely nothing except the blowing off of emotional steam and the perpetuation of prejudice.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:22 PM

"... it does not strike me as healthy or even sane to have such a philosophy that would dare assert that everything is just an accident or the end result of unthinking processes."

Why not? I do it everyday! (Well, not 'assert'....just assume such in lieu of evidence to the contrary.) I can have almost the same experiences, concerns, feelings...etc...as anyone, without positing something that just 'feels' nice to subscribe to. I guess some folks can't, but the question can always be asked - "What IS the ultimate, factual, non-subjective answer?" If the Earth were to explode tomorrow, would "the universe" care? I 'doubt' it would, though I can't prove it....

It is important to recognize that 'accidental' processes and 'unthinking' processes are not necessarily linked. The processes of the Universe follow laws of physics, even if we do not understand all of them yet, but to assert that ANY of those processes are thinking ones is to go quite far out on a limb.

I have been out on limbs, and I don't like it when they prove unstable. I like poetry...it ennobles us....but I don't care to base my life on assumptions that poetical concepts describe existance-in-itself.

But you knew that *wry grin*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:33 PM

Fine, Bill. Some people are happy no matter what they believe. Others are unhappy no matter what they believe. I've noticed that, and it doesn't have to fall along religious lines. By no means. You strike me as the basically happy type.

As whether the Universe would "care" if the Earth exploded....well, it would have to have something to lose in order to care, wouldn't it? And I don't think it does have anything to lose. There are suns out there going supernova, after all, so why sweat it if a little planet vanishes?

What do you live for, Bill? Just wondering. Have you ever asked yourself that question? If so, did you come up with an answer?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:48 PM

sure, LH...like everyone else, I choose and create 'things to live for'....and most of them would be quite similar to yours..or anyone elses. Love, happiness, friends, music, sex, discovery, ...list as long or detailed as one cares to make it. 'Life' has, built in, a striving to survive and reproduce...and higher forms have the luxury of play and imagination. I even APPROVE of imagination...*smile*....I just have a personal inclination to keep track of where imagination takes leave of reality....I think I can enjoy both better this way.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM

Very sensible of you, Bill. I do that too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:39 PM

LH: I am getting the sense that I agree with you on nearly all matters religious as discussed here - e.g. I think my deity resembles yours. However, you say "...it does not strike me as healthy or even sane to have such a philosophy that would dare assert that everything is just an accident or the end result of unthinking processes..." and I do disagree with this. I see nothing wrong with all living characteristics arising as random mutations, but then "good" ones being preserved/amplified by natural selection because *they are traits that are beneficial to all (or at least one) species*. It is not the case that everything is the result of an accident. All kinds of things happen accidentally, and some die out while others are perpetuated. Mutation may be random, but natural selection is not! (Although both could be characterized as "unthinking") And I'm still talking about evolution - there may still be room for a non-accidental "initial spark" in the vast realm of human ignorance -- although I am prepared to adjust this thinking if science can someday recreate such a spark.

Wow, deep shit. My brain hurts.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 10:55 PM

Well, that's a philosophical difference, TIA.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 02:58 AM

Tia - religion for you deals with the spaces and questions that are not testable.

For me, instead of religion, read gestalt therapy and astrology (the thread subject). However, with the latter, there's nothing to pray to and they have a certain grounding in the facts of the experiences of real individuals.

I'm still intrigued that astrology is forbidden to go anywhere that is not testable/reproducible, and religion is so allowed.

LH - you have described your conception of "God". which I think I share. That is not a universal idea of God, though.

I say again that a fundamental difficulty that astrology and psychotherapy present to reason is the sheer depth/complexity/unknowability(?) of the human being.

It's interesting to note the widespread use of astrology by sportspeople, politicians, medics, and most intriguingly of all businessmen, few/none of whom are willing to broadcast the fact for fear of ridicule.


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:45 AM

Ivor - you say "I'm still intrigued that astrology is forbidden to go anywhere that is not testable/reproducible, and religion is so allowed."

Religion and astrology are both allowed to go anywhere they want. But when they venture into making specific claims that can be tested, I reserve for myself the right to test them. Perhaps you can see why I do not belong to any named or organized religion - they all make claims that are demonstrably false. Yet I do not give up on religion as a concept. It's just that to avoid a mental partitioning, wherein I use one thought process at some times, and another thought process at others, my religion has to be flexible enough (hmmm, flexible religion - an oxymoron?) to avoid conflict with the world's ever-expanding body of knowledge gained through science. Who knows, there may come a time when I am forced to become an atheist. However I doubt this, because (again as Carl Sagan described it), as the "bubble of knowledge" expands into the darkness of ignorance, its surface area (i.e. our boundary with ignorance) increases as the cube of its radius.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:28 AM

"grounding in the facts of the experiences of real individuals"

The problem with astrology is that there is no grounding in facts. The experience of individuals who believe in one type of astrology, where Venus is a planet of war, is different than the experience of individuals who believe in another type of astrology where Venus is a planet of peace. Their experience is of cultural conditioning where they have been told something arbitrary and they are fitting their feelings into that arbitrary scheme. Their experience is not based on fact but on an arbitrary belief shaped by their particular culture. It is like believing in one culture that white is the color of mourning and in another culture that black is the color of mourning. People experience their own myths, but you cannot say that it is a fact for all human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 01:08 PM

I think that it is time to quote Shakespeare(or another man with the same name), "There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies." and "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,But in ourselves".

My point being that science is limited by the limited human capacity to perceive and interpret--and though to some degree we can see and measure the stars(and other physical phenomena), the things that are of real importance to us are not out there, they are inside, and, for the most part, elude that sort of observation and interpretation.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

nice, concise, explanation, Alice. (I wish I could say it...then stop... a bit more often. ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 02:12 PM

THe last few posts here have me pondering the so-called placebo effect - the well-documented but as yet unexplained (and largely unexamined) power of human thought/expectation/imagination/belief to produce measurable physical medical benefits. From the link above:

"Listening to Prozac but hearing placebo: A meta-analysis of antidepressant medication.
by Kirsch, Irving; Sapirstein, Guy
from Prevention & Treatment. 1998 Jun Vol 1(1) 2 [Article A]

Posted 06/26/1998. Mean effect sizes for changes in depression were calculated for 2,318 patients who had been randomly assigned to either antidepressant medication or placebo in 19 doubleblind clinical trials. As a proportion of the drug response, the placebo response was constant across different types of medication (75%), and the correlation between placebo effect and drug effect was .90. These data indicate that virtually all of the variation in drug effect size was due to the placebo characteristics of the studies....

Examination of pre-post effect sizes among depressed individuals assigned to no-treatment or wait-list control groups suggest that approximately one quarter of the drug response is due to the administration of an active medication, one half is a placebo effect, and the remaining quarter is due to other nonspecific factors. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)"

Interesting how even though researchers like Kirsch have observed and documented the power of the "placebo effect" for decades now, not much interest has been shown or money spent to date in studying or explaining how or why it works - least of all in discovering how to help patients understand and use their own natural, innate healing powers more effectively.

Instead, the placebo effect is typically pooh-poohed and waved aside, denounced regularly by skeptics, scientists etc as 'magical thinking', 'selective thinking', 'self-deception', 'wishful thinking', 'fallacy'.

ANd it's easy to see why -- how would it profit the Western medical industry (ie drug and chemical companies etc) if everyone knew, for example, that a sugar pill packs about the same whallop as Prozac? WHat if everyone learned how to expand and enhance this natural human ability to heal themselves whenever they pleased, and without the stressful, dangerous, invasive and (not to mention expensive) intervention of Western medical science? I have a very strong hunch there'd be a lot fewer people requesting medical assistance, and therefore a lot of doctors, surgeons, medical workers, chemists and scientists would be out of a paycheque, for one...

And it's quite easy to see how all this applies to astrology, and to 'non-Western' healing techniques (ie Reiki) as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 02:28 PM

PS Venus was seen as goddess of war in some cultures because as the Morning Star, 'she' came to be associated with fatal surprise attacks at dawn.   In other cultures Venus symbolized love, probably because of the planet's breathtaking beauty.   And in any case, love and war are closely related -- 'all's fair in love and war', remember?   :-]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:25 PM

George Custer was called "Son of the Morning Star" by some Indians for the same reason. He customarily attacked at dawn.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:31 PM

Alice - there are connections between real experiences of people and their horoscope even where they have no astrological belief.

Tia - I respect your religious belief, and I assume they involve a creator of this world. If so, what is the proof of that creator's efforts and existence.

GUEST M Ted - Hamlet meant that philosophy was limited, not Horatio's philosophy was limited.

He meant 'your' in the same sense of emphasis as if I say,"Your snobby types ruin the image of classical music" - meaning the same as if the 'your' was omitted. It's familiar linguistic usage in London.


Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 03:45 PM

It isn't necessary to think of "God" as a creator. But if you do, then the evidence for it is simply: everything. ;-) "Everything" is so big that people can't even look at it or grasp it. That's why they prefer to fight about little things instead.

What if the key to astrology (like tea leaf or palm reading) is NOT the technical rules of astrology itself, but the perceptiveness of the reader? What if the reader has some natural divining ability, and the method is just a frame to hang it on?

Having known people who were uncanny at reading tea leaves and seeing future probabilities thereby, I suspect that the "method" used in divination simply doesn't matter, and it is not the determining factor. The method is just the instrument you arbitrarily pick on which to play the song you want to play, to use an analogy. The instrument doesn't make the music...the player does. Any instrument will do.

Any divining method will do, if the person doing it has the right talents and feel for it. They will pick a method that they like. It might be astrology. It might be tea leaf reading. It might be a crystal ball. It might be anything. It doesn't matter. You will not be able to prove anything by analyzing the method, because the method isn't what makes it work. The reader makes it work, if they have the native ability to do such readings. And that cannot be proven or disproven, it can only be demonstrated in a way that will convince some, but not others, depending on their preconceived notions and inclinations.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TIA
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM

Daylia says
"...the placebo effect is typically pooh-poohed and waved aside, denounced regularly by skeptics, scientists etc as 'magical thinking', 'selective thinking', 'self-deception', 'wishful thinking', 'fallacy'."
Not true at all. Scientists and skeptics are great believers in the existence, and power, of the placebo effect. In fact, many skeptics think that a lot of phenomena that others might explain with "magical thinking" are truly the result of the powerful placebo effect.

Ivor asks
"...what is the proof of that creator's efforts and existence?"
Answer: none.
How would you test for the existence of the creator? What set of measurements could one make to prove this existence? I can't think of any, so the existence (or not) of a creator, properly placed (for example before the Big Bang), does not conflict with my desire to test all things testable, and form my beliefs around the results.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:04 PM

To add to what TIA says about the placebo effect, it is a premise that is verifiable by using scientific methodology specifically the double blind study, and in fact has been, in several studies.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

I was making a point of my own, Autocylus--Horatio's limitations are not an issue here, and never were.

Next thing, though, is that BillD will tell us that science does not allow that the "Ghost" could exist, let alone speak to Hamlet as he did, and Gervase, Alice, Clinton Hammond, and the lot will fall in and say that "Hamlet" is bunch of unscientific rubbish and ought to be thrown out of the schools straight away--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:30 PM

I said earlier that I LIKE poetry! *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:58 PM

Science hasn't proven anything yet one way or another about ghosts...it just can't verify them, that's all.

Certain people simply can't bear the serious discussion of anything that science has not verified yet, it seems. ;-)

I wonder why? Should we just stop all further inquiry now, and say: "Everything real has been discovered." or...should we continue to investigate, thereby apparently annoying people who cannot stand hearing others discuss anything that is not scientifically verified yet?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 07:20 PM

I am an artist. I not only value imagination, myths and fantasy, but I have built a life on it.
(and I love Shakespeare and ghost stories) How in the world could you project such negativity about me based on the few statements I've made in this thread?
Here I am.e
and check out my painting of a magical creature Gartan Mother's Lullaby

Alice

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 08:22 PM

From the Skeptic's Dictionary -- note the closing remarks, the "see also 'list of 'related articles' (?!?)   

Placebo Effect /

"... In other words, the placebo can be an open door to quackery.

See also confirmation bias, control study, communal reinforcement, magical thinking, nocebo, Occam's razor, post hoc fallacy, regressive fallacy, selective thinking, self-deception, subjective validation, testimonials, and wishful thinking.

For examples of beliefs deeply affected by the placebo effect see the following:

    acupuncture
    "alternative" health practices
    aromatherapy
    bioharmonics
    crystal power
    homeopathy and
    reflexology"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:08 PM

PS TO test for the existence of 'Creator', try expressing (aloud or silently) sincere, joyful gratitude for your life to everything in the universe to which you literally owe that life, as often as possible (preferably constantly :-) for at least a day or so. Carefully monitor any change in perception, sensation, cognition, mood, attitude, relationship, well-being etc. Record observations in personal unpeer-reviewed journal. Ponder deeply. Repeat as desired.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:16 PM

"everything in the universe to which you literally owe that life"

I give praise to the sperm and ovum which begat me on a daily basis.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:27 PM

You also owe your life, bobad, to the following:

The planet Earth, for providing air, water, and food, gravity, and a livable environment.

Animals and plants and many other people, in a variety of ways.

Society and past culture.

The sun.

You have not yet begun to give appropriate thanks, you ungrateful little snit... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:45 PM

And of course to Little Hawk, without whose opprobriums my life would be meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM

It is beyond my limited powers to impart meaning to your life.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:55 PM

I don't believe it, I will attack at dawn.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:58 PM

Go ahead. We will exterminate every one of your short-haired, smelly, lookalike bluecoat soldiers, and hang your miserable remains up for the vultures to gnaw upon.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:04 PM

Sticks and stones................!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:27 PM

Imprecations at 40 paces!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

Snowballs at dawn?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:38 AM

I am amused by the image that I conjure up from "Imprecations at forty paces!" Would that wars were fought thus. Imagine GWB and Saddam counting off forty paces, turning and firing insults at one another. May the best man win.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Venus (Ishtar/Astarte/Asherah/Aphrodite)
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:36 AM

My children - your infantile impressions of Me and feeble warlike antics here are very cute, but pathetic. Laughable!   And predictably species-specific, considering the evolutionary limitations of your cranial wetware.

That you may know me better....   

Ashtart was connected with fertility, sexuality, and war. Her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Morning Star
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:47 AM

Hau!

---

I had a problem accessing the image. If you do, try Morning Star Ceremony

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,HermAphrodite
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:59 AM

Manly, yes .... but I like it too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Mama Knossos Best
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:17 AM

Tsk tsk. A snake in hand is worth two on the tush, my dear.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:22 AM

re *daylia* - PM
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 09:08 PM


How does this test for the existance of a creator?

I agree in a general sense with LH- IF there is (a) god, it is the universe as a whole, of which we are a part. But the proposed test does not seem to prove that existance, or anything beyond the individual's perception.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM

and, btw,

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM

800!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:41 AM

Well, as human beings how can we 'know' anything, except via subjective personal perceptions and experience?

I posted that kinda tongue-in-cheek though, bearded bruce, knowing that scientifically valid 'tests' for the existence of 'Creator' are simply not possible to date, and may never be possible. But certainly you couldn't have tried the 'test' as prescribed yet -- it's too soon. Why not give it a shot and see what you think? It certainly can't harm you in any way, and it might even prove enlightening. Healthy. Beneficial.

Hey, maybe even fun too!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 10:39 AM

"But certainly you couldn't have tried the 'test' as prescribed yet -- it's too soon. "

"PS TO test for the existence of 'Creator', try expressing (aloud or silently) sincere, joyful gratitude for your life to everything in the universe to which you literally owe that life, as often as possible (preferably constantly :-) for at least a day or so. Carefully monitor any change in perception, sensation, cognition, mood, attitude, relationship, well-being etc. Record observations in personal unpeer-reviewed journal. Ponder deeply. Repeat as desired. "


It might just be that some of us HAVE done this. As a "seeker after wisdom", there are many such "tests" that I have tried.

It is the TEST that I do not see as being valid as showing the existance of a creator- NOT the results that I might or might not get.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:20 AM

Studying myths and religions and symbols has been a life long interest for me. I'm amazed that so many people believe that there is only one version of astrology.

I go back to my point that how one creates symbols and myths and apply them to the planets is completely arbitrary, because if you look at how the North American cultures assigned qualities to the planets, you will see that in following the Mediterranean symbols you are ascribing, Greek myths, etc., you are giving characteristics to planets and constellations that are very different than characteristics applied by cultures in other parts of the world.


Alice

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:25 AM

I'm amazed that so many people believe that there is only one version of astrology.

Are the 'many people' to whom you refer your family members, Alice? Perhaps your neighbours, friends, co-workers?

I haven't noticed anybody expressing such 'beliefs' here yet.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM

Haven't noticed???? You haven't looked very hard. MANY cultures draw different diagrams of the sky and have different interpretations of the results. (Sorta similar to different notions of God, Heaven, Eternity and what is required to know them.)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:35 AM

Maybe pictures will help.
This site graphics of many constellation myths
shows pictures of how many different cultures looked at the stars and planets and created completely different symbols in the sky.

One of my first posts in this thread pointed out that what Europeans and Americans call astrology is based on an early 1900's British revival of the Chaldean zodiac. Why would the Chaldean zodiac be the only "true" astrological system? Why not the symbols and constellations of the Navajo who beleived something different? Why not the Lapplanders? Go to the link above and see the images of "the story about a great Cosmic Moose Hunting Scene. The large constellation, Sarva, the Moose, is composed of several Greek constellations — Cassiopeia, Perseus, and Auriga. In the Nordic Lapp folklore, Gemini, Orion, Ursa Major and other figures are hunting Sarva."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:46 AM

My friends and family and neighbors are educated, creative and logical people. My brothers are anthropologists. Having a large view of the world and different cultures and folklore and using critical thinking is pretty common around here.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:46 AM

It is the TEST that I do not see as being valid as showing the existance of a creator- NOT the results that I might or might not get.

?? Well, if you don't think the test itself is valid in any way shape or form, how could you see any results as valid??

I don't quite see what you're getting at. Did you think I was trying to be original? People have been doing 'tests' like this for thousands of years, at least! I've found that when I want the pleasure, benefit and comfort of a tangible, subjective, and yes very personal relationship with the 'divine Essence of the universe' (ie 'Creator'), expressing sincere and joyful gratitude as often as possible is the most reliable way to achieve that 'connection'.

But if an objectively valid, empirically repeatable, peer-reviewable, scientifically approvable 'proof' of 'Creator' is the only thing that will satisfy that hunger for truth, well, you're setting yourself up for starvation so to speak. Such a thing is still humanly impossible on this planet, at this time. And this may never change.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:54 AM

My comment was actually a wry comment, Alice--

As to your point about their being different astrological systems(and this is not a "wry" comment) this doesn't mean that meanings have been assigned arbitrarily and it doesn't mean that any interpretation is "wrong"--different cultures have different interpretations of things--this is probably a good way to clarify what "culture" is-

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:58 AM

Of course, just about any fool knows there are about as many present-day and historical variations of astrology as there are cultures on this planet!

DUH ...

Just as there are seemingly endless variations of religious beliefs and practices, musical instruments and genres, social customs, clothing styles, child-rearing customs, marriage laws, death rituals, culinary habits, war tools and techniques, sexual attitudes and practices etc etc etc. Do you think these cultural differences render any or all of these things 'invalid'? Or is it just astrology that's invalid, in your worldview?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 01:06 PM

Anything becomes invalid if you have no idea what to do with it...or no inclination to.

Astrology works, when it does, not because of the astrological system, but because of the person doing the reading.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 02:10 PM

I guess it comes down to what the definition of "wrong" is... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:15 PM

Astrology works, when it does, not because of the astrological system, but because of the person doing the reading.

LH, as Ivor pointed out previously, "there are connections between real experiences of people and their horoscopes even where they have no astrological belief".

This is where astrology differs from psychic divination. The relationship between planetary transits (the passages of the planets over birth positions) and personal mood, attitude, behaviour, life cycles and events is ongoing throughout life, regardless of the individual's knowledge of or belief in astrology.
To observe this, people need only study their own *accurate* birthcharts and planetary transits over a period of time. Free birthcharts and up-to-the-minute information re planetary transits are instantly available online to any interested person today -- all that's required is accurate birth data.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:27 PM

I think everything in the Universe is one united thing that repeats itself, Daylia, like a hologram. Therefore, why should not such patterns of destiny be detectable in an astrological chart, a leaf, the wind, tea leaves, the palm, anywhere...if you have the awareness to spot it?

This doesn't mean that traditional astrology will make any sense according to the rules of science as we know them.

I've seen readings done by people who had a gift for it, and I was impressed. I've seen charts done by other people, and I was bored out of my skull. As far as I'm concerned, the practitioner is everything, and the system is a formality that someone made up...like a dance. It may appeal to your taste, it may not.

No, it doesn't matter if the subject of the chart believes in astrology or not. Not at all. What matters is that the practitioner has the right sensitivity to use the formal structure of the chart in such a way that it produces something meaningful. That's dependent on the practitioner, in my opinion, not on the system itself, but the system is a handy way of organizing the process....same as a tarot deck is...or any other such system.

Consciousness is the key to life. Formalized systems are just a way of translating consciousness into familiar symbols.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 05:00 PM

While waiting at a bus stop for a bus, a woman stepped onto a weight machine that told your fortune and weight for a quarter. She put a quarter in, and out came a card that read, "Your age is 32, You weigh 135 lbs., and you play the fiddle."

She found the fortune amusing, since she didn't play the fiddle, but it did have her age correct. About that time, an old gentleman walked up carrying a fiddle. She asked him if she could see his fiddle. He agreed, and to their amazement, she started playing the fiddle with great natural skill. She wondered if the fortune machine had actually known something about her that she didn't. She thought about it, and decided to try the weight machine again. She put another quarter in the machine, and out comes the card that reads: "Your age is 32, you weigh 135 lbs., and you have gastritis."

She found this one to be absurd, as she was in perfect health, so she goes back to the bus-stop to wait for her bus. While sitting there, she develops abdominal pains that continue to get worse until all of a sudden she farts. She wondered about the fortune, and again was curious if the machine was capable of knowing stuff about her that she didn't know. She puts another quarter in the machine, and out comes a card that reads: "Your age is 32, you weigh 135 lbs., and you are about to have sex."

She laughed out loud, as she had been trying to find a decent guy to screw for weeks, with no luck. She is sitting there waiting for the bus,when this attractive young man sits down and immediately their eyes locked, and they both knew that they were right for each other. They quickly ducked down an alley and began to screw like two teenagers. The woman was so simply amazed at the ability of the machine, that she had to try it one more time. She stood on the machine, put her last quarter in, and out came a card that read: "Your age is 32, you weigh 135 lbs.,you've fiddled, you've farted, you've screwed around, and now you've missed your bus."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 05:03 PM

Crazy girl! If I knew there was a machine like that around, I'd avoid it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:38 PM

"...there are connections between real experiences of people and their horoscopes..."

It might be better to say "we can find correlations between.".etc...

and, of course, it is true--we can. We can find many correlations in data that indicate almost nothing. At one time, someone discovered an almost perfect correlation between the rise of salaries of college professors and sales of alcohol in the US. It was fun to make jokes about, but no one, as far as I know, considered it to be either causal OR indicative.

I have looked at my 'charts', and found just as many misleading and non-applicable 'indications' as I did 'relevant' ones. Of course, if someone 'believes', they will just say I need to read deeper and get more learned interpretations.

*shrug* ...first you place the dart, then you draw the bullseye.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 07:47 PM

I like that method, Bill! ;-) Sounds like American intelligence on WMD in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:06 PM

I'm satisfied with the word 'connection', Bill. But just to humour you, did it slip your mind that we also find many 'correlations' in data that are highly significant and meaningful? Egads, maybe you're relapsing?!? You're not thinking of going all tilty and slanty on us again, are you? That's so boooooooring   such a waste of time and energy   no fun at all in fact    hmph :-[

There are many reasons why some parts of a natal report seem to fit better than others, as discussed at length    *yaaaawwwwn*       several times already on this thread. Remember? No, I suppose you wouldn't. Oh well. Anyone who's been around Mudcat for a couple days or so could accurately predict your trademark *yawwwwwn* (pardon me) reactions. Sans astrology or even peer-reviewed journals.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 09:25 PM

Here's an interesting scholarly 'take' on astrology by Alain Negre, professor of electronics at the University of Grenoble, France A Transdisciplinary Approach to Science and Astrology

"Summary : In the present state of contemporary knowledge, one recognizes a certain "astrological phenomenon". Apparently, an order exists which underlies the world and may be experienced through the perusal of our birth chart, the latter reflecting the fathomless structures of our interiority. Nonetheless, with the emergence of scientific thought three centuries ago, astrology was met with new difficulties as it tried to coexist with novel approaches to apprehending the "real". In fact, the very validity of astrology is repudiated by those who conceive of a sole level to reality (which they believe science to reveal) even though physics has recently proved the existence of at least two levels to reality. As a reaction, astrology closes itself off to scientific discourse, or, conversely, dresses itself up as a science. In an attempt to sort through the conflicts between science and astrology, this article explores the unconscious foundations which gave birth to astrology. It draws from what C.G. Jung called the symbolic function and originates in the "place" of the soul where mind and matter may potentially reunite."

I haven't given the whole article the attention it deserves as yet (just found it today!), but this passage is particularly relevant here ...

"... The individual who meditates on his planetary blueprint does find adequacy between the representation of the universe at his moment of birth and his inner life. But, as far as astrology is concerned, this remains a correspondence of symbolic proportions. And no symbolic system of interpretation is absolutely true, the symbol being characterized by its polysemy and multivocal abundance. The symbol's opaque language opens to infinite interpretations. Unlike scientific language which seeks to explain and give account of natural phenomena, symbolic language such as that of astrology demands interpretation and guides us towards the core of our interiority. The natal chart is not a conventional representation. It is a path of a hidden meaning, the meaning of a new unity through which we merge with the archetypal structure of our very being."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:56 PM

The usual definition of "wrong" is "different than the way we do it at our house"--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 05:51 AM

I'm only not responding to every last objection that has been raised so far to astrology because
a) I can't remember them all - remind me if they are still important
b) Many can be answered by looking at a serious introduction to astrology (I think Jeff Mayo, certainly the Parkers, probably Oken,several others), e.g.the precession of the equinoxes (why use every bit of cyberspace reinventing the wheel?)
c) If questions come from the 'deaf who will not hear', well, would you bother? For my part,I'll repeat that I have a high regard for science which saved my life.

Bill D - When you say you've looked at your charts, can you say more? In no way am I doubting your word, just, as we say in Gestalt, following my curiosity.


I suspect the different astrological systems around the world reflect the respective truths of their respective cultures. Rather as the truths that a Beethoven or a Louis Armstrong reflect truths of our society, less so (as distinct from 'not at all') for others.
So our astrology works in our culture because it is the astrology of our culture, built out of OUR OBSERVATIONS SINCE REMOTE ANTIQUITY and out of our experiences.


There may be a need in cyberspace to repeat points because here they easily get overlooked.

So I wish to repeat that there are AS FEW GOOD ASTROLOGERS in our society AS GOOD ANYTHING ELSE.

Alice - when I was talking about the real facts of a person's experience, the kind of thing I had in mind is if they say,"I have a violent temper", or if they just do talk softly, or if they relate readily with people who are highly imaginative. Those sorts of characteristics seem to me to be , not how thewy've been taught to be, just 'facts of their real experience'.

I notice (also as we say in the Gestalt world) that no-one has responded to the fact that astrology is used out in the world even by such hard nosed, bottom-liners as businesspeople.

Incidentally,I thought there were people here with a belief in God, some of whom also had a scientific background,and who had been casting aspersions on astrology as lacking scientific credibility. It is to them that I was asking where the proof was of God's existence. Pointing at the universe and saying,'there's your evidence', doesn't look to this philosophy student like any kind of a scientific proof of God's existence.

It is interesting to cast doubt on the idea of a 'God' as a creator, even tho' that would contradict the opening words of the Bible.


I'd also like to say how much I appreciate the seriousness and care that have posters are now employing compared to the early days of the thread. I wonder how GUEST Martini is.


    Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 10:15 AM

The way humans create myths in search of a sense of self understanding is very interesting to me. For me, the most interesting thing about this thread is how strong that adherance to belief can be. No amount of logic can sway a determined faith. I've seen people marry and divorce spouses based on astrology, move to another part of the world, give up careers, education, family and home. I've seen an entire church based on astrology that separated children from parents, elderly from their retirement funds, caused mass hysteria (the planets portending the end of the world), and years of mental distress that took a long time for people to recover from, having to leave behind what the astrologer told them they were and learning instead how unique and complex and undefined by charts they really were. Belief is very powerful.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 10:30 AM

"No amount of logic can sway a determined faith"

That is the truly frightening aspect of it all.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 11:57 AM

"Bill D - When you say you've looked at your charts, can you say more?"

yes, I had a serious amateur 'do' my charts a number of years ago, and I have from time to time looked at various published sources...from silly newspaper blather to detailed attempts to explain the relevance, much as *daylia* has done. And I went to the site she noted and entered my data and read the results. From those sources, I have looked at various formulations of my 'potential' and 'indicators'.

What I see over & over are slippery generalizations that are easy to apply and which, with a little imagination, seem applicable and even useful as advice......but the advice offered is usually reasonable for almost anyone, and the 'indications' that are supposed to relevant to my particular chart are off the mark just as often as they are on.

*daylia* just chided me for not paying more attention to they ones that do 'seem' relevant...".. did it slip your mind that we also find many 'correlations' in data that are highly significant and meaningful?...", but the point I was trying to make was that 'correlations' are only a way to establish points for further research to see if we can find causal or predictive factors that validate the correlation and justify collection of more data in that area. (obviously, the professors salaries and alcohol consumption data did not remain closely linked over time, and faded out as 'relevant' when other data sets were considered.)

   In Astrology, it is possible to assign relevance in such a way that you will always discover seemingly meaningful patterns, just as meaningful patterns were 'discovered' in text analysis and explained in such books as "The Da Vinci Code"...but with enough analysis, patterns can be 'discovered' in ANY lengthy text...from the Bible to "War & Peace" to "The Joy of Cooking".

The problem is, no one has ever yet offered a reasonable explanation of why or how the patterns of astronomical bodies can either predict OR indicate tendencies and potentials for individual humans.

Practioners will tell you that 'how' & 'why' are not the point...that the point is to SEE and USE, no matter why it works. They explain that thousands of years of study have discovered the patterns, and it would be folly to ignore useful information...etc...(and that the stars do not actually 'cause' stuff to happen, but merely show one's tendencies and indicate potentials). But as I said above, this indicating and potentializing is dependant on subjective (yes-SUBJECTIVE!) analysis of arbitrary data and relies on techniques that are only useful within the Astrological 'rules' system...the system breaks down when subjected to stringent assessments of both statistical analysis and scientific method.........but, as we have seen, practitioners simply state that their subject matter is outside the realm of those physical realms...

can't win...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:00 PM

I've seen people marry and divorce spouses based on astrology, move to another part of the world, give up careers, education, family and home. I've seen an entire church based on astrology that separated children from parents, elderly from their retirement funds, caused mass hysteria (the planets portending the end of the world), and years of mental distress that took a long time for people to recover from, having to leave behind what the astrologer told them they were and learning instead how unique and complex and undefined by charts they really were. Belief is very powerful

Yes it is, And so are bias, preconceptions, prejudice, propoganda, fear and ignorance.

I've been studying astrology off and on for about 25 years now - mostly on my own, once in a local class. I have never yet seen a single soul harmed by studying or using astrology. I have, however, known many people who've gained much -- becoming happier, healthier, more self-aware, self-determined and productive people through the insights astrology offers.

I've never heard of a church based on astrology, or even known a single person who treated astrology as 'religion'. In short, I've never known any person or group of people who acted as stupidly or ridicuously as you describe.

Where do you live, pray tell?   In the bad ole American Bible Belt?

If you are really telling the truth here, Alice, and not just spewing out more vicious bs (read propoganda) in an attempt to scare readers away from this subject, you have my compassion. I'm grateful I live nowhere near you, or all these pathetically deluded lamebrains who've (supposedly) ruined their lives with the evils (LOL!!) of astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

Bill, out of curiousity I finally looked up your chart at Astrodienst.

I'm not going into a full analysis here -- (I'm not a professional astrologer anyway) -- but I will say that the first thing that caught my eye was that powerful stellium (4 planets - Sun, Mercury, Uranus, and Venus) all in the sign of Taurus, in the 12th house. This house represents those areas of life which go beyond the individual personality. The boundaries between the conscious and the unconscious dissolve, as well as the boundaries between human beings.

Here's what one professional astrologer had to say about people with this placement --- (can't find that URL again, sorry)

"Charts with three or more planets in the 12th house, or one of the lights and an angular house ruler posited in this house, are frequently found among physicians, nurses, professors and others who work in hospitals or universities. A well-tenanted 12th house is also common among writers who must spend time alone working with their imagination and their mind, tuning into the muses. Very talented, very tragic people, like Judy Garland and Janis Joplin, and the notorious propagandist, Tokyo Rose, had many planets in their 12th houses.

Pierre Teillard de Chardin, a Jesuit priest and monk, achieved distinction in paleontology and geology. He was acclaimed for his scientific and genetic research, and wrote spiritually philosophical works. The title of one of the best known of these was "To Build the Earth." He had a stellium in Taurus, including the Sun and Moon in Gemini, all in the 12th house."

Professor Bill, you also have Moon in Gemini. Git yourself into more writing asap, mate!   ;-)

All those 12 house placements -- including your sun -- indicate, to me, a person whose inner life is largely subconscious. This placement often tells of very strong psychic abilities, and an attraction toward the occult - those "hidden" areas of knowledge and exploration. I'd say these abilities and attractions constitute your "shadow side" -- the less developed, less acceptable (to you), and largely unrecognized aspects of your own personality which fights for a valued place in your life at the same time as it disrupts your professional, logical, philosophical self-image most uncomfortably.   

THis could be why, as LH pointed out earlier, you often seem to be irresistably drawn into discussions re the occult and like subjects. You are driven subconsciously to understand and explore and develope these areas, for the sake of balance and personal growth -- but you consciously fear, resent and resist this. And so your contributions to such discussions are rooted more in emotion than in reason - hence your use of slant and propoganda.

Here's what Astrodienst has to say about those powerful 12th house placements:

Mercury was in the twelfth house at the time of birth. Psychologically you are continually trying to analyze others in order to find their motivation. A natural human researcher, you spend time projecting your interests and in faultfinding. It may be very desirable to reverse these tendencies and turn your mind's eye on your inner self. There are many good things about your mind; it is alert and subtle. It is very intellectual really, but you do have some talent for understanding the exotic. There is not much place in the world for your practical and efficient knowledge. This can lead you to anxiety, worry, self- depreciation, and an intense absence of self esteem. Feel more, think less, work harder."

Dunno about the self-esteem bit (I'm sure you do though!), but the rest of it sure sounds like the Bill we know and Love! Also, about Mercury in your chart: (Mercury symbolized the intellect and how you communicate with others)

"With Mercury conjunct Uranus, you are bright, articulate, curious, intuitive, and mentally courageous. You are excited by everything you observe and fascinated by anything different or unusual.

Truth is an important factor in your life. Consequently, science, philosophy, psychology, and sociology are fields in which you could succeed, since they deal with seeking answers to problems. "


Gee, doesn't sound like you at all, eh?   ;-} Your Mercury is conjunct Venus, too ....

"The conjunction of Mercury and Venus shows that you have an affable manner and social grace. You get along well with most people because you know when you should make compromises in order to maintain harmony. You know how to express your opinions skillfully so that no one feels threatened or intimidated by you, and you are resourceful in gathering information to document what you say.

You could find enjoyment in public speaking or the dramatic arts. Writing could also prove satisfying because you have a natural talent for expressing yourself well. Your imaginative style is fresh and charming and appeals to people who want to be entertained as well as informed"

I'd agree with most of that. You are a likeable person, Bill - except that you do have this self-defeating tendency to mislead yourself and others through use of logical fallacy (slant, propoganda), when you allow powerful and mostly subconscious emotions (ie fear, pride) to override your logical mind.

Saturn is conjunct that powerful 12th house stellium in Taurus as well - but it's in the 11th house, in Aries. According to Astrodienst --

" Psychologically, this [Saturn placement] denotes a rather hidden and limited view of your personal ambitions, your friendships, and of your future. You're very ambitious, cautious, just, patient, responsible, but perhaps, too serious.

You are strongly attached to your own point of view, and if challenged, you will fight very hard for your opinions. You are much more likely to fight for an ideal than for yourself. On one hand, you can be quite self-righteous and narrowly fanatical about your beliefs, but you can also be courageous in defending the rights of those who are downtrodden ... Try not to get so wrapped up in your own views that you won't even consider someone else's."

Fanatical? Hmmm ... sounds right. Kinda like Alice's tales of impending horror and woe. People are good at seeing only what they expect, only what they want to see, only what fits with their private view of the world, however incomplete or fallacious or biased that view may be. And this type of behaviour is a great example of Bill's trademark line - "first you draw the circle, then you shoot the dart".

Anyhoo -- I'm outta here for a bit. It's been fun ... and nice chart, Bill!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:25 PM

Aw shoot, I didn't mean to bold all that    sorry    :-[

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:36 PM

If you really believe all the stuff you just said, Alice, t could be said that you are attributing all of those things to astrology because you are unable to see the real, underlying causes, and astrology is a a convenient bogeyman that you have conjured up because you need to find an "explanation"--this would make you the irrational "believer" --

I presume, because you are from a "Logical" family, that you are making these assertions for the purpose of argumentation and don't really believe that you are able to "see" why people do things--

You believe that astrology is wrong --so you misinterpret what people are saying here completely--many of the people who seem to you to have a "determined faith" (like me) have no particular stake in astrology at all, and are simply advocating toleration for different systems of thought-

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:37 PM

The problem is, no one has ever yet offered a reasonable explanation of why or how the patterns of astronomical bodies can either predict OR indicate tendencies and potentials for individual humans.

Well I wanted to be outta here, but I can't resist Bill's posts ... :-)

Bill, I think Carl G, Jung can shed some light on this for you ...

"The collective unconscious...appears to consist of mythological motifs or primordial images, for which reason the myths of all nations are its real exponents. In fact the whole of mythology could be taken as a sort of projection of the collective unconscious. We can see this most clearly if we look at the heavenly constellations, whose originally chaotic forms are organized through the projection of images. This explains the influence of the stars as asserted by astrologers. These influences are nothing but unconscious, introspective perceptions of the collective unconscious."

"We are born at a given moment in a given place and like vintage years of wine we have the qualities of the year and of the season in which we are born. Astrology does not lay claim to anything else."

"...the journey through the planetary houses boils down to becoming conscious of the good and bad qualities in our character, and the apotheosis means no more than maximum freedom of will."

"Astrology is one of the intuitive methods like the I Ching, geomantics, and other divinatory procedures. It is based upon the synchronicity principle, i.e. meaningful coincidence. ... Astrology is a naively projected psychology in which the different attitudes and temperaments of man are represented as gods and identified with planets and zodiacal constellations."

-- Carl G. Jung   (source here)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:52 PM

"Since the theory of synchronicity is not testable according to the classical scientific method, it is not widely regarded as scientific at all, but rather as pseudoscientific or an example of magical thinking. However, it is doubtful that Jung would have considered the theory to be scientifically testable."

"Aspects of the subjective experience of schizophrenia have much in common with the subjective experience of synchronicity, in the sense that ordinary events are seen as having a direct personal relevance to the schizophrenic, but are seen as 'normal' by non-schizophrenics. Many psychoses are similar to schizophrenia but can last for a very short time, such as in rare instances from nicotine withdrawal (as an example) causing the same effect even with a non-schizophrenic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 12:58 PM

bobad - Scientifically testable / schizophrenically observable or no, synchronicity is still the best theory I've come across yet explaining why and how astrology works.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:21 PM

" Bill's trademark line - "first you draw the circle, then you shoot the dart"."

*grin*...got it backwards!

about this paragraph:

"All those 12 house placements -- including your sun -- indicate, to me, a person whose inner life is largely subconscious. This placement often tells of very strong psychic abilities, and an attraction toward the occult - those "hidden" areas of knowledge and exploration. I'd say these abilities and attractions constitute your "shadow side" -- the less developed, less acceptable (to you), and largely unrecognized aspects of your own personality which fights for a valued place in your life at the same time as it disrupts your professional, logical, philosophical self-image most uncomfortably."

This is a very good example of what I see over & over in these chart analyses...it 'indicates' something that I see as pretty far off-the-mark...and then to cover all the bases, suggests that if I do NOT manifest those tendencies openly, I am probably hiding or sublimating them. wow...I really can't win.

This reminds me of an example my college Psychology prof once offered...."Those Freudians," he said, "they have you no matter what you do." He took out a pen and tapped it on the desk, flipping and reversing it..."If I do this, they say I am doing something dirty..." ..He put it back in his pocket.."But if I put it away, I am repressing something dirty!"

and THIS:" you often seem to be irresistably drawn into discussions re the occult and like subjects. You are driven subconsciously to understand and explore and develope these areas, for the sake of balance and personal growth -- but you consciously fear, resent and resist this. And so your contributions to such discussions are rooted more in emotion than in reason - hence your use of slant and propoganda."
.....wow....if I don't like those areas, it's subconcious, and if I use my concious 'prejudices', it is just emotional propoganda. Pinned to the wall like a fly, I am! You got me! I really have a deep desire to appreciate the occult and Astrology, but I just repress & resist and hide it with slanted, prejudiced arguments! I now SEE how muddled and confused I am, contradicting my basic nature that way.

I'd better go off and meditate on my chakras and repent....now where DID I put those chakras?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:34 PM

There is an equal amount of faith being demonstrated by the advocates on both sides of this debate. ;-) (as always)

That's because, as someone said, "belief is very powerful".

I think "live and let live" is a good credo to live by.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:45 PM

Oops, I did, too! (get it backwards, I mean).

Don't worry, you can't "lose" your chakras, Bill, any more than you can "lose" your brain or your heart or your skin. If you did, you'd be pushin up daisies.

So, you don't like your birthchart because it dares to describe those aspects of your psyche that you are still largely unaware of? Do you really think there no aspects of your psyche which are subconscious, unconscious, unrealized, unaccepted, undeveloped?

If that's the case, you really don't have much of a clue about even the most basic tenets of psychology, least of all your own unique inner makeup, drives and needs. And you will never be able to use the insights of astrology, or hope to understand how or why it works. I do hope you never need a psychologist, for the psychologists sake. But if you do, better leave your darts and markers at home!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:57 PM

PS   for a great example of selective thinking and bias, notice how Bill simply ignores all the descriptions I posted that are, obviously, very highly accurate -- to anyone who knows him even just superficially, like myself.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 01:59 PM

LH..I sort of resent(intellectually, not emotionally) the suggestion that 'faith' is being employed by both sides. The whole point of one side is NOT to rely on faith & belief, and to just define & dismiss that view with some linguistic twist and say that all 'opinion' or 'conclusion' is just one form of faith or belief is not only inaccurate, but unfair. I work very hard at formulating my attitudes and (often tentative) opinions based on logic, as much 'fact' as I can glean, and non-ambiguous language. It's kinda disheartening to have it all classified as "just another type of faith". That's another example of what I mention over & over as 'equivocation' in the use of a word.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:01 PM

" you often seem to be irresistably drawn into discussions re the occult and like subjects. You are driven subconsciously to understand and explore and develope these areas, for the sake of balance and personal growth -- but you consciously fear, resent and resist this. And so your contributions to such discussions are rooted more in emotion than in reason - hence your use of slant and propoganda."

Well, Bill, for whatever reason, there is a certain amount of truth in this! ;-) You *are* irresisitable drawn into discussions of the occult(like this one!)--and it is always to express a negative view, which, from the occult point of view, anyway, is "slant and propaganda"--not the way you might protray yourself, but...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM

It's kinda disheartening to have it all classified as "just another type of faith". That's another example of what I mention over & over as 'equivocation' in the use of a word.


I'm sorry to dishearten you even more then, Bill, but here are just a few of the basic tenets of modern scientific philosophy that are, in essence, nothing more than faith or belief.

Materialism: matter alone exists; everything else (notably minds or spirits and their ideas and experiences) are analyzable in terms of matter.

Reductionism: The reducing of certain kinds of entities, or of theories, or even of whole sciences, to other, more basic, ones; ie identifying the mind with physical substances or properties and claiming that psychological theory is reducible to scientific theory. For example, the belief that all of psychology is reducible to neurophysiology, and in turn, neurophysiology is reducible all the way (perhaps via other special higher-order sciences, like chemistry) down to physics, thus "proving" (??) that mind is nothing above and beyond the physical.

Nihilism: the rejection of all traditional values; 'nothingism'; all knowledge is impossible, or all alleged metaphysical truths or values are illusory, or that ethical values cannot be given any foundation and so are arbitrary.

Even in this century of quantum mechanics and chaos theory, fallacies like these still form the basis of modern science, in spite of the fact that they have never been (and probably can never be) empirically demonstrated as 'fact' or 'truth' by scientists or anyone else. THey are drummed in the minds of Westerners at the earliest possible age, and trotted out regularly as ammunition against conflicting, more holistic and comprehensive world-views, beliefs and philosophies.

I do find this quite frustrating and disheartening, but only on bad hair days.    ;-]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 03:22 PM

I am making it a point from now on to call people like Bill and Alice on their slanted writing and propoganda whenever I see it, Ted. My objections are logical and philosophical, not astrological. I have no use for distorted thinking, falsehood, emotional manipulation, lies or half-truths. To clarify what I mean by slant and propoganda ---

From Websters:

Slant (arrghh for the second time on this thread)

- a peculiar or personal point of view, or opinion: ANGLE (stories slanted toward youth); especially to maliciously or dishonestly distort and falsify

Propoganda

- the spreading of opinions, ideas, information or rumours for the purpose of helping or injuring a person, cause or institution

- ideas, facts or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause: also: a public action having such an effect ...

- In the 20th and 21st centuries, it came to mean "inculcation of correct political views" [and to be] associated with the prumulgation of subversive political and economic ideas by revolutionary groups."

Propogandist groups or individuals use language heavily laden with negative images and emotion (ie language intended to manipulate and arouse public fears) - as well as highly selective, distorted (ie one-sided) reporting of information. Hitler and Stalin and hey, even George Bush are examples of master propogandists. Surely we can do better, here on Mudcat!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 03:26 PM

Propoganda is not available in the general English dictionary and thesaurus

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 03:38 PM

M.Ted...nope, the impulse to debate is not 'irresistable'...I avoid more of thse threads than I jump into. I even stayed away from THIS one for quite awhile...

A negative view? Meaning that I choose to point out places I consider weak reasoning or based on incorrect information? Gukity, I guess..*grin*...but if 'negative' refers to my basic attitude towards life, people or discussion in general...nope, I don't think so.


ummmm..*daylia*...sorry, but Nihilism is hardly part of 'modern scientific philosophy'...and Reductionism and Materialism are almost never used as basic tenets. They are mostly labels used by opponents of certain ideas to paint them as rigid, narrow viewpoints. Even if the opponents were correct, that does not make those views 'fallacies', it only suggests that they are simplistic.

And who do you say are 'drumming' such narrow concepts into our young one's heads? If I found any teacher doing this I would confront them just as assidiuosly as I confront you on certain ideas. I have had some pretty narrow teachers in my time, but never encountered one preaching THOSE gospels. YMMV

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 03:43 PM

We have something that cannot be proved to the satisfaction on the other side ( for want of a better term) either to be real or imaginary)

The Astrologists belive there is a real connection between the astrological chart and a persons life. The Scientists ( again, both names chosed to be fair, in the lack of a better option) belive tyhere is no connection between a persons astrological chart that cannot be explained in terms of interpretaition, co-incidence, and the placebo effect.


The question of faith arises very simply. Do you believe in something witout any proof in it, or in someing with no proof in it, but no positive proof against it?

Unless astrologers start to make claims that can be tested, rather than general statements that can be fitted to anyone with a following wind, this will never, ever be settled.


James.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM

That's right, James.

ANd Bill, I disagree with what you said about materialism, reductionism, nihilism. All of the physical sciences have been based on the concept of materialism for centuries, ever since the apple fell on Newton's head. From materialism arose reductionism and nihilism, (among other "modern" scientific beliefs, fallacies and falsehoods). Granted, many great advancements in medicine, in astronomy and physics etc have been achieved since then, changes which have improved the quality of life and been of great benefit to many (but certainly not all) people - BUT - the attitudes and technologies spawned from a highly materialistic, nihilistic scientific approach continue pose an ever-growing threat to this planet and every living thing on it.

And as to who the "teachers" are who promote this type of narrow, simplistic, fallacious thinking -- well, I'm no "young one" but in my life, you've certainly been one of them Bill! Your opinions as expressed on threads like these are indeed based on materialism, empiricism, reductionism, even a dash of nihilism (ie all alleged metaphysical truths or values are illusory) now and then.

Or at least, that's how it appears to this reader!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 04:30 PM

BB,

" explained in terms of interpretaition, co-incidence, and the placebo effect."--none of those constitute explanations--i.e., if you say, "Oh, that's the placebo effect!", it doesn't explain anything, because the placebo effect is unexplained. If you say, "That's a just a co-incidence!", it means that that the fact that these things coincided is an explanation of the fact that they happened at the same time--in other words, circular logic--

"interpretation" is begging the question, because it is simply saying, "Well, that's what *you* think!"--

The real issue is that the movement of the stars and the planets can be quantified and qualified, but the interior movements of the human mind cannot--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 04:51 PM

Yes, I know you resent it, Bill, but I've been observing this hard-like-a-rock faith in both the mystically-inclined and the scientifically inclined all my life...and I have waxed cynical about it.

Remember, my father is an engineer and his brother was a nuclear physicist on the Manhattan Project, both of them very opinionated men with no spiritual inclinations whatsoever... ;-) I have observed both of them being blatantly wrong about any number of things on many, many occasions. Why? Because they had a rock-hard opinion, based on partial knowledge or even NO knowledge of the subject under discussion, supported by a great deal of faith that the view they already had MUST be the only right view. Once they voiced that opinion, once it sprang from their lips, they clung to it against all reason, because of faith...and the natural desire of any ego to defend its chosen ground.

People with opinions are blockheads. They search out whatever shreds of information they can find to support their opinion. They discount or ignore what does not support it. They are almost impermeable to anything that doesn't support it. They have no patience for another point of view. They are NOT truly objective.

Here's an interesting thing, Bill. My father said that he saw the spirits of men leaving their bodies when they were killed in front of him in WWII during fierce combats with the Germans.

"What did it look like?" I asked.

"It looked like the person," he said, "like a cloudy image of the person leaving the body."

"So then what happened?"

"It just moved a few feet out of the body and then vanished."

"Did they look aware of the situation?"

"Yes. They looked very upset or shocked, usually."

"What do you make of it? Do you think it indicates there is a soul that survives the death of the body?"

"Well....(shaking his head and grinning to indicate his unwillingness to buy anything THAT way-out)....I don't think so...I think whatever consciousness was there when a person was alive just disperses at death and vanishes, but I'll tell you this. The body that remains is just a piece of meat. The person you knew is simply not there any more, and you can feel that right away."

Now, Bill, the truly incredible thing about all that is THIS: That experience prompted NO curiosity in my father about anything spiritual in the years and decades that followed. None. He remained, as he had been before, a person who is only interested in material, verifiable, tactile stuff, science, math, engineering, machinery, physics, etc...

I ask myself, how CAN a person have an experience like that and not be at least curious about whether or not there is a soul that survives death?????? How could that be?

Faith. That's how. Rock-hard faith in his familiar view of reality. And the sheer tenacity of the average human ego to cling to its established opinions...no matter what. That's faith.

My father, to this day, has shown no interest in spiritual matters of any kind, and I'm sure he never will.

As for his brother, the man had the spiritual abilities of a potatoe and a personality so arrogant and nasty and unpleasant that being around him was no pleasure for anyone. He may have known a lot about physics, but when it came to human relationships he was a complete idiot. I would call that spiritual ignorance of the highest order.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 05:10 PM

That is an amazing story, LH--proving that, after 840 odd posts in this thread, there are still compelling contributions to be made--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 05:32 PM

That's nothing. MOAB is closing on 12000, and is as relavent as ever....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 05:35 PM

That's a great story, Little Hawk. It must have been hard, for you, to be so different from your earliest male 'role models'. Good opportunity to exercise self-confidence, tolerance, compassion though, Hey, maybe even humility too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 05:40 PM

(gotta *love* precious opportunities like that, huh?   grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 06:16 PM

I pretty well hated every minute and hour of it, Daylia.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 06:58 PM

Awww    :-[   hey, I just took a delicious vegetarian pizza out of the oven Little Hawk, made a nice green salad, poured a big glass of orange juice. I wish you were here to share it with me. But I overdid it at work this week, stressing myself out with family stuff too -- and so I came down with a stupid cold Friday night. First time since last spring ... arrrrrggghhhh that's why I've been sitting inside on this !@#$%& computer all day - so gorgeous out there too - NOT FAIR I say!

But I am feeling a bit better now ... and I won't sneeze on you I promise ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 07:33 PM

Ah...poor you. Well, drink lots of liquids and get some rest.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 09:39 PM

" All of the physical sciences have been based on the concept of materialism for centuries,"

You certainly have an interesting take on the history of science, daylia...the whole notion of "based on" is not really applicable. If all you mean is that Science takes as its subject matter the material world and goes about seeing what can be discovered about it, you might be right...but this would be trivial as a criticism, if you mean it as a criticism. Why would this be a problem? It is just a description of what it is supposed to do?

Then you add "From materialism arose reductionism and nihilism, (among other "modern" scientific beliefs, fallacies and falsehoods)."

...and to take apart THAT batch of mis-matched ideas would take awhile. "Arose"? How? Who? As I said, reductionism and nihilism are almost NEVER used as descriptions of belief systems except by critics who want to plaster someone with a negative sounding label. And to top it off, with a few grammatical jumps, you link an already ambiguous claim with the presupposition that modern science *IS* full of "beliefs, fallacies and falsehoods".

1)belief is not properly applied to scientific theories.
2)fallacies applies to logic and reasoning, not to questions of fact.
3) Falsehood 'implies' knowingly stating untruths...and while a few scientists have been known to do such things for personal gain, the usual term for disputing facts is "inaccuracies"...simply theories that didn't work out...etc.


" the attitudes and technologies spawned from a highly materialistic, nihilistic scientific approach continue pose an ever-growing threat to this planet and every living thing on it."

well...yeah, some aspects of technology have obviously been misused and misunderstood. Which ones are you suggesting we give up? Would NONmaterialistic research have given us these computers so we could argue about it? We need to be reasonable about our scientific forays, but that is hardly a critique of scientific endeavor in general.....unless you wish to claim affinity with the Luddities.

""teachers" .... who promote this type of narrow, simplistic, fallacious thinking -...... you've certainly been one of them Bill! "

*shaking my head*....I hardly know what to say to that. It is, patently, false. I have been accused of being wrong at times...(I may even have actually BEEN wrong once or twice....no, I thought I was wrong, but I was mistaken..☺)...but I have never, ever had it suggested that I promoted narrow, simplistic, fallacious thinking~! I spend all these hours here trying to combat such things! If I wounded a few sacred cows trying, I consider it a partial success..*wry smile*
Still, as often is the case, I think the thrust of the accusation comes from hurried and inaccurate use of terminology. Perhaps you don't 'really' think I promote bad thinking, but are merely deluded...a much easier hat for me to wear.


"Your opinions as expressed on threads like these are indeed based on materialism, empiricism, reductionism, even a dash of nihilism"

again..."based" is not accurate or relevant..my opinions are developed from looking at stuff I have read, studied, learned and re-thought for 40+ years. You seem to imply that I consult 'manuals of reductionism' (if there is such a thing) etc., before I post here. Lordy, it sounds like old Joe McCarthy suggetsing that everyone who disagrees with him is based in communism!

I have been told I am beating my head against a wall trying to discuss this issue here...*grin*

but it feel so GOOD when I stop!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 11:43 PM

Pity you two don't live nearer to each other. You could get married. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 07:46 AM

Well, Bill, I'm not going to argue with you about all the beliefs and fallacies underlying modern scientific method. You see whatever you want to see, that's for sure! And I'm feeling better today, so there won't be any more posts of mine here for you to try to mangle. Sorry!

ANd LH, that's a scary thought. We both have Gemini Rising -- blah bllah blah blah blah blah blah --- no one would ever get a word in edgewise around us!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:50 AM

Ah geez -- I taught 3 students, adn my fever's back up ... arrggghhhhh ... no gardening or biking today .... so here I be again in my boredom ....

Strong opinion really does blind people to what's sitting right before their very eyes, as LH's fascinating story of his uncle and his father so aptly demonstrates. Another example of this is how Professor Bill reacted to the given definition of scientific materialism [ie Materialism: matter alone exists; everything else (notably minds or spirits and their ideas and experiences) are analyzable in terms of matter]   by simply ignoring the very crux of the matter - the dangerous (and patently false) belief "matter alone exists", the fundamental principle upon which all of the physical sciences have been based since the days of Newton.

This perspective is too uncomfortable for Bill to honestly contemplate, so instead he side-steps the whole issue and talks about how science investigates the material world (DUH!) and asks, in all vapidity .... Why would this be a problem? It is just a description of what it is supposed to do? And he denies the relationship between reductionism, nihilism and materialism - a connection that anyone who's completed even a high school science or history course could see and understand, if they wanted to.   

And those are the key words here -- *if they wanted to*.

In the same way, he ignores all the highly accurate descriptions and insights posted here from his natal chart, and discounts the rest by refusing to acknowledge the many, many aspects of his (and everyone else's) being that are unconscious, latent, undeveloped, repressed, subconscious.

Bagpuss reacted the same way earlier. Her natal chart also gave highly accurate descriptions of her intellectual strengths, her interest in research and career in medicine, her fascination with the dark and morbid. She agreed all this was so, even the interest in death and the morbid (that's pretty unique and highly specific, imo!) But then she discounted it all by saying she has no interest in surgery (?!?)

So, instead of honestly pondering her own self and her own chart in more depth, which is what astrology is all about (the deepening of self-awareness), just like Bill, she ignores it. WHy? Because it threatens her view of the world, herself, and her comfortable little prejudices re subjects like astrology. It feels much less threatening to focus outside herself, on the few scientific studies which have been done on astrology to date - most of which are negative, and all of which are useless because they are based on a false premise (ie 'testing' astrology's alleged 'predictive' qualities; the most common and popular misconception of what astrology's all about). WHen I pointed this out, several times over, she either couldn't get it through her noggin or simply refused to.

I even posted a full section of my own natal chart here earlier, knowing full well anyone who's read a few of my posts here could see just how accurate it is. Did anyone bother to comment? Nah ....   

And I told of my experience with my ex and his twin, my own twins, the differences between these two sets of twins and the corresponding differences in their natal charts. Did anyone comment? Only one person, the lady who thanked me for posting the link to Astrodienst. The rest just ignored it - except Bagpuss, who made no comment re the compelling astrological info I gave, but used it instead to "instruct" (?!?) me re biology and psychology of twins -- a subject I not only studied extensively in university, but also have a lifetime of very practical, first-hand experience with / knowledge of.

Oh well, that's life ... what a piece of work is man ... and woman ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 10:59 AM

And he denies the relationship between reductionism, nihilism and materialism - a connection that anyone who's completed even a high school science or history course could see and understand, if they wanted to.

On second thought, it would probably be more accurate to say that anyone who'd completed a 1st year univerity course in history, science and/or philosophy could see and understand this. *If they wanted to*. High school courses typically do not get into that much depth, unless they are 'enriched' ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:00 AM

I think banging my head on the wall is beginning to affect my normal equanimity .....

"Further, deponent sayeth not"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Paul Burke
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:00 AM

the dangerous (and patently false) belief "matter alone exists", the fundamental principle upon which all of the physical sciences have been based since the days of Newton.

What's patently false about that? In fact, of course it's not matter "alone" that exists. There's also its counterpart, energy, with which it is connected by Einstein's most famous equation.

So, having stated that something is "patently" false, are you know going to provide some of the dreaded evidence for that assertion? Or is this another of those things that you just know, and we just have to accept your higher authority?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:21 AM

Well, I'm no physicist but even 'energy' could be reduced to the product of physical matter, at least in the minds of certain scientific reductionist/materialists. And no, Paul, you don't 'have to' accept a single thing I say. Or a single thing anyone else says, for that matter.

Are you going to demonstrate to us all how "matter alone exists", then?    So much for boredom .... I can hardly wait! The mysteries of life and of the universe revealed, finally, after several millennia of speculation and debate! Right here on Mudcat, by our own St Paul no less!!   ;-]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:25 AM

Then there's E=MC squared. That must explain it all!   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:52 AM

Bill, I applaud your patience, stamina and the strength of your skull to withstand the the constant battering it is taking against the wall that grows thicker, harder and more dense with each assault of logic that is hurled against it.

"Cast not your pearls before swine."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM

I prefer nice round spherical perfectly proportioned and balanced pearls to Bill's one-sided slanted variety, bobad. And shoot, I must have missed the posts from all these bores boars swine you refer to.

Hey, considering all these alleged pigs lurking about, we should start a new website. WE could even call it MUDSWINE! Think of all the pearls, of all shapes and sizes that would attract!   We could cast 'em out, string 'em up and make a mint!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Spock
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:23 PM

Logic is little tweeting bird chirping in meadow. Logic is wreath of pretty flowers that smell bad.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Kirk
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:32 PM

Spock? What else would you expect from a simpering devil eared freak whose father was a computer and whose mother was an encyclopedia. A carcass full of memory banks who should be squatting on a mushroom, instead of passing himself off as a man.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Data
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:34 PM

Intriguing.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Picard
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:56 PM

Poppycock.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,William Shatner
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 12:59 PM

Get a LIFE!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,The Doctor
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:05 PM

I love Humans,always seeing patterns where none exist!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Q
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM

You're dead, this is the afterlife -- and I'm God.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Spock
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:24 PM

If I were human, I believe the correct response would be 'Go to Hell'.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,McCoy
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:29 PM

Damn medievalism!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Kirk
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 01:43 PM

And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:04 PM

What a wonderful astrological metaphor! I Admiral you even more now!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Kirk
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:07 PM

Worlds may change, galaxies disintegrate, but a woman... always remains a woman, daylia.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 02:15 PM

WEll, I dunno about that Admiral. If all goes as planned, I'm coming back as a whirlpool nebula next time around. So we'll see!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM

It would seem impossible to visit the NASA "Astronomy Picture of the Day" website without realizing that scientists appreciate beauty as much as anyone. For some, the beauty is only enhanced by understanding the physics of a beautiful phenomenon.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 03:30 PM

Split the atom's heart, and lo!
Within it thou wilt find a sun.

-Persian Mystic Poem


"The treasures hidden in the heavens are so rich that the human mind shall never be lacking in fresh nourishment."

-Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)


"The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living."

-Jules Henri Poincare


The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny...'"

-Isaac Asimov (1920-1992)


"The universe is full of magical things patiently waiting for our wits to grow sharper."

-John D. Barrow, The World Within the World

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 04:52 PM

Each side in this debate has firmly-held views. In philosophy, argument continues after centuries about how we can say we know what we claim to know; about whether science proves, or just asserts what has not yet been disproved; about the nature of reality.

Each side has made points that the other doesn't look like ithas dealt with. From this side, I've suggested the other have a peek at some easy-to-obtain introductory texts, at least to indicate that this side has serious views, for those with anything approaching genuine interest.

It makes sense to me that people with a scientific background or bent would hold on to it. When you have a lot invested in such a project, then something like astrolgy is obviously seen as a threat and dangerous. My hunch is that the population is at greater risk statistically from ...... no, let's not go there.

I've suggested a reason or two why peoples' experience with astrology might not be happy - the relative rarity of quality astrologers, for example,( which is why I'm not too smitten with computer-generated, let alone amateur, interpretation.)

Here are one or two others. One is the large presence of the unconscious. I'm afraid that we are liable to be hidden from ourselves, to hide from ourselves, to be blind to ourselves. (A few times recently, I've heard someone saying 'I didn't let myself know that ........') And from my therapeutic experience, I'm aware of how much we are in ignorance of tracts of ourselves; for many,they are ,of course unaware even of such self-ignorance. Much of this is hidden away in the unconscious.

Another, and related, is our tendency self-delusion, to build pictures of ourselves at variance with our realities.

Lastly, to repeat an earlier point, it is in the nature of human life,(a continuous process), that nothing in it can be strictly repeatable , (same goes for a society) so it is not amenable to strict scientific inquiry. Philosophers argue about freewill versus determinism, involved in astrological interpretation; thus a major part of life, a priori, isn't any more open to measurement than desire, interest or purpose.

Science can't tell you what you already know (somewhere), namely who you are and what your purposes are.

Ivor






"We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Edison,quoted by Dr.Lawrence Peter,'Quotations for our Time.'

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 09:53 PM

Nice quotes Daylia - thanks.

Now let's make people lose sleep...

I am going to make 15 blank posts between midnight and 3AM (GMT -4). So all you 900 lurkers (oh I know you're out there...along with a few who already have designs on the big 1K) better stay up!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 04:08 PM

"If there is one true statement true of every living person it must be this; he hasn't achieved his (and her) full potential."
                   opening of Joy, by William Schultz

"Certain assumptions have to be made if there is to be any discourse at all." Professor Morse Peckham

"Everone sees what you appear to be;few experience what you really are."                Machiavelli



   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 09:33 AM

Great quotes Ivor! Can't resist adding a couple words to Machiavelli's quote "Everone sees what you appear to be; few experience what you really are.... [including yourself!]"

One difference between an astrologically informed person (ie one with practical first-hand knowledge and experience with their birthchart and transits) and one who is not is that the former comes to recognize and understands his/her "shadow side" better than the latter, and, using astrology as a tool, discovers how to integrate, express and ultimately make peace with it. To quote from Liz Greene, Jungian psychoanalyist and astrologer at Astrodienst ...

"Fate does not lie in your being subjected to random preordained events. It lies in the cast of characters which represent the deepest needs, conflicts and aspirations which lie within you ...

[Astrology] might make it possible for you to achieve greater harmony between the different components within yourself, and to strengthen that centre of the personality which psychology calls the ego, the "I". Free will may not include the possibility of becoming somebody else. But it my include the ability to stand firmly at the centre of your horoscope and feel related to the different aspects of your psyche, rather than wandering about blindly, feeling impotent and victimised by conflicting cross-currents and impulses from within yourself and from the world outside. Two people may have certain astrological configurations which are similar, but one might be buffeted by his or her inner demons like a rudderless small boat tossed on a difficult sea; while the other individual remains somehow solid and real as a person and can therefore navigate the boat intelligently through the ocean's changing currents ...


Reminds me of that truly Admiral astrological metaphor: 'And all I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by ...'   :-]

Here are some of the more illustrious 'Tall Ships' who studied and practiced astrology; whose scientific insights and theories - built upon and informed as they were by astrology, the most ancient of the mathematical/astronomical/psychological arts - literally changed the world -- Big League Scientists and Astrology.

Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)

Tycho Brahe (1546-1601)

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Carl Gustave Jung (1875-1961).

Today, scientists have been known to attack astrology vehemently. The odd thing is that modern science actually developed out of astrology and a few other related disciplines of the ancient and medieval world. As recently as 300 years ago, many astronomers knew a good deal about astrology. Four hundred years ago many astronomers practiced astrology. Five hundred years ago every astronomer was, more or less, also an astrologer. We've sure fallen a long way since then!

Re Johannes Kepler: very interesting how his three famous laws of physics were hijacked almost immediately, but his work with astrology has been suppressed for centuries by the more "enlightened" (?!?) scientific/materialist community ...

"Between 1612 and 1626, Kepler worked as provincial mathematicus ("personal astrologer") in Linz, the capital of upper Austria. During this time, he published the best ephemerides of the century and also his third book, The Harmony of the World. This work was the climax of his lifelong obsession with astrology, astronomy, numbers, and music. Kepler himself thought this book to be the best thing that had come along in metaphysics since Plato. Not many others agreed, however. Metaphysical philosophy, primarily Pythagoreanism and Hermeticism, was on the way out. The Protestant fundamentalists, who were shaping the mindset of the times, couldn't accept that way of thinking, and their rejection made it unfashionable for scientists, mostly Protestant, to take it seriously. But Kepler was a genius on many levels; buried in this work was his third planetary law. Years later, Isaac Newton discovered it and made a name for himself as the greatest scientist of his time.

Kepler's astrological writings have been suppressed. The Mysterious Cosmos has never been translated into English. The Harmony of the World was only recently translated from the German, but The New Astronomy, his math and physics book, has long been available. Kepler wrote about 80 other essays and treatises on astrology and astronomy, only a few of which are available to English readers..."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 10:46 AM

Yes, and ancient doctors believed that evil spirits caused illness. Back then, medicine and demonology were not quite separate. Also long ago, astrology and astronomy were not quite separate. But this is today. I believe that belief in astrology is probably lowest among astronomers than any other demographic.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:05 AM

That depends on how rigid, or 'fundamentalist' a scientist's belief system happens to be, TIA. Those who put less blind faith in the hallowed scientific concepts of materialism, reductionism, empiricism, nilihism etc enjoy the benefits of a much more holistic, comprehensive world-view. Here are more insights, from one such 'unfettered' scientist ---

"The truth is that astrology flourishes as never before. There is a regular library of astrological books and magazines that sell for far better than the best scientific works. The Europeans and Americans who have horoscopes cast for them may be counted not by the hundred thousand but by the million. Astrology is a flourishing industry. ...

If such a large percentage of the population has an insatiable need for this counter pole to the scientific spirit, we can be sure that the collective psyche in every individual - be he never so scientific - has this psychological requirement in equally high degree. A certain kind of "scientific" scepticism and criticism in our time is nothing but a misplaced compensation of the powerful and deep-rooted superstitious impulses of the collective psyche."

- C.G. Jung, Two Essays on Analytical Psychology

"While studying astrology I have applied it to concrete cases many times. ... The experiment is most suggestive to a versatile mind, unreliable in the hands of the unimaginative, and dangerous in the hands of a fool, as those intuitive methods always are. If intelligently used the experiment is useful in cases where it is a matter of an opaque structure. It often provides surprising insights. The most definite limit of the experiment is lack of intelligence and literal-mindedness of the observer. ...

Undoubtedly astrology today is flourishing as never before in the past, but it is still most unsatisfactorily explored despite very frequent use. It is an apt tool only when used intelligently. It is not at all foolproof and when used by a rationalistic and narrow mind it is a definite nuisance."

- C. G. Jung: Letters, volume 2, 1951-1961, pages 463-464, letter to Robert L. Kroon, 15 November 1958

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:32 AM

PS Here's an article by one "unfettered" modern astronomer, for anyone who's interested -- Dr Percy Seymour.

"Like Michel Gauquelin before him, Seymour's alignment with astrology predictably raised a storm of protest from several members of the scientific community when his book, Astrology: The Evidence of Science, appeared in April 1989. In an Omni interview later that same year, Seymour commented, "Of course, I expected people to take objection to my theory. But I didn't expect the reaction to be so vehement or so irrational."[4]

Seymour brings to the astrology-science debate a rich body of experience and credentials. His grandfather taught him to identify Orion's belt and other southern constellations. Growing up as the son of an interracial couple in apartheid South Africa, Seymour also learned what it meant to be labelled "Cape colored," a racist colloquialism applied in that country to non-whites. It was an experience that has left him intolerant of bigotry of any kind, including the prejudicial arguments against astrology employed by some scientists. Holding doctorates in astronomy and astrophysics, Seymour's expertise in the study of the magnetic fields that thread our galaxy, and his book, Cosmic Magnetism, have won him academic acclaim.[5] Director of the William Day Planetarium and principal lecturer in astronomy at the University of Plymouth, Seymour teaches gifted undergraduate students and conducts research in astronomy. In addition to Cosmic Magnetism, he is the author of five books: Halley's Comet, The Scientific Basis of Astrology, Astrology: The Evidence of Science, The Paranormal: Beyond Sensory Science, and Adventures in Astronomy, a hands-on approach to building simple astrolabes, star clocks, and sundials.

A chartered member of the Institute of Physics and Fellow member of the Royal Astronomical Society, Seymour's fascination with navigational instruments and the history of science has inspired him to organize and hold a pioneering conference at Plymouth University entitled, "Navigation in Astronomy." Scheduled to run simultaneously with the "Astrology in the 21st Century" conference, which is being organized by the Astrological Association of Great Britain, these two events will bring hundreds of astrologers and astronomers together under the full shadow of the much-discussed eclipse of August 11, 1999. Conference ..."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 11:44 AM

Argumentum Ad Verecundiam

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:09 PM

Hoo boy. Again, I am baffled about where some people get their ideas about science and scientists. Fundamentalism is exactly antithetical to the scientific metod. And I do not know, nor have I read, a single scientst who is a believer in nihilism (or nilihism).

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:12 PM

Well, Bill, to give examples of modern scientists who have or do study / use / teach astrology, one must name them and offer a quote or article (or several in the case of Jung -- I do *like* Jung) for validation.

So ... how's the ole inner drama unfolding today anyway?

=]   [=

All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:28 PM

Did you even bother reading about Dr Seymour, or honestly pondering Jung's lifework / position on astrology, TIA?

Nah, I suppose you didn't. Why bother? It's easier, and it feels so much safer to focus on something else instead - to divert attention away from the interesting and uncomfortable (to you) information just presented above and toward "some people's" (unnamed, of course) alleged opinions re science and scientists.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:32 PM

Carl Jung is far from "a modern scientist"

quoting him 'implies' that his name lends credence to the subject matter....it does not.




*down, Bill...down! You said you oughta know better!*

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:40 PM

Carl G Jung is listed in Webster's biographical index as a "Swiss psychologist", Bill. Psychology is a branch of science, and Jung one of the most respected and influential and scientists in his field.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:42 PM

(As any fool who managed to squeak through Psychology 101 knows already)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Aristotle
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:45 PM

There is a foolish corner even in the brain of the sage.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Mark Twain
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:53 PM

Ah, well, I am a great and sublime fool. But then I am God's fool, and all His work must be contemplated with respect.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Plato
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 12:54 PM

Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools talk because they have to say something.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:03 PM

And you suppose wrong. But I'm still curious where those fundamentalist nihilist scientists can be found.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:04 PM

" Psychology is a branch of science,"

used in this way, fallacy of equivocation that is, we are looking at two different uses of 'science'.

Jung is not the KIND of scientist who would be relevant to consult on the truth of this issue. He 'might' be useful in discussing why people feel a need to delve into it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:06 PM

And I just have to say ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:06 PM

900!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM

Do a bit of research, TIA. That's how I found them.

Hint: try the field of neurobiology.

Bill, like I said before, I do hope you never need a psychologist. Your ignorance (and corresponding oh-so-Taurean bull-headedness) re the most basic tenets and influential contributors to this entire branch of science is -- well -- understandable, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:15 PM

" your ignorance is ......-- well -- understandable"

fallacy of ad hominem

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Chongo Chimp
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:05 PM

Hey, Bill? We are all ignorant about a lotta stuff. I know I am. I'm ignorant specially about stuff I ain't interested in. Stuff like astrology. I figger Daylia is just pointin' out that you are ignorant about some of the stuff she's interested in, and odds are 99 to 1 that she is right. That don't mean you are just plain totally "ignorant" by definition...across the board...know what I mean? So why take it as an insult? Everybody's ignorant about some stuff and well-informed about other stuff.

Nobody knows everything. Except maybe my bookie.

Naw...not even him.

If you don't know much about somethin', Bill, and I'm bettin' there are a whole lotta things you don't know much about...then you are ignorant in regards to that stuff.

It wasn't no ad hominen attack, Bill, it was just Daylia sayin' that there's a few things you ain't so well informed on among the 999 billion different interesting things out there in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:33 PM

Bill, all I meant was that you are lettered in philosophy, not psychology. And so it's easy to understand how you haven't a clue about even the most basic tenets of psychological science or it's most respected and influential contributors.

Thank you, though, for continuing to demonstrate the amazing accuracy of the interpretations of your own astrological natal chart offered above ie:

"Mercury was in the twelfth house at the time of birth. Psychologically you are continually trying to analyze others in order to find their motivation. A natural human researcher, you spend time projecting your interests and in faultfinding. It may be very desirable to reverse these tendencies and turn your mind's eye on your inner self."


Then there's the section re your Taurus Sun, also 'hidden away' in the 12th house ...


"The Sun was in your twelfth house at the time of birth. This may indicate a life full of limitations, obstacles, and human opposition, but at the same time a lot of inner strength and energy.

You are urged to pause and reflect upon your own accumulated history. Take some time for introspection. It may result in a purification process ...

Internally, you are quite different from the way you present yourself externally. You possess a vast reservoir of energy that may be partially hidden even from your own awareness.

Your internal disposition is strong, commanding, open, and of a rare generosity. More and more you should try to bring these characteristics into the open so that they can overcome some of the less desirable aspects of your personality."


Also, (once again!) re your Saturn in fiery Aries, in the 11th house (the house of friends, public image and stature) and conjunct the powerful and largely unconscious energies of that 12th house stellium in atubborn, slow-thinking, traditional, conservation Taurus:

"... You are strongly attached to your own point of view, and if challenged, you will fight very hard for your opinions. You are much more likely to fight for an ideal than for yourself. On one hand, you can be quite self-righteous and narrowly fanatical about your beliefs, but you can also be courageous in defending the rights of those who are downtrodden ... Try not to get so wrapped up in your own views that you won't even consider someone else's."


But hey, please don't take any of that seriously and go *changing* on us now. I, for one, wouldn't have you any other way!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 06:44 PM

Oops that should read "stubborn, slow-thinking, traditional, conservaTIVE Taurus".

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 07:27 PM

Oh yes, and I forgot to post this a couple days ago re

M.Ted...nope, the impulse to debate is not 'irresistable'...I avoid more of thse threads than I jump into. I even stayed away from THIS one for quite awhile... (09 Apr 06 - 03:38 PM)

I snooped on you, Bill - of the first 200 posts listed, 22 (approx 11%) were to this thread or others like it (re the occult, religion, predictions, the paranormal etc). ANd of your next 200 posts, 37 (approx 18%) were to this thread, or others like it.

So if the first 400 of your thousands and thousands of posts on Mudcat are any indication - on average, between 10 and 20% of your posts on Mudcat are to threads like this one. That's a fair chunk of time and energy and motivation, for a guy who denies any 'irresistable urge' toward subjects like these.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:00 PM

"Psychologically you are continually trying to analyze others in order to find their motivation. A natural human researcher, you spend time projecting your interests and in faultfinding."

well, "that just shows t' go ya'", as my daddy used to say...Mercury could have been in my mother's bureau drawer when I was born, but he shore missed the boat on that! I really, truly do NOT concern myself much with other's motivation...unless THEY make it a big issue...and then I cannot judge whether they are being truthful or not. I do not read minds...I do not accuse people of 'intending' anything.

My interest is (mostly)in 'accurate reasoning'...TRUTH and Fact are also nice to have, but are often cloudy or unsure when in dispute. But I CAN usually tell when the defense or explanation or reasoning ABOUT a claim is not justifiable. That involves just applying simple rules which are NOT subjective.

Thus, my 'ignorance' of deeper detail about a topic does not necessarily prevent me from understanding what methodology would be appropriate to explain, defend or analyze it. Thus, labeling me as 'ignorant' of X is irrelevant and a general 'ad hominum' remark,(sorry LH) even though not mean in a mean way. It negates my background in Philosophy and logic, which ARE relevant in noting that Jung's writings outside his field are only 'interesting'...much as Einstein's are outside physics and math.

If Jung 'had a great mind' and did some serious research into the statistical and physical aspects of Astrology, we could then discuss his techniques, reasoning, and data...but all he did was muse about history and people's interest....educational, but not a supporting body of material for the accuracy of a debatable area.

You know, if way back there...750 posts ago, ytou had said something like "I dunno about the FACTUAL basis of this stuff, but it's fun, and I like playing the game and watching the interesting ways it helps me think about character and personality"...(much like many people watch the 'sport' of professional wrestling ☺), I would have just said "fine...amuse yourself". But what I see is claims - both explicit and implict - that the positions of astronomical bodies at my birth has some real, genuine, demonstratable relationship to my personality and character, and therefore my 'potential' (it gets kinda slippery as to exactly what is 'claimed' at various times).

**IF** 'the stars' do not exactly 'determine' or 'influence' who I am and what I do, then calling them 'indicators' is pretty curious....as it raises the question of HOW there can be anything for them to indicate! What can 'happen' at my birth that the positions of astronomical bodies can be related to? Why SHOULD it make any difference if my mother's labor were induced hours or days earlier...or delayed a week? Or if she was travelling on a train across Kansas, and the birth took 9 counties and 5 degrees of longitude to complete?

If all that is claimed is that "we really don't know HOW it all works, but very learned men for many centuries have gathered data and compared millions of charts and people to learn the intricate patterns they present to us as a basic guideline.", then I ask...and how do we know they chose the right examples? What was their basis for using the constellations and planets they did? Were they prejudiced? Were they pressured by kings and rich people to find 'benefical' charts? Who's in charge here, anyway! *grin* What IS the difference between a duck?

Nope...you are right...I certainly have NOT studied all the intricate relationships claimed by Astrology...and that, in a certain circuitous sense makes me 'ignorant' of detail...but not of the relevance of that detail nor of the attempts I see to defend that data and it's analysis with questionable reasoning......that's why I noted a few obvious 'informal fallacies' that I did study, and can apply when I see them.

Professional pride & all that...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 08:01 PM

(oh...Happy Easter...see everyone LATE tomorrow or Monday!)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 01:46 AM

If you'd stick to my explanations about astrology, you'd do a lot better with BillD, Daylia--he is right a about your statements, which, admirable as they are, on the persistance scale, they aren't very coherent logically. Still, much entertaining reading, and that, at the end of the day, is what it's all about;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 16 Apr 06 - 09:22 PM

Professional pride & all that...

*wow*   and what a veritable *monument* to the infamous wordiness of Gemini Rising too!    blah blah blah blah    blah blah blah blah       blah blah blah blah       blah blah blah blah       blah blah blah blah       blah blah blah blah       blah blah blah blah       blah blah blah blah         blah blah blah!!!      *whew*   need more time to digest    kinda like Easter dinner    so thanks all and please, keep it up with the *writing* now, Bill    go for it!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:19 AM

but he shore missed the boat on that! I really, truly do NOT concern myself much with other's motivation

Bill, you spend most of your time here faultfinding and blasting other people's beliefs where they differ from your own. If you spent a bit of time in silence instead, pondering yourself and your own feelings you'd sound much more impressive. You might even find you have something interesting abd truly valuable to contribute to threads like these, for once!

It negates my background in Philosophy and logic, which ARE relevant in noting that Jung's writings outside his field are only 'interesting'...much as Einstein's are outside physics and math.

You know nothing of [psychology, Jung, his research or writings, his work with astrology, astrology in general, or even about your own inner self Bill - therefore, your opinions on these subject are worth about the same as my cat's.

But then again, I've just watched you make 3 flailing, failing attempts to accuse me of same, so you obviously don't have much of a clue about that either. You are, however, very good at allowing bias and strong emotion blind you to the truth. How about finding fault with Beethoven's 9th Symphony using the principles of logic instead? That might be even more entertaining to watch!

I would have just said "fine...amuse yourself".

How arrogant! I, for one, don't want or need your approval or your permission about anything in my life. Do you think the whole world waits on your little okey dokeys?

But what I see is claims - both explicit and implict - that the positions of astronomical bodies at my birth has some real, genuine, demonstratable relationship to my personality and character, and therefore my 'potential'

YEs it does, and your own chart descriptions and behaviour on this thread are excellent - and most amusing! - examples of astrology's amazing accuracy. So thank you again for posting -- keep it up!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:32 AM

"Nothing in education is so astonishing as the amount of ignorance it accumulates in the form of inert facts." (Henry B Adams)

"To be ignorant of one's ignorance is the malady of the ignorant." (Amos Bronson Alcott)

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge." (Daniel Boorstin)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:12 AM

And an interesting perspective on logic ....

"The bottom line is that logic alone can tell us nothing new about the real world. Ditto for mathematics, as Albert Einstein observed: "Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact"

Scientists do not arrive at models and theories by application of logic. They arrive at them by many processes lumped under the name 'induction'. Induction cannot be reduced to a set of logical rules (though many have tried). To see patterns (sometimes subtle and hidden ones) in data and observations requires creative ability...

We can't find, discover, or construct scientific laws and theories by mathematics and logic alone. But we can derive testable and useful results by application of mathematics and logic to laws and theories, and if those deduced results pass experimental tests, our confidence in the validity of the theory from which they were derived is strengthened.

In this context, logic and mathematics are reliable and essential tools. Outside of this context they are instruments of error and self-delusion. Whenever you hear a politician, theologian or evangelist casting verbal arguments in the trappings of logic, you can be pretty sure that person is talking moonshine. The quotes that open this essay reflect caution in accepting such misuses of logic."


Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice. (Elbert Hubbard)

Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do. (James Harvey Robinson)

Logic is neither a science nor an art, but a dodge. (Benjamin Jowett)

..logic, the refuge of fools. The pedant and the priest have always been the most expert of logicians, and the most diligent disseminators of nonsense and worse. (H. L. Mencken. The American Mercury. p. 75.)

...philosophy gives us the means of speaking plausibly about all things, and of making ourselves admired by the less learned." (Rene Descartes)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Neils Bohr
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:52 AM

No, no, daylia -- you're not thinking; you're just being logical.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Ambrose
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:54 AM

Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of human misunderstanding.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,little tweeting bird in meadow
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 07:56 AM

♫ Logic is a careful, serious, systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with absolute confidence ♫

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 12:00 PM

All that logic needs in order to arrive at a wrong conclusion about anything is one missing or misconstrued piece of relevant data...or one incorrect underlying assumption which affects the process of gathering and interpreting said data.

That's what's so damned funny about people who go on and on about how logical they are... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 01:18 PM

*daylia*...you quote me as saying that I am NOT concerned with others' motivation, and immediately reply:

"Bill, you spend most of your time here faultfinding and blasting other people's beliefs where they differ from your own"

This simply ignores what I said. I do **NOT** blast other people's 'beliefs'..I object to claims that "beliefs" are MORE than beliefs. If that is 'faultfinding', then I am guilty. You went on to say...explicitly STATE..."it does" about the remark that "the positions of astronomical bodies at my birth has some real, genuine, demonstratable relationship to my personality and character, "

That seems pretty clear. You are stating that Astrology is more then 'belief', but is objectively true and verifiable for anyone if they look carefully. I am saying that I do not accept that, and that your defense of that claim is based on bad reasoning. Th 'fault' is in the defense, not in the belief. (I doubt the belief, I do not "blast" the belief. I doubt most religious claims; I still understand why they are held, just as I understand why people like and 'believe' in Astrology)

Finally, if there was ever an example of 'blasting' someone and making unnecessary and unprovable remarks, this is one: "You know nothing of [psychology, Jung, his research or writings, his work with astrology, astrology in general, or even about your own inner self Bill - therefore, your opinions on these subject are worth about the same as my cat's."

If your cat wants to post, I'll discuss it with him...but you & I can't seem to agree even on what constitutes a fair debate....I guess we both tried as best we knew how.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 02:23 PM

JAAMOI (= just as a matter of interest), has anyone had any second thoughts about their sceptical position since the thread started?

   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 03:16 PM

no.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 04:55 PM

oh..BTW, Little Hawk....what happens when one has a "missing or misconstrued piece of data" ..or "incorrect underlying assumption" without logic to guide them? It seems to me it's either logic and reason or blind luck in getting decent results then. And if one happens to HAVE blind luck and just guess right about a set of possibilities, how do they know?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 05:56 PM

You are stating that Astrology is more then 'belief', but is objectively true and verifiable for anyone if they look carefully. I am saying that I do not accept that, and that your defense of that claim is based on bad reasoning.

That's right, Bill -- astrology IS more than 'belief', and this is verifiable for anyone who studies it and applies it wisely. Any claims I've made about astrology or psychology are based on a lifetime of ongoing study - and most importantly, the wealth of first-hand practical knowledge and experience gleaned through those efforts.

On the other hand, you have no knowledge or practical first-hand experience with either astrology or psychology. A quick glance through a few your posts here verifies this. Any opinions expressed by you on this thread are based on nothing more than popular misconceptions and a lifetime of personal prejudice and ignorance. You try to dress them up by tossing around a couple of the Commandments of Logic. This does not impress me, but I'm sure you find it gratifying!

You don't care to accept any of this? Oh well -- so what? Your choice = your loss.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 06:14 PM

what happens when one has a "missing or misconstrued piece of data" ..or "incorrect underlying assumption" without logic to guide them? It seems to me it's either logic and reason or blind luck in getting decent results then. And if one happens to HAVE blind luck and just guess right about a set of possibilities, how do they know

THis is where trusty ole first-hand practical observation and experience come in handy. Ask any scientist    ;=D

Oh - and GUEST above is me, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 08:24 PM

" practical observation and experience" thought the world was flat until a few hundred years ago..*grin*..(Some are still not convinced otherwise)

" practical observation and experience" believed that acquired characteristics could be inherited into the last century...many are still not convinced they can't.

" practical observation and experience" believed that certain races were inherently inferior until....hmmmm...I see that one is VERY widely still held despite all those pesky scientists suggesting otherwise.

" practical observation and experience" believed in Spontaneous Generation until pretty recently.

Quote:"Observation: Every year in the spring, the Nile River flooded areas of Egypt along the river, leaving behind nutrient-rich mud that enabled the people to grow that year's crop of food. However, along with the muddy soil, large numbers of frogs appeared that weren't around in drier times.
Conclusion: It was perfectly obvious to people back then that muddy soil gave rise to the frogs.


Observation: In many parts of Europe, medieval farmers stored grain in barns with thatched roofs (like Shakespeare's house). As a roof aged, it was not uncommon for it to start leaking. This could lead to spoiled or moldy grain, and of course there were lots of mice around.
Conclusion: It was obvious to them that the mice came from the moldy grain."


" practical observation and experience" AND common sense have made 'honest' mistakes like this for thousands of years.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 09:53 PM

Practical first-hand observation and experience is also the foundation of great, if not endless knowledge and benefit -- tool-making, agriculture, animal husbandry, musical instruments, scales and theory etc etc etc in all cultures, throughout human history. We've even learned -- and continue to learn --- better and better ways of fixing pot-holes! Only through direct and very practical first-hand observation and experience, though.

Did all this just kinda ^*Til_t* right outta the ole noodle, Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

Bill - "oh..BTW, Little Hawk....what happens when one has a "missing or misconstrued piece of data" ..or "incorrect underlying assumption" without logic to guide them?"

LOL! I thought you might say that. Bill...don't make the mistake of assuming that I am recommending NOT to use logic! Any sane person uses a certain amount of logic most of the time, and most people use a lot of logic...as they should...BUT (listen carefully)...

Despite their use OF logic, which as I say is very, very common, it is equally common for them to still be wrong in many of their conclusions! This can easily be observed in others and even in oneself, often as not.

Therefore, what I was drawing attention to with some amusement was the fact that people's gift of logical thinking still leads them astray very often...simply because they use of logic is limited to:

1. available information
2. their ability to hunt out that information
3. their likely inclination to ignore or discount information they don't like
4. their frequent tendency not to even notice information that IS relevant, specially if they wouldn't like it
5. their more frequent tendency to gloss over unpleasant information and focus strongly on information that is pleasant
6. their emotions and prior belief systems interfering in the whole process described above

It's hilarious, Bill. I have never yet seen an arguer or a debater or a believer in anything who didn't use logic, and plenty of it, but how much was his logic compromised by his emotions, his prejudices, his preconceived notions, his need to "win" once he has decided on a position from which to argue?

And that is why the whole thing amuses me, when people start trumpeting about their grand allegiance to LOGIC...as if only THEY and people who agree with them love logic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ha! I laugh. We all love logic, and we all use it every chance we get to impress others with the rightness of our views, and we are all frequently wrong regardless.

There is no one out there "without logic to guide him", Bill, unless you are speaking of someone who is very severely mentally ill and incapable of thinking coherently at all. Hell, even dogs and cats can use a certain amount of logic. I've seen them do it.

Bill, I think you keep the same mistake, and that is assuming that the people you don't agree with about something are stupid. ;-) They're not. I would never assume you are stupid, and you are misleading yourself if you think that people who believe in various esoteric things are stupid either. Most of them are far from it, and they are just as good at using logic as anyone else is.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 11:02 PM

So. We ALL use logic. We all use practical experience. We all use math, existing known science, measurement, reasoning, etc. We all use those things, Bill. Yes, even people who believe in ghosts, God, reincarnation, or anything else you don't happen to believe in uses logic, math, observation, science, all that usual stuff...where and when they can use it. And in matters where they can't, they use whatever else works.

It's the "whatever else" you seem to have a problem with...

Not everything can be proven, and there's no harm in being interested in things that can't be proven or making use of them if they seem to work for you. If a thing can neither be proven nor disproven, why be against it simply because it hasn't been proven yet? Why does that bother you?

You can't prove you're a nice guy. But you seem to be, by all accounts, and that's good enough for most people.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:01 AM

sorting out all the ways to reply to that combination praise and disclaimer on Logic would take me all night! Part of it, as usual when I trade ripostes with you, relates to more 'equivocation' about the word. I am referring to formal logic...not 'common reasoning'. I mean Venn diagrams and syllogisms and disjuncts and such. When THOSE are faulty and strict rules are broken, whether the speaker realizes it or not, the claims are NOT justified. It is no longer a matter of " emotions, his prejudices, his preconceived notions,"...and it has NOTHING to do with usefullness, honesty or motives. You are either using GOOD logic or BAD logic...either of which prove anything about fact.


".. there's no harm in being interested in things that can't be proven or making use of them if they seem to work for you."

Yup...I'll go along with that...but the next bit gets awkward.

I am not 'against' stuff that hasn't been proven...I 'doubt'...if a theory has as much evidence against it as for it, and even its adherents admit that it can't exactly BE proven, I doubt even more...which is far from 'proving it wrong'.

I haven't mentioned this in awhile, in view of recent posts, I think I will remind those who may still be masochistic enough to still be reading...

"The burden of proof of a claim is on the assertor" ...and there have been some pretty hard claims made up above.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:56 AM

Yes, Bill, formal logic has certain rules, I'm aware of that, but I don't think it can be used to either prove or disprove most of the things we habitually argue about...it can only be used to concoct brilliant statements which appear to have no holes in them. (grin)

Big deal. We can all make brilliant statements which do not violate the rules of formal logic (if we watch every friggin' word like a hawk while we do it), but it doesn't change a thing.

The "burden of proof" you refer to, likewise, has no bearing on something that I have no wish to prove in the first place.

Look, I may "believe" in reincarnation, to use the common vernacular. What that really means is I think that it's very probable. Why I think so would be a looooooong story. It certainly doesn't mean that I'm burning with a desire to PROVE that reincarnation exists! Not at all. I don't believe that I am capable of proving such a thing to anyone, and that's fine with me. I'm not interested in proving it to anyone. I don't care if they don't believe in it. It doesn't matter. I just think it's a probable thing, and I like talking about it. Period.

There is no burden of proof on me, because I don't have to go around "proving" things and I don't want to. I'm not even interested in doing that. What for? And how would I go about it? And who would listen if I could prove it somehow (which I can't)? LOL! Only the people who already like the idea would listen, that's who.

Forget it, man. There is no burden of proof OR disproof on anyone when it comes to spiritual stuff like that. Leave proof for things that can be physically observed in this world, Bill. You can't prove non-physical stuff that is not testable or controllable in a lab, nor can you disprove it. It still may be real...or it may not...but there is no burden of proof on anyone about it.

As far as Daylia's astrology...I have no opinion on that. That's not really of much interest to me.

You're a clever man, Bill, and you can always find some logical errors of some kind in a few hundred words written down by someone in haste, but that doesn't prove their basic idea is wrong, necessarily...it just proves you're a clever guy, and they did not express themselves in a perfectly logical manner.

So what?

Cleverness is not the same thing as wisdom. It would be like comparing a really good racing bike to a cloud formation. The one is a well crafted creation with a limited use. The other is unique, perfect, ever-changing, and a complete mystery in human terms. No comparison, really.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 06:03 AM

"Cleverness is not the same thing as wisdom. It would be like comparing a really good racing bike to a cloud formation. The one is a well crafted creation with a limited use. The other is unique, perfect, ever-changing, and a complete mystery in human terms. No comparison, really. "

Sorry for not making many contributions, but sometimes I found a phrase that triggers my impulse to say something, quite honestly. I could be a bike producer and be deeply impressed by the beauty and mystery of a cloud in the sky. BUT don´t tell me that that cloud will describe or manifest anything about my personality because it resembles the image of a God or Goddess and appears over my head. And much less tell me that I am an ignorant narrow-minded because I ask for an explanation to such bizarre conception. Even if you have spent a life studying the significance of cloud forms. Just let´s share the emotion of contemplating its beauty.

Un abrazo,
Andrés (in Buenos Aires, Argentina)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 06:10 AM

What on earth makes you think cloud formations are a complete mystery, LH? They are chaotic thermodynamic systems, and can be understood in terms of heat transfer and water/ vapour phase change. If you demand a detailed explanation for the detailed shape of every individual cloud, you are being far greedier than any reductionist.

Wisdom must include knowing when a metaphor reaches breaking point.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:22 AM

"The burden of proof of a claim is on the assertor"

Bill's "burden of proof fallacy" is nothing more than a dodge, a very common and relatively useless tactic used to excuse oneself of the responsibility of detangling one's own neurons by doing one's own investigation.

When a claim is easily verified, the person initiating the claim normally assumes the burden of proof. Not doing so, however, does not constitute a fallacy. The fallacy occurs whenever someone shifts the burden of proof to avoid the difficulty of substantiating a claim which would be very difficult to support.

Claims about astrology, however, are not easily verified. And in real life, the 'burden of proof' is always on the one needing or demanding that proof - particularly with subjects like astrology, the mysteries of which still lie beyond the scope of empirical scientific investigation. The only means - to date - of discovering the truth about astrology is to find it for oneself through direct, first-hand, ongoing personal study, investigation, observation, application and experience. And sorry, no one else could possibly do this for you, Bill - not me, not your friends or co-workers or neighbours. Not even the scientists at the university next door.

Just like many, many of the other 'finer things' in life.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:32 AM

Oops .. GUEST above is me again. This site sometimes bogs down when I'm logged in, so I don't bother - sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:09 AM

Claims about astrology, however, are not easily verified.

There might be a good reason for that...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:36 AM

There are, in fact, quite a few excellent reasons for that Paul. Some have already been discussed at length on this thread, only to be (quite predictably!) sidestepped, ignored and/or 'forgotten' by the Mudcat *Single Finger* Brigade.

I'm not going to waste my time and energy doing other people's homework, though. Please carefully re-read Ivor's posts, and my own, too - if you really want verification. If not, who cares? You've as much right as anyone else to voice whatever opinions you like here - even opinions about things you (obviously) know diddley-squat about.

This type of behaviour can be amusing, at least.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:47 AM

My statement about a cloud formation being mysterious was allegorical, guys. If you look at a cloud in a literal-minded fashion only, then you will probably see nothing mysterious about it at all. You'll only see "chaotic thermodynamic systems which can be understood in terms of heat transfer and water/ vapour phase change..." etc, blah, blah, blah.... (sigh) Well, that could bore the paint right off the wall, couldn't it? ;-)

Andres, what could possibly suggest to you that I think that a cloud formation can "describe or manifest anything about your personality because it resembles the image of a God or Goddess and appears over your head"...????? What? LOL!

Looks to me like you and Paul are doing the usual thing done in these debates which is to ascribe some totally ridiculour assertion to your worthy opponent (which he would never have thought of himself) thus proving his entire argument is fallacious...

When I say that clouds are mysterious, I mean the same thing as when I say that the colors of the dawn are beautiful or that the wind sounds lonely or that a snowflake is "perfect". And what I am talking about can neither be confirmed nor denied by any form of empirical measurement or observation, it can only be felt with the heart's perception. And that's mysterious...if you notice it at all. If you don't, then it doesn't matter to you, does it?

We made the bicycle, you see, so we understand it very well. We can control it. We did not make the clouds, the wind, the dawn or the ocean. If we have wisdom, even if we do not, we may feel a sense of awe when we observe them, because there is something in them that is simply beyond our knowing.

That's what the spiritual search is about, and that's why it cannot be dealt with effectively in a laboratory.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 11:31 AM

I can't see how it detracts from the beauty of a cloud if you know a bit about the processes which created that cloud. In fact, it adds greatly to the experience. Just as knowing how the chemical and physical nature of a surface or a fluid can filter white light to produce colours does not destroy the appreciation of the beauty of a sunset, a rainbow or a butterfly's wing.

In claiming that it is only by some kind of virginal ignorance that beauty can be appreciated, you are trying to claim a monopoly of artistic sensitivity and spirituality. And that is extremely arrogant and greedy.

Scientific knowledge enhances all kinds of spirituality except those that only their own revelation is valid.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 11:54 AM

Again, Paul, you are ascribing to me thoughts and emotions which are not anything like mine. This is not a legitimate or useful way in which to conduct a discussion.

I agree with you that it does not detract from the beauty of a cloud if you know a bit about the processes which created that cloud. Yes, it can add greatly to the experience, just as knowing how the chemical and physical nature of a surface or a fluid can filter white light to produce colours does not destroy the appreciation of the beauty of a sunset, a rainbow or a butterfly's wing. Agreed!

My allegorical view of the cloud as being "mysterious" does not in any way conflict with my scientific appreciation of the cloud's nature...nor should it.

"In claiming that it is only by some kind of virginal ignorance that beauty can be appreciated, you are trying to claim a monopoly of artistic sensitivity and spirituality. And that is extremely arrogant and greedy."

Your key error in the above statement is the word "only". I do not claim that such innocence is required nor do I claim that it is the ONLY way. I think that a fully knowledgable scientists can also have such moments of artistic sensitivity and spirituality, and much literature will bear me out on that. I am implying no such sense of exclusivity as you seem to believe I am implying, I'm simply saying that there are two ways (at least) in which to look at things...the literal, empirical way and the allegorical or lyrical way. I do not regard those two ways as being opposed to one another. On the contrary, I regard them as being mutually supportive to one another.

There is absolutely no good reason for a war between spirituality and science. If you think there is, then you have confused what I call "spirituality" with something else...such as various forms of rigid fundamentalism, I suppose, or forms of primitive ritual-based activity.

I am no more inclined toward those in all probability than you are. I belong to no organized religion.

(* Regarding a ritual...it can be of use if you realize that the form of the ritual doesn't matter in itself...that it is simply a means of harnessing and focusing attention strongly. It is the attention and intention that matters, not the form of the ritual.)

I agree fully that scientific knowledge enhances all forms of genuine spirituality. How could it not? They are natural allies, as far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:05 PM

"... I don't think it can be used to either prove or disprove most of the things we habitually argue about."

And I think *I* have said that on many occasions. That-is-not-the-POINT!!!. Of course we do not sit around 'constructing' sentences of perfect logical coherence. But it IS a Straw Man error to suggest that I an advocating any such thing!(Throwing something I didn't claim into the discussion and shooting IT down) The rules of logic and recourse to the famous "Informal Fallacies" are ONLY needed to be referred to when they are broken in an attempt to win, convince, defend, assert, claim, influence, posit, pronounce, explain, expound, suggest or otherwise put forward, some theory or belief.
Daylia HAS stated to the public at large that she has some 'high degree of certainty' that positions of astronomical bodies are relevant to studies of character and decisions about actions. If that were true, it would be VERY important....and contrawise, if it is NOT true, that is also very important! People in high places have USED Astrology to 'help' make decisions that affect us all..(for example, Nancy Reagan!) Others use it to decide and plan important aspects of their lives....including choosing friends and marriage partners..... I, and others, see this as FAR more than an innocent hobby, and *IF* as I suspect, Astrology is not a reliable indicator, *THEN* practical uses of Astrology would be, in fact, dangerous in many cases.
(Would YOU want to go to war because Jupiter was in the 4th house Saggitarius for Saddam?...or because God told Bush it was a good idea? Doing politics by either religious OR Astrological reasons has many problems!)

So...*IF* I see claims made..THEN I feel compelled to keep the alternative opinions in full view...(which is why I made the 'arrogant' statement to daylia that if she were merely saying "I like to study this.." then she was welcome) I also am interested in 'honing' my own ideas and trying to express general feeling and opinions, and direct debate with someone who MAKES claims is one way. (I have also frustrated Jehovah's Witnesses who came to my door making claims and attempting to explain & defend them with bad reasoning and dubious premises).




so, *daylia*, about these phrases:
"...doing one's own investigation."
"... find it for oneself through direct, first-hand, ongoing personal study,..."

It would appear, like the Jehovah's Witnesses did with lectures on the Bible, you are somehow suggesting to me that, in order to properly appreciate Astrology and its uses and analytical power, I need to immerse myself in it and sort of 'assume' its truth until I 'see' the beauty and complex concepts for what they are....something like that?

You are suggesting implictly that one must 'make a leap' and adopt an attitude of acceptance and put aside doubts IN ORDER to 'know'. I am aware that in Astrology, just as in religion, there is a high degree of INTERNAL consistency in its tenets....thousands of years of configuration have assured adherents that they do not continuously stumble over awkward contradictions once inside the system!
   But "believing in order to REALLY believe" is not my idea of how to go about learning and exploring.....and please do not hit me again with the assertion that I do the same thing with MY 'beliefs' about science or logic! Nope....that is not how it works...and I and others have not been able to get across the difference between the scientific method and the 'internal consistency of a belief system', then we truly CANNOT debate.

One last time...nothing I can say 'proves' Astrology is false, but if one wants to extoll its virtues, more is needed than circular references to history, quotes from famous people and dubious statistics. So far, I have seen none. If you don't CARE whether you prove it or not, then your claims need to be phrased differently.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:20 PM

Heh! We are both objecting to the other setting up "straw men" to bolster his argument, Bill. It figures.

People who debate, I find, are constantly misconstruing the thoughts and intentions of their opponent, and this has been the case ever since the dawn of human life, I expect.

Astrology? I don't give a toot about it. I'm just wondering why you homed in on it and why you give it such importance that you are willing to spend this amount of time on this thread talking about it. I think it indicates either a resistance to something. That's why people show up on a thread repeatedly. They either have an attraction to something or a resistance to something, and the thread triggers the reaction.

You appear to have a resistance to a lot of things that are a bit unusual (to you). I've noticed that, and I am trying to figure out why it matters so much to you. That's what I'd like to know.

I mean, hell, I don't sit around worrying about whether a politician is being influenced by astrology! ;-) I don't really give a damn about that. I worry about whether he's being influenced by corporate lobbyists, banks, military contractors, political crusaders of a fanatical nature, people with plans to conquer the word, that sort of thing...

That's because I have a slightly different set of resistance points, probably, to what you do...different in their order of urgency, I mean... ;-)

I regard astrology as a very, very trivial issue in the general scheme of things, and I do not feel threatened by the fact that some people rely on it heavily. I don't wish to control those people and convince them that astrology is not valid. What business would that be of mine? I'd rather leave them alone to be happy in the way that suits them. Live and let live.

How about you? Will you leave people alone to enjoy their astrology in peace or would you rather devote another 60,000 words to convincing them they are "wrong"?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:27 PM

By the way, I know a tremendously intelligent and gifted young woman who is a Jehovah's Witness. How she can be that intelligent and believe that weird stuff, I have no idea. I sure don't believe it! But the fact remains that she is very intelligent, has an excellent character, and by my estimation will do better in life in all probability than I have...

So who am I to feel superior to her because she believes something that I consider totally unreal?

It takes all kinds to make a world. I don't care if Jane believes stuff I can't believe. She's a good person anyway, and it doesn't matter. I accept the fact that she grew up under a different set of influences than I did, and that has resulted in her having a different view of life than me in some way. That's okay. That's just life.

Live and let live.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:48 PM

well, LH, whether I leave them 'alone' depends..*grin*

I don't want my politicians influenced by corporate lobbyists, banks, military contractors, political crusaders of a fanatical nature OR astrologers! Right now, no lobbyists are signed into my favorite chat site advocating dubious behavior based on stupid presuppositions. If they arrive, I will debate them and point out the flaws in their arguments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think it indicates either a resistance to something. That's why people show up on a thread repeatedly. They either have an attraction to something or a resistance to something, and the thread triggers the reaction."
Why this concern with my motivation? I just explained my motivation, as I have done before. Do you doubt what I have said about WHY I poke & prod at what I see as flawed arguments?

I STUDIED arguments and logic and philosophy...and quite a bit of psychology and history, despite suggestions to the contrary.. ;>), and it bothers me to see bad defenses of dubious claims go unchallenged.

It in no way is meant to suggest anything about the motivation or character of those with whom I debate....I'd probably get along just fine with you, Amos or *daylia* in person...and I'd argue just as hard over a beer or coffee and shake you hand when we parted. For this reason, *I* get a wee bit miffed when MY motives and attitude are made the subject of the discussion.

Geez...maybe I'm really a weird example. There are other intelligent folks here...even in this thread...who agree with my basic points. I just got into this and I'm not sure I see an easy way out. I tried to quit, and got some sarcasm about posting and running off...I know I'm not gonna 'win' or convince any 'true believers' to NOT believe...I just go with the flow..

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 12:51 PM

Which dubious statistics, Bill? I haven't quoted a statistic yet on this thread - dubious or otherwise.

ANd I repeat - to date, on this planet, the only means of discovering the truth about astrology is to conduct an ongoing, personal, first-hand investigation of it.   

please do not hit me again with the assertion that I do the same thing with MY 'beliefs' about science or logic! Nope....that is not how it works..

Bill, your unsubstantiated beliefs about astrology, as stated above, are nothing more than personal opinion based on ignorance, popular misconception and comfortable lifelong prejudice.   And you continue present them here with the kind of bull-headed blind fervour even a Jehovah's Witness would envy. Ooooo - how *delightfully* Taurean of you!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:10 PM

Here's your honorable quietus, Bill. Surely you have more important things to do with your remaining time.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 01:22 PM

thank you BPL...you make a good point. I wonder if bull headed Taureans are noted for keeping resolutions? ☺ I guess I can try again.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:13 PM

Bill's statements about astrology are not "unsubstantiated" nor "ignorant". On the contrary, his argument is substantive and well informed.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:34 PM

Bill's arguments neither prove nor disprove any claims made here about astrology, including his own. His opinions about astrology, as stated above, are nothing more than unsubstantiated belief based on lack of knowledge, inexperience (ie personal ignorance of the subject at hand), popular misconceptions, and comfortable life-long prejudices.

BUt hey, congrats for keeping such a tight rein on that nasty urge toward twisted propagandist venom, Alice. Keep it up!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:38 PM

"congrats for keeping such a tight rein on that nasty urge toward twisted propagandist venom, Alice. "

Sheesh, such bitterness!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM

Actually, I'm just wondering how long she'll be able to hold out, bobad. She usually erupts with some wild tale of alleged horror and woe within 3 or 4 posts, when she appears.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM

Bill - Taureans are noted- sorry, MANY Taureans are noted for their immoveability and unwillingness/inability/? to change their mind or accept that they might be in error. Some will wait until their deathbed to wonder if PERHAPS they MIGHT have made a mistake, if at all.

N.B. In no way am I specifying any particular error you might have made; I'm talking in principle about how many Taureans appear to be.

And there is value in that firmness - humanity needs it just as much as Libran balance, Cancerian sensitivity, and so on. And we all have some of it as Taurus, just like all the other signs, is present, in some form , in everyone's chart.

I said many Taureans because there are Taureans and Taureans. One with only the Sun in Taurus is going to be a different animal from one with, say, Mercury,or Venus or Mars or etc/ or any combination in Taurus.

If I were presented with a person who was purely logical, I think it wouldn't be a person at all but a computer.

Just as there are any number of points from the sceptical side still outstanding, so there are quite a few unresponded to by the afoementioned side. Still no proof for the existence of God, no response from Clinton, little to the great use of astrology by business, sport and so on, to the questions about humans being self-deluding, unfulfilled, living in fear or by objective rules and not knowing themselves, to the proposition that many fields of study lie outside the realm of science,and on and on.

Is that a case of 'you're not answering our questions so we're going to ignore yours?'

Can anybody/nobody take up the suggestion to look at other approaches to life apart from the logical one?

I did philosophy, too. I complained quietly then that each philosopher danced to 'their own boom-boom', to quote a dadaist.

Can any of my good acquaintances in the sceptical camp give some account of why they are, variously, firm, indecisive, artistic, scientific, mean, generous, inclined/not inclined to (roughly speaking) New Age thinking,inhibited, uninhibited, intuitive or not. Children of the same parents turn out differently so it's not all environment; people do change, so it's not all inherited.

"The 3 great strategies of obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, or to excite ridicule."Bergen Evans in 'The Natural History of Nonsense.'

LOR.
   Ivor





LOR = lots of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:51 PM

The following statement is just as true, being unsupppported by any basis in reality.

"daylia's arguments neither prove nor disprove any claims made here about astrology, including her own. Her opinions about astrology, as stated above, are nothing more than unsubstantiated belief based on lack of knowledge, inexperience (ie personal ignorance of the subject at hand), popular misconceptions, and comfortable life-long prejudices."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:56 PM

"Bill - Taureans are noted- sorry, MANY Taureans are noted for their immoveability and unwillingness/inability/? to change their mind or accept that they might be in error. Some will wait until their deathbed to wonder if PERHAPS they MIGHT have made a mistake, if at all."

That is a very interesting claim, I wonder if you would provide a source for it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

In a Zen-like moment of self-reflection, BillD realizes the absurdity of his personal role this epic debate, which is not a real debate at all--and at that very moment, with a cosmic sense of timing, Alice jumps in and grabs the baton--

Go, Alice! Say on! You've got a clear sky, the wind at your back, and a star to guide you--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*da;ylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

Wrong, bearded bruce. Unlike people like Bill or Alice, my personal knowledge -- please notice, I did not say opinion, or belief, but knowledge -- of this subject is rooted in a lifetime of ongoing personal investigation (ie formal and informal studies PLUS practical application of astrology and psychology) ; but most importantly, the direct first-hand observations and experience these efforts produce.

If I really wanted to know what music is or what it could possibly do for me, I wouldn't seek out some philospher's oh-so-logically-pristine opinions about music -- unless that philosopher were also a musician. Nor would I seek out some scientist's explanation, or I'd surely be disappointed at the endless hypotheses and descriptions and theories re, say, sound waves and the effect of same on my neurotransmitters.

Very interesting and all, but ..... if I really wanted to know, to experience what music is all about, I'd just go get me an instrument - maybe at some point a teacher and some books too -- and play it. Check it out for myself. That's the only way to discover, for myself, what the art, science, and language of music are really all about.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:27 PM

THat's a classic astrological description of Taurus, bobad, available in just about any beginner's astrology book / website. Off the top of my head, here more classic 'Taurean traits': patience, reliabilty, stubbornness, warmheartness, persistence, determination, resentfulness, inflexibility, self-indulgent, conservative, traditional, slow-moving, slow-thinking, methodical, practical.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:03 PM

Yes, but the claim is that "MANY Taureans are noted for their immoveability and unwillingness/inability/? to change their mind or accept that they might be in error." I would like to know how this was arrived at and what constitutes "MANY". What percentage of Taureans versus non-Taureans would exhibit these traits. When such claims are made there must be some data to back them up.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:12 PM

M.Ted, thank you for making me smile!
;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:35 PM

"When such claims are made there must be some data to back them up."

Oh, but there IS, bobad...in innumerable astrology books! ;-) Only trouble is that...

Daylia would consider many of those books to be a reliable source in which she could place confidence.

You would not.

And I would just shrug, cos I frankly have no opinion one way or the other about it.

Amusing, isn't it?

All these debates are ever truly about, in my opinion, is people defending their own ego and its established views of reality. What is an authoritative source for one person may not be for another...that will depend on what views they already held before they consulted that source.

Not one of you really knows, in my opinion, whether or not astrology is true or whether it works. Not one. But you'd love to THINK you know. ;-) I KNOW that I don't know, and I'm perfectly okay with that.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:41 PM

I don't know either, that's why I'm asking questions, no need to make presumptions on what I would or would not believe. If, as you say the data does exist in astrology books, I would like to know that.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:51 PM

When such claims are made there must be some data to back them up.

"Must be"? According to whom? Even more importantly, which data is relevant here? And beyond that, whose data would satisfy whom - if anyone?

There have been only a handful of scientific studies done on astrology to date, bobad, as pointed out several times already on this thread.    ANd most of the results have been negative. Take a look - I posted a great link called "astrology and science" a few days ago, with a few such articles and studies for your perusal.

But don't go lighting those self-congratulatory cigars just yet -- I repeat, all scientific studies done on astrology to date are next to useless, as they are either based on a false premise (ie 'testing' for astrology's alleged 'predictiveness'), or using methods/techniques insufficient to even identify, never mind differentiate / assess the relative importance of the seemingly endless number of astrological variables mapped out in a natal chart.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM

Here it is again, bobad -- Astrology and Science. Fill yer boots.

And you're welcome, too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:09 PM

"which data are relevant here? And beyond that, whose data would satisfy whom?"

Those are the eternal questions, aren't they? If you want proof of that, just look at all the squabbling on the Errol/Flynn-Custer thread....until Teribus finally got angry, took his intellectual toys, and went home!

I really think most people argue just because they like to, and because they want to get in the last word.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:15 PM

I think I am asking a simple question here. A claim was made that MANY Taureans exhibit certain behaviours, all I'm asking is to be pointed to where I may find verification for this claim, how it was arrived at, what is the definition of MANY, etc. These are very basic inquiries any thinking person would make to someone claiming to know what makes people behave as they do. I don't think any thinking person would accept claims that, for example, certain "races" are intellectually inferior or sexually more promiscuous than others without supportive evidence so why would one not seek evidence when claims are made about someone's behaviour?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:21 PM

I clicked on one article in your link daylia and this is what came up.

Murder
Astrologers rated these killers as good guys

An article from the now defunct Kansas City Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. The article was originally titled "Astrology on Death Row!" and was reprinted in the Indian Skeptic 1989, Vol 1 (11). The results of three similar studies have been added in Appendix 1, and the results of orthodox studies in Appendix 2.

Abstract -- In the late 1980s a skeptic in Kansas City went to five professional astrologers giving as his own the birth data and computer-calculated birth chart of John Gacy, one of the worst convicted serial killers in American history. They described him as having a "well rounded personality", that he could "offer a good role model" and that he would "be excellent for working around young people" (which is precisely the group that Gacy specialised in murdering). Students who had been told the readings were of their own chart rated them as accurate. Appendix 1 presents similar results using the birth data of mass murderers Edward Kemper III and Marcel Petiot. Obviously perceived accuracy means little. Appendix 2 reviews orthodox predictors of psychopathy and murder that are well-established and make sense. Nobody with the relevant information could possibly agree with the astrologers' statements. Until astrology can improve, which given the results to date seems unlikely, this is an area from which astrology should be firmly excluded.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:22 PM

LOL! Sorry, couldn't help it...

Okay, first we gotta decide what a "Taurean" really is...and if there IS such a thing, in truth, or if it's a fictional concept.

Yes, I know it means someone born under a certain sun sign, but are the sun signs themselves real, and do they affect people as they are reputed to?

That's a BIG project, proving that. How would we do it?

Well, we'd have to gather together a great many people to test this out, and we'd have to analyze their personality characteristics in a very systematic way that no one could question, and secure statistical results, again, that no one could deny.

I think we're talkin' about spending a few hundred million $ here, whaddya you think?

Would it be worth it when we were done, and would it convince everyone?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:29 PM

"would it convince everyone?"

Probably not daylia.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:31 PM

As for stories both supporting astrology and not supporting it....hey, we are always going to have plenty of those.

If astrology is a real craft, let's say, then you would have some who would be good at it, some who would be average at it, and some who would be not good at all.

Just find the astrologers who provide the test results (good or bad) most likely to back up your favorite views, and presto! You're all set. This is exactly what drug companies do when they want to "fix" test results in order to sell a potentially dangerous drug. They have it tested in various different labs under a variety of conditions and test procedures. They publicize only the tests that worked out in their favor. You never even hear of the ones that didn't.

If a lab knows that a certain test result will get them lucrative future work from that customer, then they are encouraged to use only procedures that will yield that result, aren't they?

Money, very large amounts of money, can rapidly taint any such system of verification as can be set up, and that even happens in some cases of criminal law...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:33 PM

Right on, bobad!   =]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM

You are missing one important built in verification system in the field of science, LH, that is the reproducibility mechanism. Whenever a claim is made by one scientist other scientists involved in the same area of research usually will attempt to duplicate the procedures to see if they arrive at the same result and publish their findings, thereby either corroborating or refuting the original claim.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:52 PM

Yes, of course, bobad. I'm not really talking about what the professional science community say among themselves here...but rather about what a special interest group (such as the drug companies) says to the public...via advertising. They will quote studies which say their drug is great and has no bad side effects. They will not quote studies which say the opposite. Both sets of studies may exist, and both may be valid and reproducable...strictly within the test guidelines under which they were done...or not.

There's all manner of propaganda out there.

In the case of astrology, it's a much smaller field of human activity involving far less money than is the drug industry, so there's not much likelihood of enough studies even being done to secure really solid and conclusive evidence, is there?

There's plenty of evidence out there already to suggest that meat-eating can cause a tremendous number of degenerative diseases...but there's also a huge industry and a huge cultural tradition supporting meat-eating. This means you will hear conflicting views about it from many sources, most of whom have an ax of some kind to grind...as do many people when the subject of astrology comes up.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:59 PM

Even claims made by the pharmaceutical industry are eventually tested by scientists who have no stake in the outcome other than patient welfare.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:03 PM

bobad, all scientific studies done on astrology to date - including that one - are next to useless, becayse they based on a false premise and/or cannot do justice to the vast number of variables astrology presents - including the wide range of opinions/interpretations within the field of astrology itself.

Here's an excerpt from the article "Astrology as Religion" at the same link. The article offers a valuable first-hand account of the difficulties facing anyone who attempts an honest, empirical investigation of astrology, and closes with some lucid if sobering concerns re the continuing scientific investigation of astrology:


"The spiritual dimension of astrology -- David Hamblin

From his letter in Astrological Journal 32(6), 406-407, 1990, with later postscripts.

Abstract -- The author, a former Chairman of the UK Astrological Association, spent much time testing astrological claims but found no evidence in their favour. Eventually he gave up reading birth charts but retained his interest in astrology. He argues that the spiritual dimension is a necessary part of human existence ....

... It seems to me that the reason why many astrologers are reluctant to take part in research is that they expect, and fear, that the research would come up with negative results. When I first came into astrology from an academic background I was very keen on research, and I spent a great deal of time doing little research projects on my own, trying to prove (to my own satisfaction) a correlation between particular astrological factors and particular personality traits or occupational characteristics. The pattern was always the same: for the first fifty (or maybe a hundred) charts I would seem to be coming up with very exciting results, but as I increased the size of the sample the effect would fade away, until by the time I had looked at (say) two hundred charts there would be no correlation whatsoever.

After many experiences of this kind, I began to find astrological research a pretty depressing activity, and my enthusiasm for it became blunted. And, in the end, my enthusiasm for astrology became blunted also. For a long time I had tried to convince myself that astrology was valid in spite of the lack of research evidence, and that the need was for better tests. If astrology was true in the way that astrologers claim that it is true, then the simplest and most unsophisticated piece of research would be able to demonstrate a correlation between (for instance) Ascendant sign and personality traits. Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way.

... After all, what would happen to astrology if it was proved beyond doubt that there is a connection between planetary positions at a particular time and events on Earth occurring at the same time? It would be taken over, not only by science, but by politics and big business. It would become part of the "system" from which so many of us long to escape. It would do great harm, because of the way in which it would be used by unscrupulous people in search of profit and power. It would lose its magic and its capacity to inspire.

How much better that it should remain one of those things (like life after death) that are never proved but remain tantalizingly possible, elusive, just out of reach, offering glimpses of a universe that lies beyond our ordinary experience."

Hear, hear!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:06 PM

"If astrology was true in the way that astrologers claim that it is true, then the simplest and most unsophisticated piece of research would be able to demonstrate a correlation between (for instance) Ascendant sign and personality traits. Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:26 PM

Actually, conclusive studies have been done on astrology, such as this one quoted below. Note the quote from (now former) astrologer Dr. Geoffrey Dean who had to admit that if any test would prove astrology's claims this one would, but in fact it proved that there were no traits or tendencies shared by the people born at the same time.

--------------------------
A detailed scientific long-term study by researchers in Britain proves the central principle of astrology invalid and baseless. It puts an end to the fantastic old claim that the constellation of stars and planets at the time of birth could influence or even determine the development of an individual's character and course of life.

The "Time Twin Study" was started in London in 1958 as a medical research project. Registering more than 2,000 babies, born within minutes of each other on a day in early March, it had the objective to compare the time twins' health development. The field of investigation was soon extended. The research team monitored the test persons over several decades, recording observations about more than 100 parameters in connection with health, occupation, marital situation, anxiety level, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels, abilities in music, art, sport, mathematics, language etc. They tried to collect evidences for similarities between the time twins. However, no similarities could be identified.

"The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success but the results are uniformly negative", stated Dr. Geoffrey Dean, astrologer turned scientist from Perth, Australia, in a report about the study, published in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies. Carrying out an analysis of the study, Dr. Dean and his collegue Prof. Ivan Kelley, Psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, found that there was no special trait or tendency shared by the time twins. They were just as different as people born on any other day under any other planetary constellation.

The claim that stars and planets could influence character and life of human beings has long been dismissed by rationalists and scientists as there is according to all known scientific principles no kind of mechanism imaginable by way of which this influence could possibly work. Here is empirical proof that it does not work at all. The study shows clearly that astrological predictions based on the coordinates of birth do not correspond with reality. They are nothing but exercises in deception.

This should be the end of one of the oldest superstitions. But it is not hard to predict that the show will still go on. There are obviously too many people, who like to be deceived and too many, who make enormous money by deceiving them..

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:35 PM

Oh, goody! Thanks, Alice. We can now look forward to the scourge of astrology being wiped clean off this planet if only everyone in the world (or at least on Mudcat) can be made aware of that conclusive study... Whew! What a relief. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:36 PM

Just find the astrologers who provide the test results (good or bad) most likely to back up your favorite views, and presto! You're all set. This is exactly what drug companies do when they want to "fix" test results in order to sell a potentially dangerous drug. They have it tested in various different labs under a variety of conditions and test procedures. They publicize only the tests that worked out in their favor. You never even hear of the ones that didn't.

JUst saw this, LH - thanks. And just noticed who funded that so-called 'study' bobad posted too: the "Kansas City Committee for Skeptical Inquiry". LOL! How pathetically    yet *logically*   lame!    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL
















































































sorry folks               it's the end of a LOngLOngLOng day

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM

No, I think this thread will definitely reach 1000 posts.
Belief in astrology is a gut level powerful force that evidence will not sway.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,kibitzer
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:42 PM

"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:43 PM

Sorry daylia but you posted the link to the "studies", I just picked out one at random, to refresh;

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia* - PM
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM

Here it is again, bobad -- Astrology and Science. Fill yer boots.

And you're welcome, too.

It must have been a long day, get some rest.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:43 PM

So is belief in just about anything else you could care to mention... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM

"So is belief in just about anything else you could care to mention."

Unless, of course, evidence is available to support it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:00 PM

Absolutely no problem, bobad. Very amusing! And thanks, again, for posting that 'study'    LOLOL    =]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:05 PM

Whoa! Time to get outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:32 PM

Why would any thinking person waste their time and energy on a 'study' on astrology that's so blatantly biased and distorted -- ie designed and funded by the Kansas City "Skeptics"?   

ANd did you not notice Hamblin's closing words in the paragraph you posted? They ARE the most important ie "...Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

Oh, and btw ....

Star light

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

Star bright

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

First star

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

I see

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

tonight

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

I wish

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

I may

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

I wish

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

I might

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

Have the

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

wish

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

WISH

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM

I

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM

WISH

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM

tonight

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:37 PM

1000!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:37 PM

YIPPEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:40 PM

"Unless, of course, evidence is available to support it."

And then one must find ways to get people to become aware of the evidence, take it seriously, and trust your word that it is being presented honestly. That is not usually easy at all. Sometimes it can take a lifetime or even longer than that to win acceptance for an unconventional idea, evidence or not. Don't expect it to happen overnight on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:42 PM

Daylia, stop now. Step...away...from the computer now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 11:14 PM

daylia, from YOUR POST:

Here's an excerpt from the article "Astrology as Religion" at the same link. The article offers a valuable first-hand account of the difficulties facing anyone who attempts an honest, empirical investigation of astrology, and closes with some lucid if sobering concerns re the continuing scientific investigation of astrology:


"The spiritual dimension of astrology -- David Hamblin

From his letter in Astrological Journal 32(6), 406-407, 1990, with later postscripts.

Abstract -- The author, a former Chairman of the UK Astrological Association, spent much time testing astrological claims but found no evidence in their favour. Eventually he gave up reading birth charts but retained his interest in astrology. He argues that the spiritual dimension is a necessary part of human existence ....
......
"If astrology was true in the way that astrologers claim that it is true, then the simplest and most unsophisticated piece of research would be able to demonstrate a correlation between (for instance) Ascendant sign and personality traits. Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way."


It is not the spiritual element that is being called upon for evidence- it is the factual ability of astrology to predict whatever it does predict.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 11:34 PM

Someone actually mentioned that study much earlier in the thread, Alice. If I remember correctly, the study didn't actually draw up astrological charts on any of the subjects, it simply compared lifestyle and personality information drawn from other types of assessments to determine if there were common personality traits amongst the sample group. The key personality traits that they examined, if I remember, were exteme introversion and extreme extroversion.

One problem with using those two criteria is that there is significant disagreement as to whether they are actually personality atributes, or are simply situational behaviors. Another problem is that the criteria that they used for determining those characteristics are not regarded as valid by many psychologists. A third problem is that most people don't exhibit extremes of personality, and there are no solid, objective criteria for making distinctions between intermediate degrees of introversion and extroversion.

The unresolvable problem with making a "scientific" evaluation of astrology is that, while the movement of the planets and constellations can be fairly precisely tracked, the corresponding elements of personality can't be precisely defined, and they can't be comprehensively enumerated. Beyond that, there is no objective way to measure their interplay.

BillD(who,incidentally, has acquited himself admirably in all this) said this:

"*IF* as I suspect, Astrology is not a reliable indicator, *THEN* practical uses of Astrology would be, in fact, dangerous in many cases."

Is there such a thing as a "reliable indicator"?   Meaning, is there a better indicator in these matters than astrology?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 09:35 AM

I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but I studied astrology for many years, and in my 20's and 30's created charts for many, many people until I became more educated about critical thinking. More aspects of life than two criteria of personality traits were compared in the study. Natal charts of those born at the same time in the same place on the planet would be the same. I understand the power that mythology has for people to feel some control over their lives and to comfort themselves with a sense of understanding what is mysterious in ourselves and others. Astrologers interpret many of the aspects studied in the twin time study, such as agressiveness, abilities in music, art, sport, etc. I'm just saying, be careful what you believe in.
--
The research team monitored the test persons over several decades, recording observations about more than 100 parameters in connection
with health, occupation, marital situation, anxiety level, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels, abilities in music, art, sport, mathematics, language
etc. They tried to collect evidences for similarities between the time twins. However, no similarities could be identified.
--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 09:58 AM

LH, I don´t think that you would suggest that a cloud would tell me something about myself. I have just used your good allegory trying to explain that a cloud describing my personality would appear to me AS WEIRD as a group of celestial bodies arbitrarely selected (and associated with Gods and Goddesses) describing my personality. If it did, then I would immediately ask for an explanation, because it could be very important to the whole humanity.

An explanation may exist or may not, for phenomena that can be somehow perceived. The problem with astrology is that some people claim that there are tremendously important guidelines to follow in order to get an insight of all of us, that only THEY perceive. No physical explanation exists. Only psychology can make an approach
to an explanation of the causes and effects of the phenomena of BELIEF, but not to the obscure calculations, coarse misunderstandings, and mystic associations on which astrologers find a basement for their theories.

Before someone tells me that astrology cannot be explained through the physical approach, I wish to remind them that astrology is based in the physical presence of physical bodies and mathematical calculations of their positions.

That`s why I prefer to share with astrologers the pleasure of admiring the beauty of the Universe. Life is short !

The only thing that upsets me is the tendency of a large number of astrologers to make money with their services. No, it is not correct. Not correct for the "fake" horoscopes published in newspapers, and not correct for the self-named experts who spent their lives in the study of astrology and dedicate their time to elaborate a special chart.

Un abrazo
Andrés (in Buenos Aires, after a short vacation in Brazil beaches. Come to the South ! It is GREAT! It is 2/3 cheaper!)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 11:28 AM

So now you suddenly claim to have studied astrology, Alice?!? Hmmm. WEll, whatever you say, of course! I'm sure lots of people here will take that at face value. However, in light of the highly negative tone of the propaganda you present here, I'm taking your last claim with a big, BIG grain of salt. Just like your tall tales of impending doom and gloom - you know, the ones that sound like you copied them from the front page of some grocery store tabloid.

Not too impressive.

And as far as Bill being 'acquitted' (?!?) goes -- well, whatever you think MTed. His posts here are rife with misunderstanding, misinformation, misconceptions, prejudice, selective bias, slant and tunnel vision - all spiced up with large doses of professional arrogance.

Now, it makes no difference to me one way or the other what or how or why Bill or anyone else here thinks the way they do about astrology.   And I do appreciate Bill's sense of humour and helpfulness, which I see demonstrated so often here on the Cat. That, however, does not mean that I'm prepared to accept everything or anything he says as the God-given truth. Or even just as plain ole ordinary human truth. Because - guess what! It's not the truth    *gasp*   it's just his own personal opinion. And as such, it's worth about as much as anyone else's opinion.

So - how much are other peoples opinions worth, to you? Just curious ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 11:50 AM

HA! Wondering about my own BAD MOOD here over the last day or so, I just checked my personal daily transits at Astrodienst. Here's what it says

Irritability **

This is a very energetic time for you, when you can assert yourself effectively and accomplish a great deal of work. The problem is that you will be tested all along the line and forced to demonstrate the validity of what you are doing. You may be challenged either by circumstances or by other persons. Your success depends largely upon how well you express yourself in a situation. Being quite unwilling to back down on any issue, you are not moved to make compromises with others. But that is precisely what you should do, especially if you can manage to compromise without giving ground on essential points. Be careful that you don't become so wrapped up in your own beliefs that you cannot see which parts are essential and which are not.


The interpretation above is for your transit selected for today:
Mars Square Sun exact at 23:36
activity period from 18 April 2006 to 21 April 2006."


Also ...

Taking a stand

Very likely you will have to convince someone of something today. This will probably not be an argument, but rather a situation in which you have to present your case with vigor and energy. But if someone tries to talk you into something, you will defend your own position vehemently and successfully. This influence is not as argumentative as it sounds. People will not see you as spoiling for a fight, nor will they be particularly likely to pick a fight. Instead they will respect you for taking a stand for your own beliefs. Your inner confidence in your ideas and beliefs will help you initiate and take advantage of the opportunities that come your way. Do not be reluctant to use them. Under this influence you should be successful.

The interpretation above is for your transit selected for today:
Mercury Sextile Mars exact at 07:32
activity period from 19 April 2006 to 21 April 2006."

Hmm. Trusty ole Mars! I've been feeling like I really don't care if I get into a fight, and this is not my usual mode d'etre. I don't care for fights, and I usually just avoid them wherever possible. But I've been just spoilin for an argument for the last day or so it seems!

Time to knock it off, and do something more useful with all this energy. So please pardon me if I've stepped on any toes in my Arien bloodlust, and please know that I do enjoy reading your posts. Even when I don't agree with a single thing you say!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

Well said, Escamillo. ;-)

I don't really mind astrologers getting paid, because the people who pay them usually seem to enjoy the whole thing quite a bit...therefore it's worth something to them.

And if they believe in it, so what? Everybody I know believes various things that I don't regard as sensible or rational. That's life.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Martini
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 12:32 PM

Hi ,

I started this thread and I can't believe we are up to 1000 plus messages. On the same day I also started one on ... "God, do you beleieve, if so which one?" and it disappeared about a month ago. I find it funny that the zodiac should provoke more messages. ( but I don't believe in either of them !!!)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 12:44 PM

And here's the transit the computer selected for Bill yesterday - just like mine, Sun Square Mars -- with a slightly different interpretation.

High energy        

Your energy level will be high, perhaps too high if you are not careful. Watch for signs of irritable impatience with others whenever things do not go exactly as you planned. Be assertive only when the situation calls for it, not whenever you feel like it. Also watch out for baseless conflicts with others, which you may not necessarily instigate yourself. Today you should be particularly careful of conflicts with authorities. Voice your complaints if they are legitimate, but expect a certain amount of hostile reaction to them. Also be careful that the tone of your complaint does not aggravate this hostility. What you get is usually a function of the energies that you put out. On the physical level, try to find an outlet for your vigorous energies."

Bill and I actually have quite similar charts -- the lights (sun and moon) in Aries/Taurus, a well-tenanted 12th house (suggesting psychic abilities and an attraction toward the occult), and Gemini Rising. We are both lively, stubborn, intellectual, philosophical, and enjoy writing.

I, however, am much more likely to indulge myself in creative (vs methodical, so-called 'logical') thinking. I am also very willing to say "damn the torpedoes!" and take the risk of conducting my own personal investigations of mysterious, controversial "occult" subjects like astrology. Preferably on my own, without outside interference - and no matter what anyone else does, or says, or thinks.

In astrological terms, this is probably because unlike Bill, I am not burdened with heavy, restricting, limiting, 'malefic' Saturnian energies conjuncting my Sun (ego), my mind (Mercury), and my personal pleasures (Venus). And I'm glad -- I don't want my need to explore, to think creatively, or to be 'unconventional' undermined in any way.

Anyhow, I'm sure nobody here has any real interest in or use for these astrological interpretations, beyond milking them for any logical scientific 'errors' that is. That way, my posts can be used to bolster everyone's opinions and/or personal prejudices re astrology. I do enjoy exploring and writing about my astrological insights, though. And I benefit from doing so, regardless of how my ideas are received. And so you're all most welcome for all new ammo.

Lock and load!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 12:54 PM

Well, I don't 'believe in' scientists getting paid to create new weapons of war, or to torture/dissect/destroy/kill/maim other living creatures for "research purposes", or to invent new technological means of polluting and destroying this planet and every living thing on it for the sake of profit, and of human convenience.

Big business, politicians and all the scientists they use as lackeys continue to wreak far greater havoc on this planet, to harm / destroy far more lives - human and otherwise - than astrologers ever have.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 01:04 PM

Good for you, Martini! Please know that religion and astrology don't 'believe in' you, either. And thanks for the thread - if you're really the same GUEST who started it, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 01:13 PM

bearded bruce, I just noticed your last post. Is there some new point you were trying to make, some insight you're trying to share? Or were you just pointing out, for the umpteenth time on this thread, that to date neither scientists or astrologers have been able to prove, disprove, explain or even just agree on the the hows and whys of astrology?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Blind DRunk in Blind River
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 01:58 PM

Why the FLIP would anyone flippin' have a stupid fippin' thread about flippin' asterology and keep on with the flippin' thing fer over a thousand flippin' posts? Holy flip down a flippin' mind shaft! You need yer flippin' head examioned, Daylea. Get a fli;ppin' life, eh?

I seen addickshuns before and I know one when I see one, eh? At least get a flippin' addickshuns that is fun! Like booze or dope, eh? Or sex! These are all things that you can, like, be heavy addicted to and have FUN. Know'm sayin'? Pizza is okay too.

Asterology sucks. It is fer old ladies that were long skirts and tie their flippin' hair in a bun at the back or other wierdos like that. It don't make no flippin' sense. I don't flippin' care if VEnus is in Yeranus, becoz it don't matter, eh?

Them stars are nice to look at, but that is as far as it flippin' goes. You can take that to the bank and de-flippin'-posit it, eH? With interest.

"Lock and load" my flippin' ass...

- Shane

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 02:09 PM

Bobad (and others) - I do believe I/we cannot satisfy your craving for data in the sense you mean re Taureans. The statement was the outcome of some millennia of observation, not carried out according to current scientific practice. So not science, just accumulated wisdom. Sorry.

This whole debate has been rather like two teams wanting to play each other, but each wanting to play a different game from the other. In the philosophy of science, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn didn't agree either. And in science , there's an arguement going on between the evolutionists and creationists (tho' let's not go THERE). Any amount of data and arguement hasn't settled the dispute yet. So what hope here.

I've offered all the help that's feasible here,(see previous posts offering same) so, rather like American composer Charles Ives,describing the end ofone of his works that begins combatively how about shaking hands, agreeing to differ, and climbing to the mountain-top to view the firmament?


   Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM

Bill is none of the things that you have described, Daylia--

You like people to listen, but don't like it when they question what you say. Unfortunately, you resort to name-calling, and you do it a lot. It doesn't help your case, and it reduces your credibility to nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 02:52 PM

"Or were you just pointing out, for the umpteenth time on this thread, that to date neither scientists or astrologers have been able to prove, disprove, explain or even just agree on the the hows and whys of astrology? "

"That, however, does not mean that I'm prepared to accept everything or anything he says as the God-given truth. Or even just as plain ole ordinary human truth. Because - guess what! It's not the truth    *gasp*   it's just his own personal opinion. And as such, it's worth about as much as anyone else's opinion. "

"Unlike people like Bill or Alice, my personal knowledge -- please notice, I did not say opinion, or belief, but knowledge -- of this subject is rooted in a lifetime of ongoing personal investigation (ie formal and informal studies PLUS practical application of astrology and psychology) ; but most importantly, the direct first-hand observations and experience these efforts produce. "

You define ALL that Bill says as opinion, but whatever YOU say is "KOWLEDGE". Perhaps Bill's "lifetime of ongoing personal investigation (ie formal and informal studies" of philospphy and human nature should not be so quickly discounted.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 04:23 PM

You like people to listen,

Actually, I just enjoy expressing my point of view - not always, but on occasion. If people listen, fine. If not, great. My words are certainly just as credible as anyone else's, and far more credible than most!

If people question what I say, so what? That's only to be expected.   However, when I see posts like Bill's, over and over and over again on threads like these -- ie posts rife with misunderstanding, misinformation, misconceptions, prejudice, selective bias, slant, tunnel vision, propaganda and professional arrogance -- well, I'm making it a point from now to call 'em on it.

Every single time.

As you may have noticed.    =]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 05:19 PM

Unfortunately, Daylia, your words are *not* as credible as anyone else's. You do seem to enjoy expressing yourself, but you resort to name calling a lot--and that makes a much bigger impression on people than anything else you have to say---

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 07:35 PM

Ivor, I don't recall asking specifically for "scientific" data, I was just wondering where these claims came from and you did answer that query - "accumulated wisdom."

Contrary to what some of you think, I am not trying to "win" an argument or disprove your beliefs in astrology. Frankly, astrology is something that I never really gave much thought to one way or the other and am following this thread to try and get a handle on where it's adherents are coming from.

This discussion has led me to conclude that astrology is a belief system and like other belief systems requires faith to accept those articles that cannot be either proven or disproven.

I now understand why believers defend their belief with such passion and emotion when they feel these beliefs are under attack by non-believers.

This being said, I don't feel that the beliefs were being so much attacked rather there was some genuine efforts being made to try and rationalize faith based beliefs and empiricism which are ultimately irreconcilable.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 08:33 PM

Well, maybe my posts are not credible to you, MTed. But about name-calling? Hmmmm. Just glancing over a few of my own posts here, and comparing them with the general language and tone of the so-called 'rebuttals' and "arguments' here (especially earlier in this thread, before certain people realized they couldn't get away with their usual twisted slant and propaganda any more) well, all I can say is hey. Poor, poor you!   

And please, feel free to cry me a river. Anytime.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 08:38 PM

Oh, and did I mention all the profanity, insults and general stupidity levelled at me, and at the subject of astrology (a subject I do happen to enjoy and appreciate very much, as some of you may have noticed!), over the course of this discussion?

If not, please consider it all very carefully.

THEN go cry me that big, big river.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 08:40 PM

This is post 1024- or 2^^10

From my personal knowledge -- please notice, I did not say opinion, or belief, but knowledge -- of binary, rooted in a lifetime of ongoing personal investigation (ie formal and informal studies PLUS practical application of bit and bytes) ; but most importantly, the direct first-hand observations and experience these efforts produce, I will state that this discussion has fallen into the bit bucket, and is no longer producing valid data.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 08:56 PM

You made my point for me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 19 Apr 06 - 10:21 PM

Right, then.

Interesting, if predictable, how none of the data I've presented here is considered 'valid' (except, quite understandably, via PM's)   

Not my fellow poster's (amazingly accurate!) astrological charts/interpretations; not the astrological research, articles and writings of scientists and scholars from all over the globe (Tarnas, Hamblin, Seymour, Carl G. Jung etc). Not the historical, psychological quotes and references. Or the laughably propogandist studies passed off as the latest in "science" re astrology. Least of all (of course!) my own personal experiences (first-hand observations, charts, interpretations and astrological analyses).

Ahhh ... incredible indeed. And what an *amusing* piece of work is man ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 12:20 AM

You tend to alternate cutting and pasting with ranting and raving--it's not a very good way to win people over to your cause.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:30 AM

"Oh, and did I mention all the profanity, insults and general stupidity levelled at me, and at the subject of astrology (a subject I do happen to enjoy and appreciate very much, as some of you may have noticed!), over the course of this discussion?
If not, please consider it all very carefully. "

Sorry, Daylia, but this includes myself and all others who may have been part of the discussion. Except from some anonymous guest, nobody has mistreated you, or used name-calling as YOU did, or been sarcastic as YOU were. Then if you think that there is a general stupidity among participants, I cordially invite you to leave this thread which once was a discussion about astrology. If you don´t, I guess that you will find yourself alone very soon.

For me, it was enough !

Un abrazo (a hug) for all
Andrés

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 05:44 AM

Bobad - I appreciate your response and want to point to one thing that happened in our exchanges that happens in all discussions.

That is that you picked up one of my points - 'accumulated wisdom' - while not noticing?/being able to respond to?/? another - 'millennia of observation'.

The former phrase fits well with the idea of a belief system. The latter fits better with our notion of science.

I would have thought that science would have to pay attention to all the evidence. It tends to be belief systems that pick and choose (just as religious fundamentalists pick and choose from the sacred texts.)



Incidentally, I wanted to include (in my list of points overlooked by the science-oriented and sceptical) the heavy role played in all, and I mean all, of this by the unconscious. Interestingly, both astrology and Gestalt psychotherapy are interested in bringing watever is in the unconscious into consciousness.



Lastly (I hope), I suspect an astrology thread is lengthy because astrology is an unacceptable face of the spiritual where the major religions are the acceptable side. Must read that 'Do you believe in God?' thread again.

Best wishes

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:03 AM

Actually, ANdres, I wasn't thinking of you. Your posts are generally polite. And sorry M Ted, you're not talking about BillD here. I'm not trying to 'win anyone over'. Nor do I have a 'cause'. I'm sharing what I know - please note, I didn't say what I opine, or what I believe, or what my peers construebut what I know,, of astrology. Take it or leave it, whatever you please. Your choice = your loss (or gain, as the case may be).

If you don't like the material I present here, don't read it.

If you don't like people posting links and quotes from relevant material to illustrate their point of view, well, try picking on EVERYONE who does this (and most do!) not the just one person with whom you happen to disagree.

IF you want to voice a disagreement with me, please refrain from profanity, insults, slant and propoganda. If I respond to you in like manner and you don't like it, awwwwwww. Poor you!   Go cry me that big, BIG river.

If you are 99% ignorant of astrology, and/or don't care to learn anything more about it than what you already believe, why bother posting here at all? You'd sound so much more impressive, so much smarter if you just said nothing and kept your ignorance to yourself!

ANd most importantly, please don't concern yourselves about me! I'm just peachy no matter what you say, think, or do.

Now, as Ivor pointed out, there's a time to climb to the mountaintops and contemplate the mysterious blessings of the firmament, in peaceful solitude.

And the time is now   {the walrus said)

See you all soon!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 06:05 AM

Oops, sorry bout the italics.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 11:44 AM

Oh -- and Andres, here are just a few examples of the insults, ignorance and general stupidity; the profanity, slant and/or propaganda directed at myself personally, or astrology in general. All are copied directly from this thread.

Cluin:   "Astrology however is pure squidge.... I believe in nasal astrology ... Pick a booger out of your nostril first thing in the morning and predict the day's outcome based on it's shape, colour and configuration with regards to the prevailing wind."

BillD    "Me, I'm just the last day of Taurus, so I'm not nearly so full of bull.. (kind of a CUSPidor, so to speak ...got my chakras surgically removed a few years ago, they were swollen, and impinging on my aura. I feel SO much better) .... mmmm....I am not an 'expert' with years of study behind me on how to bake cakes using hot peppers, prunes, marijuana and LSD either, but I don't think voicing a cautionary opinion on the practice exactly makes me stupid.... Not knowing favorite recipes doesn't make me unqualified to comment on the dangers ... If you were invited to join a church, and they told you that "communion" required co-mingling of blood in order to 'establish spiritual connections' and wearing of tinfoil hats to enhance the experience, would you need to 'try' it for a few years, as they insist, to really *see* and experience how it works?"


labougie    "Leave the astrologers alone! OK, they're deluded, but unlike the similarly deluded Christians (and all other Superstitians), they're not actually dangerous. Concentrate on the real problem!"

TIA "...that last post is plain nuts. I believe Daylia gets her info on science from "evil scientist" movies ... Just got through showing what hooey it is, and they draw the bulls-eye around the dart anyhow. Powerful stuff this belief....Now, about dowsing...�

Bunnahabain   "It is also a form of madness that has no bounds. I know rational, intelligent, sceptical scientists who belive in astrology, and numpties who swallow all sorts of rubbish who reject it..... I can't juggle. Does that mean I can't say juggling chainsaws and flaming torches is not easy or safe?�

tabby    "Astrology is such trash: Pure fabrication with no sensible basis whatsoever.   But what a hoax. ... To believe that what kind of day/month/year you are going to have can be predicted without consideration of your free will and your personal circumstances is really quite insane. The entire concept of astrology is insane."

Alice   "I know people who have given all their life savings to gurus they believed in, allowed their children to be abused, deferred having children or gave their children up because of their spiritual following of the guru's commands, spent fortunes on psychic readers, given up education and careers to be the unpaid labor of their gurus and even committed suicide for their non-scientific beliefs. We have only to see the planes of 9/11 and the fields of Jonestown to understand how strong belief is in motivating people and how completely opposed to logic people can become when they have a strong belief."

Bagpuss "I believe that aeroplanes are kangaroos. I just happen to be using different definitions of both words than the entire rest of the the speakers of the English language. I am not wrong, I just define things differently to you all ..... I don't want particlularly want to learn about astrology, as I have been presented with no evidence that it has any truth to it .... And it shouldn't matter whether I am biased against astrology ... Actually I would have been quite impressed if I had read one of those charts and it sounded like me, more than the others. I know I was when I read the kabalarians short report into my name - even though I know that to be an equal amount of hooey."

Gervase "Pardon me while I bark!    ... No, you daft bint, I found out that astrologers weren't actually playing with a full deck .... Deluding the public? It's what astrology is all about!
Of course you'd be happier without all those nasty scientists messing up your lovey fluffy make-believe world and pointing out the fatuous absurdity of your beliefs ....The gist, for most sensible people, is that astrology is complete cobblers but the simple-minded and gullible cling on to it because people like that have a need to believe in something.... Hey, you're not related to those odd coves who used to stand on street corners with sandwich boards announcing the immenent end of the world and that eating meat was murder, are you?   Oddly, in none of the readings was I told I was a gullible fool to be seeking answers through astrology�"

Clinton Hammond    "You can get the same bullflop from a good 'reading' of a bowl of alphabet soup....Give yer damn fool head a shake would ya.... Yer scuppered here... and are just too blinkered to see it..... Evidently your open mind fled the coop a long time ago...."

Paul Burke   "People who believe in astrology are morally inferior to those who do not"

flamenco ted   "Last night I had a chat with the Fairies that live at the bottom of my garden, and even they don't believe that Astrology is real."

And even my longtime friend Little Hawk, who claims to have no interest in astrology whatsoever, and that he just doesn't 'get it' (So why is he posting so often on this thread, I wonder!)

"Chongo wants to know if you can do a chart for a chimpanzee? ... You need yer flippin' head examioned, Daylea ... Asterology sucks. It is fer old ladies that were long skirts and tie their flippin' hair in a bun at the back or other wierdos like that. It don't make no flippin' sense. I don't flippin' care if VEnus is in Yeranus, becoz it don't matter, eh? Them stars are nice to look at, but that is as far as it flippin' goes."


I think that's about enough for one morning. So again, to all who feel hurt by my sarcasm, or offended by my blunt "tell it like it is -- don't mince words -- just call a spade a spade" approach - well, Boo hoo for you!   Just watch you don't get yourself all dehydrated now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:09 PM

People posted their own ideas, and, since this is a discussion forum, they are entitled to do that--even if you don't like what they have to say. You've said what you have to say. And you've said what you think of the people who disagree with you as well. It's time for you to let it go.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 01:41 PM

I'm posting on this thread because I am fascinated by psychological issues and anomalies of all kinds, specially those that lead to compulsive behaviour. It is people's pscychologically compulsive reactions to one another that interest me on this thread, not the subject of astrology itself, which I am neutral on. It's how people relate to each other that interests me. Shane is simply reacting exactly the way "Shane" would, for amusement's sake. He is a demonstration of the absolute outer edge of ignorant, moronic, dead stupid, meatheaded conformist reaction to things. As such he stands as a warning the rest of us. ;-) Chongo also reacted the way "Chongo" would...as an aggressively independent "man of action", again demonstrating the hilarious predictability of character types in given situations.

I wonder what it is, for instance, that makes BillD always drop in on threads that are about esoteric stuff he doesn't believe in and argue endlessly about it? If the weather was AS predictable as BillD, we'd all know exactly when to carry an umbrella, wouldn't we?

And I wonder what it is that makes Daylia respond so defensively to people over something like this to the point of still battling it out hundreds of posts later with many of those same people? I used to do the same over threads about UFOs, but I finally decided that I really didn't need more of that kind of aggravation with people who, like me, aren't going to change their views about UFOs.

It's like an ongoing auto wreck reading this thread. Not pretty...but you just can't help taking another look at it.

Every day I open up the Mudcat. I think, "I wonder if the great astrology mega-mudcatfight is still raging today?" I look. Holy shit, it still is! Unbelievable. Well, let's take a look.

It's a change of entertainment from reading Shambles' complaints about censorship on the forum.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 02:57 PM

I wonder what it is that makes Daylia respond so defensively ...

Well, LH, if I don't present what I know about astrology (or any other subject I enjoy) when the opportunity presents itself (if I care to, that is) -- or fail to 'defend' that knowledge and/or myself if necessary - who will?

Besides, in the 3 or 4 years I've been around Mudcat, I've never seen anyone else call people on their habitual use of twisted slant and propoganda re subjects like these. I'd never given it anything more than a silent arrrgghhh ... oh well! myself. But somehow, this thread was kinda like the straw that broke the camel's back.

Better late than never, I figure.

Ted, I do appreciate your concern, and thank you for your insights and suggestions on this thread. Please be assured that when I decide it's time to move on, that's exactly what'll happen. And for what it's worth, I've spent a lot of my time and energy in the role of peacemaker over the years, and I've discovered that "peacemaking" is not always an appropriate response. So I've been enjoying wearing a different style of 'clothing', for a change.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 03:51 PM

Oops, I meant to post this above as well. And I also wanted to say *thank you* to the Mudelf who cleaned up those italics!

...It's how people relate to each other that interests me. Shane is simply reacting exactly the way "Shane" would, for amusement's sake. He is a demonstration of the absolute outer edge of ignorant, moronic, dead stupid, meatheaded conformist reaction to things. As such he stands as a warning the rest of us. ;-) Chongo also reacted the way "Chongo" would...as an aggressively independent "man of action", again demonstrating the hilarious predictability of character types in given situations.

LH, this is quite the intriguing psychological anomoly in and of itself! Thanks for the low-down on Shane and Chongo. And I wonder ... do you suppose they might be in some way, manifestations of the unconscious, undeveloped, unexpressed, largely unknown parts of your own psyche? If so, I bet with the correct birthtime we could get more insig ....

oh, never mind...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Apr 06 - 04:14 PM

Sure, Shane and Chongo are clues to something about me. That's why I created them. Shane is sort of like the complete opposite to me in every way possible (except gender & nationality?). He is the kind of person I detested and completely despised when I was younger, but now look upon with a certain degree of amused compassion. It's Shane's relative innocence that is his most charming feature, in my opinion. He actually thinks he's among the "cool" people of this world. But then, a lot of people think that, don't they? They can't ALL be right! ;-)

Chongo is the adventurous, devil-may-care, take anything on, man of action that I never had the nerve (or the innocence) to be. He has no doubts about his chosen path in life. I have plenty of doubts about mine.

That makes it fun to slip into the "Chongo" persona for a bit now and then...as it is fun to slip into the "Shane" persona.

Every human personality is like a part in a play, some roles being more dramatic than others. That's what's so fascinating about it. I watch people playing their roles out and I wonder if they are aware it's a role? I think very few of them are. Chongo and Shane have no idea they are just playing roles they made up in their own heads. That makes them very certain of their opinions on everything...whether or not their opinions can be judged as valid from another viewpoint.

The question is, who am I? I could recount personal history, but that wouldn't do anything except perpetuate the role I've been playing in this life, and it's temporary. Very temporary. And I know it.

Who I am or who you are goes way beyond the circumstances of this life. It's a mystery that remains unanswered.

If astrology works, then its primary task would appear to be accurately identifying the role a person is temporarily playing in this life. Since most people believe that they ARE that role...that would make astrology seem to be quite useful for them if they have confidence in it...or totally useless if their role does not include believing in things like astrology. ;-)

BillD's role appears to involve, among other things, identifying and challenging what he views as irrational belief or behaviour. He appears to me to be, in his own mind, a sort of crusader against irrationality, and the term "crusade" suggest a noble cause, doesn't it? Hence, his persistence. You appear to be a crusader for the legitimacy of astrology. A crusade is a war. A war involves finding opposition and doing battle until victory is achieved (by someone). And there you have the source of what fuels this thread and keeps it going beyond 1000 posts.

Since no one is in a position to win a decisive victory here, however, this war will either go on forever...or until people simply lose all interest in pursuing it further.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:05 AM

Every human personality is like a part in a play, some roles being more dramatic than others.

Psychologically, people are many "personas" (ie "inner characters") all rolled into one - some conscious, well-adapted, sophisicated, and strong; others undeveloped, neglected, troublesome. This is not carved in stone, however - it seems that throughout life at certain critical junctures, conflicts arise, enabling us to recognize and develop the 'weaker characters' and bring them into balance, so that we become more complete as human beings.

Astrology offers a portrait of these 'inner characters', as well as valuable clues as to how they might manifest within our consciousness behaviour, and in our daily lives. Astrology also offers insight as to when/how these "critical junctures" arise, through the study of personal planetary transits. People with more awareness and understanding of their own inner needs, conflicts, drives (ie 'personas') and 'critical junctures' find that they no longer feel 'victimized' by life and by their own minds/emotions. No longer at the mercy of their own inner demons and conflicts, the process of integration and self-actualization becomes easier and more rewarding, and life becomes more productive.

One of the precepts of psychological astrology is that any weaker, underdeveloped, unexpressed, unacceptable 'personas' or 'inner characters' tend to be projected outwards and reflected back to the person through other people. And so, for example, people who've denied and/or repressed their own 'psychic' or 'occult' (for lack of a better word) nature, interests and abilities throughout their lives are irresistably drawn toward people like you and I Little Hawk, and into discussions like these -- so that they might eventually recognize and come to terms with these less developed aspect of their own personality.

And about being on a crusade for the legitimacy of astrology here -- well, I agree, that must be how it appears. But things are not always what they seem, LH. If I've been on a crusade here, it's not been about astrology at all. It really doesn't matter what you or Bill or Ted or anyone else thinks about astrology.

No, any "crusade" here been a personal one -- an ongoing effort to stand my ground, speak the truth, call a spade and spade and not back down / disappear when the going gets tough. For once in my life, in discussions like these! And I think I've done very well, considering. So, thanks to the Mudcat, to astrology for the fascinating 'subject material', and to all who've challenged me here for playing these essential 'roles' in my own inner drama.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 08:14 AM

PS -- hey LH, we could draw up a chart for your Shane and Chongo 'personas', just for fun, to see how accurate they are! All we'd need is exact birthtime, and we'd list Orillia as birthplace. I suppose the first post they ever made here on Mudcat would be equivalent to the "first breath', if they were real people (or chimps, sorry Chongo). That would be easy enough to find, I think! So if you want to wade through your posts here to find the first time Chongo and/or Shane made an appearance and post it here, go for it! And I'll provide the charts.

Hee hee!!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 11:05 AM

...people who've denied and/or repressed their own 'psychic' or 'occult' (for lack of a better word) nature, interests and abilities throughout their lives are irresistably drawn toward people like you and I Little Hawk, and into discussions like these -- so that they might eventually recognize and come to terms with these less developed aspect of their own personality.

Hmmm. It would have been better to say "...people who've denied and/or repressed ... often, at certain times in their lives, find themselves irresistably drawn toward people like you and I and to discussions like these." Human beings are extremely complex, and so are the seemingly endless biological, social and enviromental variables (ie influences / restrictions / limitations) acting upon them. And that's why nothing about astrology, or the people it describes is ever absolutely definitive.

Now, if I could just balance out that oh-so-Arien damn-the-torpedoes-full-speed-ahead! approach, and develop enough patience to let a post sit for a day or two while ponder it, I'd save myself a lot of re-posts (corrections) here! I have both Sun (symbolizing ego) and Mercury (mind) in Aries. And for anyone who's interested --- this is from the Astrodienst website, re the meaning of Aries ...

"Aries is full of energy, looking for action and new things to discover, but its intention can change rapidly. Aries likes to be a pioneer, the first to be somewhere or do something. It wants to achieve things, and there is a strong need in Aries to be itself and express itself directly.

Aries is often impatient, lacking in persistence and stamina. Its style is to strike frequently and lightly rather than make a strong, sustained attack. Yet its energy level can be high enough to have the same impact as a more sustained approach.

As a fire sign, Aries puts out energy more easily than it takes it in. It can be very enthusiastic, assertive, and sometimes angry. But its anger is usually short-lived: once the energy has been expressed, the matter is concluded."

I'd say that's a highly accurate description of me. And, imo, all that's really required to observe/verify this is a quick glance over a few of my posts here on Mudcat. But Little Hawk knows me fairly well, and doesn't have any interest - apparent or otherwise - in "legitimizing' astrology either. So, if he's still around, maybe he'll offer a relatively informed, unbiased opinion as to the accuracy of that description.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 02:46 PM

Yes, I'd say that's an accurate description of you, Daylia.

I'll see if I can find Chongo's and Shane's birthdates...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:33 PM

Okay, the date of Chongo's first appearance, as far as I know, was:

19 Dec 03 - 10:45 PM

That was the launch of the first Chongo Chimp story thread on Mudcat.

Birthplace? Either Orillia ...or Chicago...depending on how you look at it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Apr 06 - 09:38 PM

Shane first appeared on 13 Feb 01 - 09:32 PM    (I think...)

Place of Birth? Either Blind River...or Orillia...depending on how you look at it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 07:51 AM

Sheesh LH, I intended this as an amusement, and now you've gone and made it all, like, WORK eh! ;-]

I used Orillia as location, as these 'personas' - the products of your own will and creativity - issued forth from the mysterious depths your psyche into the outer world via the motherboard of your computer, so to speak. And that 'mother' was in Orillia at the time, right?    BUt it's easy to change the birthplace -- just click 'edit data for ...' at the top of the chart if you like. THe changes effect the Ascendant and house cusps, but not the planetary positions.

So, here's the first astrological glimpse of Chongo
It's a clickable chart, easy to get the interpretations. And a sneak peek too (those are LONG reports!)

"Sun in Sagittarius: Sagittarius is associated with idealism, and it is very likely to want to reform things. The fire sign is more concerned with principles and general patterns than it is about details of putting the idea into practice.

Sagittarius has a very freedom-loving side. It needs room to move and the freedom to express itself. It is usually very likable but not entirely reliable in keeping agreements or being consistent. Sagittarius is happy to encounter new experiences and is not especially tradition-bound. It sees itself as being part of the whole, but does not want to be hemmed in by it.

Sagittarius is often attracted to the sciences, philosophy, religion or any other discipline that reveals the interconnectedness of all things. It is interested in understanding overall patterns of how the world works. Sagittarius enjoys everything which it finds consciousness-enlarging and liberating from the restraints of everyday life.   

You are a fun-loving person who enjoys games. You are very spirited and energetic and need to spend a lot of time outdoors to release all your energy. Because of your strong need to feel free, you may find it difficult to put up with restrictions that adults want to impose on you.

You want freedom to be friends with anyone, and you won't let others dictate to you about this.

You are very curious and want to know the answer to every question that comes to mind. As you grow older, you will become interested in finding out how the universe works in the broadest terms.

You are cheerful and positive, and other people will enjoy having you around."


ANd here's the chart for Shane


"Sun in Aquarius: Meaning of Aquarius

Aquarius enjoys social interactions, values friendships and respects what a group effort can do.

Aquarius can also be radical, innovative and highly individualistic. But most of the radical ideas Aquarius has might hold social consequences. It desires to create a more perfect society. The ideals of the French Revolution are Aquarian for example: liberty, equality and fraternity.

Being an air sign, Aquarius has a detached and fair-minded view of things. It genuinely concerns itself for the good of all, not merely its own good. It is an idealistic sign, with a strong commitment to what it believes. It is unusually free of restraints imposed by the past and tradition.   

You like new things and new ideas and are bored by old ways of thinking and acting. You are an individualist and a free spirit, but at the same time you need to work and share your life with other people.

However, even though you are attracted to new ideas, you don't readily change your thinking once you have made up your mind.

Because of your fondness for new ideas, you enjoy studying science, technology and other subjects that enable people to control the world in some way. As you get older, you may be attracted to more offbeat studies, such as astrology and the occult.

When you are with a group of friends, you think about the group as a whole rather than just about yourself. This can cause problems for you if your needs conflict with the needs of the rest of the group. You will stand up for anyone who is not being treated fairly."


Well, I dunno them as well as you do, of course, but at first glance? Truthfully, I'm not very impressed. No mention of cigars? Or dope, or even beer?   Oh well, so much for the 'legitimacy' of astrology!   But then again, any sane person with more than 2 brain cells to rub together already knows that, right?   

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 08:03 AM

PS   the computer thinks that Shane and Chongo are human beings under the age of six, LH, so the interpretations given are for a child, not an adult.   And it cannot generate a 'personal portrait' for them either -- too young and not-fully-formed, I suppose.

Hey, maybe that's why there's no mention of sex drugs and rock'n roll!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM

Well, I find that most astrological charts tend to focus more on the positives...and that might be because people don't really want to pay their astrologer to hear that they are jerks, idiots, losers, or fools! ;-)

Shane is a spectacular example of human devolution. Like water, he seeks the easiest path down with unerring accuracy.

Chongo has his rough spots, but he's a darned good shamus. Matter of fact, you have to have rough spots to be good in that trade.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Apr 06 - 09:51 PM

I can be a sucker for beleifs , i accept that.
Its maybe because im a londoner.!