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

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?