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

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!!!!!