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

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: *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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: Alice
Date: 17 Apr 06 - 03:16 PM

no.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: *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: *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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: *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: *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 - 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: 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: 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: *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: *daylia*
Date: 15 Apr 06 - 01:06 PM

900!!!!!

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

And I just have to say ....