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

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM

WISH

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:36 PM

I

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

WISH

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

wish

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

Have the

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:35 PM

I might

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

I wish

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

I may

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

I wish

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:34 PM

tonight

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

I see

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

First star

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

Star bright

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:33 PM

Oh, and btw ....

Star light

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:32 PM

Why would any thinking person waste their time and energy on a 'study' on astrology that's so blatantly biased and distorted -- ie designed and funded by the Kansas City "Skeptics"?   

ANd did you not notice Hamblin's closing words in the paragraph you posted? They ARE the most important ie "...Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:05 PM

Whoa! Time to get outta here.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 10:00 PM

Absolutely no problem, bobad. Very amusing! And thanks, again, for posting that 'study'    LOLOL    =]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:48 PM

"So is belief in just about anything else you could care to mention."

Unless, of course, evidence is available to support it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:43 PM

So is belief in just about anything else you could care to mention... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:43 PM

Sorry daylia but you posted the link to the "studies", I just picked out one at random, to refresh;

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia* - PM
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM

Here it is again, bobad -- Astrology and Science. Fill yer boots.

And you're welcome, too.

It must have been a long day, get some rest.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,kibitzer
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:42 PM

"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur"

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:40 PM

No, I think this thread will definitely reach 1000 posts.
Belief in astrology is a gut level powerful force that evidence will not sway.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:36 PM

Just find the astrologers who provide the test results (good or bad) most likely to back up your favorite views, and presto! You're all set. This is exactly what drug companies do when they want to "fix" test results in order to sell a potentially dangerous drug. They have it tested in various different labs under a variety of conditions and test procedures. They publicize only the tests that worked out in their favor. You never even hear of the ones that didn't.

JUst saw this, LH - thanks. And just noticed who funded that so-called 'study' bobad posted too: the "Kansas City Committee for Skeptical Inquiry". LOL! How pathetically    yet *logically*   lame!    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL
















































































sorry folks               it's the end of a LOngLOngLOng day

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:35 PM

Oh, goody! Thanks, Alice. We can now look forward to the scourge of astrology being wiped clean off this planet if only everyone in the world (or at least on Mudcat) can be made aware of that conclusive study... Whew! What a relief. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:26 PM

Actually, conclusive studies have been done on astrology, such as this one quoted below. Note the quote from (now former) astrologer Dr. Geoffrey Dean who had to admit that if any test would prove astrology's claims this one would, but in fact it proved that there were no traits or tendencies shared by the people born at the same time.

--------------------------
A detailed scientific long-term study by researchers in Britain proves the central principle of astrology invalid and baseless. It puts an end to the fantastic old claim that the constellation of stars and planets at the time of birth could influence or even determine the development of an individual's character and course of life.

The "Time Twin Study" was started in London in 1958 as a medical research project. Registering more than 2,000 babies, born within minutes of each other on a day in early March, it had the objective to compare the time twins' health development. The field of investigation was soon extended. The research team monitored the test persons over several decades, recording observations about more than 100 parameters in connection with health, occupation, marital situation, anxiety level, aggressiveness, sociability, IQ levels, abilities in music, art, sport, mathematics, language etc. They tried to collect evidences for similarities between the time twins. However, no similarities could be identified.

"The test conditions could hardly have been more conducive to success but the results are uniformly negative", stated Dr. Geoffrey Dean, astrologer turned scientist from Perth, Australia, in a report about the study, published in the current issue of the Journal of Consciousness Studies. Carrying out an analysis of the study, Dr. Dean and his collegue Prof. Ivan Kelley, Psychologist at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, found that there was no special trait or tendency shared by the time twins. They were just as different as people born on any other day under any other planetary constellation.

The claim that stars and planets could influence character and life of human beings has long been dismissed by rationalists and scientists as there is according to all known scientific principles no kind of mechanism imaginable by way of which this influence could possibly work. Here is empirical proof that it does not work at all. The study shows clearly that astrological predictions based on the coordinates of birth do not correspond with reality. They are nothing but exercises in deception.

This should be the end of one of the oldest superstitions. But it is not hard to predict that the show will still go on. There are obviously too many people, who like to be deceived and too many, who make enormous money by deceiving them..

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:06 PM

"If astrology was true in the way that astrologers claim that it is true, then the simplest and most unsophisticated piece of research would be able to demonstrate a correlation between (for instance) Ascendant sign and personality traits. Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 09:03 PM

bobad, all scientific studies done on astrology to date - including that one - are next to useless, becayse they based on a false premise and/or cannot do justice to the vast number of variables astrology presents - including the wide range of opinions/interpretations within the field of astrology itself.

Here's an excerpt from the article "Astrology as Religion" at the same link. The article offers a valuable first-hand account of the difficulties facing anyone who attempts an honest, empirical investigation of astrology, and closes with some lucid if sobering concerns re the continuing scientific investigation of astrology:


"The spiritual dimension of astrology -- David Hamblin

From his letter in Astrological Journal 32(6), 406-407, 1990, with later postscripts.

Abstract -- The author, a former Chairman of the UK Astrological Association, spent much time testing astrological claims but found no evidence in their favour. Eventually he gave up reading birth charts but retained his interest in astrology. He argues that the spiritual dimension is a necessary part of human existence ....

... It seems to me that the reason why many astrologers are reluctant to take part in research is that they expect, and fear, that the research would come up with negative results. When I first came into astrology from an academic background I was very keen on research, and I spent a great deal of time doing little research projects on my own, trying to prove (to my own satisfaction) a correlation between particular astrological factors and particular personality traits or occupational characteristics. The pattern was always the same: for the first fifty (or maybe a hundred) charts I would seem to be coming up with very exciting results, but as I increased the size of the sample the effect would fade away, until by the time I had looked at (say) two hundred charts there would be no correlation whatsoever.

After many experiences of this kind, I began to find astrological research a pretty depressing activity, and my enthusiasm for it became blunted. And, in the end, my enthusiasm for astrology became blunted also. For a long time I had tried to convince myself that astrology was valid in spite of the lack of research evidence, and that the need was for better tests. If astrology was true in the way that astrologers claim that it is true, then the simplest and most unsophisticated piece of research would be able to demonstrate a correlation between (for instance) Ascendant sign and personality traits. Since these correlations have not been demonstrated, it is plain that astrology does not work in the way that most astrologers say that it works, even if it may possibly work in some other way.

... After all, what would happen to astrology if it was proved beyond doubt that there is a connection between planetary positions at a particular time and events on Earth occurring at the same time? It would be taken over, not only by science, but by politics and big business. It would become part of the "system" from which so many of us long to escape. It would do great harm, because of the way in which it would be used by unscrupulous people in search of profit and power. It would lose its magic and its capacity to inspire.

How much better that it should remain one of those things (like life after death) that are never proved but remain tantalizingly possible, elusive, just out of reach, offering glimpses of a universe that lies beyond our ordinary experience."

Hear, hear!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:59 PM

Even claims made by the pharmaceutical industry are eventually tested by scientists who have no stake in the outcome other than patient welfare.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:52 PM

Yes, of course, bobad. I'm not really talking about what the professional science community say among themselves here...but rather about what a special interest group (such as the drug companies) says to the public...via advertising. They will quote studies which say their drug is great and has no bad side effects. They will not quote studies which say the opposite. Both sets of studies may exist, and both may be valid and reproducable...strictly within the test guidelines under which they were done...or not.

There's all manner of propaganda out there.

In the case of astrology, it's a much smaller field of human activity involving far less money than is the drug industry, so there's not much likelihood of enough studies even being done to secure really solid and conclusive evidence, is there?

There's plenty of evidence out there already to suggest that meat-eating can cause a tremendous number of degenerative diseases...but there's also a huge industry and a huge cultural tradition supporting meat-eating. This means you will hear conflicting views about it from many sources, most of whom have an ax of some kind to grind...as do many people when the subject of astrology comes up.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:43 PM

You are missing one important built in verification system in the field of science, LH, that is the reproducibility mechanism. Whenever a claim is made by one scientist other scientists involved in the same area of research usually will attempt to duplicate the procedures to see if they arrive at the same result and publish their findings, thereby either corroborating or refuting the original claim.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:33 PM

Right on, bobad!   =]

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:31 PM

As for stories both supporting astrology and not supporting it....hey, we are always going to have plenty of those.

If astrology is a real craft, let's say, then you would have some who would be good at it, some who would be average at it, and some who would be not good at all.

Just find the astrologers who provide the test results (good or bad) most likely to back up your favorite views, and presto! You're all set. This is exactly what drug companies do when they want to "fix" test results in order to sell a potentially dangerous drug. They have it tested in various different labs under a variety of conditions and test procedures. They publicize only the tests that worked out in their favor. You never even hear of the ones that didn't.

If a lab knows that a certain test result will get them lucrative future work from that customer, then they are encouraged to use only procedures that will yield that result, aren't they?

Money, very large amounts of money, can rapidly taint any such system of verification as can be set up, and that even happens in some cases of criminal law...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:29 PM

"would it convince everyone?"

Probably not daylia.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:22 PM

LOL! Sorry, couldn't help it...

Okay, first we gotta decide what a "Taurean" really is...and if there IS such a thing, in truth, or if it's a fictional concept.

Yes, I know it means someone born under a certain sun sign, but are the sun signs themselves real, and do they affect people as they are reputed to?

That's a BIG project, proving that. How would we do it?

Well, we'd have to gather together a great many people to test this out, and we'd have to analyze their personality characteristics in a very systematic way that no one could question, and secure statistical results, again, that no one could deny.

I think we're talkin' about spending a few hundred million $ here, whaddya you think?

Would it be worth it when we were done, and would it convince everyone?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:21 PM

I clicked on one article in your link daylia and this is what came up.

Murder
Astrologers rated these killers as good guys

An article from the now defunct Kansas City Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. The article was originally titled "Astrology on Death Row!" and was reprinted in the Indian Skeptic 1989, Vol 1 (11). The results of three similar studies have been added in Appendix 1, and the results of orthodox studies in Appendix 2.

Abstract -- In the late 1980s a skeptic in Kansas City went to five professional astrologers giving as his own the birth data and computer-calculated birth chart of John Gacy, one of the worst convicted serial killers in American history. They described him as having a "well rounded personality", that he could "offer a good role model" and that he would "be excellent for working around young people" (which is precisely the group that Gacy specialised in murdering). Students who had been told the readings were of their own chart rated them as accurate. Appendix 1 presents similar results using the birth data of mass murderers Edward Kemper III and Marcel Petiot. Obviously perceived accuracy means little. Appendix 2 reviews orthodox predictors of psychopathy and murder that are well-established and make sense. Nobody with the relevant information could possibly agree with the astrologers' statements. Until astrology can improve, which given the results to date seems unlikely, this is an area from which astrology should be firmly excluded.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:15 PM

I think I am asking a simple question here. A claim was made that MANY Taureans exhibit certain behaviours, all I'm asking is to be pointed to where I may find verification for this claim, how it was arrived at, what is the definition of MANY, etc. These are very basic inquiries any thinking person would make to someone claiming to know what makes people behave as they do. I don't think any thinking person would accept claims that, for example, certain "races" are intellectually inferior or sexually more promiscuous than others without supportive evidence so why would one not seek evidence when claims are made about someone's behaviour?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 08:09 PM

"which data are relevant here? And beyond that, whose data would satisfy whom?"

Those are the eternal questions, aren't they? If you want proof of that, just look at all the squabbling on the Errol/Flynn-Custer thread....until Teribus finally got angry, took his intellectual toys, and went home!

I really think most people argue just because they like to, and because they want to get in the last word.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:55 PM

Here it is again, bobad -- Astrology and Science. Fill yer boots.

And you're welcome, too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:51 PM

When such claims are made there must be some data to back them up.

"Must be"? According to whom? Even more importantly, which data is relevant here? And beyond that, whose data would satisfy whom - if anyone?

There have been only a handful of scientific studies done on astrology to date, bobad, as pointed out several times already on this thread.    ANd most of the results have been negative. Take a look - I posted a great link called "astrology and science" a few days ago, with a few such articles and studies for your perusal.

But don't go lighting those self-congratulatory cigars just yet -- I repeat, all scientific studies done on astrology to date are next to useless, as they are either based on a false premise (ie 'testing' for astrology's alleged 'predictiveness'), or using methods/techniques insufficient to even identify, never mind differentiate / assess the relative importance of the seemingly endless number of astrological variables mapped out in a natal chart.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:41 PM

I don't know either, that's why I'm asking questions, no need to make presumptions on what I would or would not believe. If, as you say the data does exist in astrology books, I would like to know that.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:35 PM

"When such claims are made there must be some data to back them up."

Oh, but there IS, bobad...in innumerable astrology books! ;-) Only trouble is that...

Daylia would consider many of those books to be a reliable source in which she could place confidence.

You would not.

And I would just shrug, cos I frankly have no opinion one way or the other about it.

Amusing, isn't it?

All these debates are ever truly about, in my opinion, is people defending their own ego and its established views of reality. What is an authoritative source for one person may not be for another...that will depend on what views they already held before they consulted that source.

Not one of you really knows, in my opinion, whether or not astrology is true or whether it works. Not one. But you'd love to THINK you know. ;-) I KNOW that I don't know, and I'm perfectly okay with that.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:12 PM

M.Ted, thank you for making me smile!
;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 07:03 PM

Yes, but the claim is that "MANY Taureans are noted for their immoveability and unwillingness/inability/? to change their mind or accept that they might be in error." I would like to know how this was arrived at and what constitutes "MANY". What percentage of Taureans versus non-Taureans would exhibit these traits. When such claims are made there must be some data to back them up.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:27 PM

THat's a classic astrological description of Taurus, bobad, available in just about any beginner's astrology book / website. Off the top of my head, here more classic 'Taurean traits': patience, reliabilty, stubbornness, warmheartness, persistence, determination, resentfulness, inflexibility, self-indulgent, conservative, traditional, slow-moving, slow-thinking, methodical, practical.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*da;ylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

Wrong, bearded bruce. Unlike people like Bill or Alice, my personal knowledge -- please notice, I did not say opinion, or belief, but knowledge -- of this subject is rooted in a lifetime of ongoing personal investigation (ie formal and informal studies PLUS practical application of astrology and psychology) ; but most importantly, the direct first-hand observations and experience these efforts produce.

If I really wanted to know what music is or what it could possibly do for me, I wouldn't seek out some philospher's oh-so-logically-pristine opinions about music -- unless that philosopher were also a musician. Nor would I seek out some scientist's explanation, or I'd surely be disappointed at the endless hypotheses and descriptions and theories re, say, sound waves and the effect of same on my neurotransmitters.

Very interesting and all, but ..... if I really wanted to know, to experience what music is all about, I'd just go get me an instrument - maybe at some point a teacher and some books too -- and play it. Check it out for myself. That's the only way to discover, for myself, what the art, science, and language of music are really all about.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 03:14 PM

In a Zen-like moment of self-reflection, BillD realizes the absurdity of his personal role this epic debate, which is not a real debate at all--and at that very moment, with a cosmic sense of timing, Alice jumps in and grabs the baton--

Go, Alice! Say on! You've got a clear sky, the wind at your back, and a star to guide you--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:56 PM

"Bill - Taureans are noted- sorry, MANY Taureans are noted for their immoveability and unwillingness/inability/? to change their mind or accept that they might be in error. Some will wait until their deathbed to wonder if PERHAPS they MIGHT have made a mistake, if at all."

That is a very interesting claim, I wonder if you would provide a source for it.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:51 PM

The following statement is just as true, being unsupppported by any basis in reality.

"daylia's arguments neither prove nor disprove any claims made here about astrology, including her own. Her opinions about astrology, as stated above, are nothing more than unsubstantiated belief based on lack of knowledge, inexperience (ie personal ignorance of the subject at hand), popular misconceptions, and comfortable life-long prejudices."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: autolycus
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:50 PM

Bill - Taureans are noted- sorry, MANY Taureans are noted for their immoveability and unwillingness/inability/? to change their mind or accept that they might be in error. Some will wait until their deathbed to wonder if PERHAPS they MIGHT have made a mistake, if at all.

N.B. In no way am I specifying any particular error you might have made; I'm talking in principle about how many Taureans appear to be.

And there is value in that firmness - humanity needs it just as much as Libran balance, Cancerian sensitivity, and so on. And we all have some of it as Taurus, just like all the other signs, is present, in some form , in everyone's chart.

I said many Taureans because there are Taureans and Taureans. One with only the Sun in Taurus is going to be a different animal from one with, say, Mercury,or Venus or Mars or etc/ or any combination in Taurus.

If I were presented with a person who was purely logical, I think it wouldn't be a person at all but a computer.

Just as there are any number of points from the sceptical side still outstanding, so there are quite a few unresponded to by the afoementioned side. Still no proof for the existence of God, no response from Clinton, little to the great use of astrology by business, sport and so on, to the questions about humans being self-deluding, unfulfilled, living in fear or by objective rules and not knowing themselves, to the proposition that many fields of study lie outside the realm of science,and on and on.

Is that a case of 'you're not answering our questions so we're going to ignore yours?'

Can anybody/nobody take up the suggestion to look at other approaches to life apart from the logical one?

I did philosophy, too. I complained quietly then that each philosopher danced to 'their own boom-boom', to quote a dadaist.

Can any of my good acquaintances in the sceptical camp give some account of why they are, variously, firm, indecisive, artistic, scientific, mean, generous, inclined/not inclined to (roughly speaking) New Age thinking,inhibited, uninhibited, intuitive or not. Children of the same parents turn out differently so it's not all environment; people do change, so it's not all inherited.

"The 3 great strategies of obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, or to excite ridicule."Bergen Evans in 'The Natural History of Nonsense.'

LOR.
   Ivor





LOR = lots of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 18 Apr 06 - 02:47 PM

Actually, I'm just wondering how long she'll be able to hold out, bobad. She usually erupts with some wild tale of alleged horror and woe within 3 or 4 posts, when she appears.