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

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:54 AM

Daylia, I do understand what you are saying. You don't see your belief as something that can be held up to the measure of science. You believe it, so it is valid for you, and does not need proofs or arguments that others come up with.

I still think it is amazing how strong the emotional tie to belief is, but it is not the first time I have seen it, and not even the most extreme example. I know people who have given all their life savings to gurus they believed in, allowed their children to be abused, deferred having children or gave their children up because of their spiritual following of the guru's commands, spent fortunes on psychic readers, given up education and careers to be the unpaid labor of their gurus and even committed suicide for their non-scientific beliefs. We have only to see the planes of 9/11 and the fields of Jonestown to understand how strong belief is in motivating people and how completely opposed to logic people can become when they have a strong belief.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: TIA
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:56 AM

Physicist Richard Feynman read a book on cold reading, and then practiced it for fun. He got so good at it that he quit because people were insisting that he was actually psychic, but refused to admit it. They would not hear a word of his factual and truthful explanation of his "gift".

In this particular thread, I am fascinated by the tremendous hostility towards the concept of even testing a claim. Forget bias or slant or whatever in how data are examined or what the data even are. The idea of putting atsrology to any kind of objective test is apparently "ignorant". Little irony in that, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 09:57 AM

I am going to go one question at a time and really slowly here.

Daylia - when John Addey said (1967), in perhaps themost extensive survey of time twins made by an astrologer, 'one would expect to find really exceptional [his emphasis] similarities of life and temperament only in those born almost exactly at the same time
[within a few minutes] and in the same locality', nevertheless 'the tendency for similarities to appear in the lives of those born on the same day must remain strong and well worth investigating'

Do you agree with him or disagree with him?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:15 AM

"version of reality" ia an oxymoron said Flamenco Ted. What I should have said, of course, is "versions of models of reality". Two assumptions I've made here:

(1) that there is a reality that exists independently of the observer. That's true as far as we can tell so far in all circumstances except those in which quantum lumpiness has not been evened out statistically.

(2) that the reality can be approached by modelling- ne model fits better than another, and that we can (if so desired) devise ways of checking how good the fit is.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:19 AM

That's all right then. We must keep this thread firmly rooted in the real World.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:26 AM

Alice, I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said in your last paragraph. But you still completely disregard (or maybe just misunderstand) what I said about the difference between 'knowing' 'believing'. I do not 'believe' a thing about astrology, or anything else! I've explained what I mean by "knowing" at least half a dozen times above too .. even gave the dictionary definition for the sake of the pedants here. What a waste of time and energy ...

Anyway, who gives a frog's patootie (thanks for that, LH :-) what I think, or what I enjoy, or which attitudes/approaches/techniques/study materials work best for me and which do not? It really doesn't matter, except to me!

And like everyone else on the planet, you are also free to explore and use whatever makes you happy, whatever you find works best for you right now.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:34 AM

Bagpuss, I honestly don't know. I'm not an astrologer, and I don't care much for the idea of "time twins" anyway. Kinda sounds like "soul-mates" .... eeewwwwwwwwww .....

Please save questions like this for a real astrologer. My personal understanding and knowledge of astrology to date is very limited, and Ivor already said he'd see what he could do to answer honest queries at the end of the month.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:52 AM

BTW, Alice, there is an endless list of human phenomena that are beyond the present scope of objective scientific materialistic investigation ie the subjective experience of love, compassion, joy, yearnings, the 'source' of Mozart's musical inspirations and genius etc etc etc ...

Knowing that these phenomena are real anyway does not reflect badly on science, or scientists or anyone else, does it?

Hey, just as an aside, has science ever figured out why yawning is contagious? Does anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 10:57 AM

The phrase 'time twins' is simply a shortened way of saying two children born in the same location and very close together in time. This will have become more common in the West in the last century, as more births are now in Hospital, rather than at home. By having births concentrated, it makes it far more likley that two or more will occur together, ie within minutes and yards of each other.

The only time realistic way this would occur outside of hospital is with real twins, and the whole point of time twins to see look for similarities due to their birth charts,not due to them being brough up together.

Nothing to do with soul mates or such like.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:19 AM

Hmm ... thanks for clarifying, Paul. I will say this, from my own personal experience of twins. IN my understanding of the biological sciences, my identical twin sons (like all other identical twins) have identical DNA. They were born 10 minutes apart, in the same hospital room.

Now, because they have identical DNA, according to science they should be identical in appearance and in every other manner, right? And according to the behavioural sciences, seeing as they were raised together they should be very similar in personality too.

Well, they are not. Not even physically. They are quite similar-looking, but certainly not identical. Strangers have trouble telling them apart at first, but people who know them well do not. And there are significant differences in personality too. Twins or no, born at the same location or no, raised in the same home or no -- they are still two very unique individuals. And as adults, they are "actualizing" whatever potentialities they were born with as their chosen (and very different) life circumstances permit, and of course as they see fit. IN so doing, they will most likely become even more "different" over the course of their lives.

So I'm guessing -- please read that correctly, it does say GUESSING -- that the same conditions apply to astrological "time twins" as well.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:20 AM

Oops, sorry Bunnahadhain. You're not Paul, obviously!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:22 AM

So how can you completely reject the idea that science can examine the claims of astrology, if you don't even know what claims astrology could make.

I put it more simply the first time. If two people were born within a few minutes apart in the same city, would you expect them (based on astrology) to be more similar in personality (personality traits which are commonly used in astrological chart) than any two random people? If you still claim not to know because you are not an expert, I wonder on what basis you believe (know in your own words) in astrology. This premise would seem to me to be a central tenet of astrology.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:23 AM

*reading...just not making any more detailed comments*

but one interesting phenomena I DO experience is 'serendipity'...

and yesterday, after taking a deep breath and stopping typing, I looked at my daily paper to distract myself with the comics....and there, side-by-side, were these:

The Flying McCoys

Wizard of Id

a message? Perhaps! ☺

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bagpuss
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:32 AM

Re twins. Yes identical twins are not identical in every way, but they are much more alike than non identical twins. And their environment is not identical, they do not have identical experiences. Also there is a tendency among some twins to want to assert their own individuality, so they become more different from eachother consciously and deliberately. All of this would explain why they are not identical in every way. No need postulate another mechanism such astrology to explain the discrepancy.

As for contagious yawning (of course it depends on what level of explanation you are after), I think the most common theory is that it developed as a mechanism for coordinating sleep times within a community. Interestingly individual differences in susceptibility to contagious yawning is related to levels of empathy, and I think that autistic people are much less susceptible to it.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

"there's been absolutely nothing posted on this thread yet that 'proves' or 'disproves' a single thing I've said"
Then you need to learn how to read....

"My personal understanding and knowledge of astrology to date is very limited"
Holy backpeddle Batman....

"there is an endless list of human phenomena that are beyond the present scope of objective scientific materialistic investigation"
That just shows you don't know fuck all about science...

"has science ever figured out why yawning is contagious"
Ya... it isn't....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

Wow that's just otherworldly Bill, and you still refuse to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:50 AM

Bagpuss, I've already explained how I know the little I do know about astrology ad nauseum on this thread. HOw boring ....

Pardon me, but while I used to find this discussion amusing and entertaining, the novelty is beginning to wear off..

Hmph.

*yaaawwwwn*   

the day is too young for this   

and it's raining out there too

and I don't go to back work for another 3 looooong hours   

*sniff sniff*

Oh well, I'm off for greener and more musical (but hopefully dry) pastures. It's been fun, ye *potholes*!   I may check back in after the 27th, if this thread is still around by then. But then again *yawn yawn*   maybe I won't.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 11:57 AM

It isn't just yawning that's contagious, daylia, so are most other behaviours.

Arguing, for example, is contagious. (this forum has proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt!) So is smiling. Also laughing. And hurling insults. And being competitive. And so on...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:00 PM

Damn, now she's got me yawning.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:02 PM

She's had me yawning since her first post....

But then I find idiots to be very boring....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:12 PM

No you don't, Clinton. You love them, because they give you someone to pick on.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:17 PM

I have you for that...

Oh wait... yer one too....

How convenient eh

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Alice
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:19 PM

Why people believe what they believe is not boring to me. It is frustrating, though, trying to communicate with some people about their beliefs. I remember one author on the subject of new religions writing about how extremely powerful belief is. People can be made to kill and die for their beliefs, as the world sadly sees every day.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:30 PM

As I have you, Clinton. It's contagious.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:34 PM

You don't have me.....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:38 PM

We have a symbiotic relationship, Clinton, similar to this one:

Karen and Milkman Dan

I'm Karen. You're Milkman Dan.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:41 PM

You give yourself too much credit... You're as close to nothing to me as one can get without actually being nothing....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:44 PM

Precisely. I woudn't have it any other way, because I feel the same about you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:46 PM

Bully for us eh....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:53 PM

Meanwhile, daylia's thread drifts farther and farther off course into the Sea of...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 12:56 PM

... Where-It-Belongs...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 01:00 PM

and it was GUEST,Martini that started this thread...

not Flakelia....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 02:04 PM

True, but it is daylia who has made it her own, seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 02:43 PM

The statistics would tend to prove that out:

Name                            #posts
*daylia*                         110
ClintonHammond                        57
Little Hawk                         57
Bill D                                 37
Bagpuss                         30
TIA                                 16
GUEST                                13
Gervase                         12
Purple Foxx                         11
M.Ted                                 11
bobad                                 10
Alice                                 7
autolycus                         6
Bunnahabhain                         6
Cluin                                 6
Paul Burke                         6
Wolfgang                         6
flamenco ted                         4
kendall                         4
Peace                                 4
Escamillo                         3
Azizi                                 2
Donuel                                 2
GUEST,Martini                         2
SunnySister                         2
Bee-dubya-ell                         1
cool hand Tom                         1
Dave (the ancient mariner)         1
Emma B                                1
frogprince                         1
GUEST,Microsoft tech dept.         1
JennyO                                1
Kaleea                                 1
Rapaire                         1

Of course this kind of "western science" statistic may not apply here. For instance it might be possible for someone to KNOW that say..."GUEST,Microsoft tech dept." has made the most postings.

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

Proof that quantity isn't all it's cracked up to be eh....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 03:36 PM

This gives us both 58, Clinton... ;-P

Shambles would be impressed by the longevity of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:07 PM

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:09 PM

Accidentally posted above-

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:23 PM

Having read many of the articles cited above to disprove astrology, as well as the excellent precis from the always illuminating Wolfgang, I must point out that the abundance of evidence is that astrology works despite the fact that it may be completely unfounded. One article, intended to "disprove" astrology actually provided 34 reasons why astrology works, even though it shouldn't.

This beats science completely, since science has to be right in order to work, and I think that this is what makes scientists so angry about astrology--

I am a little less sure why astrology makes Clinton Hammond so angry, except, apparently, he thinks it is "crap". Of course, he thinks everything is crap, which is, perhaps, why he seems so darned happy all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 04:26 PM

"why astrology makes Clinton Hammond so angry"

Who said I was angry?

Life is too short to waste it being angry at something posted on the internet...

jeeze...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Mar 06 - 05:21 PM

"Rude" is not necessarily angry...or is it?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 08:59 AM

For Alice and the rest of the Mudcat Pothole Gallery: RE the propoganda (ie malicious fallacies) in your posts and how to avoid them in future

This is specifically in reference to Alice's words I know people who have given all their life savings to gurus they believed in, allowed their children to be abused, deferred having children or gave their children up because of their spiritual following of the guru's commands, spent fortunes on psychic readers, given up education and careers to be the unpaid labor of their gurus and even committed suicide for their non-scientific beliefs. We have only to see the planes of 9/11 and the fields of Jonestown to understand ... People can be made to kill and die for their beliefs, as the world sadly sees every day."

Notice how lopsided and negative this argument is! She tries very carefully to avoid the direct use of slanted metaphor (after having just witnessed what happened to poor ole Professor Bill) but still, her entire post(s) is slanted.

Notice how she focuses entirely on certain 'media darlings" -- highly twisted, horrible, tragic and (thankfully) very rare effects of "belief -- while completely ignoring the vast array of everyday positive ones (ie the countless lives saved and people helped via charities run by the religious; the personal hope, comfort and inspiration toward love and goodwill that many many religious people find in their faith every day etc etc)

In so doing, she hopes to create the same lopsided, distorted and patently false impression of the subject under discussion here as she does of 'belief' in general. And a lot of readers are taken in by this no doubt .... but not this one.

So, why do people like Alice and Bill and rest of the potholes do what they do to mislead others? And what can be done about it? From the article I linked to:

"When a propagandist warns members of her audience that disaster will result if they do not follow a particular course of action, she is using the fear appeal. By playing on the audience's deep-seated fears, practitioners of this technique hope to redirect attention away from the merits of a particular proposal and toward steps that can be taken to reduce the fear.

This technique can be highly effective when wielded by a fascist demagogue, but it is typically used in less dramatic ways ...

When confronted with persuasive messages that capitalize on our fear, we should ask ourselves the following questions:

    * Is the speaker exaggerating the fear or threat in order to obtain my support?
    * How legitimate is the fear that the speaker is provoking?
    * Will performing the recommended action actually reduce the supposed threat?
    * When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the speaker's proposal? "

Now, certain potholes above claim I've also ignored "evidence" (???) contradicting my views, in spite of the fact that there's absolutely no such thing for me to ignore here, even if I wanted to!

Nothing posted on this thread 'proves' or 'disproves' anything a thing I've said about astrology, scientifically or otherwise! "Proving" or "disproving" astrology via objective scientific methodology is simply not possible to date.

In fact, it may never be possible.

Having read many of the articles cited above to disprove astrology, as well as the excellent precis from the always illuminating Wolfgang, I must point out that the abundance of evidence is that astrology works despite the fact that it may be completely unfounded. One article, intended to "disprove" astrology actually provided 34 reasons why astrology works, even though it shouldn't.

This beats science completely, since science has to be right in order to work, and I think that this is what makes scientists so angry about astrology--

Hear hear, MTed!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:00 AM

Besides public education, I had another motive for posting what I did above ... The word for '4' is 'Ha' in Hawaiian, and I just wanted to say ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:01 AM

444! Ha ha HA!!!!   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:04 AM

Is it the 27th already?

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

Nope -- but I was told to post this in a dream last night, by a transsexual fairy 1000 feet tall wearing nothing but pale pink fishnet stockings and rubber boots.

With 60 stars on his/her head.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:11 AM

And a huge purple booger hangin out his/her nose.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:12 AM

(dripping disgustingly all over the "skeptics dictionary" tucked under his/her arm)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST,*daylia*
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:18 AM

(which he/she happily agreed to donate to the nearest gaping filthy threatening pothole, but only after I agreed to post)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Mar 06 - 09:20 AM

Forgotten your meds again, Daylia?