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

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 08:28 AM

PS -- I don't mean the obvious by that question -- it could be helpful to explain to a child lost and dying in the desert, for example, that the "oasis" they "see" in the distance is nothing but an optical illusion. Might save them some steps.

But how is it helpful to tell someone, for example, that the correlations they experience between planetary transits and personal moods/inclinations/daily life experiences are not scientific "facts" and are therefore not "real"??? Such observations and experiences are very "real" indeed -- and delightfully so.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:56 AM

So, yes, there are people who are much better experts than yourself under which circumstances your experiences, feelings, memories are more likely to have no correspondance in reality.

Wolfgang, are you saying that subjective human experiences are somehow less "real" than the objective, veriable, measureable variety? I'm curious -- under what circumstances would you find it either necessary or helpful to inform someone else that their own personal first-hand experiences, feelings and memories "have no correspondance in reality?"

What an impoverished, limited view of "reality" - but certainly, you are most welcome to it. Trying to impose it on others, however, is destructive and just plain arrogant, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 07:40 AM

So, yes, there are people who are much better experts than yourself under which circumstances your experiences, feelings, memories are more likely to have no correspondance in reality. Whether you have these feelings or not, you are the expert for and noone else.

So if someone tells me I recollect such and such I can never (yet) tell whether that report about a recollection is wrong. I could not say no, you don't have that recollection for I believe they have. But I may be in a position to tell them that the recollection they experience may have no factual basis.

This is discussed in the article Star Wars at the site I posted yesterday (Astrology and Science -- click continue, and select the article from the list if you like).

The author points out that astrologers tend to focus on first-hand experience, on the benefits of astrology (how it helps them and helps their clients) and claim (rightly so!) that "Astrology has great value - therefore, it works!"

In the meantime, scientists look at second-hand empirical 'evidence' and protest (rightly so!) that "Astrology is not based on fact, therefore, it does not work!" UNfortunately, in most cases neither astrologers nor scientists realize that they are talking about two different things -- benefits versus facts -- which are not mutually exclusive. And so the shouting match goes on and on ....

The article also suggests that the ongoing media hype over the ongoing argument, plus the ridiculous, distorted presentation of astrology in the media every day (ie the sun-sign horoscopes in every newspaper and magazine that are so obviously silly, overgeneralized and inaccurate) destroys any chance of reasoned debate. A valid point!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Mar 06 - 06:08 AM

Don´t you, Wolfgang, feel emotions ? (Escamillo)

Sure, but has this to do with the question whether a testable set of predictions is right or wrong?

M.Ted,
when you speak about science you speak very obviously about something of which you have close to no knowledge. That's a pity. I wouldn't even know where to start to correct your misconceptions. You confuse facts with theories, research methodology with statements about the environment. Science is completely different to a religion in so many respects. If a scientist would start to sound really like a religious person (some do, I know) she does something wrong.

I know that awkward feeling you have that scientists sometimes tell you that your very personal experiences are wrong from my personal experience when doing experiments about human errors of memory, perception and thinking.

If I induce a memory error in a person some of them get really emotionally upset when I tell them they are in error. I know they are for I am in control of the situation and can if necessary replay the situation. Some of them even believe a replay to be a fake for they rather trust their recollection than me. There are some visual illusions so strong that some students never believe me when I say that their perception in a situation is in error. I do it sometimes on purpose without showing them how it was made. I think they can learn something about human nature by noticing that their personal experiences and recollections can be fooled. But asome will never learn that and very< deeply don't want to. I can't help that. A mind has to be at least a tiny bit open to get some things in.

An extreme case which all people accept are phantom limbs. If you had lost your leg, your nerve cells will still represent you as whole and you will have feelings(itch and all that) in a nonexistent limb. That feels so real that some even believe the limb is there (in another sphere) and it itches out there. You are the expert on your personal feelings, so I'd never tell you it should not itch because it isn't there. However, you are not the expert on what happens in your brain and your nervous system you are but the recipient of a final impression. And if you are fooled by your nervous system it feels completely real to you (and you are the only expert about that feeling) but you are not the expert (in some situations) on whether what you feel corresponds to reality or not.

With a certain disturbance in one part of the brain (don't recollect which) people lose the body feeling. We normally perceive the 'I' somewhere behind the eyes or in the breast but that feeling can be lost permanently or (more often) for a short time. In extreme cases people see themselves as a doppelgaenger. The experience feels(according to many reports) as completely real and compelling. But it isn't true in another sense of the word.

For most people and in most situations it does not matter. But sometimes it matters and therefore psychologists can learn (some won't) to distinguish between feelings, experiences and reality. That does not mean not to take the experiences serious. It is true to them and insomuch it has to be taken serious but a real feeling or experience may have in extreme casses no correspondance in reality. Does it matter what the truth is? In many case not.

So if someone believes to have been abducted by a UFO it doesn't normally interfere with the daily functioning of that person (so it would matter on a worldwide level if we would believe that to be true). She may go on believing that and noone is affected in any negative sense. If a bad therapist implants a wrong memory to a client that she has been abused as a child by her father the objective truth matters.

So, yes, there are people who are much better experts than yourself under which circumstances your experiences, feelings, memories are more likely to have no correspondance in reality. Whether you have these feelings or not, you are the expert for and noone else.

So if someone tells me I recollect such and such I can never (yet) tell whether that report about a recollection is wrong. I could not say no, you don't have that recollection for I believe they have. But I may be in a position to tell them that the recollection they experience may have no factual basis.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 09:08 AM

PS Apparently some students of science are prone to a more comprehensive view of "love" though - Love in the Brain

Clara begins, of course, with the standard scientific focus on stinky t-shirts and brain chemicals, but at least she concludes with

"Although it is your partner's brain that enables them to act or say those things that trigger your brain to respond with those chemicals of attraction and attachment, everyone's brain is individual and makes up an individual "you" and that unique and special experience that we call love. Although this does not rule out other areas that many believe play a role in love, such as the soul, it shows that the brain does play a vital, if not ultimate role in all aspects of love and that this role is extremely complex and unique."

Sheesh -- I wonder if they flunked her for daring to entertain a concept like "soul"!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 25 Mar 06 - 08:54 AM

Yes. The problems created by equating science with truth, and treating it like some onmiscient God (which it most definitely is not) are now presenting a horrific, ever-escalating and all-encompassing threat to this planet and every living thing on it, such as never seen before in human history.

From The Universe in a Single Atom: the Convergence of Science and Spirituality by the Dalai Lama:

"One of the principle problems with a radical scientific materialism is the narrowness of vision that results and the potential for nihilism that might ensue. Nihilism, reductionism, and materialism are above all problems from a philosophical and especially a human perspective, since they can potentially impoverish the way we see ourselves.

For example, whether we see ourselves as random biological creatures or as special beings endowed with the dimension of consciousness and moral capacity will make an impact on how we feel about ourselves and treat others. In this view many dimensions of the full reality of what it is to be human -- art, ethics, spirituality, goodness, beauty, and above all, consciousness -- are reduced to the chemical reactions of firing neurons or are seen as a matter of purely imaginary constructs. The danger is then that human beings may be reduced to nothing more than biological machines, the products of pure chance in the random combination of genes, with no purpose other than the biological imperative of reproduction.

It is difficult to see how questions such as the meaning of life of good and evil can be accomodated within such a worldview. The problem is not with the empirical data of science but with the contention that these data alone constitute the lefitimate ground for developing a comprehensive worldview or an adequate means for responding to the world's problems. There is more to human beings and to reality itself than current science can ever give us access to."

Click here for some of the latest exploits in the "Science of Love" - an ongoing attempt to "prove" that "love" is nothing more than the product of certain brain chemicals ie dopamine, vasopressin, oxytocin. Apparently, according to science, human beings "love" in exactly the same manner as the voles they studied. Other current scientific interests re love include investigation how the smell of your 'love' object's dirty armpits (ie phenomes) arouses one's motivation to 'love'.

See how science - in tandem with the rest of Western culture -- reduces "love" to nothing more than sexual attraction and romantic infatuation and attachment! "Love" is a much broader concept in the Buddhist worldview - meaning unconditional compassion, goodwill and kindness toward all living things. Buddhists see infatuation and romantic 'love' (??) as afflictions of the mind, based on selfish gratification and often resulting in unhealthy attachments, cruelty and suffering.

Oooo ... I drifted quite far afield here though ... I'll stop while the stars are still on my side!    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:58 PM

There is an annoying tendency among some scientists to believe that they, by virtue of their superior knowledge, ought to be the final arbiters of the human experience. The statements about the beauty of scientific truth seem to be nothing short of an effort to make science into religion and art, all rolled into one--

I don't buy it though--there is no scientific "truth"--every generation of scientists introduce a new set of theories that supplant and discredit the last generation--

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:55 PM

No, no, Bun.....I mean ALL of them, not just the odd few here and there. ;-D   Politicians commit far more serious and evil forms of fraud than astrologers do, in my opinion, because #1 they know they are lying (whereas many astrologers sincerely believe in what their charts indicate)...and #2 their lies have a far more damaging effect on society and the ecology of the planet.

Astrology is a trivial matter. Politics is not.

And Dawkins needs desperately to be introduced to "the Aristocrats" and given the full treatment. He is an obnoxious man in the grip of an obsession, in my opinion, a fanatic, a crank, a pest, a self-important pompous ass, a character assassin, and a royal pain in the butt for humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 04:31 PM

Why are politicians not jailed for fraud? A much more vital question.

They frequently are, along with leaders of cults, and everyday, run of the mill con-men. But not frequently enough though....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:29 PM

Why are politicians not jailed for fraud? A much more vital question.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 03:11 PM

Romance in stars by RIchard Dawkins

He opens with the following enticing lines

"Astrology is neither harmless nor fun, and we should see it as an enemy of truth, says Richard Dawkins, author of 'The Selfish Gene'. Why, he asks, do so many of us indulge in these pre-Copernican dabblings which are nothing short of wicked fraud?

We should take astrology seriously. No, I don't mean we should believe in it. I am talking about fighting it seriously instead of humouring it as a piece of harmless fun... Scientific truth is too beautiful to be sacrificed for the sake of light entertainment or money. Astrology is an aesthetic affront. It cheapens astronomy, like using Beethoven for commercial jingles."

About half way through the article, he admits

"I must make the usual defence against a charge of scientific arrogance. How do I know that there is no truth in astrology? Well, of course I don't know. I can't prove that there is nothing in horoscopes ...."

And finally concludes with

"Why, actually, are professional astrologers not jailed for fraud?"


Well, that's about enough propoganda for one day. And rainbows are still safe, by me!   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 01:37 PM

Every form of medicine is an alternative...to some other form of it. What is conventionally accepted, however, varies widely from place to place, and that is dependent largely upon cultural notions...and existing hierarchichal power structures. There are a number of forms of medicine which are considered normal and conventional in Europe or Asia, for example, but are not in the USA...or are even illegal in the USA, despite having gained wide acceptance in equally civilized and advanced societies elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Escamillo
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 12:55 PM

" Even if astrology isn't really "true", it is still a wonderful thing, a fantastically complex and beautiful construct that draws our attention to the heavens and makes us aware that we are a tiny yet still significant part of the universe. Most astrologers are affected by this, and have a quality of beauty in themselves."

Well said, BUT it is only part of the truth. Astronomy reveals the beauty of the Universe much more realistically, while opening all doors to imagination and enrichment of the soul. Or are we potholes unsensible to Love, Faith, Beauty, Romanticism ? Don´t you, Wolfgang, feel emotions ? Don´t we love people with different beliefs and education ?

I don´t think that the debate should be centered on beliefs and the world of emotions. That is the terrain where all astrologers want to lead us to, in order to "demonstrate" that science doesn´t have all the answers. No news. Science search for the answers, does not establish them.

There´s only one thing I'll never do for an astrologer or UFO or paranormal beleiver or "alternative" doctor: PAY them for their services (which are widely available)

(Oh, no! I´ve mentioned alternative medicine! Who will save us now??)

Un abrazo a todos,
Andrés

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:56 AM

Skeptic does not mean him who doubts, but him who investigates or researches, as opposed to him who asserts and thinks that he has found."
-- Miguel de Unamuno

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:54 AM

And I guarantee you, PF, that no matter what Dawkins (or anyone else) says, I, for one, ain't gonna be unweaving any rainbows anytime soon. Leave those rainbows in peace too, I say!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:40 AM

S'ok!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:37 AM

Actually, I was going over some of Dawkin's work just this morning, PF. I'll google for "Unweaving the Rainbow" --- thanks!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Purple Foxx
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:35 AM

Daylia, could I suggest that you might like to read "Unweaving the Rainbow" by Richard Dawkins? it is a reasoned response to Keats' assertions which might interest you.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 11:26 AM

There's an extensive collection of articles and studies re Astrology and Science at this link. The articles I've perused so far seem credible (albeit skeptical), and very informative. I can't link to the individual articles though -- click "continue" and select the ones that interest you from the list.

Here's a quote from the article "Astrology as Religion" by David Hamblin. I think if fits quite well with the interesting topic of "spiritual evolution" as discussed above by LH and Paul.

It also gives his interesting first-hand insights into the difficulties and obstacles facing those who attempt to study astrology 'scientifically' ...

"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, and that for many astrologers, astrology is a religion rather than a science. It enriches their lives (and the lives of their clients) in the same way that other people's lives are enriched by Christianity. So why not allow astrologers to practise their religion in peace rather than constantly press them to turn it into a science? Even if astrology isn't really "true", it is still a wonderful thing, a fantastically complex and beautiful construct that draws our attention to the heavens and makes us aware that we are a tiny yet still significant part of the universe. Most astrologers are affected by this, and have a quality of beauty in themselves.

... 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 ... 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.

... I believe myself that the religious or spiritual dimension is very necessary for the enrichment of human existence, and that the development of this dimension necessitates the acceptance of (or belief in) certain truths which have not been (and cannot be) scientifically demonstrated ... 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."


Hamblin's concerns about astrology being hijacked by the scientific/political/economic/military "elites" at the expense of the rest of humanity are, unfortunately, well-founded and realistic.

Leave astrology alone, I say! Are there not enough other ancient repositories of human wisdom and inspiration for scientists to milk, dissect, debunk and destroy? As Keats said ...

"Do not all charms fly
At the mere touch of cold philosophy?
There was an awful rainbow once in heaven;
We know her texture; she is given
In the dull catalogue of common things,
Philosophy will clip an Angel's wings,
Conquer all mysteries by rule and line,
Empty the haunted air, and gnomed mine‹
Unweave a rainbow . . ."

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 24 Mar 06 - 09:34 AM

I think spiritual evolution works rather differently from organic evolution- while the body evolves by gene inheritance, the mind is memetic (1). So the biological functions are subject the darwinist development- genes don't read back the results of the individual organism's lifetime experience- they can be modified, but not in a purposeful way. Whereas the mind/ soul/ spirit undergoes much more of a lamarckian process. We can incorporate our own experiences into received ideas, and pass on the modified version- that's what makes the most developed animals, and particularly humans, such powerful learning machines.

But we are equally not fully in control of our own meme set. Some current thinkers suggest a parallel to the "selfish gene"- just as from the gene's point of view(2), it is its own survival that is the important thing, so the meme has a life of its own- some memes are more contagious than others, and whole communities can be suddenly swept up by a rampant meme. Just as with mutant genes, this is almost always damaging to the host organism.

I thought of this recently, listening to a radio program about the Serb/ Bosnian war. The correspondent described Serbia at the time as having an "atmosphere of evil". The circumstances favoured the propogation of the idea that to do dreadful things to the "enemy" was not just necessary or acceptable, but a virtue in itself.


(1) A meme is a vague sort of thing at the moment- sort of a unit of idea. The whole thing is a bit like talking about evolution between Darwin coming up with it in 1859, and scientists realising that Mendel's genes were exactly what was needed to explain evolution, sometime in the 1930s.

(2) A metaphor. Genes aren't conscious in any way. Memes are not viewed as conscious either- though they are the building blocks of consciousness.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 02:28 PM

The only religious and/or spiritual people who don't believe in evolution are extreme fundamentalists, Bunnahabhain.

I mean, hell, I've known hundreds or thousands of people who had spiritual beliefs, and virtually all of them believed in evolution too. So what's the conflict? Physical evolution and spiritual evolution work pretty much the same way...in tandem, in fact. They are different aspects of overall evolution.

The bodily forms evolve. The spiritual consciousness evolves. It all works as one integrated process.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 10:27 AM

PS   Proud as Punch, if you're still checking in here I'd love to hear how the new baby is doing ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:48 AM

"got my chakras surgically removed a few years ago, they were swollen, and impinging on my aura. I feel SO much better"

LOLOL

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:33 AM

LOL! Your vast knowledge of and experience with vital energy work, chakras, auras etc is so impressive, Bill!   ;-)

That's kind of like saying "I got my heart removed a couple years ago. It was swollen and impinging on the rest of my body". LOLOL ....if you want to avoid being beset by your own Bull ....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:20 AM

Me, I'm just the last day of Taurus, so I'm not nearly so full of bull..☺ (kind of a CUSPidor, so to speak)

(bobad...got my chakras surgically removed a few years ago, they were swollen, and impinging on my aura. I feel SO much better)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 09:15 AM

B, all these controversial subjects people love to argue about are perfectly verifiable - just not through objective, materialistic (and very limited) scientific methods and techniques.

So what??

I easily 'verify' quite a few of them to my own satisfaction every day of my life. So do billions of other people. That's why I love life so much!

A world-view based only on the hypotheses of science may prove to be just peachy for some of you, but I find it so very constraining and impoverishing -- and I do enjoy luxury.

It's a Taurus trait.   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: bobad
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:43 AM

Don't forget to bring your crystal with you Bill, you may be wanting to realign your chakras or something.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:24 AM

Wow, that's strange -- where did those characters come from?? In the preview they showed up like this ... ♪

Oh well. Not to worry. Let's just blame it on the stars or something!   ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:21 AM

Music in the mountains? Good for you! Have ♪ fun ♪ then, Bill!

Just watch you don't drown in your Potholes, or strain that ♪ Lonely Digit ♪ too much -- (but hey, any new strains for ♪ Jingle for the Single Finger ♪ will be taken into consideration ...

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 08:15 AM

Well I thought I was part of the truth brigade, but clearly I'm not. I only care if their supestitions and beliefs cause probelems for the outside world

I really don't care if people choose to believe in God(s), Horoscopes, or that Microsoft is really a huge conspiricy to drive the world mad, so long as they don't let their beliefs get in the way of other people trying to deal with the verifiable world.

If, due to concern over her soul, a 13 year old girl is prevented from having an abortion, then it may be good for her in the next life, but is unlikely to be good for in this one.

Evolution happens, but many people choose to deny this as it does not fit with their unverfiable belief. How do you get them to finish their course of anti-biotics? They stop taking them when they feel well, and they've just created a new Anti-biotic resistant strain. Now, thanks to them, I can't be cured when I catch it.

People can talk all they like about their beliefs and values, but when they start to impose them on others, as they 'know' it's true, then we have a problem.
Nobody feels the need to impose Gravity on everyone else. It's true, we feel it, and can measure it. Love also, we know is true, and we can feel it. It can't be measured, but we know it's there.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:57 AM

Hey, Paul...I see your tongue poking so far into your cheek it looks like you are hiding marbles in there...☺.

(I, personally, use all the spare mammoth dung I can find for filling potholes!)

(off for 3 days of music in the mountains, lest anyone think I just post & hide..*grin*)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:43 AM

Omigod! THe omniscient Paul has spoken again!! QUick, quick -- do the whole human race a big *big* favour .... carve those precious words deeply into the nearest slab of (fossilized) mammoth dung!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:35 AM

People who believe in astrology are morally inferior to those who do not.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 07:13 AM

Aliens, reincarnation, "God", the soul, angels, the zodiac, miracles of all sorts....so much to keep the proof brigade arguing and objecting to things they are sceptical of. Love, telepathy, psychic healing...STOP! in the name of the proof brigade!!! Put down that wand, recant from thy unscientific and unsubstantiated beliefs, lest we bury thee under a barrage of logical objections and quotes from science journals that can bore the balls off a Cape Buffalo.

LOL! Lookie here, LH ... first you bore 'em. Then if -- and ONLY if - your peers approve (empirically), go right ahead and beset and besiege 'em (scientifically, of course) till sooner or later behold! More scientific blessings in the making ...oh bliss!!!

"Asymmetrical scrota, bulls' penises and date rape by an ostrich: this year's Ig Nobel tour was a risque business, writes Kees Moeliker ..."

HEre's my personal favorite "Ig Nobel" research paper. Reading it at bedtime works quite well as a sleep aid too - even helps inspire creative dreaming.

An Astrology Chart for Bacteria.

    By Karen Hopkin, Ph.D.
    Journal of NIH Research, Washington, DC
    Photos by Tim Hazzard, Ph.D.
    Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, Portland, Oregon

Editor's note: Photos of all twelve signs appear in the original version of this article in AIR 3:6.

Astrological science holds that the differential monthly positioning of the stars and planets controls human mood (DSM-IIIR),1 personality (Goodman, 1972),2 and even fate (Reagan, 1982).3

But what of the daily variations in the location of the star that is responsible for all life on earth-the sun? Might this simple diurnal cycle affect the lives of more primitive, shorter-lived organisms, such as prokaryotes? If the relative hourly positions of the Sun and Earth do influence bacterial fate, a sample horoscope for the common laboratory bug, Escherichia coli,4 might read something like this. Numbers indicate time of day (am or pm) when a bacterium was born...."

Exciting stuff, eh?    :-)

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 23 Mar 06 - 01:27 AM

Yonder comes the "proof" brigade...doo-da, doo-da
Yonder comes the "proof" brigade...oh, doo-da, day!

My, such seeeeeerious people. Will they ever find proof of any of those mysterious things that gullible New Agers, mystics, romantics, poets, and religious people believe in? One wonders, yes, one wonders.

Aliens, reincarnation, "God", the soul, angels, the zodiac, miracles of all sorts....so much to keep the proof brigade arguing and objecting to things they are sceptical of. Love, telepathy, psychic healing...STOP! in the name of the proof brigade!!! Put down that wand, recant from thy unscientific and unsubstantiated beliefs, lest we bury thee under a barrage of logical objections and quotes from science journals that can bore the balls off a Cape Buffalo. Avaunt ye pagan wretches! Thou shalt be henceforth banished from the world of scientific rationality and made to wander as a wretch in the unproven wilderness, scorned and spat upon by engineers, M.D.s, accountants, sex therapists, and other representatives of the sacred order of empirical PROOF!

Oh yeah. If it can't be PROVEN it isn't real, and it isn't worth talking about or believing in, and we will harass you until you stop talking about it and believing in it. Such things shall not be tolerated nor allowed to be simply enjoyed by anyone, because the world must be as the Proof Brigade says it is and that's all there is to it. We have the AMA and CalTech on our side, so don't mess with us.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 09:36 PM

Yup. Entertaining, informative -- hey, even creatively inspiriting inspiring. Ahhhh .... see what I mean? A couple more very *very* special phrases for ♫ Jingle for Single Finger (or Ode to the Lonely Digit) ♫ are presenting themselves right now, as we speak! Ooooooo gotta grab my guitar and try 'em out ... and dedicate 'em to you guys, while they're hot. ttys!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 05:58 PM

(and you wonder, Wolfgang, why I bowed out of this awhile back..*grin*) I cited my set of logical and operational problems with the way the discussion was going about 4 times in a row, and got huffy and sarcastic replies, along with a couple of 'straw man' remarks...but no attempt at refutation...or even any evidence I had been heard..(well, except for the infamous 'pothole' metaphor..☺)

It's fascinating to read a bit at times. though.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Mar 06 - 05:23 PM

What always amazes me in astrologers has been demonstrated by Daylia here too, namely the argumentative double moral:

In one post she claims that scientific methods not based on personal experience are worthless to test astrology, in another post she cites statistics (however uncomprehensible in the way she displays them) when they seems to support astrology. One should think that if her first argumentation is correct, she also should not quote what she considers supportive evidence, for the way these data are gathered are completely identical in supportive or unsupportive studies (one counts hits and misses and compares them either to chance or, better, to controls). If her use of supportive statistics is taken serious (my personal preference, of course, I love discussing evidence), then arguments along these lines should not be treated the way she does when she considers the results unsupportive. I see no consistency at all in the way she deals with evidence except the 'consistency' that she dismisses negative evidence and quotes supportive.

That's the Amos feint as I call it after the champion. Amos quotes supportive evidence along the quite normal scientific lines for parapsychological phenomena as long as there is no challenge of this evidence. When his evidence is challenged on methodological grounds or with counterevidence he says that the whole scientific apporach is not valid on that field. That always amazes me in such an otherwise intelligent debater.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 08:42 PM

Sorry that should have read "For instance, I clicked on the sun symbol (at the top, just above the 11 ..."      

aarrgghh      flippin mercury retrograde       for 7 more flippin days too

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: *daylia*
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:59 PM

This link works, Proud as Punch. If you click on any of the symbols, zodiac signs, black or red/blue lines (aspects) you'll get the interpretation for that astrological element in a pop-up window (you have to allow pop-ups on your browser, but not to worry. I've never had a problem with spam yet on that site).

For instance, I clicked on the sun symbol (at the top, just below the 11 - meaning the 11th house) and the pop-up window tells me:

Sun in the Eleventh House

You are very social and enjoy being with friends rather than by yourself. You try to find out and emphasize what you and someone else have in common, instead of getting caught up in differences. You are a team player who knows how to make the best possible contribution to the workings of the group. You are quite capable of being a leader, because you understand what is best for all of you, not just yourself, and you are able to get others to work with you for group goals.

You are also an idealist with high hopes for your life.

Your most positive trait is your concern for those who are close to you, as well as for people in general.

Sun in Pisces

You are a very sensitive and emotional person who quickly picks up moods and emotions from other people and makes them part of your own. This trait makes it very easy for others to hurt your feelings. Because you have the ability to put yourself in someone else's place, you have an exceptional understanding of other people's needs. Whenever possible, you try to help others, because it makes you feel good about yourself.

Very often you like to go into your own private fantasy world and think about ideas that mean something only to you. Just don't spend so much time there that you lose track of what is happening outside in the real world.

You may be somewhat shy, because you feel you have to trust people before you can really open up to them. But even though you are shy, you do need other people, for without them you feel lonely, even in your own private world.

Sun Square Ascendant   

The problem you will have to resolve is that if you pursue what you want in life, you may not be able to get along with others. Others may seem to resist your every effort, so that to get ahead you have to cut yourself off from relationships.

But this is only a test, through which you can learn to be yourself honestly with others.

Even if you make a lot of mistakes early in life, as your life goes on you will develop a strong personality and learn to set your own goals. And by pursuing your own goals, you will win people's respect.

Sun Square Pluto   

You must learn to be very careful how you deal with others, especially people in positions of authority. You tend to get involved in personality conflicts in which you have to prove your strength or suffer defeat. These conflicts often arise without your understanding how they came about. Others often misunderstand your actions, which puts them on their guard.

As you get older, you will probably be quite ambitious, and you will work very hard to get ahead. Do not expect to have an easy time, however. Others will continually force you to prove that you are good at what you do. If you can keep trying against all odds, you will probably achieve quite a bit in life."



And the Sun is only one of at least a couple dozen "astrological factors" ... so happy reading Proud as Punch, and all the best to mother and baby too.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 07:05 PM

I am by no means under the illusion that I am the only person you go after, Clinton. ;-P

I just happen to enjoy sniping back at you, and that keeps it going. You amaze me, because total absolute f*ckheads like you are rather rare on this forum, and I always wonder what nasty thing you'll say next to someone who doesn't meet your approval.

Now go ahead...say something similar about me, only point out the aspects you like to focus on...that I'm sooooo sensssssitive...oooh!..,.and whiny...oooooh!...and delusionary...and a space cadet...just not a real tough, down-to-earth realist like you...goodness no. What a man. My, my.

How young are you, Clinton? You act kind of young. Reminds me of Junior High, your kind of one-upmanship and picking on people all the time. Junior High was full of sadistic pricks like you. That's why I love you so much...it's the memories.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 06:55 PM

"You heap contempt on people."
No... I heap contempt on YOU....

"You spread bad vibes and annoyance."
aawwwwww... somebody call Whine-One-One and have them send a Whaaaaambulance for Wittwe Hawk....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 06:51 PM

I'm "hurt", as you put it, by the way you express yourself, Clinton, not by your opinions. You heap contempt on people. You ridicule the beliefs of other people simply for your own ego satisfaction. It does no good for anyone to hear you do it. You spread bad vibes and annoyance. You seem to scour the forum for opportunities to show your total contempt for people who believe in something you don't. That receives what it deserves...contempt in return.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:56 PM

"anyone who disagreed with you about anything at all would strike you as stupid"
Not at all LH... Not at all... You're just hurt because I dismiss your psudo-mystical babble... It may as well be baby-blather...

" Everyone has delusions"
Only those who are trying to rationalize their delusions say that....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:33 PM

No, Clinton, having a bad attitude toward people is worse. Way worse. Anyway, anyone who disagreed with you about anything at all would strike you as stupid, even if they had twice the I.Q. you do. It's not a question of intelligence, it's a question of your bad attitude.

Everyone has delusions, you included. You just have to get to know them well first, and you find out that they do.

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:13 PM

Being willingly stupid....

If John Nash had let his delusions win, he never would have won the Noble Prize would he? He'd be a blithering idiot by now.... maybe even prattling on about soul, past lives and astrology....

Maybe he'd even be out looking for Atlantis....


It's your decision LH... The delusions are yours.... what are you going to do with them?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 05:01 PM

Whereas you appear not to be stupid...but to be a rude, arrogant person who loves shitting on people any chance he gets.

Which is worse?

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:54 PM

"Whaddya mean "even", you"
EVEN you....

"You don't know dick-all about how smart I am."
I figure at least smart enough to -appear- to be an idiot on Mudcat...

Then again, maybe that's not an act....

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 04:04 PM

600!

Subject: RE: BS: zodiac/star signs.. do you believe?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 06 - 03:15 PM

Whaddya mean "even", you cheeky bastard? You don't know dick-all about how smart I am.