|
I thought I'd just quickly give a small overview of a few of things I just want to be able to tell everyone I know, who insults me or makes jibes at me purely because I'm interested in astrology.
Firstly: astrology does not work out people's personalities.
The personality is a combination of genes, circumstance and astrological sign. Different for each person, but I'd say about 25%, 50%, 25% spread respectively.
Secondly: the 'tests' that have been done to 'disprove' astrology thought that astrology was about predicting someone's entire personality. They also were chock full of questions that gave both the upside and the downside of a trait (surreptitiously).
Thirdly: astrology often has sources of hocus pocus and sources of fact. I don't believe you can tell the future for anyone or anything with astrology. Some things I'll accept because I have enough evidence for them, some things I won't- there are charlatans everywhere, but that doesn't make the whole thing hocus pocus
Fourthly: astrology is not anything like religious belief. It means barely ANYTHING to most people who are interested in it, like me. It's not some special subscription service for lame ass cosplay mystics and pseudo druids. It's not useful for much other than understanding SOME personality issues with yourself and with your friends.
I only believe in any astrological concept if I have 100% evidence for it.
Fifthly: carrying on, astrology is often useful for working out where your true leanings are, when they have been covered up by circumstance (or nurture). For example, a middle of the month cancer should be quite naturally loving and caring towards his closest friends and family. However if he is guarded with everyone, and refuses to cry in front of people, and barely ever connects, it's because he will have been either forced to do it or because he has grown to do it. It will be an unhealthy and dissatisfying issue for him all his life until he accepts that he is someone who really wants to open up to his nearest and dearest.
It's therefore useful for helping understand your family members, and most importantly for helping to understand your own problems.
Sixthly: On this forum people might bring up a heated argument between Jibba and I in which I made a fool of myself in several ways, not least because I gloated about how he was obviously one star sign, when he turned out not to. The simple fact of that matter is that you can't know much about someone's star sign from a few interactions with them, and peoples' internet (guarded and often bravado-laden) personalities are a damn sight different from their true ones. That's just to cover anyone using that as a pathetic excuse to disengage with what I've put.
Seventhly: sun signs (the 12 signs of the zodiac) are not clear cut. There aren't just 12 different astrological leanings. It's like colours...they bleed into each other. There's an infinite number...but general themes will stay and that's what's important.
Eighthly: Something I find really irritating is that people aren't willing to accept the murkiness of astrology. Because it does not give a person's full personality (as it's different because of genes and circumstance) it can never really give a clean cut, on-demand, perfect analysis of someone. People are very unwilling to be open-minded about things like this. They think that because it cannot be put into one sentence, it is an automatically invalid concept. You get a lot of hostility when explaining like this to most pig-headed people.
Ninthly: astrology is always an easier concept to grasp for people who analyse...as well as people who like to put everything into a logical box. If you are one of those sorts of people, you will probably have already made assessments on everyone around you, and astrology will either fit or conflict...and you can test the waters so to speak. If you are completely unaware of peoples' personalities around you, and you don't pick up on any patterns of behaviour, you will find it almost impossible to understand how it works.
And finally...tenthly...astrology is a LOT easier to work out with kids than with adults. Especially men between 16-25. They take such control of their outward personality towards people, and they repress so much of their nature, often they will strike a complete discord with their sun sign in several key areas. That doesn't disprove astrology though, it just shows they are repressed as fuck. You see it all the time really, especially in teenagers. Repression is a really big and obvious thing if you just keep your eyes out for it.
I just felt like putting that out there. Now comes the shitstorm indubitably...
|
|
So the uncertainty of astrology contributes to its authenticity?
I only believe in any astrological concept if I have 100% evidence for it.
What is an example of this 100% evidence?
|
The personality is a combination of genes, circumstance and astrological sign.
There is clear evidence for heritability and environmentality regarding to personality, how exactly is astrological sign of influence and where can I find the proof for this. And with proof I mean empirical data that has been tested and shown significant differences between different signs and correlations between identical astrological signs.
Can you do a summary of things that tell something about me, I believe Im a lion.
And what do you have to say about Dawkins' comments regarding astrology;
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017
What bugs me here is that you just made an estimate of heritability and environmentality without any data. What the hell can you possibly base this on? Do you have any idea how heritability is even calculated? It's funny how you mention this because I was JUST studying a chapter in my personality psychology textbook (Larsen-Buss: Personality Psychology: Domains of Knowledge about Human Nature, Third edition. Chapter 6) that's about biological vs environmental factors and Im just dying to find out where you pulled those statistics from. An estimation? Are you kidding me here? You realize that an estimation has 0 scientifical significance right?
|
On January 03 2009 05:16 MoRe_mInErAls wrote:What is an example of this 100% evidence?
Taking an astrological concept and applying it to your personality.
Can't really add anything more than what is already stated by the OP. I myself have found quite an interest point in astrology and even if it's not 100% accurate in all the cases, it's helped me see quite a lot of pattern around me.
|
If enough bullshit is written about your sign, you'll find some that sounds like it applies to you. That doesn't make any of it real or rational.
|
So the fact that it is right sometimes and wrong sometimes doesn't mean that it is bullshit, it just means that when it is wrong, the people involved are broken in some way?
I think I will stick with real science.
|
|
i can't tell if OP is serious so i'll respond in kind:
"I'm a Sagittarius, which probably tells you way more than you need to know.
Yes, it tells us that you participate in the mass cultural delusion that the sun’s apparent position relative to arbitrarily defined constellations at the time of your birth somehow affects your personality." -tbbt
|
There's not a single study on the validity of astrology in our library because it's generally accepted as bullshit in science. I did find this gem though about the people who believe in astrology:
And it just so happens that you seem to fit one of those descriptions perfectly, OUCH.
|
So, astrology has just as big an impact on me as my genes do, and it isn't all hocus pocus religious mumbo jumbo. There's also 100% evidence for astrological concepts (not stated in post), but it's also very "murky."
Well I'm convinced to believe in astrology, just a quick question though:
How exactly does it all work? What force acts upon me from the heavens, telling me to shed tears in front of others?
|
To everyone saying they need hard, irrefutable evidence of something (astrology) before they believe it are misguided imo. Most of the mystical fields later became scientific fields. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology because astronomy, medicine men became doctors, etc. The point is that just because there is not hard evidence of something or it is not completely understood, doesn't necessarily mean its not true. In fact, there will always more known on the fringes than in modern science because there will always be some things that are true but not proven.
I'm not arguing for what the OP is saying though, I don't really believe what he is saying actually (try to convince me!).
|
On January 03 2009 06:00 fight_or_flight wrote: To everyone saying they need hard, irrefutable evidence of something (astrology) before they believe it are misguided imo. Most of the mystical fields later became scientific fields. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology because astronomy, medicine men became doctors, etc. The point is that just because there is not hard evidence of something or it is not completely understood, doesn't necessarily mean its not true. In fact, there will always more known on the fringes than in modern science because there will always be some things that are true but not proven.
I'm not arguing for what the OP is saying though, I don't really believe what he is saying actually (try to convince me!).
You want me to name the 100000000000000000000 fields that didn't became scientific fields? Are you kidding me here? By your argument it's a million times more likely to be bullshit than valid. There's a reason we use evidence.
I get your main point, that we're being close minded, this is not the case however, there just doesn't seem to be anything that points toward astrology being more significant than some random environmental factor.
Besides, doesn't it bother anyone that horoscopes basically have some base of truth to them for anyone that reads them? It completely depends on how you choose to interpret them, there's a reason it's so vague: to give the illusion of validity. It's just like cold reading and that stuff, people forget the bullshit and cling to the 1 little accurate point of the reading. Ofcourse astrologists can say that it's slightly different for everyone, but honestly..... if I randomly re-arrange the months of a horoscope will you be able to arrange them correctly again? Fuck no.
|
On January 03 2009 06:00 Frits wrote:There's not a single study on the validity of astrology in our library because it's generally accepted as bullshit in science. I did find this gem though about the people who believe in astrology: + Show Spoiler +And it just so happens that you seem to fit one of those descriptions perfectly, OUCH. I think in these circumstances you should not rely on studies to determine what your opinion is. The most important thing to rely in is your own critical thinking and intuition, based on your own personal experiences. Intuition is harnessing your subconscious mind, and it should not be ignored because it is actually more rational than your conscious mind. Of course looking up studies is an important part of critical thinking.
|
On January 03 2009 06:05 Frits wrote: You want me to name the 100000000000000000000 fields that didn't became scientific fields? Are you kidding me here? By your argument it's a million times more likely to be bullshit than valid. There's a reason we use evidence. I think many fields are still waiting to become scientific (such as psychic/telepathy....such as the global consciousness project).
Besides, doesn't it bother anyone that horoscopes basically have some base of truth to them for anyone that reads them? It completely depends on how you choose to interpret them, there's a reason it's so vague: to give the illusion of validity. Agree with you here.
|
On January 03 2009 06:06 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:00 Frits wrote:There's not a single study on the validity of astrology in our library because it's generally accepted as bullshit in science. I did find this gem though about the people who believe in astrology: + Show Spoiler +And it just so happens that you seem to fit one of those descriptions perfectly, OUCH. I think in these circumstances you should not rely on studies to determine what your opinion is. The most important thing to rely in is your own critical thinking and intuition, based on your own personal experiences. Intuition is harnessing your subconscious mind, and it should not be ignored because it is actually more rational than your conscious mind. Of course looking up studies is an important part of critical thinking.
I already presented plenty of arguments, Im not basing my opinion of astrology on this study. I just thought it was a funny piece that completely discredits HamerD, not astrology.
|
United States40776 Posts
Oh HamerD. When will you learn?
|
On January 03 2009 06:10 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:05 Frits wrote: You want me to name the 100000000000000000000 fields that didn't became scientific fields? Are you kidding me here? By your argument it's a million times more likely to be bullshit than valid. There's a reason we use evidence. I think many fields are still waiting to become scientific (such as psychic/telepathy....such as the global consciousness project). Show nested quote +Besides, doesn't it bother anyone that horoscopes basically have some base of truth to them for anyone that reads them? It completely depends on how you choose to interpret them, there's a reason it's so vague: to give the illusion of validity. Agree with you here.
You are so fucking unbelievable its sad.
"Most of the mystical fields later became scientific fields. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology because astronomy, medicine men became doctors, etc."
These comparisons are hilarious.
|
United States40776 Posts
HamerD, I'll see your astrology and raise you Numerology. It's older, vaguer and actually less logical (in as much as an arbitrary system of number reduction effects our lives even less than where the stars appear to be in relation to us).
+ Show Spoiler +Hi Bjork, If you'd like to know what's in store for you in 2009, this may be the most important email you'll read all year. While numerology is an amazing tool for analyzing character, abilities, psychological interests and destinies, perhaps its' most interesting and practical application is analyzing your life cycles, telling you just what to expect in the year ahead. Remember, to calculate your Personal Year Number you simply add the number of your month of birth to the number of your day of birth, then add the number you get to the numbers of this year, 2009. For example, looking at my own chart, I was born on November 20th. Adding these up, we get 11 20 2009 ----- 2040 Adding 2+0+4+0 gives 6, a year indicating progress and financial advancement, as major career opportunities present themselves. It's also a something of a challenging year, but fortunately my numerology chart tells me exactly how to handle it. For example, I'll need to pay attention to my responsibilities, and to the needs of my family and friends. It's a good year for me to resolve any tensions, and a good year for love and romance. When I do a full numerology reading Bjork, I also look at each individual month throughout the year. For myself, January 2009 is a "7" Personal Month in a "6" Personal Year, telling me (amongst many other things) that it's a good time to enjoy some much needed quiet after last year's hectic pace. (Note: what most people don't realize is the interactions between personal months and personal years, so a "7" Personal Month in a "6" Personal Year is NOT just like a "7" Personal Month in any other year). However Bjork, I don't stop at just the Personal Years and Personal Months ... because next, I'll break it down day-by-day. For example: today (January 2nd), my chart tells me that it's a good day for learning, as well as a day to exercise some tact and wisdom. Tomorrow (January 3rd), will be a day of progress for me, and a day to focus on money matters. Anyway, enough about MY chart Bjork... I'm sure you are more interested in YOUR numbers. Because it's the start of a new year (indicating a new Personal Year in your numerology chart), now is a particularly good time for you to have a complete numerology chart done ... revealing just what's in store for you in the day, months, and years ahead. In this chart, you'll get your personal years and months for the next nine years (in MUCH greater detail that what I've done here), as well as day-by-day calculations for every day until December 31st, 2010. If you've never had a full numerology chart before, chances are you'll look back to today as being a major turning point in your life. Please see here for full details Bjork: http://www.123Numerology.com/special/Yours in Numbers, Blair 123Numerology.com
|
|
On January 03 2009 06:32 zer0das wrote: I'm wearing my what hat.
Knowing how these types of threads always turn up, you should bust out your tinfoil hat as well.
THE FREEMASONS ARE COMING!
|
To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives.
|
On January 03 2009 05:16 MoRe_mInErAls wrote: 1. So the uncertainty of astrology contributes to its authenticity?
2. What is an example of this 100% evidence?
1. That's pretty twisty turny mate. If you are even being slightly serious, then no...you just combined a concept I presented (that astrology shows only one factor of a personality) with the word authenticity. I never said the former led to the latter.
2. All of my friends and family conform almost entirely with their star signs is my personal evidence.
|
I don't believe in astrology at all, but sometimes these horoscopes can be dead on. One somebody ripped from some Vogue magazine or something was unbelievably true and specific for me, without any "if" or "or" involved.
|
Alchemy didn't become chemistry because we stopped looking for evidence and just believed what people said, it became chemistry because we looked deeper, asked more questions, and discovered what was true and what wasn't. So saying we shouldn't challenge something new and different is counter to the way science works. It needs to be challenged, and live up to those challenges, in order to be taken seriously. Astrology has been around for a long fucking time without a shred of actual evidence to support it.
|
On January 03 2009 06:23 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:10 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:05 Frits wrote: You want me to name the 100000000000000000000 fields that didn't became scientific fields? Are you kidding me here? By your argument it's a million times more likely to be bullshit than valid. There's a reason we use evidence. I think many fields are still waiting to become scientific (such as psychic/telepathy....such as the global consciousness project). Besides, doesn't it bother anyone that horoscopes basically have some base of truth to them for anyone that reads them? It completely depends on how you choose to interpret them, there's a reason it's so vague: to give the illusion of validity. Agree with you here. You are so fucking unbelievable its sad. "Most of the mystical fields later became scientific fields. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology because astronomy, medicine men became doctors, etc." These comparisons are hilarious. How so? Do you think the Mayans were using newtons laws to predict eclipses? Do you think a chemist invented gunpowder by calculating the formula? Do you wonder why modern day medical researchers go into jungles and try to extract the active ingredients of roots that people in asia have been using for thousands of years?
Why does the word chemistry come from the egyptian word meaning earth? Go to wikipedia and read about the origins and history of the words "medicine", "chemistry", and "astronomy".
On January 03 2009 06:35 Lemonwalrus wrote: Alchemy didn't become chemistry because we stopped looking for evidence and just believed what people said, it became chemistry because we looked deeper, asked more questions, and discovered what was true and what wasn't. So saying we shouldn't challenge something new and different is counter to the way science works. It needs to be challenged, and live up to those challenges, in order to be taken seriously. Astrology has been around for a long fucking time without a shred of actual evidence to support it. I'm not saying don't challenge it (I said use critical thinking actually), I'm saying don't dismiss it because it hasn't be published in Nature.
|
On January 03 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +The personality is a combination of genes, circumstance and astrological sign. There is clear evidence for heritability and environmentality regarding to personality, how exactly is astrological sign of influence and where can I find the proof for this. And with proof I mean empirical data that has been tested and shown significant differences between different signs and correlations between identical astrological signs.
Well I never found research regarding heritability and environmentality, I never needed to. It was obvious to me, and so is astrology. There ain't no empirical data in credited tests...and the reason for that is that it's impossible to test. The other two personality affectors have their effects just as early as astrological personality affectors. This isn't a concept I want to thrust on people, because it's not the sort of thing that has a concrete academic study behind it, I mean clearly it doesn't.
On January 03 2009 05:29 Frits wrote: And what do you have to say about Dawkins' comments regarding astrology;
I really enjoy Richard Dawkins' wisdom...really. I've watched almost every video on his website, and read two of his books. I personally think that Dawkins, like a lot of people, just misses the point of what astrology is. He also conflates the hocus pocus horoscopes with simple astrological profiling. He considers it all to be nuts. And I really appreciate his opinion but just think he doesn't approach it in the right way for understanding astrology. It annoys me that he lumps religion in with astrology.
|
On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives.
I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality.
In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it?
What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense.
|
On January 03 2009 06:35 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:23 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 06:10 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:05 Frits wrote: You want me to name the 100000000000000000000 fields that didn't became scientific fields? Are you kidding me here? By your argument it's a million times more likely to be bullshit than valid. There's a reason we use evidence. I think many fields are still waiting to become scientific (such as psychic/telepathy....such as the global consciousness project). Besides, doesn't it bother anyone that horoscopes basically have some base of truth to them for anyone that reads them? It completely depends on how you choose to interpret them, there's a reason it's so vague: to give the illusion of validity. Agree with you here. You are so fucking unbelievable its sad. "Most of the mystical fields later became scientific fields. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology because astronomy, medicine men became doctors, etc." These comparisons are hilarious. How so? Do you think the Mayans were using newtons laws to predict eclipses? Do you think a chemist invented gunpowder by calculating the formula? Do you wonder why modern day medical researchers go into jungles and try to extract the active ingredients of roots that people in asia have been using for thousands of years? Why does the word chemistry come from the egyptian word meaning earth? Go to wikipedia and read about the origins and history of the words "medicine", "chemistry", and "astronomy".
Don't try to argue with me after you compared astrology and astronomy.
|
On January 03 2009 05:10 HamerD wrote: Eighthly: Something I find really irritating is that people aren't willing to accept the murkiness of astrology. Because it does not give a person's full personality (as it's different because of genes and circumstance) it can never really give a clean cut, on-demand, perfect analysis of someone. People are very unwilling to be open-minded about things like this. They think that because it cannot be put into one sentence, it is an automatically invalid concept. You get a lot of hostility when explaining like this to most pig-headed people.
It's invalid scientifically. Because it's murky it's fairly simple to project what you want into it, recalling only experiences where you exhibited behaviors supported by your "sign". Much like prophecy, religion, and other non-scientific ways of explaining the world and the behavior of people, it is intentionally vague. Really I could take any sign and attribute it to my personality.
|
On January 03 2009 06:43 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:35 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:23 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 06:10 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:05 Frits wrote: You want me to name the 100000000000000000000 fields that didn't became scientific fields? Are you kidding me here? By your argument it's a million times more likely to be bullshit than valid. There's a reason we use evidence. I think many fields are still waiting to become scientific (such as psychic/telepathy....such as the global consciousness project). Besides, doesn't it bother anyone that horoscopes basically have some base of truth to them for anyone that reads them? It completely depends on how you choose to interpret them, there's a reason it's so vague: to give the illusion of validity. Agree with you here. You are so fucking unbelievable its sad. "Most of the mystical fields later became scientific fields. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology because astronomy, medicine men became doctors, etc." These comparisons are hilarious. How so? Do you think the Mayans were using newtons laws to predict eclipses? Do you think a chemist invented gunpowder by calculating the formula? Do you wonder why modern day medical researchers go into jungles and try to extract the active ingredients of roots that people in asia have been using for thousands of years? Why does the word chemistry come from the egyptian word meaning earth? Go to wikipedia and read about the origins and history of the words "medicine", "chemistry", and "astronomy". Don't try to argue with me after you compared astrology and astronomy. I said they have the same origins. Looking up the definition for astrology even lists astronomy as an (obsolete) synonym. You seem to be thinking I'm comparing modern astronomy with modern astrology, which I'm not, I'm simply saying that fringe areas can and do develop into respected sciences. (implying they should not simply be dismissed)
|
On January 03 2009 05:40 Lucktar wrote: If enough bullshit is written about your sign, you'll find some that sounds like it applies to you. That doesn't make any of it real or rational.
It's annoying to have to say it, but you'll have to take my word for it that astrology will give you some nice times when it's either on or off, yes or no. Half a dozen star signs have a proclusion to have a large group of friends, and t'other half want a small amount. There is a complete different...colour...to taurus as there is to pisces. Annoying though. I accept your cynicism, but maybe have a look at some star sign explanations and look at the differences.
|
On January 03 2009 06:47 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:43 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 06:35 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:23 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 06:10 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:05 Frits wrote: You want me to name the 100000000000000000000 fields that didn't became scientific fields? Are you kidding me here? By your argument it's a million times more likely to be bullshit than valid. There's a reason we use evidence. I think many fields are still waiting to become scientific (such as psychic/telepathy....such as the global consciousness project). Besides, doesn't it bother anyone that horoscopes basically have some base of truth to them for anyone that reads them? It completely depends on how you choose to interpret them, there's a reason it's so vague: to give the illusion of validity. Agree with you here. You are so fucking unbelievable its sad. "Most of the mystical fields later became scientific fields. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology because astronomy, medicine men became doctors, etc." These comparisons are hilarious. How so? Do you think the Mayans were using newtons laws to predict eclipses? Do you think a chemist invented gunpowder by calculating the formula? Do you wonder why modern day medical researchers go into jungles and try to extract the active ingredients of roots that people in asia have been using for thousands of years? Why does the word chemistry come from the egyptian word meaning earth? Go to wikipedia and read about the origins and history of the words "medicine", "chemistry", and "astronomy". Don't try to argue with me after you compared astrology and astronomy. I said they have the same origins. Looking up the definition for astrology even lists astronomy as an (obsolete) synonym. You seem to be thinking I'm comparing modern astronomy with modern astrology, which I'm not, I'm simply saying that fringe areas can and do develop into respected sciences. (implying they should not simply be dismissed)
No, there are no "fringe areas" between the two, no.
|
On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense.
Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.
I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything.
For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence.
The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos).
|
On January 03 2009 06:40 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 05:29 Frits wrote:The personality is a combination of genes, circumstance and astrological sign. There is clear evidence for heritability and environmentality regarding to personality, how exactly is astrological sign of influence and where can I find the proof for this. And with proof I mean empirical data that has been tested and shown significant differences between different signs and correlations between identical astrological signs. Well I never found research regarding heritability and environmentality, I never needed to. It was obvious to me, and so is astrology. There ain't no empirical data in credited tests...and the reason for that is that it's impossible to test. The other two personality affectors have their effects just as early as astrological personality affectors. This isn't a concept I want to thrust on people, because it's not the sort of thing that has a concrete academic study behind it, I mean clearly it doesn't. Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 05:29 Frits wrote: And what do you have to say about Dawkins' comments regarding astrology;
I really enjoy Richard Dawkins' wisdom...really. I've watched almost every video on his website, and read two of his books. I personally think that Dawkins, like a lot of people, just misses the point of what astrology is. He also conflates the hocus pocus horoscopes with simple astrological profiling. He considers it all to be nuts. And I really appreciate his opinion but just think he doesn't approach it in the right way for understanding astrology. It annoys me that he lumps religion in with astrology.
You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing.
You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are
a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely
|
On January 03 2009 06:45 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 05:10 HamerD wrote: Eighthly: Something I find really irritating is that people aren't willing to accept the murkiness of astrology. Because it does not give a person's full personality (as it's different because of genes and circumstance) it can never really give a clean cut, on-demand, perfect analysis of someone. People are very unwilling to be open-minded about things like this. They think that because it cannot be put into one sentence, it is an automatically invalid concept. You get a lot of hostility when explaining like this to most pig-headed people. It's invalid scientifically. Because it's murky it's fairly simple to project what you want into it, recalling only experiences where you exhibited behaviors supported by your "sign". Much like prophecy, religion, and other non-scientific ways of explaining the world and the behavior of people, it is intentionally vague. Really I could take any sign and attribute it to my personality.
You could definitely take half a dozen. The zodiac splits in half then splits into quarters (fire, water, wind, earth), then into 12's. It's annoying again, to say it, but like with the other guy; once you have any experience of astrology you'll realise you really cannot project yourself into some star signs. At least from any credible source of astrology information.
|
Do you have any idea what you believe? Seriously, the more you talk the less you make sense.
|
On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos).
Nothing can be proven by anecdotal evidence. If you're trying to prove something without science, than you're not proving anything.
|
On January 03 2009 06:53 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:45 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 05:10 HamerD wrote: Eighthly: Something I find really irritating is that people aren't willing to accept the murkiness of astrology. Because it does not give a person's full personality (as it's different because of genes and circumstance) it can never really give a clean cut, on-demand, perfect analysis of someone. People are very unwilling to be open-minded about things like this. They think that because it cannot be put into one sentence, it is an automatically invalid concept. You get a lot of hostility when explaining like this to most pig-headed people. It's invalid scientifically. Because it's murky it's fairly simple to project what you want into it, recalling only experiences where you exhibited behaviors supported by your "sign". Much like prophecy, religion, and other non-scientific ways of explaining the world and the behavior of people, it is intentionally vague. Really I could take any sign and attribute it to my personality. You could definitely take half a dozen. The zodiac splits in half then splits into quarters (fire, water, wind, earth), then into 12's. It's annoying again, to say it, but like with the other guy; once you have any experience of astrology you'll realise you really cannot project yourself into some star signs. At least from any credible source of astrology information.
So, what you're saying, the more you read your cold-written signs, the more comfortable you'll become with one.
Cold reading.
|
On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense.
How am I admitting that? Btw I don't believe in any of that sort of stuff. I'm just pointing out how self centered it seems to me.
Yup it's entirely possible that our sun has some sort influence, but I highly doubt it is in the way of affecting personalities and such. The claim seems to be that the month you were born in has an influence on your behaviour in later years (correct me if I'm wrong), and I can't even begin to think up of a possible mechanism for how this would work using varying sunlight from the sun. If anything, living on different lattitudes would have a much greater importance than the month in which you were born in regards to sunlight.
If we consider gravity, then the moon should be of much more importance than the sun and stars. You'd still be hard pressed to think up of a way taht gravity can affect personality, considering how minute the variations are.
Yeah the arrangement of stars influencing our lives is just outright nonsense to me.
I think the problem I have with astrology is that it doesn't usually attempt to explain why these supposedly observe phenomena happen. In normal sciences there's the need to take the step and try to come up with a hypothesis, rather than just being happy with the observation.
|
On January 03 2009 06:57 skyglow1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. How am I admitting that? Btw I don't believe in any of that sort of stuff. I'm just pointing out how self centered it seems to me. Yup it's entirely possible that our sun has some sort influence, but I highly doubt it is in the way of affecting personalities and such. The claim seems to be that the month you were born in has an influence on your behaviour in later years (correct me if I'm wrong), and I can't even begin to think up of a possible mechanism for how this would work using varying sunlight from the sun. If anything, living on different lattitudes would have a much greater importance than the month in which you were born in regards to sunlight. If we consider gravity, then the moon should be of much more importance than the sun and stars. You'd still be hard pressed to think up of a way taht gravity can affect personality, considering how minute the variations are. Yeah the arrangement of stars influencing our lives is just outright nonsense to me.
Im not saying that its not bullshit either way, I just don't see how it's self centered.
|
On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now).
For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles.
|
The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos).
|
United States40776 Posts
On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos).
Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem.
|
On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles.
The sun also shrinks 5ft every hour.
|
On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing.
Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist.
You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially.
On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid?
It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology.
On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely
a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about.
PS Frits that thing you took about unwanted members of society bla bla bla could be applied to 90% of the people in this website. I hate the concept of counter culture. It completely horrifies me to think that for one second I am part of a predictable sect of no hopers in society. Besides, I'm in Sussex Uni on my second year and I have a 16 hr a week job, so I don't really see how I fit into that group anyway. You don't know anything about me, can you please stop being so supercilious and confrontational?! For god's sake I'm not going to be drawn into a repeat of the Jibba episode...I am definitely a fringe member of society...it will seem quite predictable but I am like that voluntarily. I decided early on, after my first gf, that I hated parties, hated social gatherings, hated the idiocy and banality of the life of all my fellow students.
Draw whatever conclusions you want to, but from the looks of your picture I doubt you are exactly prom king.
|
United States40776 Posts
On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!".
|
On January 03 2009 06:58 Frits wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:57 skyglow1 wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. How am I admitting that? Btw I don't believe in any of that sort of stuff. I'm just pointing out how self centered it seems to me. Yup it's entirely possible that our sun has some sort influence, but I highly doubt it is in the way of affecting personalities and such. The claim seems to be that the month you were born in has an influence on your behaviour in later years (correct me if I'm wrong), and I can't even begin to think up of a possible mechanism for how this would work using varying sunlight from the sun. If anything, living on different lattitudes would have a much greater importance than the month in which you were born in regards to sunlight. If we consider gravity, then the moon should be of much more importance than the sun and stars. You'd still be hard pressed to think up of a way taht gravity can affect personality, considering how minute the variations are. Yeah the arrangement of stars influencing our lives is just outright nonsense to me. Im not saying that its not bullshit either way, I just don't see how it's self centered.
I was wrong about it being self-centered. I guess I just get a bit annoyed when I talk to someone who believes in the star pattern stuff and I take it the wrong way.
|
On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about.
There have been plenty of tests. Here's one.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htm
I'd be glad to show you more.
|
On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!".
That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist.
|
On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates.
Intersting, thanks.
On January 03 2009 07:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist.
|
On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more.
Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point.
PS can you find me the paper for that.
I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway.
|
United States40776 Posts
On January 03 2009 07:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist. Or maybe the decline of an empire is based around a change of sunlight intensity rather than for perfectly logical structural reasons!!!! Ignoring all the empires which don't decline despite the change and the empires which rise as others decline obviously.
|
On January 03 2009 07:10 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more. Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point. PS can you find me the paper for that. I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway.
Here's some more. I think these are all webpages, but you can look to find the papers.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defense
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk
http://web.archive.org/web/20070522093713/http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030817-105449-9384r.htm
|
Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates.
Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner.
Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool.
|
No test has ever been done to completely disprove astrology because it's pseduoscience. There's no test you could do to disprove astrology, because believers will always invent some garbage reason why the test wasn't valid. When you say "I only believe in astrological things that are backed 100% by evidence" that is probably the stupidest thing I have ever read (or close to it).
Religion is outside of science because it is supernatural (anything dealing with a god or an afterlife has to be). So whether or not it is true, science doesn't really say anything about that one way or another, even if some people believe it does.
On the other hand, astrology isn't by any means outside of nature and the excuses made for it are pathetic.
|
On January 03 2009 07:10 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more. Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point.PS can you find me the paper for that. I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway. You just destroyed your argument against us with that sentence. You are arguing that we are casting aside your 'science' without giving it a chance. We aren't, we are just asking for something more than anecdotal evidence, which you have yet to give out.
However, you just said, without reading an article contrary to your viewpoint first, that that article is wrong, and you will show us why.
Leaving alone the fact that the guys that wrote the article are probably professionals in their field and you are...some guy..., you are being more closed minded than you are accusing us of being.
|
On January 03 2009 07:18 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more. Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point.PS can you find me the paper for that. I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway. You just destroyed your argument against us with that sentence. You are arguing that we are casting aside your 'science' without giving it a chance. We aren't, we are just asking for something more than anecdotal evidence, which you have yet to give out. However, you just said, without reading an article contrary to your viewpoint first, that that article is wrong, and you will show us why. Leaving alone the fact that the guys that wrote the article are probably professionals in their field and you are...some guy..., you are being more closed minded than you are accusing us of being.
That essentially proves the element of confirmation/selection bias.
|
United States40776 Posts
On January 03 2009 07:10 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Intersting, thanks. Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist. There's a difference between coming up with theories that are logical and can be demonstrated consistantly and just claiming things. For example, if I drop an object it falls. From this I conclude that objects unsupported by other objects fall and therefore theorise gravity. I can prove this by picking up an object and dropping it. I can repeat this experiement as often as I like. Your sun and empires example is akin to dropping an object to see if it changes the shape of the moon. Furthermore your conclusion that it does, after all you dropped it and the moon gradually became more crescent ignores the fact that it does that whether you drop it or not and that the reason it changes shape can be demonstrated much more logically without random objects.
And empires still don't rise and fall in 300 year cycles. I just don't know where you're getting this from. You'd be an idiot for assuming correlation if it were true. But it's not. And I don't know what that makes you. An aspriring idiot maybe? Someone so desperate for something utterly retarded to believe in that they'd make up a coincidence between two absolutely unrelated events.
|
On January 03 2009 07:15 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner. Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool. I'm glad you are so passionate about this subject. You're correct criticize is the wrong word...I meant dogmatically reject. You know, this old quote:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
|
On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles.
Big manly Spartans also come in cycles of 300!
|
On January 03 2009 07:21 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:15 PanN wrote:Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner. Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool. I'm glad you are so passionate about this subject. You're correct criticize is the wrong word...I meant dogmatically reject. You know, this old quote: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
There is a difference with something being dogmatically rejected and being incompatible with scientific reasoning and shown to have no scientific evidence.
|
On January 03 2009 07:21 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:15 PanN wrote:Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner. Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool. I'm glad you are so passionate about this subject. You're correct criticize is the wrong word...I meant dogmatically reject. You know, this old quote: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Yes, truth can do that, if its truth.
But your bullshit isn't truth, its you basically saying "science and mathematical patterns are true, so mine must be as well".
Except, you haven't posted any patterns of proof, infact, in the whole nearly four pages of this on going argument, that has been no proof for your side, yet plenty for mine.
As I said, fuck you.
|
On January 03 2009 07:21 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:10 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Intersting, thanks. On January 03 2009 07:08 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:05 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 07:00 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Very interesting. I'm working on a blog post that may interest you as it deals with repeated patterns in society. I'll pm you or post here when the blog entry is ready (reading the 77 page article on it right now). For example, the sun changes its average output intensity in 300 year cycles, and the empires of the world also come in 300 year cycles. No, no they don't. Also even if they did it wouldn't mean shit. "Zomg, there's a number which is roughly this and another number which is kinda similar!!! What are the odds?!?!? They must be related!!!!". That's called Apophenia. Creating patterns and correlations that don't really exist. There's a difference between coming up with theories that are logical and can be demonstrated consistantly and just claiming things. For example, if I drop an object it falls. From this I conclude that objects unsupported by other objects fall and therefore theorise gravity. I can prove this by picking up an object and dropping it. I can repeat this experiement as often as I like. Your sun and empires example is akin to dropping an object to see if it changes the shape of the moon. Furthermore your conclusion that it does, after all you dropped it and the moon gradually became more crescent ignores the fact that it does that whether you drop it or not and that the reason it changes shape can be demonstrated much more logically without random objects. And empires still don't rise and fall in 300 year cycles. I just don't know where you're getting this from. You'd be an idiot for assuming correlation if it were true. But it's not. And I don't know what that makes you. An aspriring idiot maybe? Someone so desperate for something utterly retarded to believe in that they'd make up a coincidence between two absolutely unrelated events. Yes, I agree with you. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the point I've been trying to make in this blog. That point is, that you do not necessarily need solid evidence for something to be true, or even believe something is true. There is nothing wrong with believing there may be a correlation based on a gut feeling. Claiming that it is true is wrong, but what I'm saying is that there will always be a certain subset of things which are true, but not provable.
It is the fringe beyond science, which sparks interest to be researched in the first place. Eventually science will get there and it may turn out that a lot of things are proven false. But they might also be proven true as well.
On January 03 2009 07:23 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:21 fight_or_flight wrote:On January 03 2009 07:15 PanN wrote:Recognizing patterns is how pretty much all of science and mathematics has come about. Skeptics who criticize every idea (thats not already accepted) is how science stagnates. Fuck you, how dare you criticize science when you're put in a corner. Criticizing ideas and questioning everything is how science GROWS you fool. I'm glad you are so passionate about this subject. You're correct criticize is the wrong word...I meant dogmatically reject. You know, this old quote: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. There is a difference with something being dogmatically rejected and being incompatible with scientific reasoning and shown to have no scientific evidence. One should not make the mistake of rejecting something when no scientific evidence exists either way, which is what I'm saying.
|
On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem.
Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work.
That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples.
|
|
On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples.
Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false.
Explain what cusp signs are.
Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false.
Give me a correct site.
|
On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site.
Now don't be a cunt.
Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader.
Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much.
I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one.
|
This is a classic test and completely misses the point.
|
On January 03 2009 07:54 HamerD wrote:This is a classic test and completely misses the point.
Back that statement up. how does it miss the point?
|
On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one.
YOU of all people call me a cunt?
You're supposed to persuade me, yet you have no evidence.
When I asked for evidence, it took nearly thirty minutes to even get a reply, and all it says is "I'll get you your evidence".
You're honestly questioning if English is my first language or not, based on only one sentence?
Attacking grammar just to get away from the point, you're a twat.
I know what repression is, what I meant was, your bullshit 100% fake fairy tale astrology should apply to everyone, yet your excuse for that is "Oh! They must be repressed! So it won't work on them!"
You don't have a correct site on hand, which is further proof you're full of it.
Astrology is 100% lies, enjoy it, "cunt".
|
On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt?
I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
|
On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
|
On January 03 2009 07:57 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:54 HamerD wrote:This is a classic test and completely misses the point. Back that statement up. how does it miss the point?
Two main reasons. A, it exposes fake astrology and not astrology (it essentially attacks the 'cold reading' of bogus astrology). And B, it immediately makes the assumption that any tests that makes people go 'OMG THAT'S ME!' must be false. It doesn't question anything about astrology because Derren Brown is interested in the psyche and not astrology at all. If I have made any mistakes there it's because I watched about 10 seconds of it. I did however see Derren talking to Dawkins on channel 4 about the exact same thing, so I have an idea of it.
There was a similar experiment Derren was using as a blue print, and the mistake that made was not realising what parts of the psyche astrology deals with, and that most if not all the parts astrology affects are equally affected and smothered by circumstance.
|
On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're such an asshole.
No wonder you believe such lies.
|
On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote:On January 03 2009 06:33 skyglow1 wrote: To me, thinking that the heavenly bodies have some sort of influence on humans is incredibly self-centered, as if we're important enough that stars/sun/moon/planets get involved in our lives. I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality. In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it? What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
|
On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:42 Frits wrote: [quote]
I don't think it's self-centered, on the contrary, you're basically admitting that the heavenly bodies have some kind of incredible power over us and take a huge part in the shaping of our personality.
In that aspect it's not even that far fetched, (sun)light after all has a the effect of lightening our mood. The idea that the energy of the stars can influence us is not that rediculous, gravity influences us doesn't it?
What's rediculous is the arrangement of the stars of having an influence on the shaping of personality, there's nothing about it that makes sense. Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything. For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence. The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that.
You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
|
On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote: [quote]
Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.
I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything.
For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence.
The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Yes I am guilty of personal attack, but not against him, it was to the other person.
You, I, and everyone, have requested evidence from him, and nearly five pages later, there still hasn't been any.
He can't provide you evidence, because its all lies. You're debating with a wall.
|
On January 03 2009 07:18 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:07 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You're not exactly helping with trying to get people to understand it. So far all your points are incredibly vague and based on absolutely nothing. Because I don't have a huge canon of evidence. I can say 'Ciaran is very much like a Taurus because...' and 'my mum is always exhibiting leo and clashing with my dad's scorpio and it's resolved by ...'. That's the only evidence I have. But it is completely clear to me and I'm not trying to trumpet this out, I'm just trying to tell you how this isn't completely crackpot, AND it could be quite interesting to any psychologist. You also need to think about how easy it is to test nature and nurture, for example on rats. Easy! Damn easy. You know all about conditioning. Testing genes...fuck easy! Testing birth dates and working out appropriate tests...would be hard EVEN if anyone were to try it officially. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: You say you have 100% evidence (evidence is the tool you use to prove something) and then you say that it's impossible to test. If it's impossible to verify how can you know it is valid? It's possible to verify for me. It's possible to verify for my friends, about whom I know a lot and to whom I can explain a lot. It has helped me and my friends who are open to the idea, in relationships (work, home, romance). It's as certain to me as a vision is certain to a prophet or a test result is to a scientist. However, the difference (I hope) is that I'm entirely rational and more like the latter than the former. Either I am right, insane, or dumb. Because I'm confident enough that I'm right that I have enough evidence, then I can say I believe in astrology. On January 03 2009 06:52 Frits wrote: Without verification all that remains is logical reasoning and I wouldn't say that astrologers are on the winning side here when you consider that astrologers are a) unsatisfied with the implications of real science b) people who are sick, uneducated or lonely a) why would I be unsatisfied with that? No test has ever been done of astrology that in any way discredits what I believe works. b) meh, you don't know what you are talking about. There have been plenty of tests. Here's one. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htmI'd be glad to show you more. Thanks, I'll go through any of them and explain why they don't apply/ miss the point.PS can you find me the paper for that. I might even go to the Uni library and check some papers on this. I am perfectly fine with pushing my belief in astrology...I need to hand in my elgar books anyway. You just destroyed your argument against us with that sentence. You are arguing that we are casting aside your 'science' without giving it a chance. We aren't, we are just asking for something more than anecdotal evidence, which you have yet to give out. However, you just said, without reading an article contrary to your viewpoint first, that that article is wrong, and you will show us why. Leaving alone the fact that the guys that wrote the article are probably professionals in their field and you are...some guy..., you are being more closed minded than you are accusing us of being.
Are you blind? I said I want the paper. That was a tiny little article, have you ever seen a paper before? There, that's what condescension feels like. Now leave it out!
It's like einstein saying 'you can't just throw a ball and expect to be able to see time slowing down around it' to some zealous professors. Although the parallel stops quite early on because astrology is not the theory of relativity and I am (contrary to unpopular belief) not Einstein.
Look, I thoroughly approve of the concept of good science, I just think most people go into astrology with a lot of the primary concepts and facts completely out of kilter, about WHAT it actually applies to!
|
On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote:On January 03 2009 06:51 HamerD wrote: [quote]
Actually can I just put paid to this specific fallacy right now.
I don't believe any of that crap. I don't believe the arrangement of the stars affects anything.
For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology; it's about patterns that are repeated in nature. It's saying, 'these patterns exist everywhere, from the molecular level through to the societal level through to the atmospheric level and through to the arrangement of the stars in space. It's saying that the random locations of the planets and all the matter spewed out by the big bang are all just manifestations of a pattern repeated in all existence.
The concept of astrology is proven from the evidence you can find for yourself rather than the science, because if there is any science, it's a very far out concept (very closely related to chaos). Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them.
http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defense This one is about telling the future. I don't believe in that.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk The time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all. The questions they ask are mostly concerned with genes and circumstance ANYWAY.
http://web.archive.org/web/20070522093713/http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030817-105449-9384r.htm Look, these time twins tests are ok for debunking 'tell the future' and fake astrologers. But the criteria they set out are not exhaustive...and also it just talks about 'astrologers'. It's like grouping Kent Hovind in with Richard Dawkins as 'scientists' or Hitler and Obama as 'politicians'.
These papers are about things that I don't consider to be anything to do with the astrology I deal with. The astrology I dabble in deals with our natural predispositions towards various personality leanings. It is something that is much more evident and useful when examined personally, with an open mind, in relation to one's life.
Like I said before the sun signs are like a colour chart (there are not 12 definite colours, only twelve general areas of shade), and there are other signs relating to the year in which you were born and I think even the place. I never bother to go that deep into that stuff because I like to keep in the border between psychology and astrology, because it helps me deal with personality issues.
|
After reading all this, I had an interesting thought. A way to at least somewhat come up with a method of testing. Since HammerD says that about half the signs correlate to people that have a lot of friends, and the other half correlates well to those that prefer to have less friends, it seems to me one could further simplify that to introversion/extroversion. Obviously, it's a bit rough around the edges, but like most tests, if you gather enough data, you can usually sift through the noise. My basic premise though would be to take a huge sample of Meyers-Briggs personality tests (need large sample to attempt to weed out the "repressed" people ) and sort them by birth.
Now, my hypothesis would be that the same standard distributions (whatever they may be) would apply to all birthdays/months/zodiac signs. Again, I don't think this would be enough to really prove anything, but I think it might prove interesting, and if nothing else, it could potentially give some actual easy-to-access backing one way or another. I just looked at one of the linked articles, and it seems that's more/less what they did, although I'd like to see something similar to what I proposed and maybe more recent or with something I'm more familiar with..
My last point I'd like to make is that people love to find patterns where none exist. Correlation does not equal causation. Kwark made that case well. My favorite example is that global warming is responsible for the decrease in pirates in the world. After all, the global temperatures have increased in the last hundred fifty years or so while pirates have been decreasing. Also, just because two statistically unlikely events happen near each other doesn't mean they are special or related.
|
On January 03 2009 08:32 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:02 Kwark wrote: [quote]
Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem. Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work. That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that. Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defenseThis one is about telling the future. I don't believe in that. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.ukThe time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all.
As far as time twins are concerned, if both twins don't contain all the aspects of the astrological sign then it's false.
Saying astrology accounts for a quarter of ones personality allows one to reduce the argument to "Well, it doesn't have a heavy hand in the personality, so X test is wrong".
Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity.
|
personality = genes + astrology + circumstance
OF COURSE!
|
On January 03 2009 08:13 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 07:57 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 07:54 HamerD wrote:This is a classic test and completely misses the point. Back that statement up. how does it miss the point? Two main reasons. A, it exposes fake astrology and not astrology (it essentially attacks the 'cold reading' of bogus astrology).
So it is bad becouse he uses diferent word to describe the same thing.
On January 03 2009 08:13 HamerD wrote: And B, it immediately makes the assumption that any tests that makes people go 'OMG THAT'S ME!' must be false.
The logic of it is very simple he shows that humans have many things in common so it is easy to write something that in big part will generally be true for almost all people, making your prove or anybody else of fitting into such descriptions as meaningless. What is left then?
On January 03 2009 08:13 HamerD wrote:There was a similar experiment Derren was using as a blue print, and the mistake that made was not realising what parts of the psyche astrology deals with, and that most if not all the parts astrology affects are equally affected and smothered by circumstance.
Psyche is affected by circumstances, not sure what your point is.
|
On January 03 2009 08:40 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:32 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:27 HamerD wrote: [quote]
Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work.
That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples. Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false. Explain what cusp signs are. Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false. Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that. Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defenseThis one is about telling the future. I don't believe in that. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.ukThe time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all. Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity.
That's a bogus ultimatum. You are trying to apply this to some sort of cold hard military test condition. Like I said the water's fecking murky! Twins usually have different FRIENDS. They usually have different LUCK. Usually get picked on by different people etc etc. Their personalities will often differ heavily because of that. Hell, simply the sibling dynamic can mold them into different personalities! Astrology is useful for finding out what their true leanings are, it would be helpful to ANYONE to see what their uninterrupted predispositions are. But it's not going to be an accurate predicter of their personalities for the reasons given before.
Conditioning has been proven time and again to be an incredibly dominant force on the development of a personality. Do I even need to bother proving that? I consider astrology, paired with genes, to kind of give the blue print of the child. It shows what they would be, if not repressed. But when conditioning, circumstance, is thrown into the bargain everything changes on the outside (and on the inside, but less). Which I find very interesting! Half the time astrology tells me nothing I didn't know. But for me, astrology is very rarely wrong which is the point.
Also, just another little piece of my personal evidence for myself, amongst relatives and friends my guessing rate for star signs is verging on 50%, which is far too high for chance.
|
On January 03 2009 08:50 Polis wrote: The logic of it is very simple he shows that humans have many things in common so it is easy to write something that in big part will generally be true for almost all people, making your prove or anybody else of fitting into such descriptions as meaningless. What is left then?
Consider it WERE true. Could there be any way to prove it if you took this attitude towards it?
|
On January 03 2009 08:38 Enrique wrote: My last point I'd like to make is that people love to find patterns where none exist.
True, they also like to find patterns where they do exist. And do you know what's best?! Finding a pattern, then finding out that someone else found that pattern too. And what's even better...finding out that people have been seeing the same patterns since ancient Mayan civilisation xD
|
Pan. Say hello to my little friend:
A good ol' fashioned troll slayer
|
On January 03 2009 08:50 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:40 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:32 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 07:30 PanN wrote: [quote]
Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false.
Explain what cusp signs are.
Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false.
Give me a correct site. Now don't be a cunt. Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader. Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much. I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that. Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defenseThis one is about telling the future. I don't believe in that. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.ukThe time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all. Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity. That's a bogus ultimatum. You are trying to apply this to some sort of cold hard military test condition. Like I said the water's fecking murky! Twins usually have different FRIENDS. They usually have different LUCK. Usually get picked on by different people etc etc. Their personalities will often differ heavily because of that. Hell, simply the sibling dynamic can mold them into different personalities! Astrology is useful for finding out what their true leanings are, it would be helpful to ANYONE to see what their uninterrupted predispositions are. But it's not going to be an accurate predicter of their personalities for the reasons given before. Conditioning has been proven time and again to be an incredibly dominant force on the development of a personality. Do I even need to bother proving that? I consider astrology, paired with genes, to kind of give the blue print of the child. It shows what they would be, if not repressed. But when conditioning, circumstance, is thrown into the bargain everything changes on the outside (and on the inside, but less). Which I find very interesting! Half the time astrology tells me nothing I didn't know. But for me, astrology is very rarely wrong which is the point. Also, just another little piece of my personal evidence for myself, amongst relatives and friends my guessing rate for star signs is verging on 50%, which is far too high for chance.
Once again, no proof.
On the verge of page six, and you started this thread probably thinking you'd get your lies across and have us start sacrificing goats to the moon gods whilst chanting.
I suppose you also believe the world will end in 2012.
|
On January 03 2009 08:38 Enrique wrote: My last point I'd like to make is that people love to find patterns where none exist. Correlation does not equal causation. Kwark made that case well. My favorite example is that global warming is responsible for the decrease in pirates in the world. After all, the global temperatures have increased in the last hundred fifty years or so while pirates have been decreasing. Also, just because two statistically unlikely events happen near each other doesn't mean they are special or related. I think I'm going to stop arguing here for a while. I would just like to point out something which I feel has been the theme of this thread, and that is this idea just because I post a coincidental pattern that I find interesting (in the theme of this thread no less), everyone assumes that I'm arguing its true. In fact, ironically the reverse situation is true. You see me post something and you assume that somehow I'm arguing its true. I'm not the one creating patterns here based on my biases, here. (except for that last sentence )
Similarly, those considering themselves objective in fact are so blurred by their biases that they do not even read my posts correctly. That is why I no longer take the hard line in demanding evidence, because I realize that people will believe whatever they want to believe (including myself). I'm not really criticizing anyone individually because it is in general a cultural phenomena.
I would however like HammerD to expand more upon what the point of astrology is and what it can tell us. I would also like to know how he started practicing it and what he believes it can accomplish.
|
Get my lies across? I don't give a shit what you think! The trollslayer must have failed. I need me some fire
|
On January 03 2009 08:59 HamerD wrote: Get my lies across? I don't give a shit what you think! The trollslayer must have failed. I need me some fire
brb rolling heads down stairs to make the sun rise because the sun god knows all
|
On January 03 2009 08:55 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:50 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:40 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:32 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 07:52 HamerD wrote: [quote]
Now don't be a cunt.
Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader.
Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much.
I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one. YOU of all people call me a cunt? I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that. Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defenseThis one is about telling the future. I don't believe in that. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.ukThe time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all. Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity. That's a bogus ultimatum. You are trying to apply this to some sort of cold hard military test condition. Like I said the water's fecking murky! Twins usually have different FRIENDS. They usually have different LUCK. Usually get picked on by different people etc etc. Their personalities will often differ heavily because of that. Hell, simply the sibling dynamic can mold them into different personalities! Astrology is useful for finding out what their true leanings are, it would be helpful to ANYONE to see what their uninterrupted predispositions are. But it's not going to be an accurate predicter of their personalities for the reasons given before. Conditioning has been proven time and again to be an incredibly dominant force on the development of a personality. Do I even need to bother proving that? I consider astrology, paired with genes, to kind of give the blue print of the child. It shows what they would be, if not repressed. But when conditioning, circumstance, is thrown into the bargain everything changes on the outside (and on the inside, but less). Which I find very interesting! Half the time astrology tells me nothing I didn't know. But for me, astrology is very rarely wrong which is the point. Also, just another little piece of my personal evidence for myself, amongst relatives and friends my guessing rate for star signs is verging on 50%, which is far too high for chance. Once again, no proof. On the verge of page six, and you started this thread probably thinking you'd get your lies across and have us start sacrificing goats to the moon gods whilst chanting. I suppose you also believe the world will end in 2012. Notice how you categorize the OP into a specific category, a pattern if you will. You believe that religion and esoteric knowledge is the bane of humanity (and cause of its problems), so you attack him. It is not so much the topic at hand as it is for broader (and subconscious) reasons. All humans have these underlying traits so I am not blaming you personally. However recognizing this is possible and beneficial I believe.
|
Ok well you guys check this out, seems fine to me.
http://www.astrology-online.com/persn.htm
Have a little check to see if your family show anything of what it says of the signs, and if they are born within about 1-8 days of another sign, better check that sign too.
For example for my sign cancer, in the small set of words summing up the sign:
Good Side Emotional and loving Intuitive and imaginative Shrewd and cautious Protective and sympathetic Bad Side Changeable and moody Overemotional and touchy Clinging and unable to let go
Every single one of these is exactly what I am. Any of my friends and family would tell you they literally haven't left out an important adjective to describe me, aside perhaps from judgemental, which comes more from my conditioning (realising that the world sucks most of the time, and I have to choose everything I like very carefully)
Things that it didn't say about me: Controlled Down to earth Explorative, Brave Likes variety Independent
I fail to see how it could apply to everyone? My mate Willis (Sagittarius) would just be like 'no, no, no, no, no' etc.
|
On January 03 2009 09:02 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:59 HamerD wrote: Get my lies across? I don't give a shit what you think! The trollslayer must have failed. I need me some fire brb rolling heads down stairs to make the sun rise because the sun god knows all
I agree with your steadfast appreciation of the scientific method, but you're completely misunderstanding the point.
You're arguing against a pagan who believes that the planets control every facet of life. HamerD is neither of these things. I disagree with him but he isn't a retard. His method of reasoning has merely brought him to a different conclusion.
Be civil, or I predict you'll be banned before long.
|
BTW please do check out that site. I'm just sitting here with a wide grin on my face at how exactly they nail my gf's personality
|
On January 03 2009 09:03 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 08:55 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 08:50 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:40 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:32 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:22 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:16 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:12 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 08:10 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 08:02 PanN wrote: [quote]
YOU of all people call me a cunt?
I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that). You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point. I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that. True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that. You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that. Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them. http://www.astrosociety.org/education/astro/act3/astrology3.html#defenseThis one is about telling the future. I don't believe in that. http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.ukThe time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all. Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity. That's a bogus ultimatum. You are trying to apply this to some sort of cold hard military test condition. Like I said the water's fecking murky! Twins usually have different FRIENDS. They usually have different LUCK. Usually get picked on by different people etc etc. Their personalities will often differ heavily because of that. Hell, simply the sibling dynamic can mold them into different personalities! Astrology is useful for finding out what their true leanings are, it would be helpful to ANYONE to see what their uninterrupted predispositions are. But it's not going to be an accurate predicter of their personalities for the reasons given before. Conditioning has been proven time and again to be an incredibly dominant force on the development of a personality. Do I even need to bother proving that? I consider astrology, paired with genes, to kind of give the blue print of the child. It shows what they would be, if not repressed. But when conditioning, circumstance, is thrown into the bargain everything changes on the outside (and on the inside, but less). Which I find very interesting! Half the time astrology tells me nothing I didn't know. But for me, astrology is very rarely wrong which is the point. Also, just another little piece of my personal evidence for myself, amongst relatives and friends my guessing rate for star signs is verging on 50%, which is far too high for chance. Once again, no proof. On the verge of page six, and you started this thread probably thinking you'd get your lies across and have us start sacrificing goats to the moon gods whilst chanting. I suppose you also believe the world will end in 2012. Notice how you categorize the OP into a specific category, a pattern if you will. You believe that religion and esoteric knowledge is the bane of humanity (and cause of its problems), so you attack him. It is not so much the topic at hand as it is for broader (and subconscious) reasons. All humans have these underlying traits so I am not blaming you personally. However recognizing this is possible and beneficial I believe.
"Notice how you categorize the OP into a specific category."
God damnit, im not categorizing shit.
I demand proof, thats it. Don't "categorize" me into your mystic non-sense.
I never once said religion, and esoteric knowledge is the bane of humanity, and fuck you for assuming that. I attacked him for not providing evidence.
It is the topic at hand, I demand proof.
Beyond wrong on everypoint for my sign, you failed hard. I too am cancer, doesn't fit me buddy.
I agree with your steadfast appreciation of the scientific method, but you're completely misunderstanding the point.
You're arguing against a pagan who believes that the planets control every facet of life. HamerD is neither of these things. I disagree with him but he isn't a retard. His method of reasoning has merely brought him to a different conclusion.
Be civil, or I predict you'll be banned before long.
Does it look like I care if I'm banned?
I was making a joke about the mayans he mentioned, it was satire.
He said,
True, they also like to find patterns where they do exist. And do you know what's best?! Finding a pattern, then finding out that someone else found that pattern too. And what's even better...finding out that people have been seeing the same patterns since ancient Mayan civilisation xD
For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology
I was simply stating that mayans also believe that human sacrifices and rolling heads down temple stairs would make the sun rise.
It, was, a, joke.
By the way, "Civilisation"? Is English your second language?
|
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilisation
Get a brain, Morans.
Sorry the description of cancer was wrong for you. Either you are being guarded, you don't know yourself, you are repressed, or astrology is wrong. I think you made your mind up before you even clicked on the thread. Now stop making noise.
|
On January 03 2009 09:29 HamerD wrote:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilisation Get a brain, Morans. Sorry the description of cancer was wrong for you. Either you are being guarded, you don't know yourself, you are repressed, or astrology is wrong. I think you made your mind up before you even clicked on the thread. Now stop making noise.
Moron*
So because it doesn't apply to me, I must not know my self, I must be repressed, or im being guarded, so I should stop talking and agree.
Oh man, thats how people believe in astrology!
They tell them they're wrong, and if it doesn't apply, they should shut up and accept it.
No, I'm not the one being repressed, I'm not the one that believes in fantasy bullshit.
|
Here is some information about my sign:
Likes: Talking (true) Novelty and the unusual (true, but who doesn't?) Variety in life (untrue, I fear change) Multiple projects all going at once (Untrue, I'm easily overwhelmed) Reading (True)
Dislikes: Feeling tied down (True) Learning, such as school (Untrue, this is one of my favorite things) Being in a rut (Everyone dislikes this?) Mental inaction (True) Being alone (Untrue)
Adaptable and versatile (Untrue) Communicative and witty (Somewhat true) Intellectual and eloquent (I think so) Youthful and lively (Untrue) Nervous and tense (True) Superficial and inconsistent (untrue) Cunning and inquisitive (True)
Everything on this page is about 50/50, so I'm not convinced.
Then again, I am looking for failure, whereas you are looking for success. Perhaps we are both victims of confirmation bias?
|
The thing is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can explain away data that doesn't fit your model by stating "you don't know yourself' or 'you are repressed,' of course it's going to seem plausible. If your belief system allows you to dismiss anything that challenges those beliefs, then it's unassailable, but hardly rational.
|
On January 03 2009 09:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Here is some information about my sign:
Likes: Talking (true) Novelty and the unusual (true, but who doesn't?) Variety in life (untrue, I fear change) Multiple projects all going at once (Untrue, I'm easily overwhelmed) Reading (True)
Dislikes: Feeling tied down (True) Learning, such as school (Untrue, this is one of my favorite things) Being in a rut (Everyone dislikes this?) Mental inaction (True) Being alone (Untrue)
Adaptable and versatile (Untrue) Communicative and witty (Somewhat true) Intellectual and eloquent (I think so) Youthful and lively (Untrue) Nervous and tense (True) Superficial and inconsistent (untrue) Cunning and inquisitive (True)
Everything on this page is about 50/50, so I'm not convinced.
Then again, I am looking for failure, whereas you are looking for success. Perhaps we are both victims of confirmation bias?
Read the rest of them, and watch how they apply as well.
It's cold reading, its all lies.
|
On January 03 2009 09:39 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Here is some information about my sign:
Likes: Talking (true) Novelty and the unusual (true, but who doesn't?) Variety in life (untrue, I fear change) Multiple projects all going at once (Untrue, I'm easily overwhelmed) Reading (True)
Dislikes: Feeling tied down (True) Learning, such as school (Untrue, this is one of my favorite things) Being in a rut (Everyone dislikes this?) Mental inaction (True) Being alone (Untrue)
Adaptable and versatile (Untrue) Communicative and witty (Somewhat true) Intellectual and eloquent (I think so) Youthful and lively (Untrue) Nervous and tense (True) Superficial and inconsistent (untrue) Cunning and inquisitive (True)
Everything on this page is about 50/50, so I'm not convinced.
Then again, I am looking for failure, whereas you are looking for success. Perhaps we are both victims of confirmation bias?
Read the rest of them, and watch how they apply as well. It's cold reading, its all lies.
I think the idea was that if they attribute enough traits to you, you'll ignore the ones that aren't true and praise the ones that are.
"I'm not really Youthful and Lively, but DAMN AM I NERVOUS AND TENSE" etc.
|
On January 03 2009 09:41 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:39 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 09:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Here is some information about my sign:
Likes: Talking (true) Novelty and the unusual (true, but who doesn't?) Variety in life (untrue, I fear change) Multiple projects all going at once (Untrue, I'm easily overwhelmed) Reading (True)
Dislikes: Feeling tied down (True) Learning, such as school (Untrue, this is one of my favorite things) Being in a rut (Everyone dislikes this?) Mental inaction (True) Being alone (Untrue)
Adaptable and versatile (Untrue) Communicative and witty (Somewhat true) Intellectual and eloquent (I think so) Youthful and lively (Untrue) Nervous and tense (True) Superficial and inconsistent (untrue) Cunning and inquisitive (True)
Everything on this page is about 50/50, so I'm not convinced.
Then again, I am looking for failure, whereas you are looking for success. Perhaps we are both victims of confirmation bias?
Read the rest of them, and watch how they apply as well. It's cold reading, its all lies. I think the idea was that if they attribute enough traits to you, you'll ignore the ones that aren't true and praise the ones that are. "I'm not really Youthful and Lively, but DAMN AM I NERVOUS AND TENSE" etc.
Yes, that is the idea of cold reading.
Throw enough GENERAL shit in, and people will agree.
I like how OP gives a link to proof, and explains the qualities that match as proof.
But then the derren brown video is all lies., even though its the EXACT same shit.
What an asshole.
|
What is that sagittarius or gemini? Well, I could understand where you are coming from but for me every single description is true and the same goes for my brother, mother and father (which like literally about 4 adjectives in total being out of place).
The explanations lie in the fact that, I bet, if you were to have a chart for your week of birth, or day of birth, or hour of birth, each one would have less objections from you. The other thing might be that you don't understand the opposite, and therefore don't see where you do fit into that description. You also put that you like novelty but dislike variety (and btw variety doesn't directly mean change and also fears usually are more to do with conditioning than astrology)
But if you are looking at 50/50, well I can't give you anything more. How about you check out your family's? Tell me how that comes out.
|
On January 03 2009 09:43 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:41 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 09:39 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 09:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Here is some information about my sign:
Likes: Talking (true) Novelty and the unusual (true, but who doesn't?) Variety in life (untrue, I fear change) Multiple projects all going at once (Untrue, I'm easily overwhelmed) Reading (True)
Dislikes: Feeling tied down (True) Learning, such as school (Untrue, this is one of my favorite things) Being in a rut (Everyone dislikes this?) Mental inaction (True) Being alone (Untrue)
Adaptable and versatile (Untrue) Communicative and witty (Somewhat true) Intellectual and eloquent (I think so) Youthful and lively (Untrue) Nervous and tense (True) Superficial and inconsistent (untrue) Cunning and inquisitive (True)
Everything on this page is about 50/50, so I'm not convinced.
Then again, I am looking for failure, whereas you are looking for success. Perhaps we are both victims of confirmation bias?
Read the rest of them, and watch how they apply as well. It's cold reading, its all lies. I think the idea was that if they attribute enough traits to you, you'll ignore the ones that aren't true and praise the ones that are. "I'm not really Youthful and Lively, but DAMN AM I NERVOUS AND TENSE" etc. Yes, that is the idea of cold reading. Throw enough GENERAL shit in, and people will agree. I like how OP gives a link to proof, and explains the qualities that match as proof. But then the derren brown video is all lies., even though its the EXACT same shit. What an asshole.
A difference in logical understanding doesn't make him an asshole, chill the fuck out. No one is going to take your argument seriously if you pepper it with ad hominem.
|
On January 03 2009 09:44 HamerD wrote: What is that sagittarius or gemini? Well, I could understand where you are coming from but for me every single description is true and the same goes for my brother, mother and father (which like literally about 4 adjectives in total being out of place).
The explanations lie in the fact that, I bet, if you were to have a chart for your week of birth, or day of birth, or hour of birth, each one would have less objections from you. The other thing might be that you don't understand the opposite, and therefore don't see where you do fit into that description. You also put that you like novelty but dislike variety (and btw variety doesn't directly mean change and also fears usually are more to do with conditioning than astrology)
But if you are looking at 50/50, well I can't give you anything more. How about you check out your family's? Tell me how that comes out.
By dislike of variety, I mean I am perfectly content with routine.
I'll do my best mate.
|
On January 03 2009 09:38 Lucktar wrote: The thing is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can explain away data that doesn't fit your model by stating "you don't know yourself' or 'you are repressed,' of course it's going to seem plausible. If your belief system allows you to dismiss anything that challenges those beliefs, then it's unassailable, but hardly rational.
Look it's hard to argue this with people. There's no real point IN arguing. Either you can see that astrology makes sense to your personality and relations or it's just a bunch of gobble de gook. Like I say there's like a maximum of 10% incorrect about all the sun signs of my family...either that's me being insanely, irrationally whimsical and fantastical, or correct. As far as I am concerned, the latter is proven by the fact that it's useful in dealing with relationships and myself!
|
On January 03 2009 09:45 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:43 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 09:41 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 09:39 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 09:36 DoctorHelvetica wrote: Here is some information about my sign:
Likes: Talking (true) Novelty and the unusual (true, but who doesn't?) Variety in life (untrue, I fear change) Multiple projects all going at once (Untrue, I'm easily overwhelmed) Reading (True)
Dislikes: Feeling tied down (True) Learning, such as school (Untrue, this is one of my favorite things) Being in a rut (Everyone dislikes this?) Mental inaction (True) Being alone (Untrue)
Adaptable and versatile (Untrue) Communicative and witty (Somewhat true) Intellectual and eloquent (I think so) Youthful and lively (Untrue) Nervous and tense (True) Superficial and inconsistent (untrue) Cunning and inquisitive (True)
Everything on this page is about 50/50, so I'm not convinced.
Then again, I am looking for failure, whereas you are looking for success. Perhaps we are both victims of confirmation bias?
Read the rest of them, and watch how they apply as well. It's cold reading, its all lies. I think the idea was that if they attribute enough traits to you, you'll ignore the ones that aren't true and praise the ones that are. "I'm not really Youthful and Lively, but DAMN AM I NERVOUS AND TENSE" etc. Yes, that is the idea of cold reading. Throw enough GENERAL shit in, and people will agree. I like how OP gives a link to proof, and explains the qualities that match as proof. But then the derren brown video is all lies., even though its the EXACT same shit. What an asshole. A difference in logical understanding doesn't make him an asshole, chill the fuck out. No one is going to take your argument seriously if you pepper it with ad hominem.
A difference in logical understanding? The guys ignoring FACTS, thats not a difference, thats grasping at straws to the extreme.
I laugh at the fact that you think I care if anyone would take my argument seriously as well, take a look at penn and tellers episode bit on astrology, I'm positive they didn't cuss at all!
How I argue has no effect on whether I'm right or wrong, if it does, you're an asshole that would rather be offended at the fact someone cursed, than the fact I was correct.
|
I'm a gemini btw, and my mate is a Taurus. Now his is pretty off.
Patient and reliable (Impatient and flaky) Warmhearted and loving (Yeah, he's a nice guy) Persistent and determined (Very true) Placid and security loving (Somewhat) Jealous and possessive (Not in the least bit) Resentful and inflexible (Very flexible, and never holds grudges) Self-indulgent and greedy (very selfless person)
* LIKES * Stability (yeah) * Being Attracted (Common like, but sure.) * Things Natural (Doesn't like nature, loves technology, etc.) * Time to Ponder (No he hates free time) * Comfort and Pleasure (everyone does?)
* DISLIKES * Disruption (Doesn't seem to care) * Being pushed too hard (likes this, actually) * Synthetic or "man made" things (Likes this better than "natural things") * Being rushed (Likes this) * Being indoors (Prefers this)
|
Well there are a few things that could be the matter there. I'm not really going to go into it! If you're satisfied that it's hocus pocus, then so be it. But, did he do that or you? And what is his birthday?
|
On January 03 2009 09:58 HamerD wrote: Well there are a few things that could be the matter there. I'm not really going to go into it! If you're satisfied that it's hocus pocus, then so be it. But, did he do that or you? And what is his birthday?
I did. He's the only person I know very well besides myself.
May 2nd.
|
On January 03 2009 09:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I'm a gemini btw, and my mate is a Taurus. Now his is pretty off.
Patient and reliable (Impatient and flaky) Warmhearted and loving (Yeah, he's a nice guy) Persistent and determined (Very true) Placid and security loving (Somewhat) Jealous and possessive (Not in the least bit) Resentful and inflexible (Very flexible, and never holds grudges) Self-indulgent and greedy (very selfless person)
* LIKES * Stability (yeah) * Being Attracted (Common like, but sure.) * Things Natural (Doesn't like nature, loves technology, etc.) * Time to Ponder (No he hates free time) * Comfort and Pleasure (everyone does?)
* DISLIKES * Disruption (Doesn't seem to care) * Being pushed too hard (likes this, actually) * Synthetic or "man made" things (Likes this better than "natural things") * Being rushed (Likes this) * Being indoors (Prefers this)
Looking at my roomate, gf, mother, father, brother, they are all beyond wrong except for the parts that are vague and can be generally applied to nearly everyone.
Looks like my original hypothesis was correct, thanks OP.
|
On January 03 2009 09:59 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:58 HamerD wrote: Well there are a few things that could be the matter there. I'm not really going to go into it! If you're satisfied that it's hocus pocus, then so be it. But, did he do that or you? And what is his birthday? I did. He's the only person I know very well besides myself. May 2nd.
Well I'm not going to argue that you don't know your best friend but try your parents. Everything does seem to be coming up cold for you, which is unusual as far as I am concerned and my family, but there you go.
|
On January 03 2009 10:03 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:59 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 09:58 HamerD wrote: Well there are a few things that could be the matter there. I'm not really going to go into it! If you're satisfied that it's hocus pocus, then so be it. But, did he do that or you? And what is his birthday? I did. He's the only person I know very well besides myself. May 2nd. Well I'm not going to argue that you don't know your best friend but try your parents. Everything does seem to be coming up cold for you, which is unusual as far as I am concerned and my family, but there you go.
I don't know my parents personalities or their birthdays really.
|
On January 03 2009 10:00 PanN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I'm a gemini btw, and my mate is a Taurus. Now his is pretty off.
Patient and reliable (Impatient and flaky) Warmhearted and loving (Yeah, he's a nice guy) Persistent and determined (Very true) Placid and security loving (Somewhat) Jealous and possessive (Not in the least bit) Resentful and inflexible (Very flexible, and never holds grudges) Self-indulgent and greedy (very selfless person)
* LIKES * Stability (yeah) * Being Attracted (Common like, but sure.) * Things Natural (Doesn't like nature, loves technology, etc.) * Time to Ponder (No he hates free time) * Comfort and Pleasure (everyone does?)
* DISLIKES * Disruption (Doesn't seem to care) * Being pushed too hard (likes this, actually) * Synthetic or "man made" things (Likes this better than "natural things") * Being rushed (Likes this) * Being indoors (Prefers this)
Looks like my original hypothesis was correct
I think you were planning on that statement since you started posting.
|
On January 03 2009 10:03 DoctorHelvetica wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 10:03 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 09:59 DoctorHelvetica wrote:On January 03 2009 09:58 HamerD wrote: Well there are a few things that could be the matter there. I'm not really going to go into it! If you're satisfied that it's hocus pocus, then so be it. But, did he do that or you? And what is his birthday? I did. He's the only person I know very well besides myself. May 2nd. Well I'm not going to argue that you don't know your best friend but try your parents. Everything does seem to be coming up cold for you, which is unusual as far as I am concerned and my family, but there you go. I don't know my parents personalities or their birthdays really.
What?! Are you Asian? Well I'm stumped. I ain't got no clever answers to that, I guess you have license to disbelieve astrology now. At least you got something out of it. Still works for me though.
|
On January 03 2009 10:04 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 10:00 PanN wrote:On January 03 2009 09:50 DoctorHelvetica wrote: I'm a gemini btw, and my mate is a Taurus. Now his is pretty off.
Patient and reliable (Impatient and flaky) Warmhearted and loving (Yeah, he's a nice guy) Persistent and determined (Very true) Placid and security loving (Somewhat) Jealous and possessive (Not in the least bit) Resentful and inflexible (Very flexible, and never holds grudges) Self-indulgent and greedy (very selfless person)
* LIKES * Stability (yeah) * Being Attracted (Common like, but sure.) * Things Natural (Doesn't like nature, loves technology, etc.) * Time to Ponder (No he hates free time) * Comfort and Pleasure (everyone does?)
* DISLIKES * Disruption (Doesn't seem to care) * Being pushed too hard (likes this, actually) * Synthetic or "man made" things (Likes this better than "natural things") * Being rushed (Likes this) * Being indoors (Prefers this)
Looks like my original hypothesis was correct I think you were planning on that statement since you started posting.
And I think you're grasping at straws because you're afraid that astrology is all lies.
I took the time to look at your shitty webpage (unlike you with the video that you watched only TEN seconds of, good job asshole).
My gf, roomate, brother, are all laughing at you simultaneously, my mother and father aren't here, but I can guarantee that their personalities don't match that shit.
It took you six pages to provide proof, and it failed miserably.
Astrology, is, fake.
|
HamerD my birthday is august 6 can you please do an astrology reading. Im curious what you'll predict.
|
On January 03 2009 09:48 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:38 Lucktar wrote: The thing is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can explain away data that doesn't fit your model by stating "you don't know yourself' or 'you are repressed,' of course it's going to seem plausible. If your belief system allows you to dismiss anything that challenges those beliefs, then it's unassailable, but hardly rational. Look it's hard to argue this with people. There's no real point IN arguing. Either you can see that astrology makes sense to your personality and relations or it's just a bunch of gobble de gook. Like I say there's like a maximum of 10% incorrect about all the sun signs of my family...either that's me being insanely, irrationally whimsical and fantastical, or correct. As far as I am concerned, the latter is proven by the fact that it's useful in dealing with relationships and myself!
You should read some probability theory. The fact that your family fits their sun signs is more or less irrelevant. If you have a set of non-contradictory conditions, some one will meet them all. The question is whether the proportion of people who meet these conditions is larger than the proportion who don't, and whether the distance is statistically significant.
All studies that have examined these theories have concluded that there is no significant correlation whatsoever. Believe in astrology if you want to, but please don't pretend that it's rational, because it isn't.
|
On January 03 2009 10:11 Lucktar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:48 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 09:38 Lucktar wrote: The thing is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can explain away data that doesn't fit your model by stating "you don't know yourself' or 'you are repressed,' of course it's going to seem plausible. If your belief system allows you to dismiss anything that challenges those beliefs, then it's unassailable, but hardly rational. Look it's hard to argue this with people. There's no real point IN arguing. Either you can see that astrology makes sense to your personality and relations or it's just a bunch of gobble de gook. Like I say there's like a maximum of 10% incorrect about all the sun signs of my family...either that's me being insanely, irrationally whimsical and fantastical, or correct. As far as I am concerned, the latter is proven by the fact that it's useful in dealing with relationships and myself! You should read some probability theory. The fact that your family fits their sun signs is more or less irrelevant. If you have a set of non-contradictory conditions, some one will meet them all. The question is whether the proportion of people who meet these conditions is larger than the proportion who don't, and whether the distance is statistically significant. All studies that have examined these theories have concluded that there is no significant correlation whatsoever. Believe in astrology if you want to, but please don't pretend that it's rational, because it isn't.
THANK YOU.
Look hammer, I even asked my gf, roomate, and brother, individually to come to the pc to show them something.
I even told them I believe in astrology before hand, and thought that it was so interesting because it matched me so closely.
Each individual just looked at me with disbelief, almost feeling bad, and said something along the lines of "sorry, it doesn't match me...".
They laughed hard when I explained what I did.
It's all lies.
|
On January 03 2009 10:11 Lucktar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 09:48 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 09:38 Lucktar wrote: The thing is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can explain away data that doesn't fit your model by stating "you don't know yourself' or 'you are repressed,' of course it's going to seem plausible. If your belief system allows you to dismiss anything that challenges those beliefs, then it's unassailable, but hardly rational. Look it's hard to argue this with people. There's no real point IN arguing. Either you can see that astrology makes sense to your personality and relations or it's just a bunch of gobble de gook. Like I say there's like a maximum of 10% incorrect about all the sun signs of my family...either that's me being insanely, irrationally whimsical and fantastical, or correct. As far as I am concerned, the latter is proven by the fact that it's useful in dealing with relationships and myself! I have examined these theories have concluded that there is no significant correlation whatsoever. Believe in astrology if you want to, but please don't pretend that it's rational, because it isn't.
Fair enough. For me and everyone I am involved with it is rational, obviously. But yes maybe I am the one in a million for whom it just happens to be the fact that everyone even remotely connected to me exhibits traits very similar to their signs. Thanks for at least looking . But it is rational for me. I have evidence, I have theory, I have belief. You don't have evidence, you don't have belief. Both rational.
|
On January 03 2009 10:10 Frits wrote: HamerD my birthday is august 6 can you please do an astrology reading. Im curious what you'll predict.
Leo means you are naturally a leader, creative and broad-minded. Also it means that, because you are a lion who keeps his pride in strict control, bossy, condescending, pompous and occasionally vituperative.
http://www.astrology-online.com/leo.htm
|
Mine is January 30th, what does it say?
|
Friendly and humanitarian Honest and loyal Original and inventive Independent and intellectual
On the dark side....
Intractable and contrary Perverse and unpredictable Unemotional and detached
Good ol' Air signs.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
- instead of arguing with him, try to understand him: astrology is just a manifestation magical thinking and delusional thinking - it's pretty much hard wired to our brain, it has had its benefits and its risks if not disadvantages - overall evolution must have assigned it some value because we still carry it with us; I suspect it has something to do with the fact that magical thinking can increase our survival in situations of low survival chance, where we need can take quick action despite overwhelming odds and not fall into hesitation or lack of action because logic or reason finds no solution. - anyway, just a different perspective; instead of arguing, investigate why we are all still attracted to and still use magical thinking; afterward you will probably laugh at him as much as yourself..
|
On January 03 2009 10:19 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 10:10 Frits wrote: HamerD my birthday is august 6 can you please do an astrology reading. Im curious what you'll predict. Leo means you are naturally a leader, creative and broad-minded. Also it means that, because you are a lion who keeps his pride in strict control, bossy, condescending, pompous and occasionally vituperative. http://www.astrology-online.com/leo.htm
See now the problem with that definition and those traits are that they are so broad that they're even contradicting eachother at parts.
When you read that stuff I notice myself saying "Hey, I do like kids, and I am very open minded." But I don't find myself saying, oh this is all wrong, it just doesn't stick. Even though there are way more things that don't describe me on that page than do.
Other things:
Their faults can be as large in scale as their virtues, and an excessively negative Leonian can be one of the most unpleasant human beings imaginable,
Right so now we have a distinction between positive leonians and negative leonians. The problem here is that we're talking about the opposites of one of the big 5 personality traits. So a leonian is not defined by agreeableness-antagonism. But if you keep going you will come to the conclusion that basically any personality fits the page in some ways. Granted: the somewhat general theme you can find is extraversion, but it is hinted at indirectly and subtly, so that it fits introverts as well. Leadership generally correlates with extraversion for example, but not very strongly, introverts can be leaders as well.
-Marriages might fail: Fact: 40% of american marriages fail.
I could go on and on, there are infinite points of criticism about that description, my point is: Everything applies to everyone, if you had given me another page I would've had the same reaction. The problem with this is that this means that what you consider to be evidence, should logically not be allowed to use as evidence. The means you have of obtaining evidence are biased on remembering only the valid points. Another thing about cold reading: You can fool yourself just as hard as you can fool someone else if you don't look at the big picture; that objectively speaking only a small portion is correct which isn't bigger than it would be by simple chance/guessing. That's what frustrates many people here, to us it is completely obvious that it's simple guesswork, but you don't realize it yourself because your theory makes you feel as if you aren't guessing.
|
On January 03 2009 10:54 Physician wrote:- instead of arguing with him, try to understand him: magical thinking - it's pretty much hard wired to our brain, it has had its benefits and its risks if not disadvantages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinkinghttp://skepdic.com/astrolgy.html- overall evolution must have assigned it some value because we still carry it with us; I suspect it has something to do with the fact that magical thinking can increase our survival in situations of low survival chance, where we need can take quick action despite overwhelming odds and no fall into hesitation of inaction because logic or reason finds no solution. anyway, just a different perspective.. its not directly beneficial, just very comforting to our brains. we're naturally hardwired to be inquisitive, we want to understand how things work because prehumans who had that trait were more likely to be the people who figured out fire and the wheel and whatnot. of course when something was complex enough that early humans couldnt figure it out, they were kinda fucked. so they made up stuff about gods and stars and other bullshit to explain it.
so no, its not a good thing. the fact that his idiocy has an explanation does not make it ok.
|
I dont think anyone actually took the time to read any of the original post :S Either you did and just completely missed the points made, or you just saw the word "astrology" and decided to join in on the bashing of HamerD which is already excessive and extremely boring to read (only ONE 'm' in the name you guys). You all have to stop reading cosmo girl for your information on astrology unfortunately I know you all love to look at the man of the month and then check his birthday and do that whole relationship sign connection "astrology" in the back of the magazine but it definitely wont help you with any issue you're having on this subject at the moment.
Like HamerD said, astrology can be broken down to specific individuals who differ drastically based on certain factors...if you go around looking for a random site that happens to have an astrological focus, of course you're going to find broad terms >< They are attempts at categorizing LARGE quantities of people in specific groups:S Thats obvious and understandable since their goal is to give you a general idea. Just pay attention to the original post. Most of the insults made here didn't even apply to anything HamerD stated...he takes a stance thats more psychological and less astrological but uses the term "astrology" and the "signs" applied because it's an easy categorical system based between time periods,cultural specifications, expectations and natural human consistencies etc. I'm sure he doesn't believe that if Jupiter is in the 7th house on thursday that he'll somehow win the lottery in the future if he buys the ticket on that day just because the horoscope in the newspaper said it would happen. Give it a rest guys.
|
If HamerD would give us a link to somewhere where his side is explained, maybe we could advance. (If he has already and I missed it, I apologize, and please redirect me to that link.)
Nvmd.-I think he linked something higher up on this page.
|
On January 03 2009 12:18 Mischy wrote:I dont think anyone actually took the time to read any of the original post :S Either you did and just completely missed the points made, or you just saw the word "astrology" and decided to join in on the bashing of HamerD which is already excessive and extremely boring to read (only ONE 'm' in the name you guys). You all have to stop reading cosmo girl for your information on astrology unfortunately I know you all love to look at the man of the month and then check his birthday and do that whole relationship sign connection "astrology" in the back of the magazine but it definitely wont help you with any issue you're having on this subject at the moment. Like HamerD said, astrology can be broken down to specific individuals who differ drastically based on certain factors...if you go around looking for a random site that happens to have an astrological focus, of course you're going to find broad terms >< They are attempts at categorizing LARGE quantities of people in specific groups:S Thats obvious and understandable since their goal is to give you a general idea. Just pay attention to the original post. Most of the insults made here didn't even apply to anything HamerD stated...he takes a stance thats more psychological and less astrological but uses the term "astrology" and the "signs" applied because it's an easy categorical system based between time periods,cultural specifications, expectations and natural human consistencies etc. I'm sure he doesn't believe that if Jupiter is in the 7th house on thursday that he'll somehow win the lottery in the future if he buys the ticket on that day just because the horoscope in the newspaper said it would happen. Give it a rest guys. "hey if we're vague enough they cant really say we're wrong" shut up
|
FWIW i looked at my sign (scorpio) and looked at the dislikes/likes
here they are
* LIKES Truth * Hidden Causes * Being involved * Work That is Meaningful * Being Persuasive
* DISLIKES Being Given Only Surface data * Taken Advantage of * Demeaning Jobs * Shallow Relationships * Flattery and Flattering
Now, i'd like to ask whether someone here actually LIKES being taken advantage/having a demeaning job/be in a shallow relationship. On the same token, does anyone NOT like truth/being involved/doing meaningful work
This just reminds me of that website (which I've been trying to locate to prove a point) that asks you a bunch facts about you (gender/birthday/favorite tea/other stuff) and spits out 10 sentences which you rank on a 1-10 scale as to how they apply to you. Then it shows you an average and explains what the deal was.
If anyone knows what that site is, please link it here. The key I remember is that it asked you for what type of tea/coffee you liked, or something similar to that.
|
On January 03 2009 12:18 Mischy wrote:I dont think anyone actually took the time to read any of the original post :S Either you did and just completely missed the points made, or you just saw the word "astrology" and decided to join in on the bashing of HamerD which is already excessive and extremely boring to read (only ONE 'm' in the name you guys). You all have to stop reading cosmo girl for your information on astrology unfortunately I know you all love to look at the man of the month and then check his birthday and do that whole relationship sign connection "astrology" in the back of the magazine but it definitely wont help you with any issue you're having on this subject at the moment. Like HamerD said, astrology can be broken down to specific individuals who differ drastically based on certain factors...if you go around looking for a random site that happens to have an astrological focus, of course you're going to find broad terms >< They are attempts at categorizing LARGE quantities of people in specific groups:S Thats obvious and understandable since their goal is to give you a general idea. Just pay attention to the original post. Most of the insults made here didn't even apply to anything HamerD stated...he takes a stance thats more psychological and less astrological but uses the term "astrology" and the "signs" applied because it's an easy categorical system based between time periods,cultural specifications, expectations and natural human consistencies etc. I'm sure he doesn't believe that if Jupiter is in the 7th house on thursday that he'll somehow win the lottery in the future if he buys the ticket on that day just because the horoscope in the newspaper said it would happen. Give it a rest guys.
Please don't call what HamerD does here psychological, it's pretty insulting, and Ive done a pretty good job of sticking to the argument, only 1 ad hominem argument from me in this thread, which was actually supported by a scientifical study.
The thing is, I haven't seen a valid counterargument so far as to: -how every prediction of personality based on month seems to apply to everyone with no difference in significance) -What the precise mechanism is that influences the development of character, what occurrence in nature could possibly lead you to believe in these patterns you guys talk about in the first place actually.
Besides, why do you people think you have any clue or insight on personality development? I spend countless hours of serious study on the subject for a serious school and you guys come in and propose some theory without any evidence, that discredits my field of study, what did you expect. It also doesn't help that half of the time when HamerD tries to explain something he sound like a schizo, some of his sentences are completely incomprehensible.
|
* LIKES Stability - yup * Being Attracted - er dunno * Things Natural - no way * Time to Ponder - yup * Comfort and Pleasure - doesn't everyone? o_O
* DISLIKES Disruption - yup * Being pushed too hard - would think this applies to everyone * Synthetic or "man made" things - no way * Being rushed - no * Being indoors - no way in hell
On January 03 2009 10:19 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 10:10 Frits wrote: HamerD my birthday is august 6 can you please do an astrology reading. Im curious what you'll predict. Leo means you are naturally a leader, creative and broad-minded. Also it means that, because you are a lion who keeps his pride in strict control, bossy, condescending, pompous and occasionally vituperative. http://www.astrology-online.com/leo.htm
Constellations are someone's attempt at "join the dots" applied to stars, and then trying to fit that to an everyday object or character from mythology. There is absolutely no reason why the stars in leo should represent a lion over any other object. The only reason we agree on the a lion as the image is for convenience, so we can split the sky up into sections and refer to them by their constellation names.
Stars are in constant motion too. If you wait long enough, the positions of stars in the sky will change drastically. What are you going to do then? Still stick to the idea of a lion even though it would be really warped eventually?
Then there's the problem of how on earth the symbol of a lion could possibly influence on someone's personality.
|
HamerD, I definitely don't believe in Astrology but I was wondering a few things out of my curiosity.
My birthday is August 20th, making me a Leo, but the cutoff date is August 22. You said that the transitions were like colors in that there are "grades" of Leo. Does that mean that since I am close tot he end of Leo that I might be a little bit like whatever comes after Leo or were you just saying that among the Leos there is variation?
EDIT: BTW, I read up on Leo and there is a lot of stuff that sounds like me, whether that is because it is all designed to sound like everybody or wishful thinking, or some real aspect I don't know. But I am (and have been for a long time) literally obsessed with the color gold representing myself. Its not my favorite color, but it is ME...if that makes any sense.
|
So I guess Internet debates don't really convince anybody.. but we all knew that already
|
Norway28264 Posts
i have a pretty open mind but I think believing in astrology in todays society is like, retarded or deliberately ignorant, whichever.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
On January 03 2009 11:08 IdrA wrote: its not directly beneficial, just very comforting to our brains... so no, its not a good thing. the fact that his idiocy has an explanation does not make it ok. - lol, when I was your age I'd probably voiced a similar opinion, but I these days I ask myself more questions about the validity of my own opinions and beliefs.. I myself may not believe in the slightest the predictions of an astrology reading, but my curiosity might tempt to to find how it was arrived at and my values might deter me me from sanctioning him for his beliefs.
- did you know that without magical thinking learning would not be possible? spend some time with children and even if you do not study child development you can reach this conclusion on your own; without magical thinking many of our discoveries in science would never have happened; without magical thinking poetry and literature will be sooo dull..
- take just one of many examples, that of Sir Issac Newton who studied both astrology and alchemy, to the point that many today suspect that the inspiration for his laws of light and theory of gravity came from his alchemical work... http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm http://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/astrology/newton.htm
- how is it that he, who has left a contribution to mankind that you or I will never be able to match (unless of course you ever reach #1 keSPA rank, then maybe) who obviously was our intellectual superior in mathematics, physics and sciences does not share your harsh words for that which falls under the realm of magical thinking?
- my point is, that which is idiotic to us, might be so exclusively due to our ignorance.. which is why in this case learning is wiser than arguing.. or as Sir Issac Newton once said to Sir Halley, a contemporary whom he argued often, “Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!”
- a small essay for you from someone you might frown upon (chosen with this intention): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-nuisance-of-magical-t_b_39887.html
|
On January 04 2009 02:55 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 11:08 IdrA wrote: its not directly beneficial, just very comforting to our brains... so no, its not a good thing. the fact that his idiocy has an explanation does not make it ok. - lol, when I was your age I'd probably voiced a similar opinion, but I these days I ask myself more questions about the validity of my own opinions and beliefs.. I myself may not believe in the slightest the predictions of an astrology reading, but my curiosity might tempt to to find how it was arrived at and my values might deter me me from sanctioning him for his beliefs. - did you know that without magical thinking learning would not be possible? spend some time with children and even if you do not study child development you can reach this conclusion on your own; without magical thinking many of our discoveries in science would never have happened; without magical thinking poetry and literature will be sooo dull.. - take just one of many examples, that of Sir Issac Newton who studied both astrology and alchemy, to the point that many today suspect that the inspiration for his laws of light and theory of gravity came from his alchemical work... http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htmhttp://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/astrology/newton.htm- how is it that he, who has left a contribution to mankind that you or I will never be able to match (unless of course you ever reach #1 keSPA rank, then maybe) who obviously was our intellectual superior in mathematics, physics and sciences does not share your harsh words for that which falls under the realm of magical thinking? - my point is, that which is idiotic to us, might be so exclusively due to our ignorance.. which is why in this case learning is wiser than arguing.. or as Sir Issac Newton once said to Sir Halley, a contemporary whom he argued often, “Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!” - a small essay for you from someone you might frown upon (chosen with this intention): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-nuisance-of-magical-t_b_39887.html
Yeah the magical thinking makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint, but that's no excuse for believing in bullshit.
When these radical ideas are tested AND FAIL that's a whole different story.
|
Sorry but I think it would take a lobotomy to make me believe in this stuff -.-
|
I made a reply but my internet cut out for the night and I just went to sleep. Basically...have a go at seeing how many attributes another star sign gets right...but try to make it an opposite sign. It will hopefully show you the 'colours', the modes essentially of astrology.
Aries/Libra, Taurus/Scorpio, Gemini/Sagittarius, Cancer/Capricorn, Leo/Aquarius, Virgo/Pisces
These are really different signs. But look I really look like I rolled over and accepted all of the strident criticism offered here, but I really didn't, I just got tired. The problem here is that, like Mischy said, an astrology website will show you the astrological personalities divided into 12 sectors. The two problems in it actually being relevant to personality are like I said, firstly the genetics and circumstance of the person; and secondly the fact that they are providing you with a general template of your sun sign.
Like I said before, if you were to get a reading for your week, or day, or hour of birth, it would be increasingly accurate to your true leanings. But if you want to discard it after a small scratch on the surface, then look it's your choice. I hope I at least convinced some people to have a little more open-mindedness when talking about astrology.
|
On January 03 2009 13:22 Frits wrote: Please don't call what HamerD does here psychological, it's pretty insulting
No it is completely psychological! I am REALLY interested in personalities and especially their relations to each other. My only problem with hardcore psychology is that it's often too mechanical and not focused enough on standard interpersonal issues. I really like psychology though, I dabble. And of course, like philosophy, psychology is something of which you can pick up a relatively useful, if not comprehensive, practical understanding if you just pay attention to the way people act. Body language for example...you can pick up knowledge about it and use that knowledge, even if you are just scratching the surface
On January 03 2009 13:22 Frits wrote: The thing is, I haven't seen a valid counterargument so far as to: -how every prediction of personality based on month seems to apply to everyone (with no difference in significance) Well, like I said it doesn't purport to be exactly nailing them. I find that my one nails me exactly, and that my parents are nailed and my granny nailed lol. But that's just me. Some of my friends wouldn't find every box ticked. However, with readings that take their birth date and hour into account, I find they don't really argue, just sit there contemplating.
On January 03 2009 13:22 Frits wrote: -What the precise mechanism is that influences the development of character, what occurrence in nature could possibly lead you to believe in these patterns you guys talk about in the first place actually. The patterns are usually related to equilibrium, and how various things balance out each other. Like the swinging chain between liberality and control in governments...or the balance of electrons with protons. Star signs have their opposites and they all balance each other out...it's evidenced by the fact that you usually have a complete split of personalities regarding tendency to go out much, to have lots of friends, to be sympathetic, to be charitable, to be isolatory, to be argumentative etc.
I mean I personally found all these patterns and looked for psychology explanations, and could find no hard facts about influences on peoples' preponderances to do those things. Then I saw that astrology claimed to be entirely about that, and once I started comparing everyone I knew to their patterns and seeing that they all interacted the way they were supposed to and had all the attributes they were supposed to, I just thought there must be something in it. So far, I might have already said, I'm about 50% for guessing the star sign of people close to me or even just colleagues at work...which is pretty insane seeing as it should be like 7.5%.
On January 03 2009 13:22 Frits wrote: Besides, why do you people think you have any clue or insight on personality development? I spend countless hours of serious study on the subject for a serious school and you guys come in and propose some theory without any evidence, that discredits my field of study, what did you expect. It doesn't discredit your field of study. Carl Jung was friends with Sigmund Freud. It's just about keeping an open mind to things that psychology doesn't have all of the answers for.
On January 03 2009 13:22 Frits wrote: It also doesn't help that half of the time when HamerD tries to explain something he sound like a schizo, some of his sentences are completely incomprehensible. They are incomprehensible because you are Dutch and I would assume English isn't your first language anyway. And btw your English is fantastic. Why can't you ask me to rephrase something you don't understand?
|
I apologize for not reading this thread, but I just want to forward a quick question.
HamerD, do you believe that the influence of the stars and planets or w/e have some sort of ethereal effect/non-physical, or do you think it's like gravity; some intangible force but still in the physical realm, but not yet enumerated by science?
|
On January 04 2009 02:55 Physician wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 11:08 IdrA wrote: its not directly beneficial, just very comforting to our brains... so no, its not a good thing. the fact that his idiocy has an explanation does not make it ok. - lol, when I was your age I'd probably voiced a similar opinion, but I these days I ask myself more questions about the validity of my own opinions and beliefs.. I myself may not believe in the slightest the predictions of an astrology reading, but my curiosity might tempt to to find how it was arrived at and my values might deter me me from sanctioning him for his beliefs. - did you know that without magical thinking learning would not be possible? spend some time with children and even if you do not study child development you can reach this conclusion on your own; without magical thinking many of our discoveries in science would never have happened; without magical thinking poetry and literature will be sooo dull.. - take just one of many examples, that of Sir Issac Newton who studied both astrology and alchemy, to the point that many today suspect that the inspiration for his laws of light and theory of gravity came from his alchemical work... http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htmhttp://www.phys.uu.nl/~vgent/astrology/newton.htm- how is it that he, who has left a contribution to mankind that you or I will never be able to match (unless of course you ever reach #1 keSPA rank, then maybe) who obviously was our intellectual superior in mathematics, physics and sciences does not share your harsh words for that which falls under the realm of magical thinking? - my point is, that which is idiotic to us, might be so exclusively due to our ignorance.. which is why in this case learning is wiser than arguing.. or as Sir Issac Newton once said to Sir Halley, a contemporary whom he argued often, “Sir Halley, I have studied the matter, you have not!” - a small essay for you from someone you might frown upon (chosen with this intention): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/the-nuisance-of-magical-t_b_39887.html did you read those articles about newton? not a word about how alchemy or astrology led to his scientific discoveries, just that they were pasttimes. some modern biologists believe in christianity wholeheartedly, creation and everything. they simply keep their faith and their profession seperate and ignore the logical inconsistencies. a religious person or a mystical person accomplishing something is not a positive comment on religion or mysticism unless they caused the accomplishment to happen.
and "hes smarter than you he must know somethin you dont" argument is also invalid due to the reasoning i explained in my first post. even now, and especially in the past, there are things humans dont know. we dont like not knowing stuff and when science is not sufficiently advanced to explain it we turn to the next best thing, in this case magical thinking. in many cases that magical thinking then develops into science over time. that does not mean magical thinking was the cause of that science to develop, in fact in most cases it actually slows the development because people adhere to the 'established' thinking, fighting the new science. people would seek to figure the world out whether we had magical thinking or not, its the way our brains are wired. i think you're confusing magical thinking with the search for knowledge, it is merely a byproduct of it.
and that last article is pretty laughable. "oh noes without magical thinking these great religious leaders would not have reached such spiritual depths~ the horrors~ oh hey this one scientific guy liked it too that makes it valid" k nifty
please explain about the child learning. i dont know about the topic, but i dont see how magical thinking is responsible for it.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
#idra + Show Spoiler + u said - "that does not mean magical thinking was the cause of that science to develop"
I didn't claim that, I said this - - did you know that without magical thinking learning would not be possible? ..without magical thinking many of our discoveries in science would never have happened; without magical thinking poetry and literature will be sooo dull.
you said - "hes smarter than you he must know somethin you dont" argument is also invalid
I said - how is it that he, who... does not share your harsh words for that which falls under the realm of magical thinking?
~ it was not argument, it was a question, with the hope it would lead you to read more, learn some and be less harsh; the historical anecdote were Newton's words, and repeated here to emphasize the question, after all how much do you really know about astrology, magical thinking, childhood development? etc.. u get the idea, I am sure. ~ I will give my original advice again: in this case learning is wiser than arguing, and on that note, I will proceed to follow my own advice, and bow out ; ) ~ as for your request - please explain about the child learning. i dont know about the topic I'll try this week, I will send you some info to read or post it here (if the op doesn't mind since we gone way off his initial topic)
|
On January 04 2009 10:29 HeadBangaa wrote: I apologize for not reading this thread, but I just want to forward a quick question.
HamerD, do you believe that the influence of the stars and planets or w/e have some sort of ethereal effect/non-physical, or do you think it's like gravity; some intangible force but still in the physical realm, but not yet enumerated by science?
no, I don't think either to be honest. I think the positions of any things in the solar system depict a pattern that reoccurs in all 'random' collections of events...and that the relationship between the planets and our lives is that they subscribe to the same patterns. I don't think they have any specific effect on us. Just like the ancient Chinese and the Mayans back what 3000 years ago.
I believe, as do many, that the answer lies in cracking a 'code' to chaos and discovering whether the word 'random' can actually be applied to science.
|
what does your date of birth have to do with your personality? I mean, one moment you're inside your mother's womb, and the other you're in your mother's arms all covered in blood and crying. how does the date on which this happens connect my personality to the patterns in nature which you're talking about?
and about the stars. THEY ARE FUCKING STARS. Quoted from Wikipedia: A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma that is held together by its own gravity.
You base your beliefs on the PATTERNS in which the stars are spread around space. you have one glob of plasma here, one glob of plasma there and we see a fucking lion.
Through this pattern that we call Leo we can see that some people have the true personality of a leader.
so in conclusion:
somehow on the day on which your mother gave birth to you, you were somehow linked to a few stars. somehow, these stars gave you a part of your personality. somehow, people can "read" these stars and assign the personality traits they "read" to a person.
SOMEHOW this all makes perfect sense to you
|
+ Show Spoiler +On January 05 2009 09:15 .MistiK wrote:
what does your date of birth have to do with your personality? I mean, one moment you're inside your mother's womb, and the other you're in your mother's arms all covered in blood and crying. how does the date on which this happens connect my personality to the patterns in nature which you're talking about?
and about the stars. THEY ARE FUCKING STARS. Quoted from Wikipedia: A star is a massive, luminous ball of plasma that is held together by its own gravity.
You base your beliefs on the PATTERNS in which the stars are spread around space. you have one glob of plasma here, one glob of plasma there and we see a fucking lion.
Through this pattern that we call Leo we can see that some people have the true personality of a leader.
so in conclusion:
somehow on the day on which your mother gave birth to you, you were somehow linked to a few stars. somehow, these stars gave you a part of your personality. somehow, people can "read" these stars and assign the personality traits they "read" to a person.
SOMEHOW this all makes perfect sense to you Why dont you try reading before you post mkay...
|
On January 05 2009 09:22 Mischy wrote:
Why dont you try reading before you post mkay...
I don't understand what you mean mkay...
|
Well .MistiK, to answer as simply as possible...the post that you made was completely pointless If you read one post above yours, a response is already given regarding your asinine and completely useless statements ^_^
Here it is if you dont want to bother moving your finger slightly to scroll up: + Show Spoiler +On January 05 2009 06:22 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2009 10:29 HeadBangaa wrote: I apologize for not reading this thread, but I just want to forward a quick question.
HamerD, do you believe that the influence of the stars and planets or w/e have some sort of ethereal effect/non-physical, or do you think it's like gravity; some intangible force but still in the physical realm, but not yet enumerated by science? no, I don't think either to be honest. I think the positions of any things in the solar system depict a pattern that reoccurs in all 'random' collections of events...and that the relationship between the planets and our lives is that they subscribe to the same patterns. I don't think they have any specific effect on us. Just like the ancient Chinese and the Mayans back what 3000 years ago. I believe, as do many, that the answer lies in cracking a 'code' to chaos and discovering whether the word 'random' can actually be applied to science. HamerD, do you believe that the influence of the stars and planets or w/e have some sort of ethereal effect/non-physical, or do you think it's like gravity; some intangible force but still in the physical realm, but not yet enumerated by science?no, I don't think either to be honest...I don't think they have any specific effect on us. I believe, as do many, that the answer lies in cracking a 'code' to chaos and discovering whether the word 'random' can actually be applied to science.-response already given to your post.
|
Doesn't this post seem to contradict that:
On January 03 2009 10:19 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 10:10 Frits wrote: HamerD my birthday is august 6 can you please do an astrology reading. Im curious what you'll predict. Leo means you are naturally a leader, creative and broad-minded. Also it means that, because you are a lion who keeps his pride in strict control, bossy, condescending, pompous and occasionally vituperative. http://www.astrology-online.com/leo.htm
|
On January 04 2009 10:29 HeadBangaa wrote: I apologize for not reading this thread, but I just want to forward a quick question.
HamerD, do you believe that the influence of the stars and planets or w/e have some sort of ethereal effect/non-physical, or do you think it's like gravity; some intangible force but still in the physical realm, but not yet enumerated by science?
Good thing I read at least the last page before posting the exact same thing.
|
On January 03 2009 10:16 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2009 10:11 Lucktar wrote:On January 03 2009 09:48 HamerD wrote:On January 03 2009 09:38 Lucktar wrote: The thing is, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you can explain away data that doesn't fit your model by stating "you don't know yourself' or 'you are repressed,' of course it's going to seem plausible. If your belief system allows you to dismiss anything that challenges those beliefs, then it's unassailable, but hardly rational. Look it's hard to argue this with people. There's no real point IN arguing. Either you can see that astrology makes sense to your personality and relations or it's just a bunch of gobble de gook. Like I say there's like a maximum of 10% incorrect about all the sun signs of my family...either that's me being insanely, irrationally whimsical and fantastical, or correct. As far as I am concerned, the latter is proven by the fact that it's useful in dealing with relationships and myself! I have examined these theories have concluded that there is no significant correlation whatsoever. Believe in astrology if you want to, but please don't pretend that it's rational, because it isn't. Fair enough. For me and everyone I am involved with it is rational, obviously. But yes maybe I am the one in a million for whom it just happens to be the fact that everyone even remotely connected to me exhibits traits very similar to their signs. Thanks for at least looking . But it is rational for me. I have evidence, I have theory, I have belief. You don't have evidence, you don't have belief. Both rational. This is an incredibly unreliable way to test theory. You've already contaminated your own experiment... which only had one subject to begin with. If you read what you're 'supposed' to be, based on astrology, then don't you think you'll be influenced to act that way? You need to have been described as these characteristics by other people, who are unaware of astrology, and before you were aware of astrology, in order for this to be effective at all.
You also can't say "it hasn't been disproved, therefore it's true." That's an appeal to ignorance, and it's a pretty obvious fallacy.
Your kind of reasoning is weak, and pathetic. You might as well start believing in phrenology, another dangerously stupid pseudoscience. It's just wishful thinking for people who want a shortcut to understanding the world.
|
On January 05 2009 06:22 HamerD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2009 10:29 HeadBangaa wrote: I apologize for not reading this thread, but I just want to forward a quick question.
HamerD, do you believe that the influence of the stars and planets or w/e have some sort of ethereal effect/non-physical, or do you think it's like gravity; some intangible force but still in the physical realm, but not yet enumerated by science? no, I don't think either to be honest. I think the positions of any things in the solar system depict a pattern that reoccurs in all 'random' collections of events...and that the relationship between the planets and our lives is that they subscribe to the same patterns. I don't think they have any specific effect on us. Just like the ancient Chinese and the Mayans back what 3000 years ago. I believe, as do many, that the answer lies in cracking a 'code' to chaos and discovering whether the word 'random' can actually be applied to science.
I'm not sure if I understand your reasoning. You're saying that everything works according to these patterns, and obviously that these patterns are retraceable back to personality for one thing, but also in all other things.
The problem with connecting patterns to personality is the following: Randomness occurs if you take all personalities together and look at the months these people are born in. You will find that an equal number of personalities occur through each month, indicating no pattern at all. This is based on objective evaluated personality tests, which you have to agree are more specific and better at determining personality than a horoscope, if not for the simple fact that a horoscope assumes the answer before it even asks questions based on a pattern, while an objective personality test has no bias based on assumption. Shouldn't this test based on your logic then indicate the pattern implied?
Now approaching my main questions: Since you estimated in the OP that it's 25% heritage, 50% environmentality, 25% astrological sign, how do you explain findings for heritage for example, while there aren't any findings for astrological sign? (Also I have to mention here that the environmentality and heritability of a personality trait differs per trait, so giving a total estimate is rather useless in the first place.)
For example, according to the system of astrology a trait like extraversion or neuroticism should be more common for people born in month X than month Y. When you take 25000 people, and evaluate these traits however, you will find that there is no difference of personality based on the months those people are born in. And according to the laws of random numbers, the bigger your sample is, the more clearly you see that it's equally divided over month.
-How does this not prove randomness in personality based on birthdate? How can you possibly say there is any proof for birthdate influencing personality after that?
-How can you perceive your anecdotal findings to be more accurate than these findings, especially when you consider that your method of obtaining information shows clear flaws. (You will be much more likely to disregard faults and remember confirmations.)
About patterns, are you talking about the big picture of the universe? I do see a pattern here, a pattern of action and reaction according to the laws of physics, I don't understand why an underlying more far-fetched system of patterns is required or even noticable here.
|
When asked about the theory behind why astrology relates humans to the stars, you said...
I think the positions of any things in the solar system depict a pattern that reoccurs in all 'random' collections of events...and that the relationship between the planets and our lives is that they subscribe to the same patterns.
My most charitable interpretation of this is that you believe there is some sort of inherent structure or order behind any system, random or chaotic though it may appear. Einstein is on your team.
However, even such things as positions of stars change, and readings have uncertainties, and so on. A more permanent pattern which would be completely unaffected by time or location, undisputed, reproducible, have an unchanging structure within a seemingly random sequence, and is undeniably reflected in everything we see (all the time, not just in snapshots of time), is the very friendly and universally known number pi.
Now hold on. Numerology isn't crackpot shit. Let's have a thought experiment. If a Creator of the Universe wanted to leave Easter eggs (or guiding Tools) for His creations, wouldn't he have done it in a foolproof way? You can't mess up the natural constants no matter how hard you try. On the other hand, if He chose to do it by arranging stars in different ways, some of His more mischievous creations might fool the others by towing a star here, causing another to go supernova there, and BAM! His message is garbled.
Okay, we don't even have to postulate a Creator. If the Universe is inherently ordered and structured, then it would follow that all random things, such as the placement of stars or the roll of dice or a person's parentage would also be ordered and structured. It could even be argued that we only need to observe the closer random structure of the universe, such as the visible night sky, in order to determine the structure of "random" in our local piece of the universe. Well, we'd probably need to, because we really can only see the closest 10^-50% of the universe anyways. Well then, wouldn't it make a lot more sense to study the sun? It's a bazillion times closer than anything else, plus it's got a nice "random" generator whether you look at power output or sunspots or flares.
|
Dude. I will reply to both you and frits more fully but yes, it would make more sense to study a LOT of different things than the planets to work out these patterns but astrology was invented about 4000 years ago lol; and a lot of people put a lot of time into working out any correlations. So it's the most useful available set of studies one can find into this theory. (I'm interested in numerology but haven't ever looked at it in detail, it seems kinda insane to me from the outside but who knows).
|
hamerd I feel tremendously grateful to be around your presence. You have clearly outlined the moral authority and destiny of the most of us, I am flattered by your immaculate articulation on such a profound field that transcends the boundaries of logic and science to merely copulate a sensual and practical approach to our existence as a whole, it greatly improves our appreciation to our consciousness to unfathomable degrees in a direction that can only be matched by someone of your caliber, intellect and passion for all life on earth. In fact, it must be the allocated state of the moon, stars, and sun at this moment and time I came to realize my own desires and love for this universe of ours, and perhaps my atheist principles were all for naught, improbable, and I should bow before the amazing parallels of the stars to your well thought out ideals and patience to others.
Thank you, I will begin my journey into greater enlightenment and hope.
Perhaps the numbers and signs around me, are a greater compass to my own self discovery, I will read more into the historical basis of astrology and the amazing clutches that numerology may offer me, the way it has helped so many curious and clear thinking individuals of the past.
|
It seems that my entire life goes against the saying DNFTT
btw going to reply to frits and bottleabuser, just playing medieval total war then going to gym etc
|
|
|
|