Astrology and Ripperology

[JSchmidt]

Jschmidt

Actually all religions have a long history of scams so astrology is no different. Insulting a person's religion is against the rules here.

Argue the logic of astrology and the science if you want but cease making judgements on the people who believe in it as it has been pointed out, for some it is a religious belief.

I admit that "argument" was faulty, sorry. Hope I have not made a judgement on the people.

[Ally]

If someone promoting disproven beliefs who refuses to understand anything about the current state of knowledge, and who encourages the stagnation of human development feels "insulted" when called on it, that person has only himself to blame.

But the fact of the matter is that this gentleman has claimed this issue is part of his religion and you are insulting him for believing in it, which is against the board rules.

The fact of the matter is that any person's religion has idiotic fantasies and beliefs, from the Christians to the Jews. As you would not be allowed to say a Christian is a moron because there is no science to the resurrection or science to god, the same holds true of astronomy and this person's religion.

Jschmidt

The difference between astrology and religions is that astrology has a long history of scams

Actually all religions have a long history of scams so astrology is no different. Insulting a person's religion is against the rules here.

Argue the logic of astrology and the science if you want but cease making judgements on the people who believe in it as it has been pointed out, for some it is a religious belief.

[Doctor X]

Hey, a star map is at least as valuable as recreating the appearance of the East End at the time, I should think. That's the star arrangement the Ripper was working under -- if it wasn't too cloudy, that's what poor Polly probably died staring up at.

Ooooookaaaay . . . and?

There is a religious issue about astrology, please, it's kind of offending me that people keep calling it stupid etc.

Res ipsa loquitur.

You don't have to believe in it but please don't insult it or those who believe in it.

If someone promoting disproven beliefs who refuses to understand anything about the current state of knowledge, and who encourages the stagnation of human development feels "insulted" when called on it, that person has only himself to blame.

You don't know what religion a Ripperologist might be.

Nor do I care.

Weather forecasting is considered a science yet the meteorologists have been shown to be wrong more than half the time, . . .

Which, you know, is incredibly better than astrology, so I am unsure of you point. I will note, en passant, your fallacy is argumentum ad [No Latin!--Ed.] rendering a false analogy with a dash of "he did it too!" That one does not have complete knowledge of how natural phenomena work does not make a disproven belief system valid or worth further pursuit.

. . . and even Einstein pointed out every scientific belief held so far has eventually been proven wrong...

No.

There should be a separate fallacy for appealing to Einstein methinks.

Will get back to you on that. . . .

Tempted to try "argumentum ad Albertgensian," but that may prove too "Cathartic" . . . not at all Perfect.

In the rain.

Yours heretically,

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Although astronomy has nothing to do with JTR, at least it's a science. I can live with something being pointless over something being stupid (astrology).

Oooooookay, just wondering what the point of it is.

Yours quizzically,

--J.D.

[JSchmidt]

There is a religious issue about astrology, please, it's kind of offending me that people keep calling it stupid etc. You don't have to believe in it but please don't insult it or those who believe in it. You don't know what religion a Ripperologist might be.

The difference between astrology and religions is that astrology has a long history of scams and that it often pretends to be a science when in fact it does not hold up to any scientific standards.
As long as astrology pretends to be science, it will be judged by scientific means.
So astrologers should either admit that it is not a science and more of a belief system, or prove that it has any scientific merit.
Sitting on the fence and using either definition when it gives an advantage is opportunistic and quite spurious.

[Godgifu]

Doc,

Although astronomy has nothing to do with JTR, at least it's a science. I can live with something being pointless over something being stupid (astrology).

Mike

Hey, a star map is at least as valuable as recreating the appearance of the East End at the time, I should think. That's the star arrangement the Ripper was working under -- if it wasn't too cloudy, that's what poor Polly probably died staring up at.


There is a religious issue about astrology, please, it's kind of offending me that people keep calling it stupid etc. You don't have to believe in it but please don't insult it or those who believe in it. You don't know what religion a Ripperologist might be.

Weather forecasting is considered a science yet the meteorologists have been shown to be wrong more than half the time, and even Einstein pointed out every scientific belief held so far has eventually been proven wrong...

[The Good Michael]

Doc,

Although astronomy has nothing to do with JTR, at least it's a science. I can live with something being pointless over something being stupid (astrology).

Mike

[Doctor X]

. . . and?

Yours curiously,

--J.D.

[Godgifu]

Ugh, I wrote up a whole thing and then I got automatically logged out before it posted! Okay, here we start again...

I found this neat little site, http://www.fourmilab.ch/cgi-bin/Yoursky , that allows you to see a map of the sky from any location, on any date, in any year in history. If I entered everything right, then this here should portray the sky at the approximate time of Polly Nichols' death.

Astronomy more than astrology, but still very cool if I should say so...

[Doctor X]

Well Doc, I'm not going to argue with you anymore. . . .

You have yet to start.

. . . you clearly have a fossilised position that isn't going . . . blah . . . blah . . . blah . . . If your narrow worldview makes you happy you're welcome to it.

You mean I recognize reality and you are stuck in fantasy. I am happy to reality. I also have, it seems, better fantasies.

I also have . . . PEZ!

The only thing I'll say in favour of the skeptics, to perhaps lesson Doc's rants, is that after perusing current pro astrologic Whine . . . cry . . . tantrum

FAILure to provide evidence for astrology, FAILure to address the SCIENCE against it, and general COWARDICE in the face of reality duly noted.

Do not let the door swat you in your fanny on the way out . . . it seems sore enough.

Thus with the Woo. Cannot contribute anything positive to human progress. He is jealous of science--whom he tries to poison with the term "sceptic"--since they produce things like, Polio vaccines, sewage treatment, central heating--except in England--and . . . PEZ!

Whereas his worldview based on his fantasies and wants produces . . . nothing.

It produces worse than nothing; it produces anti-innovative, anti-progressive, dogmatic, blind, prideful, ignorance.

It probably also produces country-western music.

Yours realistically,

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Well Doc, I'm not going to argue with you anymore you clearly have a fossilised position that isn't going to change and you simply make dogmatic statements based on the misapplication of logical fallacies derived from your misunderstanding or unconscious or willful misreading of what's been stated. If your narrow worldview makes you happy you're welcome to it.

The only thing I'll say in favour of the skeptics, to perhaps lesson Doc's rants, is that after perusing current pro astrological writing (something I rarely do as I think for myself) I'd agree that most of them have no idea what they are talking about. This seems to be for two reasons, the first is the decisive refutation of scientific models of astrology that occured after I last read an astrological journal seems to have lead to a mass defection of 'scientific astrologers' and the vacuum has been filled by New Agers presumably via the commercialisation of the subject. When I was debating astrology with astrologers back in the 80s, the majority believed it could be proven to have a basis compatable with the current scientific model and was a causal phenomenon, while a minority of us believed it was either a 'meaning creating' or therapeutic practise (like religion), or was based on an alternative worldview where the theory of causation was incomplete and allowed non-physical, subjective (or even 'psychic') phenomena to be involved in physical events (though through correlation rather than influence). I was of the latter camp and believed this view would triumph when the obviously false beliefs in physical astrology were refuted. In the meantime I went on to other things and studied philosophy, linguistics and science, as a side effect of which my belief in the possibility of astrology and related phenomena was strengthened, though in a more sophisticated form of the aforementioned 'mystical' view. I occassionally used astrology to successfullly predict certain events during this time (including shifts in the stock market that I benefited from financially) but it was never a major interest of mine as I also realised its application was as limited as it was useful. Perhaps I was naive to think this perspective would become dominant in mainstream astrology and not realise that its increased commercialisation would lead to its colonisation by the New Age commodifiers and assorted crazies, who were in my time a fringe few took seriously. In their criticism of these people I think skeptics are probably doing a good job. The problem is their own worldview is flawed and they seem hellbent on imposing it on people which I object to. As to the problem of the commercialisation itself, I think this is a small subsection of a much broader and more damaging commercialisation and commodification of life in general, to focus on astrologers, even stupid ones, is I think unfair and a distraction from more important concerns. As for the people who may be being conned out of their money well more fool them I don't want to support a nanny society that protects people from their stupidity. Its up to them to wise up and make their own choices and perhaps do their own astrology.

The second factor is that astrology is not a standardised or monolithic discipline as many of the experiments performed by skeptics have shown.
I think thats actually good as it allows individual free thought of the kind I and my associates prefer, rather than a dogmatic shared ideology as proposed by the scientistic (sic) religion of the skeptics. And any application of science that sees it as an arbiter of great truths, rather than a methodology for producing hypothetical rules of nature, really is a religion and not a science. Of course the openess of a non standardised astrology allows all sorts of kooks in, particularly with commercial pressure, but I think the benefits out weigh this problem, and suspect a kind of natural selection will help here, perhaps accelerated by less dogmatic sceptics who can provide a critical environment.

As for that ongoing criticism (which is still over simplistic and flawed in itself) a better website than the one the Doc gave can be found here.

http://rudolfhsmit.nl/index.html

And a more general and openminded look at astrology is still the wiki page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology

As for Doc's conservative views on Quantum Mechanics (shared by many professional physicists I agree) I would point to this more progressive approach here

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21590

I'm sure the Doc will give his usual knee jerk negative response to this without giving it much thought. But I include it for completion.

I shall now return to looking at the charts and post anything that strikes me as interesting for those more familiar with them or willing to have an open mind.

I also hope to get on with other interesting issues on this forum and perhaps even real life....

End of debate here (feel free to email me privately if u like)

23S

[Doctor X]

Oh Come on next you'll be trying to tell me The Simpsons aren't real people

Well now, let us not be ridiculous!


--J. "Excellent!" D.

[belinda]

There is no Easter Bunny either.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

Oh Come on next you'll be trying to tell me The Simpsons aren't real people

[Doctor X]

There's nothing in astrology that contradicts free will any more than gravity does.

Wrong.

As I've explained several times.

No, you did not.

Youre just arguing with yourself again.

You prefer I argue with you who, it appears, does not even grasp the philosophical problems with belief in astrology--let alone the scientific refutations of it.

FAIL.

You know, I enjoy playing "Apocalypse in 9/8"--from that wonderful medley done in the 80s--and I expect something challenging. Instead, all you offer is circular tantrum.

REFUTE THE EVIDENCE AGAINST ASTROLOGY.

It is linked there--with references.

You have yet to do this. That is all that is relevant.

Your failure to accept metaphor blah . . . blah

Metaphor does not substitute for reality, Sparky.

. . . note I didn't challenge your incorrect use of Anthropomorphism, . . . .

You would have FAILed, again, and it would take me 10 seconds to acknowledge it.

*Yawn*

I think your problem is the same as most physicalists. . . .

Note the Poisoning the Well fallacy, My Children! Since he cannot argue against SCIENCE [Tm.--Ed.] he conjures up an artificial belief system.

FAIL.

Unfortunately for him, physicists, scientists, whatever term one wishes to use, base their work on evidence--reality.

This upsets him for some reason.

He blathers some more, but FAILs to provide support for astrology nor address the refutation of it.

Not terribly complicated.

In the rain.

--J. "He's Getting Out the Marrow in Your Backbone!" D.

[Doctor X]

Doc you are not an authority on truth you are just an ignoramus

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam for I never made such claim; however, since I know more about it than you this would make you what? A retard? A cretin?

. . . when I say no astrologer makes serious claims about this, . . .

You claim wrong again.

So this is all you have? Unable save your delusions you are reduced to basically blithering non sequiturs and fantasies.

Wrong. FAIL. (read books by Physicists written after the 1980s)

Have. And they contradict you. As does the site linked.

You do not even lie well, boy.

These old school Physicists do not understand their subject for reasons I explained earlier, but you failed to understand, they have a limited imagination and capacity for critical thought like you.

Yeah . . . yeah . . . you know all . . . save anything useful. Too bad they have evidence and you have nothing.

FAIL.

Show?? What are you talking about!

I will type slowly.

Evidence.

You do not seem to have any, do you?

FAIL.

Tries to pretend that language saves him from a lack of evidence.

Non sequitur and FAIL.

Goes on a bit FAILing to provide evidence for his fantasy, refute the science presented, or, really, contribute anything of substance.

Cooler than a FAIL am I; ἐγώ εἰμι.


--J.D.