Astrology and Ripperology

[23Skidoo]

>Non sequitur and, oddly enough, stands against astrology.

There's nothing in astrology that contradicts free will any more than gravity does. As I've explained several times. Youre just arguing with yourself again.



>Anthropomorphism does not help you either.


Your failure to accept metaphor merely shows the impoverishment of your language, which perhaps explains the narrowness of your intellect. I shall attempt to translate it in to your subset of English. It is a fact that I can't walk through a wall, the reason why is a belief

Although I'm being very kind to you, note I didn't challenge your incorrect use of Anthropomorphism, as if a dog can't resist being led or a coat can't resist the rain, tut.

I think your problem is the same as most physicalists you have a theory that explains all your narrow experience in a logically consistent way and think that implies its true. That is a fallacy of coherency.

I suggest you try the therapeutic method of trying to develop a convincing argument for something you don't believe in. If you fail it will be proof of your indoctrination or limited intellect, but if you succeed you may learn something about reason....

[23Skidoo]

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

You just spent half this thread claiming astrologers who say that the planets effect people are mistaken (correctly so) and so cannot be taken seriously (to which I agree) but when I say no astrologer makes serious claims about this, you give a characteristically ignorant 'wrong' LOL. We all know some fools claim this so you must be implying that they are serious claims (i.e. that they should be taken seriously, not that they are joking!) so you just contradicted yourself!!

Irrelevant. QM deals with the tiny.

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

You are appealing to events that are quite larger than that. You have appealed to a misunderstanding that causes physicists to shake their heads in sadness.

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.

Yes they do. Kindly show how it works without influence.

Show?? What are you talking about! You seem to be under the illusion that human language necessarilly corresponds to or can describe reality or that logic necessarilly describes the world, or that I can draw you a picture.

But I'm afraid reality may be far more complex than your mind (or anyone else's) can cope with.

But I'll try to give you a simple example. If you tell me its raining and I don't leave the building, in what sense has your statement caused me to stay in? Certainly not physically, as its only the 'influence' of the meaning of your words that effects my behavior. You may argue for some rational cause, but what if you said 'its draining' and I misheard you, no rational cause there.
Maybe an accidental 'influence' of some kind. However the correlation between these two events may not even be real, I may have heard its raining on the same radio broadcast as you and the correlation between your words and my behaviour may be a complete illusion. You can't assume causal correlation from a pattern of events its not that simple.

Moreover even that example is grossly inadequate to explain the conceptual problems this issue raises, bexuase I'm using a language evolved in the human simian to correlate to precisely the objective causal relations I'm saying isn't involved in astrology. Describing the whole of reality in a monkey's practical symbol system is a non starter.

The rest of your post consists of 'I'm right your wrong' statements made from the position of ignorance you accuse other people of so I see no point in argueing with someone so indoctrinated.

And Dr X YOU WILL NEVER BE COOL!

[Doctor X]

I will give you some time to create more tantrum, add in a few smilies, and then FAIL to refute the evidence against astrology again.

Feel the need to play "Apocalypse in 9/8."

--J. "666 is No Longer Alone!" D.

[Doctor X]

While I don't want to extend this debate infinitely, . . .

. . . you have yet to sustain your case. This is not a "debate," it is your embarrassment.

Prove me wrong if you can LOL

Your ignorance of science is not funny. Simply read that site linked. It was part of the argument. I guess you missed it.

Silly arguement [Sic--Ed.] based on circular reasoning (the absence of free will in a scientific reality model).

That is one way to look at your claims, yes.

But it remains a self evident fact that we have free will, . . .

Non sequitur and, oddly enough, stands against astrology.

The world resists me if I want to walk through a wall. . . .

Anthropomorphism does not help you either.

You argue like a 1st year Philosophy student

Since you are in kindergarten, I felt it best not to overwhelm you.

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

It is a bit more complicated than that. It is a property of matter--specifically mass.

While I don't want to extend this debate infinitely, I'd be interested if you offered proof for that single statement or reasonable evidence (that isn't based on a convention of what reason means). Not because I think its false, I suspect its true, but its only a reasonable belief not a fact. Prove me wrong if you can LOL

Well that fails. Reality neither "resists" nor "assists" us. It is. We are part of it. Science describes it.

Silly arguement based on circular reasoning (the absence of free will in a scientific reality model). But it remains a self evident fact that we have free will, not least because you couldn't criticize without it. The world resists me if I want to walk through a wall and can't of course, the fact I can't is just that a blunt fact, the reason I can't is speculation, again theories about
attractive forces between instrumental concepts like 'atoms' and non inter penetration are possible beliefs but not exclusive beliefs or absolute truths.

You argue like a 1st year Philosophy student

[Doctor X]

Okay Doc I could only see one claim from you, here it is:

You did not click the link it appears. It is a rather long discussion.

FAIL.

There are no serious claims made by astrologers that astrology works through the influence of any physical force.

Wrong. FAIL.

In fact the idea that all effects are produced by causation as such is now rejected by versions of QM which accept non-local effects (long ago experimentally demonstrated).

Irrelevant. QM deals with the tiny. You are appealing to events that are quite larger than that. You have appealed to a misunderstanding that causes physicists to shake their heads in sadness. FAIL.

A. No they don’t. Straw man argument. The assumption is based on archaic forms of astrology and the scientific dogma that all ‘influences’ operate causally.

Yes they do. Kindly show how it works without influence.

You apparently cannot. FAIL.

A. This is an entirely spurious argument.

Because you cannot address it? FAIL.

As for the strength of the planets, its true they all have an equal effect. . . .

Less than that of your computer in front of you. FAIL.

Blathers a lot failing to address that significant fact.

A Well that’s right up to a point but its clearly nonsense here.

Notice how his only answer to an accurate observation is that he tosses out a Poisoning the Well fallacy--"that's clearly nonsense! MOMMY!!"

Astrology cannot make specific predictions, unless you ask a specific question, . . .

Yet does astrology FAIL at that.

FAIL

A. A proper astrological prediction is highly focused only bad astrologers and newspaper horoscopes. . . .

Ah, the argumentum ad non verus Caledoni--"No True Scotsman" fallacy! See, all of those FAILures were the "bad" astrology.

Why does he not provide the successful ones?

Anyone?

Buehler?

Why can he not explain how a successful one could work?

FAIL.

A. I said the same thing myself. This is a bad test.

Because he does not like the results.

FAIL.

A The same could be said of weather forecasts.

Non sequitur, thus FAIL.

But I’d have to see the results more detailedly.

Probably should have thought of that before making a claim you could refute the evidence against astrology, huh Sparky?

FAIL.

A That’s ludicrous when you look at the amount of money wasted on the Iraq War, or given away to the rich in low taxes. Neither of these policies ‘work’.

Non sequitur and FAIL. Those not in mass graves disagree with his characterization; however, one cannot excuse the failures of a theory by appealing to other failures.

A Wrong,

Right.

. . . what tears the world apart is the myth of absolute truth, . . .

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam, and FAIL. Does not save astrology.

Appeals to remaining ignorant of reality.

FAIL.

So, after all that, you could not answer ONE of the refutations. NOT ONE.



That was not exactly difficult.

Next time, "23SkiDOO-DOO"--I made a funneh!--try a little harder.

I like a challenge.

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Firstly I'd like to apologize to those bored to their back teeth with this thread, which has strayed far from its original intention. But as I've been constantly provoked by Dr Ex I shall post this final very long look at the so called 'evidence' the Doc keeps refering to.

I hope to get back to the subject of this forum very soon!

The Claims begin with numbers my responces begin with A. Note their are 12

Okay Doc I could only see one claim from you, here it is:

1 But the bottom line is that at best, the gravity from the planets in our solar system is a tiny fraction of the Moon's. So if gravity were the force behind astrology, then the Moon would dominate all the planets combined. Yet it doesn't in any astrologer's horoscope.

A. There are no serious claims made by astrologers that astrology works through the influence of any physical force. The counter claim that all ‘causes’ are physical is a piece of scientific dogma supported only by outmoded forms of logical convention. In fact the idea that all effects
are produced by causation as such is now rejected by versions of QM which accept non-local effects (long ago experimentally demonstrated).
This is not to say there’s any link between non-locality and astrology, before anyone clutches at straw men, merely a warning against dogmatic assumptions.



Now here are some responses to the claims on that website you linked, I assume this is what you mainly refer to, though its a risible claim:


1 They all operate under a very broad working assumption: there is some sort of force from the heavens that influences us here on Earth. There are lots of different attributions for this force (some say gravity, some say electromagnetism, some say a force that cannot be measured), but it all boils down to the planets and stars having an effect on people.

A. No they don’t. Straw man argument. The assumption is based on archaic forms of astrology and the scientific dogma that all ‘influences’ operate causally.


2 Yet astrologers claim that all the planets have equal (or at least comparable) effects, so nearby Venus and distant Pluto both exert some sort of measurable tug on you (at least, measurable in the sense that they can affect your life somehow). This means, by the astrologers' own claims, distance must not be a factor with this force. Obviously, mass mustn't either, or else Jupiter would dominate the planets, and poor tiny Mercury would be left out.

But this cannot be right! What about asteroids? These are chunks of rock and metal that also orbit the Sun along with planets. Most asteroids are closer to Earth than the outer planets (not that distance matters to astrologers, remember?), so they should have some effect. The problem is that there are many, many asteroids. My friend Dan Durda has calculated that there are a billion asteroids in the solar system larger than 100 meters in diameter. That's a lot of rock! So why don't astrologers include them in their horoscopes?

A. This is an entirely spurious argument. As for the strength of the planets, its true they all have an equal effect but something must be made clear first. Terms only have meaning within the system they are used in, in astrology the term ‘planet’ signifies the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, though not the Earth, because it means a visible astronomical body with signification. Most astrologers have added the trans Saturnian planets on the basis of them being of the same type, and a few include the largest asteroids on the same basis. Most astrologers think that all the planets have the same significance, however asteroids are indeed a tricky subject. Many astrologers discount them as significant, others claim the larger ones
are significant, no one claims they are all significant. Though I agree the planet-asteroid cut off point is problematic, and its why I’d rarely use them. As for planets outside the solar system, well they are outside the solar system so are not significant. The problem here is one of different paradigms, in the sane system of astrology the solar system is a system of symbols, a language if you like, only well defined words (planets) are significant, vague slang terms (tiny asteroids) are not, and words from another language (solar system) are of no use here. This means nothing to a physicalist who denies a ‘concrete’ basis to such subjective elements, but physicalism is just another belief system.

3 I have talked to many people who claim their horoscopes are accurate. These people routinely say that it predicted something that came true.

But there are several possible logical missteps here! First, was the prediction really that accurate? Did it say something like "you will come into money today" and you found a quarter on the ground? Or was it something specific, like "you will find a quarter on the ground"? The difference is that a specific prediction is rarely right, while a vague one is rarely wrong.

A Well that’s right up to a point but its clearly nonsense here. Astrology cannot make specific predictions, unless you ask a specific question, and even here the answer will not be precise. A transit of Venus with Jupiter for instance could indicate "you will come into extra money today", but nothing will say "you will find a quarter on the ground". But the statement ‘the difference is that a specific prediction is rarely right, while a vague one is rarely wrong’ is bull. No specific predictions are made, while its absurd to say ‘vague one is rarely wrong’ in this context, as few people come into to extra money on a regular basis. This is pure sophistry.

4 Second, was that horoscope right in everything it said?

A. A proper astrological prediction is highly focused only bad astrologers and newspaper horoscopes (which have nothing to do with real astrology) make a broad range of claims. So this is a good argument against bad astrology and no more.

5 Still having doubts? My friend and master skeptic James Randi performs a wonderful demo of how easily people are fooled by astrology. He went into a classroom, posing as an astrologer, and cast horoscopes for all the students. He had them read and rate the accuracy, and they almost overwhelmingly rated the horoscopes as accurate. The kicker? He had them pass around the horoscopes, and the students saw that every horoscope was exactly the same. It was worded vaguely enough that nearly everyone in the room thought they were being well-described. The horoscopes were so vague they matched nearly everyone, and so their predictive power was meaningless. It was all in the students' heads.

A. I said the same thing myself. This is a bad test.

6 Surprise! Astrologers' claims are not consistent. They're not even internally consistent.
I could show you nearly endless examples of how, say, Sun-sign astrology horoscopes (the kind you see in your newspaper) are completely inconsistent with each other. I could even talk about an astronomical term called precession, which shows that Sun-sign astrology is rubbish anyway (you can try reading one page about it if you'd like). I won't bother, because in the end I think all that stuff is distraction; astrologers will always come up with some lame excuse about how their claims are still correct, when that other astrologer's claim is nonsense (of course, the other guy says that too).
A The same could be said of weather forecasts.
As for precession this just means the constellations are not where they are according to astrologers. The simple reason for this is that genuine astrology has nothing to do with constellations it has to do with divisions of the ecliptic into zones. When astrology was visual one bit of sky looked much like another, so the constellations were used as markers. You couldn’t do this now but fortunately its all done with tables or computers now. Though sidereal astrology and even precession itself does play a role in some fringe forms of astrology (as different systems).

7 In other words, astrology doesn't work. They detail the cases of people born at very close times and locations, what they call "time twins" (say, two babies born within minutes of each other at the same hospital). Astrologers, of course, would predict many similarities between time twins. But, as Dean and Kelly phrase it so succinctly, "The strong similarities predicted by astrology were simply not there".

A This is interesting but seems to be based on the idea that the same signifactors have the same effect, just because two charts are identical it doesn’t mean they mean the same. Here’s an example of how two identical meaning structures (in this case sentences) can have a different meaning : ‘go to the bank and fish around’, this is has two different meanings depending on whether I’m talking to a fisherman or a bank robber. The meaning is defined by context. The meaning of a chart is defined by the
environmental factors outside the chart. Similarly we can’t tell how a person will develop according to their genes, as these also need an environment to manifest in (hence a clone of Hitler would not be Hitler lol). I find it interesting that no correlation at all would be found as the range of possible expression isn’t enormous, though Dean always was one for precise meanings, and if he was only looking for similarities in identical charts this would be very misleading. My guess is Dean was a literalist and probably an old school physical influence astrologer who couldn’t accept the non-physical. But I’d have to see the results more detailedly.

8 For one thing, it's estimated that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on astrology every year in the United States alone. That's real money, folks, wasted on something that doesn't work.

A That’s ludicrous when you look at the amount of money wasted on the Iraq War, or given away to the rich in low taxes. Neither of these policies ‘work’.

9 For another, astrology promotes the worst thing in the world: uncritical thinking. The more we teach people to simply accept anecdotal stories, hearsay, cherry-picked data (picking out what supports your claims but ignoring what doesn't), and, frankly, out-and-out lies, the harder it gets for people to think clearly. If you cannot think clearly, you cannot function as a human being. I cannot stress this enough. Uncritical thinking is tearing this world to pieces, and while astrology may not be at the heart of that, it has its role.

A Wrong, what tears the world apart is the myth of absolute truth, and the myth that one person is right and another wrong. Critical thinking can not produce an agreed truth let alone an absolute truth therefore it can only make things worse. We need to stop believing in God and Truth (his substitute) and admit everything is perspectival,
let people have their own private beliefs and mind our own business. We don’t want one truth or universality we want good old localism and diversity. Critical thinking is good for creating the nihilistic spirit that frees up multiple possibilities and pragmatism of course. I think the term ‘tearing this world to pieces’ is interesting too sounds like he wants some kind of totalising socio-cultural unity, when in fact we need much more fragmentation till we achieve pure individualism (of the respectful
tolerant kind).

10 For a third, and this one irritates me personally, astrology takes away from the real grandeur of the Universe. We live in an amazing place, this Universe of ours, and it's quite fantastic enough without needing people to make up things about it. Astrology dims the beauty of nature, cheapens it.

An Aesthetic Idealism of the worst kind.

11 I laughed out loud many times when reading it, it was so matter-of-fact in its dissection and eventual destruction of astrology.

A This is more telling. Where does this tension release reaction come from. What’s he afraid of?

Good Nite!

[Doctor X]

Okay. Gravity is the reality that things fall, that they stay on the ground, or do not always float etc etc.

It is a bit more complicated than that. It is a property of matter--specifically mass.

Now this is instructive . . . let me pause my exercise to unpack the following sentence:

It was covered in my claim that reality is what resists us.

Well that fails. Reality neither "resists" nor "assists" us. It is. We are part of it. Science describes it.

Whether Gravity is a curvature of spacetime,

Yes.

. . . a forcefield around matter, . . .

No . . . not quite . . . but . . . moving along. . . .

. . . the attraction between matter, . . .

Yes.

. . . the will of God, . . .

Which one? I recommend El. Though Ianna has her attractions. Just . . . do not let her catch you celebrating her particularly rotten vacation in her home. She hates that. She has a way of looking at you. . . .

the convention of the collective consciousness of the human race, . . .

No.

See? One simply cannot just put together fantasy that has evidence against it--such as "convention of the collective consciousness"--since gravity rather existed long before consciousness!--with that that does have evidence for it--like the theory of a curvature in space-time.

Try thinking...

Yes, you should try that some time.

This competitive mentality is obvious a negative product of your culture or upbringing, life is not about 'winning' its about cooperating....

No, I just have better fantasies than you.

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

> No, it is not. Try to make gravity a "matter of belief."

Okay. Gravity is the reality that things fall, that they stay on the ground, or do not always float etc etc. It was covered in my claim that reality is what resists us. Whether Gravity is a curvature of spacetime, a forcefield around matter, the attraction between matter, the will of God, the convention of the collective consciousness of the human race, a feature of the dream I'm having or something else I cant even imagine is entirely speculative and a matter of belief. Some beliefs may be 'truer' probablistically given current evidence (which is never complete and always changing) but this does not mean they are True. Try thinking...

> I win

This competitive mentality is obvious a negative product of your culture or upbringing, life is not about 'winning' its about cooperating....

[Doctor X]

Will practice some nice 三戦 while I wait this . . . truly awesome . . . and . . . devastating refutation of 21st Century astrophysics.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

In my case I tend to use it to decide which of several alternative actions will be the most successful.

. . . and we see the failed results.

Now about that evidence you claimed you were going to address.

We could argue about this till the cows come home and just get more entrenched.

And you will still be wrong.

You're trying to prove your right I'm trying to prove an opposing view is right, not because I'm attached to it, . . .

You clearly are. You fear reality. You fear its limitations while ignoring its breath.

As for astrology see the huge post I'm sending in response to Doc Ex, . . .

Oooooo! T3h d34dly User ID Alteration!!!111! Do I get to start referring to him as "23SkiDOO-DOO?" Because I want to be cool too!

Yes, astrology is a useful but very limited tool, like most tools. As for definitions and arguements see the next post.

It is useful for separating the desperate from their money, promoting ignorance, and opposing progress, yes.

I disagree. Note that sceptic and skeptic used above is not a typo!

He embraces his ignorance.

Goes on a fair bit committing the equivocatio fallacy.

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Well, there are lots of "helpful techniques" out there, from taking a walk to painting pictures to reading novels to imagining you're a student a Hogwarts. I guess the question is what does astrology help you with?

In my case I tend to use it to decide which of several alternative actions will be the most successful. When I decide by tossing a coin (equivalent to astrology in your reality model) it does tend to come out 50/50 good, but
when I use astrology I'm successful about 80% of the time. Reasoning tends to produce a 66% good result at best (obviously or it wouldn't have been naturally selected as better than chance). However nowadays in practise I often won't use astrology as I don't want to be prejudiced by a 20% error margin and prefer optimism in less important matters, but if its really important I will. I Just thought it would be interesting to apply to this topic as it seems to be running out of leads LOL

Okay, fair enough, and even easier to test, at least if you can predict events less extreme than serial killing. Anyhow, this test does give objective results: either the person (or his friends) pick the right chart, or they don't. What goes in the chart interpretation is up to the astrologer. It can be all objective events, or their possible likelihood if you want.

We could argue about this till the cows come home and just get more entrenched. You're trying to prove your right I'm trying to prove an opposing view is right, not because I'm attached to it, but simply because I object to 'truth seekers' who generally cause all the trouble in the world. As for astrology see the huge post I'm sending in response to Doc Ex, I don't think they'll be much more to say after that and I'll carry on using my tools and you'll carry on using your tools.

Well, there is nothing to keep you from defining astrology for us, but as I assumed that it gave descriptions of a person (or his behaviors) that you could test it by comparing astrological claims to reality. You make it sound less useful than those parlor games where someone picks a person and says what kind of dessert she is and everyone has to identify the hapless sour lemon balls.

Yes, astrology is a useful but very limited tool, like most tools. As for definitions and arguements see the next post.

Anyhow, you're unfair to skeptics. There's nothing about being a skeptic that means that you have to assume you understand (or can understand) the world completely. How can you say the skeptic "lacks the courage to believe in nothing" when that's the definition of skeptic?

I disagree. Note that sceptic and skeptic used above is not a typo!

A sceptic is someone who is sceptical about all claims to knowledge, a skeptic is spelt with a 'k' to distinguish it from philosophical scepticism, which does genuinely believe in nothing. Skeptics are scientific sceptics, they take the assumptions of science (the validity of induction, causation, an independent objective reality etc) along with the assumptions of logic (parsemony/Ocham's razor, the law of non-contradiction, mirror theories of truth and meaning etc) uncritically so cannot be sceptics, and then use these as standards to measure other claims critically. Calling them critical, scientific rationalists would be more accurate but more of a mouthful.

[Doctor X]

No, 19th Century Science, as opposed to 21st century Science.

Wrong again.

No, not at all.

Yes.

I've read many science books, . . .

But you have not comprehended them.

Blathers on in irrelevancy without addressing the point.

This link between this mental construction and reality remains contentious.

In other words, you are making it up again and have no evidence.

Reality undoubtedly exists, whether we can ever know what it is other than something that resists our will, is highly speculative on your part.

It is a matter of fact, son.

Evertything [Sic--Ed.] is belief.

No, it is not. Try to make gravity a "matter of belief."

No I used to be uncritical of science till about the age of thirty, then I studied Philosophy. Try it.

Did both. Perhaps you should have spent a bit more time learning either of them.

The example I gave stands. . .

as another example of your FAILure yes.

Now about that evidence you have been fleeing?

Science only prevents honest scientists from fooling themselves, don't forget around 25% of scientific results are fraudulent.

Wrong again.

*Eagerly awaits him to demonstrate he FAILs to know the difference between "incomplete," "error," and "fraud.*

Some things are predicable. . . .

The rest of your reply is empty rhetoric and intellectual prejudice best ignored.

By fools like yourself, yes. The ronin proves correct.

Nevertheless, noblesse oblige and all, I will continue to dissect your lies, your fabrications, and willful ignorance.

For the good of the children.

As for your claim to refute astrology youre lucky I had to download some software, and while I was waiting with nothing better to do I scanned your previous posts. A responce to the silly 'refutations' follows.

*Yawn*

My fantasy involved Nicole Kidman and an exquisitely rich honey.

I win.

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Uh . . . science?

As opposed to a pre-historic belief system . . . like . . . you?

No, 19th Century Science, as opposed to 21st century Science.

Like you.

No, not at all.

Try a science book. Reality exists whether you are "ideologically opposed" to believing in it or not.

I've read many science books, try reading a basic text on the Philosophy of Science and then work your way up to Quine, or even Feyerabend if you want to get really mad. Yes reality exists, its a pattern of energy which we sample via our senses and a filter through various mental categories and lingustic structures to create a useful perceptual model to help us survive. This link between this mental construction and reality remains contentious.

Reality undoubtedly exists, whether we can ever know what it is other than something that resists our will, is highly speculative on your part. Evertything is belief.

Man . . . science education was something that just "happened" to other people with you.

No I used to be uncritical of science till about the age of thirty, then I studied Philosophy. Try it. The example I gave stands try and show it doesn't without resorting to modern knowledge of the solar system and technology.

Science only prevents honest scientists from fooling themselves, don't forget around 25% of scientific results are fraudulent.

The rest of your reply is empty rhetoric and intellectual prejudice best ignored.


As for your claim to refute astrology youre lucky I had to download some software, and while I was waiting with nothing better to do I scanned your previous posts. A responce to the silly 'refutations' follows.

[Christine]

Well that was the fault of my bad wording. I intended to convey that an astrologer claimed to have done this and included a link for assessment.
The trouble with skeptics is that they believe they are sceptics when in fact they are just clinging to a 19th century belief system and measuring rival claims in reference to this. I know there are lots of loonie new age astrologers out there who will make all sorts of claims and may even fake their results (just as there are scientists who do the same) but bare in mind I'm not making any claims at all I'm ideologically opposed to the belief in anything as I find nihilism more rewarding, but I reserve the right to use any technique that I find helpful. On the spectrum of belief to disbelief I'm on the other side of you to the one you seem to think I am

Well, there are lots of "helpful techniques" out there, from taking a walk to painting pictures to reading novels to imagining you're a student a Hogwarts. I guess the question is what does astrology help you with?

Thats even worse! The whole idea of psychological judgement is fraught with difficulty. In fact in my own use of astrology I only look for objective results and the outcome of events. That may be more testable. I was never actually implying we could use astrology to judge who the ripper was, even if it were possible it would not be practically possible.

Okay, fair enough, and even easier to test, at least if you can predict events less extreme than serial killing. Anyhow, this test does give objective results: either the person (or his friends) pick the right chart, or they don't. What goes in the chart interpretation is up to the astrologer. It can be all objective events, or their possible likelihood if you want.

Thats just it, they are too simple they are not testing real astrology they are testing what the skeptic thinks astrology is, on the basis of its most wacky claims. Its like accessing Christian theology on the basis of some crazed, soap box evangelist lol.

There was nothing about the solar system that couldn't be explained in terms of geocentric astronomy long ago either, but that didnt make the heliocentric perspective wrong. And my point is owing to the way astrology is really performed I doubt a scientific test could be designed that would exclude all these possibilities. The only way to demonstrate it is to use it yourself, you alone can no youre not cheating, and if it works it works.

One thing I've noticed about all the sceptical arguements is that they aren't geared towards what I'm saying, they are geared to what has been read elsewhere or assumed true by the skeptic. They argue against an image in their mind and do not directly engage with reality. I suspect the skeptic mind is a kind of protective device based on an ideology that gives a sense of security and confidence from the order it projects into the world. They lack the courage to believe in nothing and embrace the unpredictable and unknown in pure open minded experience.

Well, there is nothing to keep you from defining astrology for us, but as I assumed that it gave descriptions of a person (or his behaviors) that you could test it by comparing astrological claims to reality. You make it sound less useful than those parlor games where someone picks a person and says what kind of dessert she is and everyone has to identify the hapless sour lemon balls.

Anyhow, you're unfair to skeptics. There's nothing about being a skeptic that means that you have to assume you understand (or can understand) the world completely. How can you say the skeptic "lacks the courage to believe in nothing" when that's the definition of skeptic?