Astrology and Ripperology

[Doctor X]

Evidences--remember the difference in time between England and America:

August 31, 1864: Sherman's Battle of Jonesboro, Georgia.

September 8, 1864: Sherman has sent his letter demanding the evacuation of Atlanta.

September 30, 1864: Black soldiers given the Congressional Medal of Honor; Sherman makes questionable comments--which I will not reprint--regarding black Americans in a letter to a friend, William McPherson.

November 9, 1864: Sherman puts together his plans for his March to the Sea.

Thus, clearly, the Ripper was . . . Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman!

After a horrible time running the army as a full general after the war, seeing the disaster that became Grant's Presidency, disagreeing with the treatment of the South, particularly with his questionable racial beliefs, "Cump" decided he needed to highlight his achievements by commemorating his March to the Sea . . . blah . . . blah.

That took me looking through a book. Give me some more time, and I can make it better. Incidentally, Jews were persecuted in history at different times around that November date. So, we could shift it to that whole "the Jews are the men," thing.

I am not saying your idea is "crap," adamke, I am just saying it is very easy to create such patterns and consider them significant. I just demonstrated that the "Canonical Five" "fit" significant parts of Sherman's preparation for his March.

I will stop there.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

adamkle, do this. Pretend { is a [.

Then you can quote like this:

{quote=Doctor X}No, I have no idea what the goat was doing in my bed.{/quote}

becomes:

No, I have no idea what the goat was doing in my bed.

Makes it easier to read.

Right:

That's the problem. I'm not astrologist. That's why I asked about help, I mean any existing theory. Maybe someone spend his whole life thinking about royal horoscopes etc. :] I'm new...

Understood, but I think the timing of the dates are more indicative. You can create any significance you want with astronomy which really is not a concrete discipline.

Yes. But the coronations aren't so common. I have checked six more cases. Just E.E. Smith (the first one?) was attacked the day Edward the Confessor was crowned. We can't eliminate, that canonical five (or five plus one) was realy important for the mad occultist/astrologist, and the rest (possible victims, letters and graffiti) was just a cover (if it was conspiracy!). Well, if Gull was such a madman, obsessed with royalty... I'm just asking.

Okay. Bear with me a moment. Part of the fun of presenting an idea is you can test it from many different directions. A proposal has to fit all of the evidence, not just some of it. This is important in the infamous "you can't disprove a negative" fallacy. You can. I can disprove you have an elephant in your shorts. In order to save the claim: "it's invisible . . . and weightless . . . and it shrunk" you make the elephant not an elephant. The physical attributes of an elephant render it impossible to inhabit your shorts.

So . . . look at Gull. I am not, myself, obsessed with including and excluding suspects, but I think you will find a review of Gull demonstrates him a very poor candidate. I think that evidence is more important than fitting him to astrology.

Now another thing to consider is possible Rippers. There is a case he may have been foreign, certainly not a rich man or an aristocrat--a "case" not "established." Would such a person know or care about English monarchs?

And what about strange coincidence on November 9? No doubt, it was JUST a coincidence?

"Too coincidental to be a coincidence," to quote Yogi Berra. I understand that. Humans like to find patterns in things. However, I think you need more to establish that it is not a coincidence. Furthermore it contradicts your pattern--it is a birthdate rather than a coronation. Notice that Jack had zero control over what time she was found--unless he took them there.

Just for the hell of it, I will now try to "prove" the Ripper was an American:

Stay tun'd.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[adamkle]

>> Why these are "significant" dates?<<
That's the problem. I'm not astrologist. That's why I asked about help, I mean any existing theory. Maybe someone spend his whole life thinking about royal horoscopes etc. :] I'm new...

>> With only 365 days in any given year, every day has had something happen in history... Any astrological theory is going to depend upon which particular set you choose.<<
Yes. But the coronations aren't so common. I have checked six more cases. Just E.E. Smith (the first one?) was attacked the day Edward the Confessor was crowned. We can't eliminate, that canonical five (or five plus one) was realy important for the mad occultist/astrologist, and the rest (possible victims, letters and graffiti) was just a cover (if it was conspiracy!). Well, if Gull was such a madman, obsessed with royalty... I'm just asking.
And what about strange coincidence on November 9? No doubt, it was JUST a coincidence?

Best regards,
A

[Doctor X]

But there are people who believe in it...

There are people who believe the world is flat. Oh, you mean did JACK believe in it? Possible, I suppose, but I think you would have to show these are "significant" dates. Now this:

Each canonical victim was murdered on the anniversary of important date for English/British monarchy:

With only 365 days in any given year, every day has had something happen in history.

I’m very new, but i’m not naive. Nevertheless, this is something strange, isn’t it?

Weeeeeeellllllll . . . this requires assuming his motivations, and no one really knows his motivations other than the bloody obvious: "he wanted to kill some women." You probably note that there is debate over whom Jack killed--did he kill all five, did he kill more, did he kill less, was it more than one, et cetera. Any astrological theory is going to depend upon which particular set you choose.

Personally, I think you will have a better chance with how the dates fell in 1888. I would also think, if such were so important to him, he would make it more obvious--particularly if you believe he wrote any of the letters.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[adamkle]

Look, I think that astrology is a bunch of crap. For me. But there are people who believe in it...
So, I have a question. Is there a theory that includes such facts...

Each canonical victim was murdered on the anniversary of important date for English/British monarchy:
August 31 – Henry VI became king
September 8 – William IV became king
September 30 - Henry IV became king
and last but not least, the final cut:
November 9 – 1888: Mary Jane Kelly was found about 10:45 a.m; 1841: Edward VII, the successor of queen Victoria was was born about 10:45 a.m.

Was it mad astrologist or MAD HISTORIAN? :] Is that, how HENRY WILLIAM Bury signed his work? But this man had never read a book in his life... So maybe Royal Conspiracy theory? But Gull was just William, not William Henry...

Well, my question really is – is it possible, that the dates of these coronation were chosen astrologically by kings’ advisors? Maybe the ripper unwillingly choose the same dates for the same purposes: to be succesfull & rich etc.
But what about November 9?

I’m very new, but i’m not naive. Nevertheless, this is something strange, isn’t it?

[Doctor X]

The thing about astrology is its based on holism the items of signification. . . .

Word-salad.

. . . is not derived from atomic facts or units of info in the chart, . . .

Hence crap.

. . . . nor are they decided by the astrologer, they are derived from their broad potential meaning. . . .

Which means they are decided by the astrologer.

He continues:

Think medically Doc, . . .

That would require . . . SCIENCE!! You are appealing to . . . SCIENCE?!! [!--Ed.]

Then kindly deal with the SCIENtific information given to you.

Why have you not?

What are you afraid of?

A similar procedure is even more important in astrology.

No, as demonstrated in the information. Medicine is "evidence-based;" one has to have repeatable evidence of efficacy.

Astrology has . . . well . . . nothing.

Yours iatrogenically,

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Huh???

Analogy, my son, analogy.

Your paternally,

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Think medically Doc, if a patient has a symptom, this can mean many different things (within a limited range) the precise meaning will be partly determined by other symptoms present, as well as the results of tests on biological functions. In addition outside of the patients body we will want to know their medical history and what they have been doing or experiencing recently. Then a full diagnosis is possible. A similar procedure is even more important in astrology.

The thing about astrology is its based on holism the items of signification is not derived from atomic facts or units of info in the chart, nor are they decided by the astrologer, they are derived from their broad potential meaning as modified by their various relations to everything else in the chart and to facts outside the chart. Their interpretation is also grounded in the astrologer's paradigm, today mainly psycho-analytic psychology (for good and ill).

[23Skidoo]

. . . and since these things in the chart are not inherent to the chart but come from the creator of them . . . the significance vanishes to nothing.

--J.D.

The thing about astrology is its based on holism the items of signification is not derived from atomic facts or units of info in the chart, nor are they decided by the astrologer, they are derived from their broad potential meaning as modified by their various relations to everything else in the chart and to facts outside the chart. Their interpretation is also grounded in the astrologer's paradigm, today mainly psycho-analytic psychology (for good and ill).

[23Skidoo]

Okay one last arcana....

Well, 23Skidoo, you're confusing me. You seem to be confusing a scientific world view with materialism, which is completely unfair. There is nothing inherently unscientific about a non-materialist world view. Scientists do tend to be materialists because so far no phenomena have been discovered which fit a non-materialist explanation better than a materialist one.

Yes, so from a scientific perspective you have to assume materialism. The conventional ontology of science is thus physicalism. Its true some scientists are Platonists some even Idealists, but this is hard to justify empirically.

Second, you seem to be mocking the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which would make you something of a determinist, but that doesn't really fit your claim that astrology is untestable. A determinist believes that if only we had all the facts, we'd know what was going to happen. There's no reason why a determinist astrologer couldn't include astrology in his facts, and test his theories about astrology same as anything else.

Not at all, QM and astrology are both probabilistic and non-deterministic, I was merely pointing out that there's nothing in the experimental results or in the QM wave equation that say this is only applicable to particles, it should apply to tables as well, so these should exhibit QM properties. Thats not a mock thats a fact. The only thing that indicates otherwise is our everyday experience and common sense. Most physicists thus conclude the problem is with the equation, and so add a 'fiddle factor' (planck's constant) to restrict the equation to the micro level (and therefore by applying it probablistically to particles, can predict a large numbers of particles will statistically act classically in the main), they also have absurd ideas such as the collapse of a mathematical equation (the wave function) whatever that means (I know what it means btw its just dumb). More sensible scientistss realise classical physics is an illusion and we need to explain why we are not experiencing physical reality completely (why we experience a classical illusion when reality at every scale is physically quantum mechanical and probabilistic). My own approach is essentially Kantian, QM = noumenal reality, Experience = phenomenal reality, shaped by our mental categories.

Yes a deterministic or probabilistic astrology could be tested experimentally, but not objectively as each factor has dozens of different meanings and only makes sense in context, so I think it can't be achieved without background info, it only works as an aid not as a standalone technique.

Next, for someone who claims to be unscientific, you make an awful lot of scientific claims, most notably that a good astrologer can pick out the serial killers from a random stack of natal charts, if not 100% of the time, much more often than would be expected by chance. Presumably by comparing enough of these charts we could figure out what the astrologer is looking at, no?

I'm not unscientific or anti-scientific, I'm very pro science (my Master's degree was in philosophy of science! ) I just think its misunderstood, even by many scientists, and especially by the skeptical faith of 'scientism', which I argue is completely unscientific.

See you used that word 'chance' again, this becomes very problematic when you eliminate the concept of randomness. But I'll take it to mean 'non determined by the astrologer'. But yes you could, but scientific method would have a problem with 'mars opposite venus' meaning one thing in one chart and something completely different in another, depending on its relation to everything else in chart, and an even bigger problem with it depending on whose chart it is! They could probably manage the idea that the exact meanings are never really standardised but based on personal intuition though. Thus methodology is a big problem.

Ideally we want to say something like "70% of all known ripper-killers have some thing in their chart, while only 2% of all people have that thing." Of course it could be several different things, in which case the more of these warning signs found in a given chart, the more likely it is that the person will turn out to be a killer.

Yes, in principle. Though there are almost certainly many different types of serial killer and many different indicators for each one. We'd also have to know what the material or social causal factors of their mental illness is in order to know what symbolic indicators to look for in the chart. Most astrologers seem to think a serial killer will be exceptional violent for instance, though research indicates most are no more violent than any of us, but merely lack our restraints (sociopathy), so the relevent indicators here are very different. Astrologers dont have a look up table, they have theories of psychology which they freely relate to the symbolic info coded in the chart. Pop text books saying X=Y are fine as a thumb rule for beginners but can be very misleading. Crap theory of psychology means crap astrology.

So I suggest you start by making natal charts for a large number of known killers, and then hypothesize that (some thing) will be in their charts, then look and see if it's there more often than you expect. But watch out for the sharpshooter's fallacy, which is where you just test things until you find a match. (For example, if you determine that the chance of finding conjunction X in every killer's chart is 1 in 1000, but test 1000 conjunctions, you will probably find a match.)

Fine in theory. Find 100 killers whose birthtime is known to the hour at least, divide them into types, and look for upto a 100 possible indicators (there are billions of possible combinations in astrology). Main drawback being its incredibly labour intensive and I have a life and money to earn. So in theory wonderful...

[23Skidoo]

Huh???

It is curious how some like to pretend reality is a matter of "philosophy" or "opinion."

If it was, I would be in Australia . . . and not avoiding guard dogs! More specifically, I would be in an Australian[Right! Stop that!--Ed.]

Yes . . . of course.

Yours fantastically,

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

. . . and since these things in the chart are not inherent to the chart but come from the creator of them . . . the significance vanishes to nothing.

Oh, and if someone does not like the probability of quantum, one has an odd bedfellow--Einstein and his entourage. However, Einstein was hardly a friend of astrology given he limited the flow of information to the speed of light in a vacuum.

Curiously, he and a few came up with a paradox that has to happen if quantum is correct. Since the paradox was "ridiculous," they argued that quantum must fail. Unfortunately, at the time, SCIENCE [!--Ed.] did not have the ability to test this.

Years pass [Cue Sounds of Winter Winds Blowing Through the Cold, Dead, Land.--Ed.]

Comes Bell who devised a way to demonstrate whether or not particles could behave as Einstein supposed. Still could not be tested, but one now had an approach.

More years pass . . . technology--SCIENCE!!--caught up . . . paradox was tested.

It happens.

So, ironically, by discovering a "paradox" Einstein felt disproved quantum or at least demonstrated it was woefully incomplete, Einstein ended up supporting quantum.

Curious, but that is how science works. Similarly, those who sought to "disprove" Einstein--more appropriately "test" implications such as time dilation--demonstrated he described something that does happen.

Whether or not one "likes" it remains immaterial. Appealing to "ridiculousness" without any understanding is merely an appeal to one's own ignorance.

--J.D.

[Christine]

Well, 23Skidoo, you're confusing me. You seem to be confusing a scientific world view with materialism, which is completely unfair. There is nothing inherently unscientific about a non-materialist world view. Scientists do tend to be materialists because so far no phenomena have been discovered which fit a non-materialist explanation better than a materialist one.

Second, you seem to be mocking the probabilistic interpretation of quantum mechanics, which would make you something of a determinist, but that doesn't really fit your claim that astrology is untestable. A determinist believes that if only we had all the facts, we'd know what was going to happen. There's no reason why a determinist astrologer couldn't include astrology in his facts, and test his theories about astrology same as anything else.

Next, for someone who claims to be unscientific, you make an awful lot of scientific claims, most notably that a good astrologer can pick out the serial killers from a random stack of natal charts, if not 100% of the time, much more often than would be expected by chance. Presumably by comparing enough of these charts we could figure out what the astrologer is looking at, no?

Ideally we want to say something like "70% of all known ripper-killers have some thing in their chart, while only 2% of all people have that thing." Of course it could be several different things, in which case the more of these warning signs found in a given chart, the more likely it is that the person will turn out to be a killer.

So I suggest you start by making natal charts for a large number of known killers, and then hypothesize that (some thing) will be in their charts, then look and see if it's there more often than you expect. But watch out for the sharpshooter's fallacy, which is where you just test things until you find a match. (For example, if you determine that the chance of finding conjunction X in every killer's chart is 1 in 1000, but test 1000 conjunctions, you will probably find a match.)

[Doctor X]

It is curious how some like to pretend reality is a matter of "philosophy" or "opinion."

If it was, I would be in Australia . . . and not avoiding guard dogs! More specifically, I would be in an Australian[Right! Stop that!--Ed.]

Yes . . . of course.

Yours fantastically,

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

And finally to prove ambiguity, here's some alternative definitions.

Armandhammer - you are a confused ideologue.
Assisi - you may incline to overly religious utopianism.
Bolshoi - a tendency to wear tights
Bouillabaisse - something basically fishy
Confucius - prone to pretentious statements of assumed wisdom
Dali - you maybe insane or a genius
Messerschmidt - tends to shoot people down
Michaelpalin - a tendency to get others to pay for your global tourism
Onderlicka - who??
Rara - a fetish for short skirts
Tomjones - cheeesy archetype
Robinwilliams - beware the influence of the media