Astrology and Ripperology

[Doctor X]

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.

Which failed.

The trouble with skeptics is that they believe they are sceptics when in fact they are just clinging to a 19th century belief system. . . .

Uh . . . science?

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

I know there are lots of loonie new age astrologers out there. . . .

Like you.

. . . .who will make all sorts of claims. . . .

Like you have.

. . . I'm ideologically opposed to the belief in anything as I find nihilism more rewarding, . . .

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

Thats just it, they are too simple they are not testing real astrology they are testing what the skeptic thinks astrology is, . . .

Wrong, you just do not like the results.

There was nothing about the solar system that couldn't be explained in terms of geocentric astronomy long ago either, . . .

Wrong.

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

. . .I doubt a scientific test could be designed that would exclude all these possibilities.

Wrong.

Now this is most enlightening:

The only way to demonstrate it is to use it yourself, you alone can no youre not cheating, and if it works it works.

Not "cheat" but "fool." SCIENCE [!--Ed.] use blinds to prevent experimenters from fooling themselves--seeing significance that does not actually exist. Granted, you may be use to fooling yourself, but, again, do not judge others by your meager standards.

One thing I've noticed about all the sceptical arguements is that they aren't geared towards what I'm saying, . . .

Actually, they have dismantled your claims, you have had a tantrum about it, and you have cowardly fled from evidence.

Sorry to keep making you cry.

.They lack the courage to believe in nothing. . . .

Unlike you who lack the courage to confront reality. On the contrary, "they" rather do believe in reality.

. . . and embrace the unpredictable and unknown in pure open minded experience.

That is called "science," son.

You lose again.

Try wriggling a bit more in the barrel next time . . . it is hard to miss you with this 12-gage.

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Actually, you claimed an astrologer had already done it, even though that test was done under circumstances that would easily allow cheating. But the only requirement is that the success rate be measurably better than chance. So if that is what you mean by MAY be possible, fine.

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

Fine, let ten people bring 3 friends each and let them judge instead.

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.

These are very simple tests. If only ONE astrologer could pass them under circumstances where cheating was not possible, we skeptics would take astrology seriously. As it is, there is nothing about astrology that cannot be explained by cold reading, psychology, cheating, and similar know material phenomena.

So far, this pudding tastes like tofu to me....

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.

[Doctor X]

Actually, you claimed an astrologer had already done it, even though that test was done under circumstances that would easily allow cheating.

Indeed.

Fine, let ten people bring 3 friends each and let them judge instead.

Oh you irrational "sceptic" you!

These are very simple tests. If only ONE astrologer could pass them under circumstances where cheating was not possible, we skeptics would take astrology seriously.

Exactly. And when they have tried, as the links he avoids demonstrate, they FAIL.

So far, this pudding tastes like tofu to me....

Indeed.

Tofu is something the Chinese promoted to fill the peasants bellies so they would not revolt.

Astrology is something to cloud the minds of the likes of this 23Skidoo so he will not think.

In the rain.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

Okay, if you insist on pushing this line.

One must follow reality. I have no "insistance" only recognition.

If youre claiming that such classic indications are a precise signification of every disease, . . .

You really do not read, do you.

Try again.

As for clicking back and seeing what you've previously typed I see no reason to incline myself to the effort given your attitude

Your cowardice and failure are duly noted.

We each only have our own standards. . . .

Do not judge others based on your failed irrational standards.

Sorry to make you cry . . . again.

Now . . . about that evidence you keep fleeing?

--J.D.

[Christine]

Well, I've made the claim that it might be possible, not that it is. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Actually, you claimed an astrologer had already done it, even though that test was done under circumstances that would easily allow cheating. But the only requirement is that the success rate be measurably better than chance. So if that is what you mean by MAY be possible, fine.

Well the problem of that is people are terrible at judging their own character.
Its fairly psychologically naive to assume we 'know ourselves'. This works both ways most people will deny any character flaws and identify with positive traits they only think they have. Fraudulent astrologers often work as much by vague flattery as well cold reading.

Fine, let ten people bring 3 friends each and let them judge instead.


These are very simple tests. If only ONE astrologer could pass them under circumstances where cheating was not possible, we skeptics would take astrology seriously. As it is, there is nothing about astrology that cannot be explained by cold reading, psychology, cheating, and similar know material phenomena.

So far, this pudding tastes like tofu to me....

[23Skidoo]

Do not judge others according to your own standards.

--J.D.

We each only have our own standards we can't base any judgement on anyone elses standard. Another example of your own irrationality.

[23Skidoo]

Wrong.



Wrong.



Depends on the condition: meningitis is not one of them.



I am; you are wrong and having a tantrum again.





If you lack the ability to click and read a link--or even read a quote--no one can save you from your willful ignorance.

--J.D.

Okay, if you insist on pushing this line. If youre claiming that such classic indications are a precise signification of every disease, as you must be if youre saying they are not generalisations (i.e. approximations), then misdiagnosis would be almost unheard of. But you admit yourself it happens in some conditions, so whose contradicting themselves now?

A scientific diagnosis would not be based on such ad hoc considerations but would be totally impractical. Medical diagnosis works (when it does) by virtue of its unscientific nature. To say its unscientific in this case is a positive affirmation. Medicine is an art not a science, regardless of how scientific its background medical theories may be.

As for clicking back and seeing what you've previously typed I see no reason to incline myself to the effort given your attitude

[Doctor X]

The trouble is people are naturally irrational. . . .

Do not judge others according to your own standards.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

No. 'Classic signs and symptoms' are a generalisation, . . .

Wrong.

. . . they are good enough for a rough diagnosis yes, but this is not a scientific diagnosis. . . .

Wrong.

The possibility for misdiagnosis thus remains.

Depends on the condition: meningitis is not one of them.

Pay attention.

I am; you are wrong and having a tantrum again.

Repeat it, I recall nothing worthy of serious attention, apart from a few unreferenced experiments you merely hinted at.

If you lack the ability to click and read a link--or even read a quote--no one can save you from your willful ignorance.

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Ipse dixit, irrelevant, and incorrect.

Happens all of the time. This is why there are "classic signs and symptoms."

You would do well to actually read about the subjects on which you toss out these random claims.

No. 'Classic signs and symptoms' are a generalisation, they are good enough for a rough diagnosis yes, but this is not a scientific diagnosis its a medical one. The possibility for misdiagnosis thus remains. Pay attention.

Showed you in my first reply. That you close your eyes and scream does not make it go away.

Repeat it, I recall nothing worthy of serious attention, apart from a few unreferenced experiments you merely hinted at.

[23Skidoo]

Sorry your ignorance makes you cry.

Relax.

--J.D.

I'm happy

[23Skidoo]

I'm not so sure, G - we have had some vigorous debates around religion which haven't led to any bans as far as I can recall. Astrology, in some ways a primitive precursor to religion, is surely fair game in that case. After all, isn't a large part of modern Ripperology all about the debunking of irrational belief systems?

Welcome (again?) to the boards.

I would say there's a lot of dodgy claims there. Astrologer is perhaps derived from religion and formerly a part of it, but actually emerges from it rather than the other way round. Its more accurate to say its a precursor to astronomy in the way alchemy was a precursor to chemistry. Certainly modern psychologically based astrology is incompatible with religion.

I don't think Ripperology can really be about debunking irrational belief systems, unless you worded that badly. After all what do you mean by irrational? If you're refering to some foundational proof no belief system has that; religions, humanisms, sciences and things like astrology are all rooted in faith rather than reason, in that their basic foundational principles are never proven. I shall ignore any rationalists who argue science is rooted in logic, as
logic is merely a convention too as most sane logicians (there are a few) will tell you, and even then it depends which logic youre refering to. Best not to believe in anything unless its useful.

If you mean logically consistent, well most arguements are, including the one for astrology, but that doesn't make them true, the geocentric system of astronomy was perfectly logically consistent and far simpler than the heliocentric but was still wrong.

The trouble is people are naturally irrational and have evolved so for a reason, because the world itself is not rational in the strict logical sense.
The term 'rational' is open to abuse and can mask a very prejudiced and narrow view of reality, and no philosophers agree on the definition of 'rational' anyway

I shall stick to sceptical pragmatism and shun ideological skepticism thanks.

[Doctor X]

What are you on about, . . .

Sorry your ignorance makes you cry.

Relax.

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

The chance of an exact repetition of all these factors is remote, . . .

Ipse dixit, irrelevant, and incorrect.

Happens all of the time. This is why there are "classic signs and symptoms."

You would do well to actually read about the subjects on which you toss out these random claims.

Show me some. You can't!

Showed you in my first reply. That you close your eyes and scream does not make it go away.

The only data you have in the case I mentioned is that reported to you, I didnt say you were allowed any further examination. My point was on limited data.

In other words, you had nothing relevant to offer.

Get on that evidence.

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

If he merely read a book on the subjects he proclaims, he would avoid such silliness.

--J.D.

What are you on about, stay away from the N O man...