Astrology and Ripperology

[Sam Flynn]

Here's some details of an allegedly successful look at serial killers using astrology

http://www.astrologyresearchjournal.org/article82702_1/

All very interesting, Skidoo - and I mean that. However, from that article in the Astrology Research Journal, we have this passage which highlights the obvious post-hoc, opportunist nature of astrology:

The asteroid Juno gave a result for the Pluto/Node midpoint. Demetra George in her book "Asteroid Goddesses, claims that Juno "…represents our capacity for meaningful relationship…" and that its horoscope placement "…describes the ways in which we face the issues of compatibility, receptivity to others, mutual sharing, trust, jealousy, possessiveness, and power struggles".

Juno is a roughly spherical asteroid approximately 200km in diameter and invisible without a telescope - which is why nobody knew of its existence until the early 19th Century. It was the third asteroid to be discovered and named, according to convention, after a mythological deity. The two previously-discovered asteroids, Ceres and Pallas, established this trend, and it is a clear continuation of the tradition of naming celestial bodies after gods or goddesses. In other words, there was no "Juno-ness" attributed to this lump of rock at all by its discoverer - it was just another name on the list of potential deities after whom it could have been named.

Now, Juno was (amongst other things) the Goddess of Marriage - again, this attribute was entirely arbitrary, and selected by the Roman myth-makers as it suited a given situation (Graeco-Roman deities were known to wear more hats than Gertrude Shilling). Small wonder, then, that Demetra George (quoted above) decreed that the asteroid Juno reflects the connubial duties of the goddess Juno in claiming that "it represents our capacity for meaningful relationships..." etc.

This is arrant twaddle, surely? For how could a tiny lump of rock, arbitrarily named according to astronomical convention, be imbued with the fictional "powers" of a mythical Roman goddess, whose attributes were dreamed up thousands of years before the first asteroid was even discovered? The same applies to Clyde Tombaugh's Pluto, discovered over a century after the first asteroids (and probably an asteroid itself), which we are now led to believe inherits the morbid attributes of its eponymous Roman deity, Pluto, the god of the Underworld.

That said, I notice that the asteroid Bacchus is now rising in the Fourth Quadrant - so I'm off to get a drink. Cheers!

[Doctor X]

. . . and your computer has more gravitational influence than an asteroid.

Game.

Set.

Match.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

I tend to agree on one hand, though on the other by saying all these attributes are arbitrary, you're more or less saying they're random. But astrologers believe nothing's random, so all the arbitrary choices are determined by the same influence, which exists outside of Space-Time, so temporal distance is no obstacle. So its still a maybe for me.

All very interesting, Skidoo - and I mean that. However, from that article in the Astrology Research Journal, we have this passage which highlights the obvious post-hoc, opportunist nature of astrology:

The asteroid Juno gave a result for the Pluto/Node midpoint. Demetra George in her book "Asteroid Goddesses, claims that Juno "…represents our capacity for meaningful relationship…" and that its horoscope placement "…describes the ways in which we face the issues of compatibility, receptivity to others, mutual sharing, trust, jealousy, possessiveness, and power struggles".

Juno is a roughly spherical asteroid approximately 200km in diameter and invisible without a telescope - which is why nobody knew of its existence until the early 19th Century. It was the third asteroid to be discovered and named, according to convention, after a mythological deity. The two previously-discovered asteroids, Ceres and Pallas, established this trend, and it is a clear continuation of the tradition of naming celestial bodies after gods or goddesses. In other words, there was no "Juno-ness" attributed to this lump of rock at all by its discoverer - it was just another name on the list of potential deities after whom it could have been named.

Now, Juno was (amongst other things) the Goddess of Marriage - again, this attribute was entirely arbitrary, and selected by the Roman myth-makers as it suited a given situation (Graeco-Roman deities were known to wear more hats than Gertrude Shilling). Small wonder, then, that Demetra George (quoted above) decreed that the asteroid Juno reflects the connubial duties of the goddess Juno in claiming that "it represents our capacity for meaningful relationships..." etc.

This is arrant twaddle, surely? For how could a tiny lump of rock, arbitrarily named according to astronomical convention, be imbued with the fictional "powers" of a mythical Roman goddess, whose attributes were dreamed up thousands of years before the first asteroid was even discovered? The same applies to Clyde Tombaugh's Pluto, discovered over a century after the first asteroids (and probably an asteroid itself), which we are now led to believe inherits the morbid attributes of its eponymous Roman deity, Pluto, the god of the Underworld.

That said, I notice that the asteroid Bacchus is now rising in the Fourth Quadrant - so I'm off to get a drink. Cheers!

[23Skidoo]

Gravity isnt involved in astrology, nor are any physical forces.

. . . and your computer has more gravitational influence than an asteroid.

Game.

Set.

Match.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Anyway, heres the charts, I'm off to bed!

http://astrorip.bravehost.com/Astrology%20of%20Whitechapel%20Murders.htm

[Doctor X]

In other words: "crap."

There is a fallacious way of thinking in which someone who does not understand something--or has bothered to try--simply assumes that no one else does. That one does not understand physics, for example, does not mean one's flights-of-fantasy about what is and is not possible have any validity, nor does it mean that others do not.

Those who have studied and tested astronomy have demonstrated is it nothing. Those who have studied physics know why it fails.

So now one wishes to conjure up "unknown influences." Problem is, in REALITY [Tm.--Ed.], such are not hidden. SCIENCE [!--Ed.] can detected the Weak Forces . . . yet somehow it cannot detected the influence of a bloody planet millions of miles away . . . and a bunch of fantasists with nothing but wanting things to be true can?

The evidences against astrology--detailed--have been provided. For some reason, they remain ignored. Perhaps one figures if they never visit the North Pole . . . Santa can still exist.

Yet do I know this will apply:



Yours cosmically,

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

Skeptic!!

Nothing you say here is necessarily true, its all possible, but you select it as true due to you're belief system.

You're obviously a bit tired as your'e statements below are a bit confusing.
I don't think your example of fallacious thinking is relevant here. No one really understands Physics, because Physics is Quantum Mechanics (according to sensible Decoherentist accounts anyway, hope we dont get sidelined into that!). Or do you think someone understands QM?

I think you meant astrology rather than astronomy? In which case astrology has never been tested properly. Inadequate experiments have no value. I doubt you could though given its reliance on essential meaning and its unrepeatability. But it certainly has nothing to do with physics, I repeat for the hard of percieving. The planets do NOT effect anything, neither physically or non-physically. So stop using Strawman arguments. The reason I suspect you say this is because you have faith in a reductivist, physical ontology and a metaphysics of 'physical causal closure' as its called. But this is just that, a faith.

And a crucial point to grasp is the 'hidden influence' is not a physical force it doesn't organise matter it organises 'meaning' or 'intentionality' and 'connection' of 'molecular facts'. For example the 'influence' that insures parallel patterns is not physical, if it were you could roll parallel dice throws and they would all be the same, and even I'm sceptical about that. But what actually seems to happen is the physical pattern is different, but the meaning remains constant, just as you can say exactly the same thing in different languages or in the same language with different words. The pattern and its influence is semantic. So no, physics wont detect it. This is a very different world view to Science, but not incompatable with it, and no less rational.
It has many similarities to Platonism, and both many scientists and many astrologers are Platonists. Personally I'm not as I think Platonism is refutable, but I think its close.

In other words: "crap."

There is a fallacious way of thinking in which someone who does not understand something--or has bothered to try--simply assumes that no one else does. That one does not understand physics, for example, does not mean one's flights-of-fantasy about what is and is not possible have any validity, nor does it mean that others do not.

Those who have studied and tested astronomy have demonstrated is it nothing. Those who have studied physics know why it fails.

So now one wishes to conjure up "unknown influences." Problem is, in REALITY [Tm.--Ed.], such are not hidden. SCIENCE [!--Ed.] can detected the Weak Forces . . . yet somehow it cannot detected the influence of a bloody planet millions of miles away . . . and a bunch of fantasists with nothing but wanting things to be true can?

The evidences against astrology--detailed--have been provided. For some reason, they remain ignored. Perhaps one figures if they never visit the North Pole . . . Santa can still exist.

Yet do I know this will apply:



Yours cosmically,

--J.D.

[23Skidoo]

I'm not convinced by this Positive Existential Proclaimation arguement either, even if it were relevant (and I'm not sure it is). Basically this is just an arbitrary principle of formal logic, and logic like everything else is a contigent state of affairs. Theres nothing necessary about this its just a convention. As are 'logical defaults' and other spooks. Logic is simply an attempt at the science of communicative thought, it has no necessary baring on reality.

The legal arguement is not a logical one its a legal safeguard. If a crime is alleged but not 'proven' to have occured, it really doesnt necessitate the rational belief that it didn't happen, any more than it necessitates the belief that it did, it simply means the facts are undecided. Logicians work on a convention of logical bivalency so can't accomodate the ambiguities of reason, so have to decide on a true or false convention. This rational ambivalenc is not enough in a legal context either however because 'undecided' is still a serious ethical state of affairs, so a prosecuting lawyer must 'prove' it happened and who did it, while a defence lawyer must 'prove' one or both of these false. But this is a special sociological case not a logical one, the logical convention merely parallels the legal.

[Doctor X]

Oh why not?

"And there following Blind Routine/ Futility flogs a tamborine," and all.

Skeptic!!

Why thank you!

Nothing you say here is necessarily true, . . .

Ipse dixit, but incorrect.

I have evidence . . . I also have . . . PEZ!

You have . . . nothing.

ME------->

You ----->

. . . its all possible, but you select it as true due to you're [Sic--Ed.] belief system.

That is the funny thing about reality: it does not depend on belief. SCIENCE [Tm--Ed.] describes it. To disbelieve in SCIENCE [Franchises available.--Ed.] you have to have the evidence to prove it wrong . . . of course . . . you would be doing SCIENCE! [Sigh.--Ed.]

Prove otherwise. Confront the evidence given.

If you can.

Otherwise, bow DOWN before the power of SCIENCE!

You're obviously a bit tired as your'e [Sic--Ed.] statements below are a bit confusing.

Since you are the one suffering from a singular reading incomprehension and dysgraphia, methinks you should recognize that problem lies in . . . well . . . you.

Here . . . have some PEZ!

I don't think your example of fallacious thinking is relevant here.

It is the fallacy you are practicing.

No one really understands Physics, . . .

Ipse dixit, but incorrect.

. . . .because Physics is Quantum Mechanics (according to sensible Decoherentist accounts anyway, hope we dont get sidelined into that!). Or do you think someone understands QM?

It is a bit more than that. However, your inability to understand current quantum mechanics, special relativity, et cetera does not make your disproven theory possible, any more than it makes my belief I am Nicole Kidman's Snuggle Bunny possible.

. . . though I still have PEZ!

I think you meant astrology rather than astronomy? In which case astrology has never been tested properly.

See the links given. That you refuse to deal with them does not mean they do not exist.

Inadequate experiments have no value.

As embodied in the link you provided.

But it certainly has nothing to do with physics, . . .

Thus "crap."

Quod erat demonstrandum.

I repeat for the hard of percieving [Sic--Ed.].

I think the failure of astrology has been perceived adequately.

The planets do NOT effect anything, . . .

Actually, as the linkypoos demonstrate, they do, just not in the way you would like.

Sorry.

PEZ?

So stop using Strawman arguments.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam with a dash of tu quoque; nevertheless, the only one waving about strawmen is . . . you!

The reason I suspect you say this is because you have faith in a reductivist, physical ontology and a metaphysics of 'physical causal closure' as its called. But this is just that, a faith.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam.

As demonstrated, reality is this thing that, you know, you cannot avoid? SCIENCE [Director's Cut Available.--Ed.] describes it.

Whether or not you wish to deal with reality remains your beneficence or maleficence.

And a crucial point to grasp is the 'hidden influence' is not a physical force. . . .

Yes, it is crap, that is understood.

. . . it doesn't organise matter. . . .

Then it has no existence, no influence, nothing.

. . . it organises 'meaning' or 'intentionality' and 'connection' of 'molecular facts'.

It organizes gibberish? Neologisms? Dysphasia?

You throw out non-existent entities in the guise of verbiage: argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam. Unfortunately, SCIENCE [Supplies are limited.--Ed.] can test all of that.

See, effects are demonstrable. You may believe a "stuff" acts as an antibiotic. In order for that to prove valid, it has to behave as an antibiotic. Claiming that it organizes 'meaning' or "intentionality" and "connection" of Wee Beasties----is meaningless if the "stuff" FAILs to prove bacteriostatic or bacteriocidal.

It is as simple as that. As the linkypoos demonstrate, no effect exists for astrology.

PEZ?

This is a very different world view to Science, . . .

One that FAILs, yes.

Prove it. Show the influence. You cannot, can you?

Waffles in irrelevance regarding Platonism.

One does not make up for a lack of evidence and valid argument with . . . well . . . "crap."

In the rain.

--J.D.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Skidoo,

I tend to agree on one hand, though on the other by saying all these attributes are arbitrary, you're more or less saying they're random. But astrologers believe nothing's random.

I was rather referring to the astronomer (committee, or whoever) choosing the name of asteroids or planets, for whatever poetic or whimsical reasons they may have had in mind at the time. I'm sure that whoever named the asteroid "Juno" didn't look through his scope and think "Hmmm... there's something distinctly 'matrimonial' about that tiny speck of light".

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

And certainly the Mayas didn't call them "Juno".

Or even "Saturn" as Saturn and "Jupiter" as Jupiter...


All right, quite seriously; and they were brilliant astronomers!

All the best
Jukka

[23Skidoo]

Nothing you say is necessarily true because the only necessary truths are a priori deductions from the definition of words 'all men are mortal, socrates is a man, therefore socrates is mortal'. Science is based on induction and hypotheses pragmatically taken as 'true'. The scientistic fallacy is the assumption they are proven and necessarily true, and that logical relations correlate to physical relations in the world. Evidence is rarely conclusive it is merely suggestive and accumulative, and its significance can change with time in relation to new evidence.

Me -

You -

You haven't given any evidence for science, you've merely stated your belief in physicalism (everything can be explained by physics), logicism (the idea that the formal conventions of logic are 'real' and in someway like the laws of nature, rather than an inductively produced and modifiable ways of thinking about the world), otherwise you wouldnt say the things you do, as well as a belief in scientism (the idea the laws of nature as established by science are necessary truths about the structure of the world, rather than arbitrary hypotheses held 'true' pragmatically). All of this in itself may be pragmatically based but pragmatism does not entail truth, just functionality, the same thing that applies to any successful religion on a different level.


Now as for QM, you again demonstrate your tendency to make unsupported statements from a position of implied knowledge but end by saying silly things.
I agree we have enough distraction with the astrology arguement without going into QM, BUT I can't let that pretentious remark on understanding pass so... QM is the only part of Physics that has proved 100% reliable, all the rest are approximations, and probably as perspectival as Newtonian Physics.
I'm guessing you believe in popular myths held by some Physicists regarding fantasies like 'the collapse of the wave function', 'the cutoff point' (imposed by the arbitrary inclusion of Planck's constant in the QM equation) or the 'statistical fallacy' (based on ensemble and scale arguments using the cut off point to apply the probablistic equation only to microscale particles rather than macroscale objects like tables). All of these are conventions applied to preserve 'common sense' and none are derived from the experimental results which blatantly lack 'common sense'. In contrast an intelligent minority of Physicist accept that QM alone models Reality and applies constantly and universally (i.e. even to tables and planets), the last remaining mystery being why is Appearance different and where does Relativity fit in. I'll expect you'll simply appeal to your invisible wisdom again now though and misapply the logical fallacy 'argument from ignorance' as you normally do

You simply keep restating the gospel of physicalism like the nicene creed, neither of which have any evidence to support them. You're arguments are completely circular rooted in a faith you seem to have an inability to see and
a faith in logic which is frankly somewhat Platonic. Science does not describe Reality it only describes what we can say about Reality. You can cite your 'Truth' against the 'Ignorance' of those who disagree with you as much as you like but its no arguement.

"Insofar as the laws of mathematics are certain, they do not refer to reality, and insofar as they refer to reality they are not certain" Albert Einstein

That can be equally applied to the laws of logic and the laws of physics.

Now can we get back to the thread!!!

[JSchmidt]

If there is no physical force at work, what is at work then? And should it not at least conform to meaningful laws, that can be both reproduced and repeated (If I do it, it get the same result and and the same constellation has the same meaning.)?
If not, then we are indeed in the field of randomness and arbitrary attribution of values. Which means we could also flip a coin or use /dev/random and then imagine/attribute a reading to it.

[c.d.]

Beer tastes good.

A little off topic but at least it is understandable.

Is it just me or have the boards been infiltrated by people attempting to show off their depth of knowledge of arcane matters?

Oh cool, I used the word arcane. Maybe there is hope for me.

c.d.

[23Skidoo]

Hi Skidoo,I was rather referring to the astronomer (committee, or whoever) choosing the name of asteroids or planets, for whatever poetic or whimsical reasons they may have had in mind at the time. I'm sure that whoever named the asteroid "Juno" didn't look through his scope and think "Hmmm... there's something distinctly 'matrimonial' about that tiny speck of light".

I know you were and I'm agreeing. I'm simply saying there's no physical causation that led to whatever poetic or whimsical reasons they may have had in mind (certainly not in Dr X's ontology anyway), and no clues in the speck of light leading to a rational attribution either, its an arbitrary attribution without physical or rational cause. Likewise Pluto was allegedly named after the Walt Disney character who they happened to see while looking for a name. Therefore its all random, they might as well as picked it out of a hat, thus its divination, maybe