Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Astrology and Ripperology
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Sam Flynn View PostI'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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doctor X View PostIpse 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.
Originally posted by Doctor X View Post
Showed you in my first reply. That you close your eyes and scream does not make it go away.Last edited by 23Skidoo; 05-04-2008, 05:35 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 23Skidoo View PostNo. 'Classic signs and symptoms' are a generalisation, . . .
. . . they are good enough for a rough diagnosis yes, but this is not a scientific diagnosis. . . .
The possibility for misdiagnosis thus remains.
Pay attention.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doctor X View PostWrong.
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.
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
Comment
-
Originally posted by 23Skidoo View PostWell, I've made the claim that it might be possible, not that it is. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Originally posted by 23Skidoo View PostWell 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.
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....
Comment
-
Originally posted by 23Skidoo View PostOkay, if you insist on pushing this line.
If youre claiming that such classic indications are a precise signification of every disease, . . .
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
We each only have our own standards. . . .
Sorry to make you cry . . . again.
Now . . . about that evidence you keep fleeing?
--J.D.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christine View PostActually, you claimed an astrologer had already done it, even though that test was done under circumstances that would easily allow cheating.
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.
So far, this pudding tastes like tofu to me....
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Christine View PostActually, 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.
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
Originally posted by Christine View Post
Fine, let ten people bring 3 friends each and let them judge instead.
Originally posted by Christine View Post
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 23Skidoo View PostWell 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. . . .
As opposed to a pre-historic belief system . . . like . . . you?
I know there are lots of loonie new age astrologers out there. . . .
. . . .who will make all sorts of claims. . . .
. . . I'm ideologically opposed to the belief in anything as I find nihilism more rewarding, . . .
Thats just it, they are too simple they are not testing real astrology they are testing what the skeptic thinks astrology is, . . .
There was nothing about the solar system that couldn't be explained in terms of geocentric astronomy long ago either, . . .
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.
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.
One thing I've noticed about all the sceptical arguements is that they aren't geared towards what I'm saying, . . .
Sorry to keep making you cry.
.They lack the courage to believe in nothing. . . .
. . . and embrace the unpredictable and unknown in pure open minded experience.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 23Skidoo View PostWell 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
Originally posted by 23Skidoo View PostThats 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.
Originally posted by 23Skidoo View PostThats 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.
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?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doctor X View Post
Uh . . . science?
As opposed to a pre-historic belief system . . . like . . . you?
Originally posted by Doctor X View Post
Like you.
Originally posted by Doctor X View Post
Try a science book. Reality exists whether you are "ideologically opposed" to believing in it or not.
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.
Originally posted by Doctor X View Post
Man . . . science education was something that just "happened" to other people with you.
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.
Comment
Comment