Astrology and Ripperology

[The Good Michael]

I'm also a textbook Earth Monkey (my Chinese sign).

I think I'm a fire monkey. I was going to say 'flaming', but it may have given the wrong impression.

I like to think of myself as the best and worst of all signs, which means it is doo-doo.

Mike

[Vigilantee]

Possibility = the freedom of any event to occur or state of affairs to be true that is not irrational (and thats a conservative defintion)

Its a deductive category based on logical necessity, while the laws of physics are inductions from empirical data, and so contigent. Even if something defies a law of physics, you cant say its impossible only improbable, as long as its perfectly rational, only the irrational can be 'disproven'.

The experiments qouted dont effect (or 'disprove') Skids claims as far as I can tell, as he's not basing his arguements on the same premises as the experiments.

Therefore his claims are neither proven or disproven, nor are they ignorant, all you can say is they are unlikely given current evidence, which means they are still possible. Once more Dr X's logic is misapplied. But then he's not a follower of science (a pragmatic methodology for producing technology) he's a follower of scientism (a 'religion' in search of truth).

*Pushes Christine Off Soapbox . . . Crawls Back Up*

This argumentum ad[No Latin!--Ed.] appeal to ignorance is fallacious. This, "well . . . SCIENCE [!--Ed.] does not know everything so it makes my belief possible!" simply does not work.

You cannot fit the disproven into irrelevant ignorance. [What?--Ed.] That physicists have not created a "theory of everything" or know how quantum works with special relativity . . . that ignorance . . . does not make my claim of being Nicole Kidman's Snuggle-Bunny possible!

You cannot "shoe-horn" the impossible into the current areas of ignorance.

Yours with too much caffeine,

--J.D.

[Magpie]

I am doing laundry between exercise . . . why am I reminded of kim chee. . . .



Yours redulently,

--J.D.

Mmmmm...kimchi. I love kimchi (well some of it, anyway). And chap cha.

Now I'm really hungry, lol. I think I'm going to go make myself some toast.

[Magpie]

btw. I am a textbook Libra. I match every major trait associated with Libras (including the ability to say I'm a textbook Libra while believing that astrology is a load of baphomets) except two (I'm ardently heterosexual, and I'm not handsome or vain).

Personality, skills, relationships, tastes, job aptitudes, everything (with the aforementioned exceptions). Both positives and the negatives (and I'm Libran enough to cop to the negatives).

I'm also a textbook Earth Monkey (my Chinese sign).

So I have a lot of emotional incentive to buy into astrology (after all, astrologically speaking I am a pretty cool guy)--but there's just no evidence there.

[Doctor X]

Even psychologists (real psychologists, not the pop-psychologists on the FBI payroll) are starting to raise red flags about profiling.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html

Thanks!

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

I am doing laundry between exercise . . . why am I reminded of kim chee. . . .



Yours redulently,

--J.D.

[Magpie]

Profiling, while not a thorough and precise science, still has something scientific about its process, much like all psychology.

Except there's nothing scientific about it other than the jargon they dress it up with. It relies on cold reading, selective validation and sweeping, vague guesses that are meaningless--other than some slight (and I mean slight) statistical predictions based on a small, unreliable data set (i.e. previous offenders who have been convicted--not the most reliable of sources).

Even psychologists (real psychologists, not the pop-psychologists on the FBI payroll) are starting to raise red flags about profiling.

http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk58.html

[Magpie]

PS. By the way, where I am, in South Korea, a magpie called: Gattzi (close rendition) is sort of a sacred bird, especially when encountered early in the morning. As much science there as astrology.

Great! Now you got me craving bulgogi and it's 2am!

It's a pity my wife and my co-workers aren't Korean. I doubt they consider encountering me first thing in the morning as a particularly sacred experience--I am not a morning person

[The Good Michael]

Magpie,

Profiling, while not a thorough and precise science, still has something scientific about its process, much like all psychology. Though I am not a supporter of psychology so much, except as an exercise in probability, there is nothing about astrology that can be seen as scientific... wait! There is a science to scamming people out of money, so I take that back.

Mike

PS. By the way, where I am, in South Korea, a magpie called: Gattzi (close rendition) is sort of a sacred bird, especially when encountered early in the morning. As much science there as astrology.

[Doctor X]

It's every bit as valid as astrology (i.e. no better than guessing)

I have been informed that. I would love to see a good critique of the relative success of profiling without retrofitting the results--"see . . . Dahlmer ate his victims . . . we said he liked pizza!!" However, at least profiling is not based on claims that violate the Laws of Physics [Tm.--Ed.]

I think there is a popular fascination with profiling due to films and, particularly, crappy American television--redundant? Polygraphs have been effectively debunked from a reliability standpoint, yet there remains the popular fascination. I think people would like such to be valid--determine if someone is lying . . . from very little information discover a killer . . . have some way to predict and avoid disasters in our lives.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Magpie]

Why not use it now. If it is so reliable. Should make police work so much more certain. Other than that problem that it is utter crap.

Sadly they do use it now--they just renamed it "profiling".

It's every bit as valid as astrology (i.e. no better than guessing)

[Doctor X]

This place never stops criticising other posters that aren't in the "usual" way of thinking around here.

If following and promoting ignorance is "insulting" than the "insultee" has only himself to blame for it.

. . . why waste time in a thread you dislike.

Silence in the face of the promotion of ignorance is no virtue.

Think of the children.

Now about Saturn.. which can be a bad thing, depending on certain things in the chart.

Prove it.

What are you afraid of?

Considering your computer exerts a greater influence on you, I think a lot of people would like you to prove it.

If you find challenges to claims "insulting" than you need to rethink offering them.

In the rain.

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Christine]

By ideational I'm refering to a Neutral Monist or Aspect Dualist ontology, a mix of Materialism and Idealism.

I think this guy must have been a bad astrologer. But I'm not saying thats what I'm doing, its an interesting idea though. Unfortunately astrology cant really be done blind or tested objectively as its symbols are contextual and subjective. So it cant be scientifically modelled, which means theres nothing like objective 'certainty' involved. Its an art, it either brings results or it doesnt depending on the skill of the astrologer. I would expect a serial killer to be detectable in a chart though fairly easily, I'll have a look myself, of course the problem is we dont know what the psychology of such a person is, if the tested astrologer had silly ideas like 'evil' and 'violent' I would expect he got it wrong. One armed with a proper understanding should get it right. I'm not suggesting I do, but I'll look.

One can be objective without being certain. And if astrology can be taught, understood, and discussed, it can be modeled, and random variation can certainly be part of the model. And if astrology can't be tested blind, then it can't give us any information about Jack the Ripper, as he's not here to talk to you.

In short, I think you're making claims about scientific testing which just aren't true.

Let me give you a concrete example. Say I show a whole lot of people some paintings and ask them which one "describes" their personalities. That's a very subjective question. But I can make objective comments about it, like 7% of the population thinks they're Monet and 3% thinks they are Rembrandt. Or, in this case, I could ask a artist to paint the personalities of 10 people and then ask them to pick their own painting, and then I could judge the artist as being correct half the time or some such thing. I could even compare different artists that did this, and find which ones were best.

[Blackkat]

Wow you all got your views out and basically insulted yet another poster. This place never stops criticising other posters that aren't in the "usual" way of thinking around here. Who CARES. If you don't like it then either say so and be gone to another thread or don't BOTHER with it. If it's truely unimportant to you and you think it's ridiculous why waste time in a thread you dislike.

Now about Saturn.. which can be a bad thing, depending on certain things in the chart. I'd love to see what the chart shows, for pure curiosity. Then again I'm usually one of the minority around these parts. I sit so middle of the fence on just about everything I have no definate either way. That's why I'm tolerant of anyone that wants to do something a little out of the ordinary. It gets stuffy and redundant most of the time.

[Doctor X]

I wonder if anyone has dowsed in Whitechapel for the location of the Ripper's home?

*Flees Flying Bricks*

I do not mind that someone is curious. I do not mind that one may feel a certain attraction to the magical. Who would not like such powers?

However, when the evidence is there--ready to be understood--I really have to withdraw my patience for such. It is willful ignorance, and there is no virtue in that.

--J.D.