"My ideas get selected" selected for what????? I didn't know my ideas were part of some selection process. What do I win if they are selected? If it's a cool trip or something I like I'll come up with some truly inspiring ideas that will get selected and I can win all kinds of neat things.

I don't know I'm not into astrology, never have been.... doesn't mean I don't think there isn't merit in it.

I shouldn't have to "defend" my beliefs to anyone. I don't ask others to, nor do I have the right to have others have to defend their religious beliefs, their philosophical beliefs, their personal beliefs, what right does anyone have to ask me to?

(This excludes politics and sports, which are just fun to argue but get nothing truly accomplished because the people who are truly playing the game and out on the field are the ones making the decisions... we just idly watch and make judgment calls after the fact.)

I honestly didn't know the OP put it here, I thought I read it had been moved from Philosophy... my mistake.

Evolution is population change due to selective processes. Selection happens through competition.

If you are going to put your ideas here and claim that there is validity to them, then you shouldn't be surprised when you are asked to support them. At times, support may even come in the form of defense, if other people have supported ideas which exclude yours if they are correct.

The TFP is like the internet, and the internet is like the world. Some things are mutually exclusive and there is nothing wrong with trying to sort them out.

It really has nothing to do with your assumed right to advocate beliefs and ideas without anyone questioning them. That right doesn't exist here, or in most places.

I'm still looking for the full text to the Nature article. I've provided a source which lists other studies which refute astrology. It would be good form for someone who believes in astrology to step up to the plate and offer some similar material.

Sorry your wife is upset, but its still not real.

You are right in that I don't want to take too much time in this, I did once and the post got screwed up and I'd rather not waste it again.

Part of the evolution in human thought is getting rid of the nonsense. Astrology falls under that umbrella. Its an old superstition which has been exploited and abused on a gullible public for centuries. This doesn't make it valid, it makes it a good scam.

But you know what, just for you pan I'll do this, but first, in the words of a 17th century former astrologer....


I really got a kick out of the last line....

Anyways .....

While I couldn't find the original nature article online and despite about 5 years of wanting to subscribe I've never bothered, I did get a pretty good synopsis.

http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/IMG00040.GIF

http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/AstroSkc.htm

TBH its not even worth study, so my cudos to Dr. Shawn Carlson for bothering to do this kind of thing with such rigor when he is far better known for examining real scientific questions.

First, my wife can take care of herself and has nothing to do with my posting... but you'll believe what you want, regardless of proof or truth. Hmmmm.....

See we differ on evolution and our visions.

Your vision sounds to me like wanting everyone to think like you, to act like you and to not look for answers and explore what is around them.

My vision is more simplistic, believe what you want and how you want as long as you do not push your beliefs on me. I won't debunk your beliefs, because I have my own and to be honest, I don't care what yours are, so why do you care what mine are?

Not to sound like an old Steve Martin routine but "Science is pure impuricism and by virtue of it's method it totally excludes metaphysics"

I think it may be safe for me to assume from previous posts in other threads and this that you wish to believe in only what you can see, hear, touch, and physically feel. Cool, that's you man and God bless ya. (Wait God doesn't fall into any of those categories for you, as I believe you are an admitted atheist... so bless yourself.)

I choose to believe in things until proven they don't exist. I believe in life on other planets, I believe in other dimensions, I believe that everyone has some form of psychic powers and we are very limited in the power of our minds because we have been taught for generations to be, I believe there is some truth to any old wife's tale, to the dragon's of yore, to the Gods of the ancient civilizations, in reincarnation, in fate/destiny and in magic.

I choose to believe in those because for me it makes life more enjoyable and less of a bore. If I can sit and daydream about life elsewhere or sit for an hour and meditate and believe my soul has been healed and I am in a better place psychologically and physically, then I have all the proof I need.

If I go to get my palm read or my star chart done or my tarot read and I like what I hear or see and I believe them and in some way I find satisfaction in it because it gives me a sense of security in how I am living my life, then, that's all I need.

On the other hand, if I choose to want to prove them wrong because I don't like what I see and I work to change things in a positive way... then whether they were fake or not it inspired me to change. And anything that inspires positive changes is a good thing.

And again, as long as one doesn't preach to know what belief is best for others.... I don't care what others want to believe.

It's like I tell Jehovah's Witnesses.... I believe in my reality, you believe in yours... our realities may touch but I promise I won't force mine on you so long as you don't force yours on mine.

I think you've completely misinterpreted what he's saying. The whole point of thinking scientifically is to find answers by showing reproducible results.

Once again, I think you're looking at it too narrowly. I have no problem with believing in something that is not proven, but it's disingenuous to claim that something exists or is real when evidence cannot be provided in its support, and even more so when evidence can be provided against it.

The problem with this is that believing in something despite contrary evidence hinders rational thought and progress. There is only one reality; we all live in it and we're all subject to the same mechanisms and forces that act on everyone and everything equally. In the end, there is only one right answer, whether we find it or not. The only reason to try to avoid finding that answer is fear that it won't be what we want to hear.

No, I know exactly what was being said. It'll show later in this reply.

Here goes:

Who's evidence? If you believe in God, you cannot see, taste, hear, or physically "feel" God. It cannot be proven that you do. Yet millions of people throughout history have believed in some form they have, and it gave them hope and helped their lives. There are those who say that because of their belief they were able to stop drugs, that their diseases went away, that they became better people. Not by some scientific equation, but by their belief in a God, that there is no physical, scientific evidence to support.

Admittedly, it has also been the means for governments and the power hungry to create wars. Try as one might, you will never stop a religion. People will always practice their religion, they just may do so underground.

Better example: I have a seriously bad day. I come home, have read books that talk about the metaphysical energies given off by crystals. They offer suggestions but recommend you experiment and find what combinations work for you.

My combination is thus: I grab my Kyanite necklace put it on, grab my Lepidolite and Malachite place them in my palms, kneel in my "altar" surrounded by differing Quartzes, raw emeralds, rubies, etc etc all placed in ways that I found through experimentation to be the most effective way for me. I clear my mind, being fully aware of what is around me, but I allow myself to draw the natural healing energies from the rocks. I believe the rocks have calmed me and helped me, my attitude has changed, my physical appearance has changed.

Have they truly helped me? The scientific community can say it is all psychological and that it worked solely because I wanted it to and I changed myself.

But, I had to work to find the right combination. I worked to find the right stones and place them in the right areas. Before I got the desired results I had to experiment and did so each time expecting "perfect results" only to find I needed to add or subtract or move something until I found the combination that attuned with my senses and psyche.

Now, to a scientist do I sound nuts? But yet, no matter how I got the desired results, I got them. Thousands of other people do also.

We like to explain away and dismiss that which we do not yet understand.

How do you explain away that which science cannot come up with answers for?

2 parachuters jump out of a plane 5,000 feet above the ground. Neither chute opens 1 plummets to his death, the other walks away with a coupld scratches maybe a broken limb or 2 but relatively ok. Science proves he should have been dead. Now what happens, when the man says he felt his God save him? How do you prove him wrong?

How do you explain away 10's of 1000's (probably far, far more than that) who yearly believe with their entire entity that they saw a ghost, talked to a dead relative, had a vision from God....etc.?

A personal experience: I have "dreams" of future events in my life. I can awaken write down my dream and then go back to sleep. 2 days later, my wife, someone I am close to have that event, that I CANNOT have control over, and I tell them I dreamed it happening and show them the slip of paper I wrote 2 days before. Say that event was being stuck exactly for an hour in traffic because of a traffic jam AND I wrote down the exact conversation we would have. (Now, yes, one could say I could control the conversation... perhaps.) I'm not the only one to have ever had this experience or who experiences it. But what's the scientific explanation?

Who's rational thought?

Man for thousands of years desired to fly but the "evidence" proved that he never would be able to. People, scientists in their day, tried hard as Hell to fly... only to fail. But, people never gave up on the idea, never allowed "science's" rational thought that stated man could never fly sway them, and eventually, we are able, within hours, to fly not only anywhere on Earth but to the moon and now it is a matter of finding the materials, money and so on to move onto Mars. 150 years ago the scientific community would have laughed at those ideas.

50 years ago the idea that we would be able to have wireless portable computers would have been laughable to the scientist. It would be near impossible. But by finding the right radio waves, working on a solution and the belief some had that it could be done, it has become reality.

If forces act on everyone equally then the second above parachuter would have died with his friend. Everyone would get cancer from smoking, everyone who gets Ebola would die. And so on.

And yet, there are those occurrences that have no logic or scientific evidence to base the result upon. BUT THEY UNDENIABLY EXIST. But because we do not have the technology, or we have lost that part contact with that part of our mind, soul, spirit, Earth connection, God connection.... whatever: it is a freak experience and just one of those scientific oddities that can be explained but "we just don't have time to explain it" or "you wouldn't understand".:rolleyes:

My point is simple, our beliefs create the reality we control in our lives. I believe that both science and the paranormal, "occult", metaphysical... whatever you desire to call it, can and do coexist and draw strength and weakness from the other. That if you believe in just one and not the other you are doing yourself a disservice. I truly believe you cannot have one without the other in a growing society.

If you rely only on "God" explanations, you open society up to be controlled by "those God put in charge". If you rely solely on a "scientific" explanation of everything you take out "the human factor" and if it is something that cannot have the results duplicated and be controlled it must not exist or be some "fluke". Sole belief in just one or the other, takes away abstract thinking, individuality, that which makes us, us.

Scientifically all kisses set about the same chemical reaction in everyone... yet, situations, psyche and so on also affect one's reaction to that kiss. You may have scientific answers for half the reaction but the other half... there is no explanation for and delve all you want, study, try hard and come up with all the theories that make you happy... the non-chemical, purely emotional, situational, psyche reaction will stay unexplainable.

I also believe that by creating an atmosphere where people can talk about their experiences and be able to work through them without being mocked without being harassed, without being told they are freaks, nuts, etc.... we as a society gain because eventually, some of what is believed "scientifically impossible" may tomorrow be "scientific fact".

Really? so witches, warlocks, and werewolves, imps, fairies, (the rest have actual whole cultures that believe in the affects and realities of) dragons, elves, trolls, healing balms made of endangered species, Indian Fakirs, and Filipino Faith Healers, are all things that are fostered by beliefs.

So one day those will be scientific fact?

Did I say they would be scientific fact one day? If I did please show me.
There is no way for me to answer this seriously, as this is more of a flame bait reply.

You totally ignore anything and everything I stated above, refused to address anything I have above and instead put forth flame material. Won't bite, Cyn.

He said some, not all.

It's not flame bait, it is a serious question,

you posted:
MAY tomorrow, implies that it may one day in fact be true. So there are whole cultures and worlds that believe trolls and elves exist, that they damage equipment and cause the inability for construction in some areas of Iceland. Roads and houses are built way from elf villages and towns. Iceland is one of the most literate countries in all of the western world, yet they believe in elves and trolls. It doesn't make them more real.

Filipino faith healers can cure disease and infirmed people. Millions believe that a faith healer can cut open human skin without so much as touching them. They can remove tumors and necrotic tissue and seal up the wound without leaving a trace. Millions believe it to be true. Does it make it more or less factual?

Indian Fakirs have practiced for centuries showing the ability to do many mystical things from fire walking to making fire appear from their fingertips. Millions of people see it and believe it. Yet there is a group of anti-fakir people showing just how non-mystical it is.

So again, you've got people countering the current evidence, and if you continue to believe what you believe, that is your prerogative. I feel the same way about certain things. But that doesn't give you a pass on someone stating they don't believe your beliefs and wish to present counter evidence.

Pan, I admire your tenacity but you're only preaching to the choir, much as I've done. Some people simply cant accept anything till a significant group of scientists tells them its alright to do so. That way they wont be stuck out on limb, labeled as 'different' or 'free thinking', they're safe inside their secure little wombs of normalcy. Its a matter of the group mentality, in which individuals don't exist, just the collective consciousness of current acceptable scientific reasoning. Its just safer that way for many. Science will advance into the future, and many of 'todays' scientific reasonings will be scoffed at, much as earlier reasonings are today. Its a predictable cyclical course, which many refuse to acknowledge.

I dont' think you understand what that means, because it means that he's talking to those who AGREE with him. It is clearly not the case. Since a few of us disagree, I don't see how we're the choir.

So wait, because some of use have looked at the evidence, don't find it fits in our own viewpoints, they are labeled as groupthink individuals? Because they disagree with the people who do believe, it's "group mentality" and not individuals who make up their own mind after seeing or examining the evidence for themselves.

If this is really what you think, then I understand where you are coming from better. I can see how you would be skeptical of the scientific process because this post evidences a complete lack of understanding of what science is, how it works, and why people might find it to be a good way of looking at the world.

In fact, 1 person (scientist or not) showing some evidence which is verifiable, repeatable, and more substantial than some anecdotes would be good for me. Following that, a reasonable, testable hypothesis about the mechanism of action would be convincing. "A group" of scientists isn't required. Just some clearly articulated ideas that are based on real, verifiable, repeatable observations.

It's not about normalcy or group think at all. In fact, one of my favorite things about science and scientists is the willingness to throw all of our previous models and assumptions out the window as soon as there is a better model or observation - no matter who comes up with those things. This happens ALL the time.

I could not disagree more, throughout history the scientists who are on the cutting edge or scoffed at, ridiculed, and defamed because their current hypothetical models, whatever they may be, don't fit the existing norm. It takes years for any of these to be accepted, no matter what the context, how the strong the arguments are or evidence in their favor. Once again, its safer to stay within current scientific thinking than go out on a limb. This propensity for humans to be accepted, stay within traditional models, be accepted by the group usually goes without saying, but I'm not surprised I hear an argument against it. What other argument do you have??? Nobody wants their clique to be threatened with a valid argument........

Quite right Cyn, my limited blue collar mentality is light years behind yours, please excuse my lapse in scientific as well as metaphoric thought.:wave:

So what? Its not a debate on if theistic thinking reduces stress or makes you feel good. Its a debate if there is a god at all. I place religion right there with astrology, only with less good coming from astrology as a whole. Some religious charities and the like do help out a lot of people and I applaud them, even if I don't think the guy nailed to the cross had anything to do with it directly.

Again, so what does that have to do with truth? If you want to dance naked at the equinox be my guest, I'm sure its a great time, but when you try to convince someone else that its a fertility rite to the earth goddess I'll be the first to tell that person I don't think so.

As a stress relief, whatever floats your boat. I do the same by playing with my 3 year old and groping the wife a bit. Of course I'll tell you its psychological and if you think healing energy is coming out of the rocks, well to each their own, but again, if you decide to attempt to 'educate' others on the healing properties of rocks I will still be the first to say 'no they don't have healing powers, please, don't be silly.' People have been hurt by these wild and false claims, trusting they are true and avoiding medical help. Then you have the people 'cured' who, guess what, would have been cured anyways, but now they credit a piece of quartz. Yea for the evolution of human thought. Might as well start to sacrifice chickens. After all if sacrificing a chicken makes you feel better, who am I to say it didn't appease your angry god.


But we do understand it, its in your head. Its you who don't wish to look at evidence and rely on mysticism.

God musta had a hard on for the dead guy. Really science doesn't prove the other guy should be dead. Science said its most likely he would be dead. Its probability. In something like that where a body is traveling at terminal velocity, how you hit, what you hit and where you hit will determine if you live or die. Some come out with a broken bone or two, others are hospitalized for months, and most are dead. This is a bad example.

Near death can always be a 'religious' experience. When I was quite young my fathers friend was killed while they were together by lightning. This didn't make my father religious, in fact it made him atheist. His reasoning is that if a good man could just die like that out of the blue, there must not be a god. At the time, despite being an atheist myself, I didn't think it was good reasoning on his part, but its the shock that gets you thinking that way.

A better example would be 2 people in a 1000 degree fire for an hour, one lives one dies. There is a problem with this example, both will always die. God apparently can save someone from a fall but not fire.

I thought I saw ghosts as a child, I used to have very vivid almost religious dreams, I had a recurring nightmare that was almost identical to the alien abduction stories (only they weren't aliens). Should I assume there are ghosts, god talks to me in dreams, and that I was abducted by aliens? Should I expect to be taken seriously if I told everyone about it? Should I be offended if they said it was just a dream, and had an over active imagination? Well they were and I did.

Your senses are only so good, they try to interpret what they don't understand. You see a shadow and it looks like a man, because your brain tries to put that together to save time. If you had to identify every face/box/letter/location as if it were they first time you ever saw anything, it would take far to long to interpret and would be anti-survival. This has been shown scientifically. But just like a street magician can get people to think he levitates or makes their wallets disappear, so can the mind be fooled.

Impossible to verify without more examination. If true I'd recommend you apply for that 1 million dollar para normal prize. They will set up the experimental design with you.

War of the worlds was written in 1898, and man had been flying for quite a long time with gliders and balloons and it was sciences rational thought which allowed them to. Most of the detractors are in the age before the age of reason. These people believed in astrology btw ;) You are comparing the type of 'science' that thought mice were spontaneously generated by laundry to real 'science' which only started to flourish on a large scale for the last 300 years. Powered flight wasn't about 'flight' we knew about flight, it was all around us, it was about making smaller engines that could power it, something that steam power just wasn't good enough for.

Attempting to compare astrology or power crystals to mans quest for flight is wrong on another level as well. To find the solution to powered flight, man didn't just give up and call it 'undoable' instead using a lot of science, combining multiple inventions, using wind tunnels and mathematics some bright bicycle makers came up with a solution.

Astrology doesn't do that. It doesn't compare, it doesn't work out which is 'good' and which is 'bad', it doesn't peer review or self regulate. You are told to 'find what works best for you' but you are left in a sea of claims with nothing to go by. When it is studied it falls on its face, it proves nothing, and shows nothing.

If they put you in a room blindfolded one with and one without crystals I guarantee you would not be able to tell which one had the crystals but you don't want to hear that.

Would these be the same type of scientists who predicted things like exponential growth in the powers of computing? While I doubt many would have been able to foresee the future, as precognition has never been proven either, using that to somehow justify that which has been never been able to show any valid proof is wrong.

I'm sorry but biology doesn't work that way. It would be far MORE remarkable if everyone died from Ebola than if some people survived. We are evolved to survive diseases as a species, some have the right locks to stop the bacterial and viral keys. The same applies to smoking or the para shooter, you are just wrong on how this works scientifically. Again everyone doesn't die from smoking, a disease, or even a para shoot jump gone bad but they do all die from an oven, or cyanide gas. One we have either evolved to survive or luck, the other will always be fatal.

But they do, seriously. There are questions in science we can't fully answer, but these are not those questions.

Society can do just fine without witch doctors thank you. I truly believe that with proper education you can have science without superstition and that is what this is all about.

Honesty I don't think you understand science. Scientifically all kisses do not set off the same chemical reaction in everyone, science does not state we are automatrons. And while I do not 'approve' of them, science can very easily figure out how to make people 'happy', and its a thriving subset of the drug industry.

I agree with this, but not for astrology or most of the new age 'stuff'. There comes a point where you say, we looked into it, we examined it, we tested the hypothesis and the theory did not hold up. This is why we live now in an age of progress after millenia of slow advances. This type of thinking is what allows us to be having this discussion via the internet, do heart transplants, fly into space, and dive into the abyss.

You confuse lack of vision with lack science not having answers. Yes I'm sure if you asked a majority of scientists in 1960 if some day there would be a computer in every home connected via a world wide network they would have said no. This was the day of flipping switches to program and computers as big as buildings. That is a vision issue, that is not being a very good 'futurist' but it has nothing to do with the science. The science kept going right along making computers smaller and faster until we got where we are today, using experimentation, inspiration, and the scientific method.

When the same methods are applied to something like astrology it falls flat, and yet we are suppose to play nice about it, allow people to 'think what they want' and spend money on it, and quite frankly be fooled by it.

No.

A well-articulated response, Ustwo. Good work, and an enjoyable read. So does this mean that you are willing to accept astrology at least on the level of its having a positive placebo effect on some?

I find astrology to be an interesting topic.

I'm certainly not going to get as bent about it as some of the people here seem to be though.

I'm a Taurus, if that means anything. I gotta say, it's somewhat "on" when it comes to me. Not just because I want to believe it, I had no interest in it until someone else pointed out how much I acted like a "typical taurus"

I dunno, perhaps there is a scientific lapse in being able to prove this.

I kind of theorize about a collective conciousness, people have the same thoughts at the same time sometimes, or feel the same emotions sometimes.

I just wonder if science missed something in gauging the complexity of life from top to bottom, saying we're made up of all these molecules, constantly being affected by solar energies, gravitational pull, chemistry in the brain, radio transmissions and all sorts of invisible things passing through our bodies.

to stick strictly to astrology, you'd have to measure the impact of your molecular make-up at birth, given your location and the time, based on the planets, and, what a lot of people just dont consider, the infinite amount of stars, which all exist, therefore have some sort of effect on SOMETHING.

I think astrology is only able to "guess" because theres not enough scientific ability to actually measure the effect of a planet or a star billions of years away causing whatever sort of butterfly effect that, if you want to be purely scientific, supposedly caused us to evolve from the ocean through some weird big bang theory.

You can't even touch astrology without touching the origin of life, and honestly, I think things are far too complex to be an accident, but I think at the same time it's hard to believe in something like the christain "god".

I wouldn't doubt that we have an origin that is completely unthought of at this point.


overall though, I still reach the conclusion that it's all inconclusive, and theres no point trying to figure it out, I don't think we were even meant to figure it out, I don't know, to me, figuring it out solves nothing. Even if I did know where I came from, I really don't see how it would help me live my life.

I rule nothing out, but I adopt nothing either.

Again, I'm not sure what you're talking about. A cursory examination of scientific history yields scores of examples of the consensus or status quo being altered based on the work of a single individual. This used to take decades, now it takes years or less - the change is due to better communication among scientists. Frankly, the fact that in such a short time a theory can become dominant is astonishing, considering the number of scientists and field of knowledge out there.

Here are a few examples:

1. Ernest Rutherford disproved the "plum pudding" theory of atomic structure with a single experiment in 1910.
   
2. In 1986, Robert Bakker published The Dinosaur Heresies, which COMPLETELY changed the way that paleontologists viewed dinosaur metabolisms.
   
3. In 1952, Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase performed experiments which proved conclusively that DNA, rather than protein, is the encoding medium for genetic information. This was in direct contradiction of the status quo.
   
4. Isaac Newton's view of the nature of light has been nearly entirely discredited by the modern understanding of quantum mechanics, despite the fact that it was a decent enough predictive model to allow him to makes some pretty serious telescopes.
   
5. Gregor Mendel's famous experiments on heritability in pea plants demolished the (then current) theory of blended inheritance, replacing it with allele genetics - nearly in the form we understand it today.

That's off the top of my head with the reply box open. I could continue to provide examples of scientific consensus changing all day, if not all week.

I don't deny that it seems that certain parts of human nature don't accept change easily - Gallileo's experience with the church is a fabulous example. However, science itself is a system which is set up to accelerate the rise of good ideas and do away with inadequate ones. The flaw here isn't with scientists, it's with people who don't subscribe to science. To say otherwise is just ignorant of history.

Yes, of course.

I think religion does as well.

There is a problem though, for a placebo to work the 'patient' must not know it is a placebo.

Placebos are used in controlled conditions, which someone who knows its a placebo monitoring. While placebos often work, they don't work on everyone, and that must be monitored by someone who can recommend 'real' treatment if its required.

This isn't done and I can't think of how it could be done for astrology. Perhaps a psychiatrist could 'prescribe' an astrology session for a patient, and then see how they do under it, but would the astrologer be in on the placebo?

Also deeper, is that belief in such ideas leaves you open to other pseduo-science and false claims. It embraces a lack of critical thinking on the part of the individual which I think is unhealthy. There are other ways to learn to deal with lifes problem beyond pretending its all in a star chart.

why the dig? I'm stating it from what I understand the idiom to mean. I'm not disparaging you in any way. Just stating that I don't think you understand what you are saying since "if someone preaches to the choir, they talking about a subject or issue with which their audience already agrees."

If that isn't what you meant, then what did you mean?

I am not going to get into a pissing match with people who have closed minds... there is nothing to gain from it except repeating myself and hearing their well rehearsed bullshit come out.

I put this along the lines of arguing with holier than thou born again Christians. Same concept, closed minds, their opinion is all that matters, they have 100's of reasons why I am wrong, yet, I never once tell them their beliefs are wrong.

Never did I say anyone's beliefs were wrong, just that one should respect others beliefs, so long as their beliefs do not affect you.

Your closed mindness doesn't bother me in the least. I am quite content and comfortable in my belief of having open mind. Doesn't mean I believe in every little thing as someone wants to say I do. I believe there is some truth in all things these people would dub as myths, fairy tales and whatever.

I do like how those who want to be so right, talk down, belittle, add whatever they like to the argument and pick and choose what they will discuss.

Having been closed minded like some here, once, I can speak from my personal experience, the reason I was close minded was I always had to be right and I always had to win arguments.... now, I just don't care I give my beliefs and what works for me and let those with closed minds walk away thinking they have won whatever it was they wanted to win.

Pity, though, I was hoping someone from a differing viewpoint would converse with me on an equal level with equal respect given so that we may have learnt from each other. But with closed minded individuals that rarely happens.

pan6467: I'm not sure where you get the idea that everyone here is approaching the subject with a closed mind. Rather, they've said - and quite reasonable - that there have been thorough studies into the validity of astrology (or lack thereof), and they'd like to see something to counter those. The source of their frustration comes from the fact no such counter-argument is being provided, yet for some reason there is continued debate.

It seems to me that you equate "respecting others beliefs" to never saying anything bad about those beliefs. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you want to believe in astrology, go ahead. No one here is proposing that it should be illegal or anything like that. If you want to discuss astrology, on the other hand, you must accept that people will bring their own beliefs into the discussion. Just because something is a personal belief doesn't give you immunity from interacting with other people. Basically, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." And, by "kitchen," I don't mean TFP - I mean interaction with the general public at large. It's no different for fundamentalist Christians: If they want to discuss their beliefs without the worry of facing any opposition, they should do it somewhere that is designed for fundamentalist Christians, but if they want to discuss their beliefs in a place where there are all sorts of people, they cannot expect to be immune from debate. TFP is a discussion forum...it seems pretty silly to say "you can start discussions on topics like astrology, but people can only participate in them if they agree." That seems to be what you're looking for.

So, since differing viewpoints are welcome here, those who disagree with astrology have not only stated their viewpoints but also provided information from reproducible studies which show that astrology lacks validity. They didn't jump up and down claiming victory after that, but rather they asked those who support astrology to provide some sort of evidence - any sort of evidence, really - that astrology is valid. Yet, simply asking for a reason to believe apparently puts some people on the defensive, which is something I'll never understand. People simply want something more than "because I feel like it works" as an explanation.

An open mind digests new evidence and alters beliefs based on that evidence. That means that an open mind would digest the evidence given against astrology and either provide contradictory evidence of equal validity (that means no anecdotes), or adopt the views supported by the new evidence. An open mind does not adopt beliefs simply because they can. Frankly, no one on the dissenting side in this thread has even been given an opportunity to be close-minded, because they haven't been given any reason to believe in astrology other than "I believe it, so you should too."

Lastly, I'm sorry but I find it laughable that you compare the dissenters here to born-again Christians. Born-again Christians often claim that their views are being disrespected simply because people dare engage in debate with them. Born-again Christians, when faced with evidence against their beliefs, often fall back on statements such as "well I believe it's true," rather than provide any sort of counter-argument. Born-again Christians accuse other people of being close-minded when they do not adopt born-again beliefs, despite being given no compelling reason to do so. These are not descriptions of the dissenters here, but rather they describe some of the debate styles being used to argue for astrology in this thread.

You claim you're interested in conversing with someone from an opposing viewpoint and to learn from one another, yet you have made no actual attempt to do so. If you were truly interested in engaging opposing viewpoints, you would have responded to the evidence provided in posts 2, 51, 88, and 103, and those are only the posts which provide outside sources! That's all not to mention compelling arguments made by actual posters. (And anecdotal evidence is not a compelling argument for anything.) You can't complain about how close-minded people are when the furthest you go in engaging their arguments is pointing out anecdotal evidence and "it works for me."

The only person supporting astrology here that I've seen make any attempt to provide counter-arguments is DaveMatrix, but there are two problems with his arguments. First, it's an incredibly large leap to go from "there may be other dimensions" to "maybe astrology has some validity." Second (and this one applies to you as well pan6467), it is a false argument to say that because past scientific observations have been corrected, we should not lend significant weight to current scientific observations. First of all, science rarely goes backwards in its understanding, which is to say that once something is fully debunked it almost always stays debunked. Second of all, two simple thought experiments show the flaw in this logic: 1) The argument will continue to be made so long as science does not say what you want it to say, but then what happens if one day it does? I don't believe you would continue not to accept it - rather, you'd point to it as validation for what you've been saying all along. 2) The only logical conclusion to be made from arguing that current scientific observations shouldn't be given weight because past observations were proven incorrect in some capacity is to say that no scientific observations should be given weight whatsoever, because the past cannot be changed and the future is always unknowable. If we actually lived life this way, we would still believe there were literally tiny little people in the head of sperm and that rain is caused by the tears of angels and thunder is the sound of them bowling. Oh wait, perhaps the angels ARE crying and bowling, just in another dimension! (See, it's pretty ridiculous.) Not knowing everything is not an excuse to act like we know nothing.

First, I stopped talking about "Astrology" in post 101 with this :

Secondly, I have no problems with honest debate, but when people start posting:

When I said no such thing, the closest I even came to saying something along those lines was:

I have issues because it no longer becomes a debate with respect of others.

When called upon to show me where he got that he took part of a sentence out of context, the whole sentence reads:

Therein lies my argument, just because you choose to believe that "there can be no "proof" to these things, doesn't mean that these things cannot exist.

Therein, lies my argument, I'm not going to label someone if they choose to believe in something I don't. The problem in society is not people believing in "the occult, witchcraft, tarot, Astrology, etc." The problem is people labeling those that believe without discussing and exploring why the person believes that way to begin with.

I stated my beliefs here:

I gave my reasoning in the very next one.... nowhere do I claim it is "scientifically rational":

I even went so far as to say this (which is the whole of my argument):
Now, while our realities may collide and touch, it doesn't mean my beliefs have to affect yours or yours have to affect mine. Nowhere was I pushing a belief and telling anyone they had to believe, I just put forth that there is nothing wrong in having an open mind and thus maybe learning from each other. And learning from each other dear friend, IMHO, is what life and evolution is all about. You can never learn from one another if you go in with closed mind.

I am open to discuss my beliefs and why and how I came to my beliefs... but I expect the ones I am talking to, to have the respect I show them and to teach me as I teach them. Not shove shit down my throat and expect me to eat it without question and bow down to their beliefs. You won't change what I believe or how, but I may learn some very interesting things and I am always open to that. Again, IMHO, life is about learning from each other... not demanding and trying to prove the "I'm right you're wrong" ego feeding bullshit.

But when one want to shove "scientific proof" down another's throat and tell them that their beliefs are wrong, then they react in a negative manner. Negativity begets negativity and it repels any positive action that can take place. (BTW that's Science in action there....like patterns and actions are drawn to each other, opposites repel each other.)

So we can get out of this thread, that scientifically there is nothing to prove that astrology, ESP, life on other planets, any paranormal, metaphysical, occult study or even a God exists, however, unlike those with small minds who rely solely on Science, I choose to believe that perhaps they do exist we just are not open enough as a society or intelligent enough as a society to understand them. Thus what we cannot explain we decide to label as impossible, old wives tale, etc etc so that we can feed the ego of MAN and ourselves.

In the end it comes down to this, one must ask themselves why they are so eager to destroy the beliefs of others, especially when those beliefs do not even affect you.

Pan, as someone who stopped posting after the first page, I like this post. This thread has evolved from a question on whether or not astrology is accepted here into a revalation of core beliefs and their bases.

Discussion of religion, which in a certain light includes both astrology and hard science, is always difficult to balance. You can see that in this thread over and over because there are two fundamentally opposed worldviews colliding here. One approaches the universe accepting only what can be observed and the other certain that the unobservable exists. We are all gradations of the extremes, but I think you've nicely summed up one of the fundamental missions of TFP with your offer to discuss the what's and why's of your beliefs.

I shall return to interested observation mode.

I like the part where he said I had a small mind :)

I'm one of those small and closed minded types using my logic and science, after all what has science ever done for us!

Because it does affect us, it affects us all. What have we gained as a society when one group wants to get evolution banned from schools and another is convincing people to get ineffective alternative 'healing' and a third is trying to get their brand new pagan religion into prisons and the army?

Its not about you. You do what you want. Its about society as a whole that the negative effects become alarming.

By not pointing out the truth as we can best determine you foster a climate where critical thinking is is almost taboo. How dare you question MY belief, it only affects me!

Well it affects everyone in a republic, a republic that requires an educated an involved public. I don't want that public believing in fairies, casting spells, or that their future comes from the stars.

Belief in Astrology and the like is a symptom of a failing education system. One thing that has become clear to me is just how little people understand about how things work, how science works, or even basic biology. There is plenty of wonder, mystery, even spirituality in what is real, we dont' need to invent a fantasy to experience the wonder that being alive is.

ok so let's see...if this continues along these lines, it seems like all we are in store for is apissing match, so how can the ground be shifted a bit harder?

way back in the posts numbered in the 70s somewhere, i wrote something about not quite understanding why the arguments in this thread were set up as they were such that for one side there is a notion of science that is roughly consistent with the contemporary understandings of the term that--letigimately--rejects astrology *as a science*--and this simply because to accept it as science requires that you also accept a geocentric universe. period.

and on the other side, there are two sets of objections: dave's position, which to mind is a misunderstanding of thomas kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions" that relies on a sequence of claims that i see as having no merit which amount to the claim that astrology may well be a science, but that only visionaries (like dave, presumably) think so---and that the "common herd" enacts its slave mentality by ridiculing these visionaries---the problem being--than as now--that the argument pivot not on the claim that astrology might be interesting for some or many reason(s), but rather that in order to BE interesting, astrology has to be accepted as a science. so dave and ustwo are arguing mirror images of the same game.

it seems to me that these positions over and undervalue "science" at once--overvalue it in that science comes to occupy the position of arbiter for determinations of interest in general, which is absurd on the face of it, and little more than an expression of an aesthetic position at a deeper level--and undervalue science insofar as it is presented as a monolithic abstraction hovering over what by this point in the thread has become a kind of tedious ritual concerning whose posts get to invoke the word.

this is a no-win situation, and it seems to me that the game is by now basically over on this argument.

and then there are the positions pan outlines, which are quite different, but which seem to be getting collpased back into davematrix's positions. maybe this is the power of context, i dunno.

so the point of this post is to see if i can help push things onto another set of grounds. pan addresses questions of belief, the loops that link up general propositions (statements about the world, about the orders of the world) to information. if i read his posts correctly, i could extend one of their dimensions into a basic challenge to ustwo's position---how exactly are you using the abstraction "science"?
when it comes down to it, and a bit of the underpinning gets revealed, the basic discipline invoked appears to be biology, but of no particular genre, as if biology is a single entity, one stream of work, one logic structuring all research--none of which is true. so when you use the term "science" to dismiss the positions of others, what exactly are you referencing?

another way: on what basis do you adopt the rhetorical position of the voice of science in your posts in this thread?

second problem: this notion of what is and is not "true" i
if you just throw the word around, no problemo. that which is not "true" is a lie so anything that is not a lie is "true"....but it aint like that. not really.
a statement that is true is formally correct. it (implicitly or explicitly) references the results of running a proof, and emerges as true if it is logically consistent with the axioms--and does not violate the rules that govern deductions--which are particular to given proofs--there are not generally agreed upon rules for deduction, there is no Big Single Proof that we have around, that we can reference and on the basis of which we can say that any proposition is "True" in an absolute sense. knowledge, like everything else, is regional.

you can have arguments about which set of axioms is preferable to another, which set of rules governing deduction (which is a procedure and nothing more--an efficient procedure, a worhtwhile procedure--but still, a procedure) are preferable to others--and that debate would devolve sooner or later onto a discussion of the persuasive power of this or that proof, which would in turn devolve onto structures of belief, procedures that enable one to guage relative interpretive power, etc. in such a debate, the relative *social value* of one set of axioms and procedures over another becomes a criterion amongst others that are involved in the play of the debate--these claims would not hover over the debate, and invoking them would not end it. because in the end, what is being debated is less the accumulated bodies of socially legitimate information about the world in themselves than the relations one adopts to these bodies of information---because you are NOT that information, you invoke it in particular contexts, in particular ways.

this is not to say that anything goes--but it is to say that there is a different and quite complex discussion that could be had at this point that is simply not happening, even though the ball is now bouncing around the court and pan has put it there.

another way: at this point in the discussion, it seems absurd to make the move that ustwo makes in number 125, which amounts to the claim that i, the subject position from which the post operates, i occupy Science and that anyone who raises questions--NOT about science, but about my claims regarding science--is stupid. you act as though the sciences are the ONLY legitimate discursive framework available--which is ridiculous--but it might explain something of your politics--not in themselves, but about your relation to politics, IF you route those committments through the same circuit of legitimation as you route your claims to be the voice of science.

this is a matter of rhetoric in posts, btw. this is a written debate and there is nothing but rhetorical postures involved with it.

let's see if this shove works.
maybe it's kinda opaque in that it invokes a separate discursive frame (philosophy) and places that frame in a position of being able to adjudicate in an argument. that itself might be a problem--but you'd have to argue that point. you cant simply assert it.

anyway, shove delivered.
the wings await me awaiting in them.

A large part of communication is being easily understood. Sometimes in ones effort to communicate this becomes obfuscated by erudite sounding phrases and terms which are unnecessary to the primary focus of the subject and end up making the messages less accessible to those unversed in the style.

On the other hand lets break this shit down and get to the meat of it. I have attempted to do just this in a lighthearted manner, and I feel qualified to do so based on past credentials which are available on request.

I have done so in 3 parts.

The second is my proposed translation.
The third is my response to that quote/translation.

Some extraneous thought was removed.
As I saw 40 people while this was being written there may well be some disjointedness.

Lets change directions.

Science rejects astrology because astrology is based on the earth as the center of the universe

Well I suppose thats a reason to question the basis of the star charts, but its not the question at hand really. I'm willing to give astrology the benefit of the doubt that it still works in a non-geocentric universe. The scientific argument has to do with its validity as any sort of predicting tool.

Dave thinks that astronomy is valid but not well understood so is mocked by those who can't understand it. He is wrongly forcing astrology into the realm of science to defend it where it doesn't belong much like Ustwo is using science to debunk it

Science shouldn't be the only factor to determine what is interesting or relevant, but it also can not be treated as a singular object to be dismissed out of hand.

I don't think anyone said that there wasn't any beauty or interesting things done with astrology. Some of the star charts are very impressive in both complexity and artistic beauty. I'm just saying it can't tell you if you are suited to be a stock broker.

There is no point in attempting to discuss astrology scientifically

[Translation note, needed further context to translate, dubious accuracy]

What is science as it applies to lifes questions?

It appears to be that the biology is being used, but biology isn't just one 'thing' but several difference disciplines. Which part of it are you using when you invoke 'science'?

Mmm I only invoked biology in response to pans flawed examples of 'unsolvable' problems. It was to illustrate his lack of understanding of biologic systems does not mean they are unanswerable.

Why do you feel you speak for science?

Because I am a scientist. Not a scientist as seen by an undereducated public as some sort of wizard, either good, neutral, or evil, but as one forged in the lecture hall, honed in the laboratories, and tested in the field. I claim to be no expert on all subjects, science as an abstract is meaningless. What I do claim to be an expert on is the method, the way one must look at a question to see if it holds up to scrutiny. The language, the format, the mistakes I know. Science isn't a discipline, its a method, and its that method which I put forth as the measure of validity to lifes questions. Questions that can not be answered by this method are not answerable by any method. Often the problem isn't the method but that we dont' really know the question to ask, but assuming that some can never be formulated that does not make the question valid. For example: "Why are there undetectable mice living in my ear? " is a question that can not be answered by this method but its still a stupid question.

Luckily for us, astrology doesn't fall into the invisible mice category. It makes predictions, predictions which can be directly tested, and it has failed. Its value as a hypothesis is reduced. This makes its a scientific question not a philosophical one, one which it fails to deliver what it claims to do. Were this a drug we wouldn't be having this debate, but because its under the new age psuedo science umbrella we people people defending it with the same methods as those who defend that a Jewish man rose from the dead.

There is no absolute truth in science or anything else, and the rules that govern the process of the truth being determined vary

Science will not give you an absolute truth, there is always wiggle room either way even with theories that held up time and time again. What I think there is, is a relativity of wrong. I'm sure that our current theory of star formation is not 'true' there are mistakes based on a lack of data. What I'm also sure of is that its far more correct than a myth of the gods throwing rice onto the sky or any number of early creation stories.

(Translators note: Luckily I have extra strength asprin on my desk)

You can debate the method of deduction you use to determine the validity of a question. This would then turn into a debate about which proof was more persuasive with in then leads to which beliefs you hold and then which method is more socially relevant. This would do nothing to determine if the original question was valid. In the end what is discussed is not the question at hand but how you relate to that question and you twist it to your own point of view

I'd rather not talk about the science aspect but the social one that pan brought up

(Translators note: Lets just talk about this one directly)

What the hell are you talking about? First off it wasn't about anything you had said, it was a direct response to why 'letting' people believe nonsense like astrology is not good for the population as a whole. You have no problem telling me how my political beliefs are wrong, yet somehow its wrong for me to point out the verifiable wrongness in astrology? If my politics are indeed directed through the same circuit as I use for my scientific inquiries then I'm quite happy with it, its far better to use logic and reason in ones politics then phases of the moon.

Lets talk about this from a philosophical standpoint so we can link the social and scientific sides.

And lets talk about the social context of angels dancing on the head of a pin too.

Did I in anyway disparage science? Did I in anyway say that science is abstract, wrong, or downplay science in anyway.... I'd like to see where I did.

The worst thing I said about science was that "science is pure impuricism and by virtue of it's method it totally excludes metaphysics." That's it.

Did I anywhere insult or degrade someone for their beliefs in science? No the worst I did was to say that those who believe in just science and refuse to discuss with respect others beliefs are closed minded.

I consider anyone, who refuses to show respect for another's belief, to be very small minded (it has nothing to do with intelligence). I feel that way about Pagans who dislike Christians, Christians who believe they are the only ones that are right, KKK members, Black Panther members and so on. To me, a closed mind/small mind has a very negative outlook and is far more dangerous than showing respect for others.

As I stated before, SCIENTIFICALLY, one of the most major "facts" is "Like energies attract, opposites repel each other." I believe, it's called the Law of attraction and is proven from the atom up.... Postive protons repel negative electrons... oops I did say neutrons first, silly me, I got ahead of myself. Neutrons are neutral, hence the name and are needed to keep balance in an atom and hold it together. Perhaps, neutrons are like open minds used to balance out the closed minds on both sides.


One of the major givens in psychology is that when you attack another's beliefs it actually reinforces their belief and makes them more apt to react negatively to outside forces. In other words, what we have going on in this country is we have been pushing God out of everything, the religious fight back because they feel threatened. Instead of finding a ground that can accept both theories, (as evolution nor creationism have been proven... both are solely BELIEF BASED aspects of man's existence), both sides are demanding all or nothing.

It stems from small closed minds who want only their beliefs deemed the best in mankind's interest. The fight has nothing to do with the truth.

Open minded individuals and people willing to show others respect, will learn both theories and decide for themselves which THEY, the individual, wishes to believe.

As for this: That statement just shows true prejudice, hatred and blows apart any argument you have of trying to have a civil, respectful discussion. That statement alone proves beyond doubt that you care not about anyone else's beliefs, yet you demand everyone accept yours. Because Paganism isn't a brand new religion, it is ANY non Abrahamic monotheistic religion or belief... you know Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, the ancient religions from Egypt, Rome, Greece, Norse, North American... and so on. Oh yeah and wait, it would also include science and atheist believers. But I digress.

We are guaranteed the right to believe how we choose to by the US Constitution... so why shouldn't "pagans" be allowed to practice in the military or have freedom to worship how they wish in prison. Been my experience that finding religion and inner happiness because of that has bettered lives. I don't think I have ever seen anyone who has found that, living an unhappier, worse life than they were before finding it.

I beg to differ, it is all about me and my beliefs, you were the one attacking my beliefs because they didn't live up to what you decided was the correct and proper way of coming to a belief.

You attacked my beliefs..... show me where I EVER attacked yours in this thread.

Again, the Law of Attraction.... if you push and push someone's beliefs and keep negatively attacking their beliefs they in turn respond negatively. You show respect of others views and open mind and you receive positive exchanges back.

But maybe that's too scientific.

Actually, I think accepting, respecting and being open to learning new philosophies, spiritualities and religions opens one's mind even farther to be more critical thinking and promotes a true positive atmosphere for critical thinking.

I find your way of.... BELIEVE MY WAY is far less conducive to critical thinking, thinking for one's self, willing to learn and be open to other ideas and new ways of doing things. In other words, I see it exactly the opposite of how you do.

Wait, if Science is the new true belief and all else is hokey fairy tales then why do you use these words? So, we don't know for FACT any of this is true, it's the
Who cares what someone else believes as long as they respect my right to believe the way I wish to and they do a job competently, pay their bills and work to better society?

Again, this adds to the prejudicial, anger, hatred that you are exuding. You are creating far more negatives than I have in this thread. But yet, your way is the only way to a better society? People shouldn't be allowed to believe anyway they desire even if they are bettering society. Well, your truth does come out now doesn't it.

BTW, who determines who's beliefs are right and wrong? After all, your beliefs are only . We as in who?

And if it is science, then that is scary as things keep evolving and disproving other things. Again, comes from man and man is fallible, has been proven to make mistakes in every "science", emotional and only knows what he can hear, see, feel or BELIEVES to be true.

Really, again your pomposity and prejudice shows and you contradict what you state to be what we should follow as our guideline for a better society.

I find the opposite to be true, those with open minds, those accepting of others beliefs and those that show respect and converse in positive ways are by far more intelligent. As for education, anyone can learn from books and in college, all they truly have to do is go to class.

So, because I believe in the things I do you want to tell me I'm uneducated, I have little understanding of science, or even basic biology... by all means start a new thread and quiz me but I get to quiz you in return. Bring it, otherwise, again this is just a prejudicial hate filled statement from you.

I so look forward to your reply. Oh yeah, I can't remember if I ever mentioned this, as I am not one to brag about my past achievements but I was selected to be in the US NAVY NUCLEAR school. Only means I had to score a 98 on the ASVAB and a 95 on the NUKE TEST. I scored higher, in fact I was in 1988 among the 5 highest scores ever on the Nuke test. So tell me again how undereducated I am in science. I ask, because I know you will not have the "time" or find another reason not to test me.... especially if I get to test you in return.

Just a friendly challenge to you.

You keep coming back to this, but the thing is... the validity of astrology, in this thread, was not positioned as a belief. It was positioned as a conviction. I took issue with this, as did several others. We said, "No, you can't do that, and here are my arguments against astrology being accepted as a predictive system."

The manner in which some of us took issue may have gotten a little heated, yes. But it shouldn't be interpreted as an attack on someone's beliefs. It was a rebuttal to a weakly founded declaration.

Like I stated earlier, I was not really into this thread and I am in no way a proponent of Astrology, but I respect those that are. To me, being true to one's faith and standing up for what you believe, even in adversity shows me more character and personal strength than most anything else could.

I came to this thread because it seemed there were attacks on people's beliefs. I saw someone simply ask what others thought. It went from someone asking a simple question to attacking people who believe in it. This was done under the "Science is all powerful and there is nothing more powerful" guise.

I opened it up to all metaphysical, supernatural, religious, etc beliefs because the same arguments are used for them all.

I added what I felt I could and needed to and from there it grew. Threads evolve.

Sorry, but you've just proven you know very little about some of the basics of science. The first is just plain wrong, and the second shows a severe misunderstanding of the scientific method and, specifically, what a scientific theory is. Just as one can't reasonably choose not to believe in the theory of gravity, it is equally unreasonable not to believe in the theory of evolution. In both cases, not believing in it (regardless of what you think when it comes to the working details) is simply wrong, plain and simple.

You can't go around claiming people fall under the same umbrella as you just because you'd like them to. You'll have a hard time finding a single Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, scientist, or atheist who is interested in being associated in any way with the term paganism. Stop trying to claim that they are pagans. You can point out the technical difference between paganism and neo-paganism all you want, but I think you're intelligent enough to know that pretty much everyone here who ever refers to "pagans" is really referring to neo-pagans. (And we've already gone over this in another thread.)

Congratulations. Though, I have to wonder how you scored that high when you apparently don't know the most basic workings of an atom that are taught in elementary school science. Either the test had more to do with procedures than science, or I'm genuinely concerned for the state of our nuclear program.

As far as the "Law of Attraction" is concerned, it is true that hostility breeds hostility. On the other hand, sometimes something is just wrong, and there are only so many ways to approach it. Debating the existence of god is entirely different from debating astrology, because one can only speak in terms of the probability that god exists. There is no way to test the question. Astrology, on the other hand, can and has been tested, and it has failed. Now, saying that something makes you feel good, but simultaneously recognizing that it has no actual basis in reality is one thing (I think that's what roachboy thinks you're arguing, but I haven't seen anything to convince me of that). I'm all for respecting that - do whatever you damn well please. But making public claims about something that can be and has been refuted is not something that will typically go unchallenged.

The argument that keeps being made regarding science amounts to "science isn't perfect, so why should we believe it?" This has already been addressed more than once, but what the hell, let's try again. I'm lazy, so I'll just plagiarize myself. Two simple thought experiments show the flaw in this logic: 1) The argument will continue to be made so long as science does not say what you want it to say, but then what happens if one day it does? I don't believe you would continue not to accept it - rather, you'd point to it as validation for what you've been saying all along. 2) The only logical conclusion to be made from arguing that current scientific observations shouldn't be given weight because past observations were proven incorrect in some capacity is to say that no scientific observations should be given weight whatsoever, because the past cannot be changed and the future is always unknowable. Not knowing everything is not an excuse to act like we know nothing.

It seems to me that you're more interested in talking at one another than talking with people. You'd like to state your beliefs, have other people state their beliefs in a way which has the least friction with your own, and then...I don't know what, because there's nothing of any benefit that can come from that sort of interaction. I'll say it again, if you're not willing to have your beliefs challenged, don't talk about them, and especially not on a public discussion forum. Not all things can mutually exist, and a discussion between open-minded individuals is one in which both sides are open to the possibility of rejecting the entirety of their previously held thoughts, based on new arguments and evidence. In the case of this thread, evidence has been provided in opposition to astrology, and there are only a few truly open-minded, "willing to learn from other people" reactions: provide counter-evidence that is at least almost equally compelling as the evidence given, or discard your old thoughts in favor of those supported by the newly provided evidence.

Of course, you say you don't even believe in astrology, so I have to wonder why you're really even bothering in this thread. Then again, you also claim that you no longer "have to win arguments" and that you now simply speak your mind and don't care whether people walk away thinking they're right. Yet, you've participated in this thread more than anyone else in the past 2 days...that doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't care whether or not they "win the argument."

Unless you're being true to and standing up for what has been shown to be true (or at least more true than anything else we know) through science?

So evolution has been PROVEN to be right? We have found the missing link? There is incontrovertible proof that we evolved from Primordial soup and through many differing species each one growing farther along. There's proof of that? If not, then I think I know exactly what I was talking about.

I'm not talking about how we have evolved since, developing antibodies within ourselves to fight bacteria or how we have evolved intelligently and creatively throughout time growing as a species.

No, that is pretty much fact, now was it physical environmental or sociological environmental factors, is the question. I would argue IF solely physical then you have a better argument for Evolution. IF solely sociological, based on the fact up until the "age of enlightenment" religion was the predominant factor in ALL societies, then it was religion that evolved man. However, I believe it was a combination of both and thus stating it was directly a result of one or the other is IMHO only recognizing the factors YOU wish to. Thus, since no one truly knows or will ever be able to prove, we'll never know the truth.

Gravity is fact.

The point I replied to was how schools are being dictated to teach either Evolution theory (man evolved) or the theory of creationism. BOTH ARE THEORY, neither CAN BE PROVEN.

OK, doesn't change the fact that Neo-Pagans or Wiccans or any group has the right to be disparaged and have their religion belittled or not represented. The whole argument there was about freedom of worshipping how you want. I don't agree with special needs for each religion, the Constitution doesn't guarantee that.... but it does guarantee the right to worship and as long as it hurts no one.... who are you to say "no".

Really? You are more than welcome to take the USTwo challenge and give me a test if you so desire and are so sure I am not all that intelligent. Just remember, I'll give you a test also.

Feel free to open the thread, we'll hash out how, a neutral party and see.

Again, to me this has become far more about being open minded and respectful of others beliefs than Astrology.

I see people making claims all day... 0 down, 0 payments for a year 0 interest for 5 years....... comes to mind. I choose to ignore claims like that, I may tell a friend who buys into it to read the fine print, but overall, I don't see any reason to fight it, argue against it and give it my time. I have more pressing things.

I could argue why all the protestations and carrying on over something you think is phony?

Do you really think you're helping anyone by belittling people, mocking their faiths and beliefs?

Why are you so against having an intelligent, respectful discussion with each side giving their pros and cons and then letting others decide?

Psychologically, people do this for one of 2 basic reasons: they desire to put themselves above the other side either for ego, intellectual or in some cases social gains.... or they do so because they themselves are that insecure in their own beliefs they have to try to make others insecure in theirs.

No did you truly read what I wrote? I think you need to reread what I wrote.
I have answered posts directed at me, yes.

I don't really follow astrology, not my bag, but I will take a stand for someone's right to believe it. And as I stated:I don't have to win arguments. But I will respond to people talking to me, quoting me and trying to condemn me. I will also call out people who are trying to belittle another's beliefs.


Again, where did I once belittle science in anyway? I said there were small minded people on BOTH sides who refuse to acknowledge that their are beliefs different than theirs and instead of belittling them, why not try to discuss, educate and respect each other's views?

In the end it's a microcosm of what society deals with. I am simply showing how tempers flare negativity begat further negativity, name calling, talking down to, trying to elevate self over others happens simply because people refuse to accept another's right to believe in what they want and to treat that person and belief with respect.

I wonder how much safer and how far this world would truly advance if everyone just talked to one another with respect.

In a case like this thread it all would have been over if Wheel had gotten her answer and the debunkers stated their side and let the people reading decide what to believe for themselves. Instead of belittling, degrading and basically treating anyone who supported it in anyway with disrespect and as though they were charlatans, fakes, frauds or stupid.

In the end, it's a statement on TFP in general. When I came in ging on 4 years ago, discussions like this were welcomed and people weren't attacked for their beliefs. People conversed and showed respect for each other... teaching and learning from each other. (Except Politics that has always been a war zone... but I think that's part of the fun in there.)

Now we see a thread like this where a simple, innocent question from someone who was interested in a subject enough to ask members what they thought turned into a warzone, disrespecting others beliefs, attacking others intelligences and just negative.

Not sure I like this place anymore.... used to be fun, now everyone wants blood. Not exactly sure that's what I want in a message board, at least non-political messages (except sports... always have to talk smack in sports... that's the fun part.)

I think perhaps you read into peoples' intentions and statements. As I said before, some people objected to the claim that astrology was a defensible predictive system, and they offered up scientific explanations for why they felt that way. Again, astrology was not positioned as a belief, therefore there were no beliefs to attack. There was some anecdotal evidence, but nothing testable or anything repeatable.

Respectfully, you do not appear to have a full understanding of evolutionary science. Australopithecus afarensis has been put forward as a transitional fossil.

If you want incontrovertible proof, however, you're not going to find it in science. You're not going to find it anywhere, since it only exists as an abstract concept. Fortunately, we have evidence -- commonly misunderstood as "proof" -- of certain things. And the origin of Man in a pool of primordial soup is one of them. Is it ignoble to have such humble beginnings... or is it beautiful and amazing that we have gone from there to here? I vote the latter.

The nice thing about this reply is that I don't even need to waste time addressing the stuff with evolution, all because of one little sentence: "gravity is fact." Scientifically, gravity is a theory. Have you seen gravity? You've seen its effects, but have you seen gravity? Gravitons? They're theorized, but they've never been seen. Perhaps it's a force...but we can't see forces. Which is the reason electromagnetism is also classified as a theory. A scientific theory is not the same as a hypothesis, which is what you seem to think it means. A hypothesis is, essentially, an educated idea of how something works. A theory, on the other hand, is one step before observed fact (of which there are few). Wikipedia sums this one up pretty well (emphasis mine): "A theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory." (And, yes, this means that "string theory" is a misnomer because, scientifically, it is not really a theory but closer to a hypothesis.) Point is, you've only confirmed that you don't understand how the scientific method works. This isn't bad - a lot of people don't understand the difference between a theory in scientific terms and a theory in laymen's terms - but it makes a difference if you're going to be making arguments about what science does and does not know, especially if your entire opinion is based on the fact it's called the "theory of evolution." That homo sapiens is the result of evolution, branched off of a common ancestor with other great apes, is as much an understood fact as the existence of gravity. And, just like we don't know exactly how gravity works - is it a force or is it a particle? - we don't have an exact understanding of how evolution works. That said, the whole "missing link" thing is completely irrelevant. Evolution works far too gradually for there to be any such thing. Again, Wikipedia explains this misconception fairly well and concisely (thank god science nerds tend to be geeks too! :lol:).

Irrelevant. No one here has made any claims that you shouldn't be allowed to have your rock altar or anything like that. Discussing your beliefs on an internet forum isn't worshipping, and you should have no expectation of not having to interact with people who disagree with you or being asked to defend your beliefs.

It's too easy to just look up now, but you already answered just one question which shows that however knowledgeable you may have been in the past regarding science, you've clearly forgotten some of the fundamentals. That question: do protons repel neutrons? Your answer, of course, was that they do. They do not, and as I pointed out that's a very basic element of scientific understanding. In fact, I can't remember exactly, but I think I learned it around 5th grade. Hell, the answer is even in their names. Now, again, a lot of people don't remember things like that, but it makes a difference when you're trying to claim an understanding of what science does and does not know, and how strong the claims it makes are. And not only did you get that question wrong, you went on to claim above average knowledge in nuclear matters, which only makes your error even more significant.

Why are we going through this again. People have provided cons. They're looking for people to provide pros. But, unless I'm reading this wrong, you are looking for exactly what I thought you're looking for: basically, for people to compile a list of opinions in this thread and then let some imaginary "other" reader make a decision based on those opinions. I hate to break it to you, but the purpose of a discussion forum is to have discussions with the people who are participating here, not some imaginary other reader who we're trying to convince and put on a debate show for. Discussion forums aren't debate panels with audiences, where each side is vying to win the audience's loyalty.

Honestly, I find myself participating in threads like these because ignorance bothers me, and I don't mean that in the sense of feeling superior. What I mean is that the human race has advanced so much over the past 100 years, and will advance so much more over the next 100. We've put people on the moon, we've sent robots to Mars, we've taken pictures of the farthest reaches of our galaxy. We've learned to split the atom and, literally, harness the power of the sun. We've created a world wide web which allows us to connect with almost anyone from around the world in mere seconds. We've learned about some of the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, and continue to learn more. We've figured out, generally speaking, how we slowly came into being as humans from the basic life that originated on this planet. Yet...there are still people who believe that a 4 leaf clover, or a penny from their birth year, or special underwear will bring them luck. There are still people, especially in America (when compared to other developed and sometimes not-so-developed countries), who lack a sufficient understanding of science and its relationship to the world around them in order to understand that just because a book they find special in their lives says the universe was created in 6 days, that doesn't make it true. These things sadden me. I see the amazing potential of humanity, and then I'm reminded of just how much further we could be if we didn't have to waste time still trying to convince otherwise intelligent people that dinosaurs and humans did not live at the same time. I imagine how much more advancement we could make if those otherwise intelligent people could redirect the energy they currently spend on their biblical literalism, or superstition, and instead put it towards any of the other things going on right now that will lead to the next significant development. Frankly, I think I'm over-optimistic regarding other people much of the time. I come here, and make long posts, and repeat the same things over and over (I don't know how many times I've bothered to point out the "theory" issue on this site), because, somewhere in my head, I feel like eventually people will "get it." I know from experience that this is almost never true. Yet, I still try, because like someone in a bad relationship I come back and think..."maybe this time something will sink in." I, frankly, probably give people too much credit to expect that they will see evidence, digest it, and either provide counter-evidence or change their mind accordingly. I should know by now that anyone who thinks in that manner already doesn't believe these things in most cases. Anyway, my point is that I come into these threads and I post because I care about the direction in which humanity is moving, not out of any need to feel superior. If I wanted to feel superior on this site, I'm in a pretty good position to do so without spending so much time and energy in a thread like this, but that's not why I'm here. I defer to Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality."


In principle, I agree with you. But all "beliefs" are not created equal. Someone can believe in anything, but it doesn't change the reality of the world we live in. Like Ustwo said, believing in things which evidence exists against "embraces a lack of critical thinking on the part of the individual which I think is unhealthy. There are other ways to learn to deal with life's problems."

Again with "the people reading." Who are these people, if not the participants in this thread? What is the purpose of a discussion forum if not to interact with the people doing the discussing. I don't care about the lurkers who are reading right now. I care about the people who are actively participating. They're the ones I'm interacting with. If I wanted to proselytize to lurkers, I'd go and create a blog.

Having been here since just about the beginning, I can confidently say that the general user attitude toward superstitious topics hasn't changed. The only difference is that now there's a whole forum for people to make threads on such things, and therefore many more threads for the average TFP user to come in and debunk ;)

We're all ignorant about something. Some people are incapable of getting a date. Others stay in abusive relationships. Still others believe that stars alter their personality. Pointing out that ignorance isn't an attack when an effort is made to fill it with valid information, and for the most part I've seen that done here. People have provided links to studies and various other things. That's far different from "you're stupid!"

You're right, I acted in passion and wrote before thinking.

You win.... I bow down to you're feet and pray to your God now...... You win. You defeated all I said because I lost it and let emotions control instead of thought.

Now, um besides me looking like a fool what was accomplished? Did you really debunk anything? In all honesty didn't change my beliefs.... made me lose control and I find TFP not user friendly any longer... in fact.... the numbers as they keep falling kinda prove that.

The attitudes of staff, the way people are now bullied on the boards.... you win. Not sure what....maybe more people leaving but...you win.

One final edit...... your last posts, showed the arrogance of not wanting to debunk anything, but to destroy someone who disagreed with you.

I allowed it to happen. You proved my point, it wasn't about debunking anything, it was about destroying those who disagree with you.

Now, ask yourself..... how many members will see this exchange and realize that TFP is not a friendly atmosphere anymore, that it has become a blood letting and take no prisoners attitude..... even from the mods and admins.

I allowed emotion to become involved on my part, you chose to go from debunking to making sure the person disagreeing with you was buried.

In the end.... TFP loses, because I see this exchange as basically turning a lot of people, even those who may have originally agreed with you, away.

But you won.

i have no fish to fry in this, as the saying goes---the extent that i am interested in astrology begins and ends with (a) its function as a historical artefact and (b) a vague curiousity about natal charts, which are in some accurate, though the claims generated tend to be vague enough that you can easily argue that they seem accurate because situationally you want them to seem so.

what i was interested in was seeing if there was a way to move this curious trainwreck of a thread away from its present standing as a ritual in which people simply talk past each other.

aside:

as for my style of writing--well, ustwo, like you i am a product of my training and interests---and my training and interests happen to be in philosophy and history---part of that training is familiarity with a kind of abstract shorthand for staging arguments--which i alternate between using here and trying to stay away from because it doesnt fit well within these little limiting boxes --but i dont think it's up to you to determine what is or is not affected, what is or is not "erudite-sounding"--you might consider the possibility that this is simply how i write. the fact that you do not have a parallel familiarity with the shorthand means only that you do not have a parallel familitarity witht he shorthand--you should consider not projecting your lack of familiarity with it back onto some suspicion that this is all some pretense--any more than i treat your biology background as a pretense.
i dont write as i do with any particular idea in mind about putting you or anyone else in a position that requires them to defend themselves by way of projections.
it's how i write.
i hope that is clear enough.

philo and the harder science have a kind of antagonistic relation at times because the former claims that it can questions the semantic and logical underpinnings of the latter's claims. same thing with the philosophy of mathematics. problem is that more often than not, the result is an undermining of the claims at the level of form. from there, the real problem becomes one of disciplinary competence. it doesnt have to be like this--it is not productive for folk in either field, but it is.

as for this thread--i confess that i have no idea what is really happening here any more--it seems like mostly a theater where what is actually being performed is not the arguments, but something else, which is playing out across the arguments. and it seems like the dynamic is that folk who attack astrology--often to my mind justifiably--operate in one register, with one set of assumptions about what is at hand, and those who defend astrology operate with an entirely different set of assumptions about what is at hand. it isnt even really about astrology at this point.
i dont know what is about.
most strange.

Pay attention here, kids. 'Cause it ain't all that often that you're gonna see me agree with roachboy, with the tenacity that I now do. I find myself in virtual 100% agreement with his assesment of this thread.

I agree too, but Pan had already stated that the exact same arguments have been posted in countless other threads. I find it odd that so many of the admin sect decided to refute any and all comers.... and was very surprised at their responses. I found many condescending and immature, blatant flame bait, the good ole "if you do or don't believe in so & so, you're just wrong, period". Instead of discussing the topic, they resort to personal attacks on individual posters. Not that there were many who dared challenge the authority base, either most people agreed with the TFP majority, weren't interested in an endless circular argument, or didn't have the balls to post, if they did disagree.

Is this indicative of the eclectic mix of people on TFP???

I'm taking umbrage to one spot here....

Where are there personal attacks? Because they aren't allowed...

Disagreeing and refuting positions are not personal attacks. That's all that I see in this thread.

I'm sure you wont see these as personal attacks, although I do....

When an admin states that anyone who doesn't believe in a "theory" is "wrong, plain & simple", and that Pan has a severe misunderstanding of scientific method is making a very personal attack. But it gets better.......

Another personal attack....IMO. This post alludes that Pans knowledge of science is less than that of an elementary school student.....thats personal.

I don't think I'll continue to dig up all the personal attacks in this thread. That would take all day & fill up pages. I already know what will be said about this anyway.......

This thread has actually restored some of my faith in the TFP. An impartial observer/lurker who takes the time to read the entire thread should appreciate the time and civilized manner that most the responses required.

jazz...you posted on the second page...:P

secondly...i know no one really cares, but i'd just like to re-emphasize that i meant absolutely nothing by starting this thread in the paranoia section. i guess philosophy would have been ok, but there's no paranormal section, so i figured here was a somewhat relevant place...and besides, it doesn't have much going on...moving along...

there's no need to say that other posters are closed minded simply because they don't believe the same things you do. if you refuse to see the validity of the scientific arguments, you're not being any more open minded, really...and yes, arguing a subject like this is just as bad as arguing religion - cause it's faith based. it's not scientific, although there are certain patterns that may be observed or systems that may be employed when using it...at most, it's a pseudoscience. as the experiments that ustwo posted prove, when tested, it fails. period.

however, as shauk posted...people have accused him of acting like a "typical taurus". don't wanna get too personal, but lemme guess: stubborn, standoffish, maybe even a little self-centered? of course those are the negative things, and those are usually what people bother to point out...

i have noticed that certain elements of astrology apply to myself as well. i don't think it's because they're so general or vague because, as onesnowyowl said earlier, charts aren't vague. they are much more specific than predictive astrology and the highly generalized sun sign astrology. of course, they are full of contradictions, but aren't people too?

i just don't understand how something that is so nonsensical (let's face it: the alignment of planets when you're born and NOT conceived, for whatever reason...actually influences your personality? ridiculous) can be eerily accurate, to the point when people actually recognize patterns in the way others behave.

This thread may have started about astrology but it quickly turned into one about Respect, Plain & Simple, at least for me. Most members will probably agree that they don't think planets and stars can influence their lives, but will also agree that they find it somewhat interesting. If for no other reason than to have a little fun & break up the monotony of this board. The same topics are endlessly repeated, the same opinions are expressed over & over, and there seems to be very few original thoughts anymore. Its all been said a thousand times before. So having a little fun, getting my chart done maybe, then seeing how well that actually matched my view of myself, would have been very interesting. But theres no fuckin way thats gonna happen now, is there??? Since the best astrologer on the board will no longer post.

Nothing fun & interesting now, just an endless war of words. And it didn't have to be that way.......sad & pathetic.

IMO, it has nothing to do with who or where this thread was started. The exact same thing has happened in countless threads. I'm not even sure why there is a paranoia section, it serves no purpose on this board. The same thing that happened in this thread, almost always happens to every other topic started in this section. Might as well be the 'skeptics board' w/porn.

i'm sad that lady sage left too. she's probably full of info.

I agree with the post above that the discussion of astrology specifically seemed to derail quite a few posts ago. I that it is a waste of time to apply scientific ways of knowing to a domain like astrology, a domain that does not use the same standards of evidence. It may have been interesting to look at astrology from more of a humanities standpoint, but that never happened (and I don't know enough about the topic to start a discussion).

I do know a bit about what a scientist means when they refer to a theory. Lay people often think of theories as guesses or speculation. Wikipedia has a reasonable definition. When scientists refer to a theory, they typically are referring to
So, theory for a scientist is different from theory for a layperson.

It is equally a waste of time to apply scientific ways of knowing to a concept like creationism, a concept that does not use the same standards of evidence as science. To put evolution by natural selection and creationism on the same scientific level is absurd. Again, it might be interesting to examine creation stories from a humanities or cultural perspective, but scientifically, it is a waste of time.

An aside: I think that the scientific responses to astrology have been restrained. Regarding possible personal attacks, when you make an argument from authority, you shouldn't be surprised when someone questions your authority.

I didn't see a lack of respect. The OP was general enough to allow scientific discussions of the merits of astrology. Several people seemed to make claims about the predictive validity of astrology. If you are going to make such claims, you shouldn't be surprised when people are skeptical. I still think that it is possible to examine astrology in a "fun" way. A new thread, with an explicit topic might make that easier.

I have to disagree.

Unlike the typical untestable questions like 'Is there a God' astrology produces results that can be measured.

The fact that astrologers don't use the same standards of evidence as do scientists is irrelevant.

Astrology can be examined scientifically and it fails miserably.

There is a reason whey they have to add the 'For entertainment purposes only' tag.

It wouldn't matter how specific the topic was, members are still free to post wherever, whenever, & in whatever manner they so desire. Some members just get off on provoking others into an emotional response. This may stem from environmental conditioning, a generally mean & cynical disposition, or a very small penis, who the fuck knows??? :)

Oh, the irony. :)


I think for the most part, the discussion has been rational. It's too bad it got as emotional as it did. I really hope it can be put back on track, because I've been reading this thread closely. It has been enjoyable so far.

Oh I know its your writing style, trust me. I have constantly tested in the 99+% for reading comprehension on several major standardized exams (ACT, GRE, MCat, DAT, Norton Anthology) starting when I was 12, and I normally need to reread your posts a few times to try to make heads or tails of it, unless you are mad in which case you tend to be very clear ;)

I frequently need to change my language in biology postings in order to suite a more general audience and achieve clear communication. I think were you to do the same, you would still be able to convey your thoughts while at the same time reaching a larger audience.

If members would discuss the topic instead of other posters, it would always remain rational. An emotional response seems to be what everybody wanted anyway, from the responses I read. When members are attacked personally they tend to get emotional & defend themselves. Thats to be expected.:)

I agree with you. The scientific validity of astrology can be evaluated (and has been found lacking). For me, arguing with proponents of astrology regarding this is still a waste of time.

I think it would be akin to arguing with proponents of alchemy and/or homunculi.

I think it depends. Yes it can be a waste of time but many people have really never been exposed the cold readings and the like. These people can be educated on the subject and not fall victim to it.

And discussing anything with logic & science fanatics is akin to arguing over how thin to slice a loaf of bread. Thats how much sense all this scientific over-analysis makes. :)

And how exactly can one fall victim, when no money is charged & the reading is simply done for fun??? Or did you miss that part in LadySages post way back when??? I suppose you're merely concerned with the welfare of all those poor people who may fall victim to the horrible astrological charlatans of the world.....what a laugh riot.:)

This is your friendly warning.

Lets get this thread back on track... the original OP was "Just wondering how astrology is generally received here on TFP, so what are your thoughts about it?".

It was NOT about how you feel about the people who have different thoughts about astrology than you, and one person being more right than the other.

Focus on the words, not the face.