There is never enough evidence for what you don't believe in. What is evidence?

[paximperium]

Enough with the strawmen please. I clearly referred to paranormal phenomena relating specifically to various types of 'disembodied entities'.

So ALL "disembodied entities"(God's, ghost, happy jujuman, spirits, kami, etc etc etc.) are now one thing? Thanks for contraining your moving goalpost to the size of a continent.

BTW Whoever told you that putting your hands on your hips, poking out your tongue and saying So? So? So? was a constructive addition to a discussion, that person lied.

Please stop projecting your inadequcies onto others. Making useless claims without ANY point but sideway insinuations deserves such respect and such questions.

You haven't answered those questions yet. So? What was the point you were making or were you just assuming it somehow made sense?

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

So what is?

Personality orientation. Philosophical orientation. Strength and weakness in particular areas. Basic mood and concerns at particular times. Relationship compatability between two people probably.

What you are requiring is that we demonstrate psychic/magical powers and tell you stuff which is beyond the scope of what 'the stars' can possibly tell us.

 

[Malkuth]

I was making some observations on the simple nature of what passes for astrology these days. The modern idea of 'star signs' is a very small part of what was once astrology, which used to contain the entire body of what is now called astronomy.

I wasn't really attempting to advance any specific point, just commenting on the topic in general from the point of view of a person who has actually studied some of the history of the subject in question. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, just an interested reader on many topics, ancient forms of divination being one of many.

ETA: Translation to make that simple to understand. I know some of how it started, how it developed, where it came from, and how it's been plundered and bastardized in recent centuries to make it a vague, shadowy, fluffy mockery of it's former self.

 

[Ashles]

If they agreed with eachother than there would be evidence for you claim Astrology hasn't progressed. That it has remained unchanged.

So the fact that astrologers cannot agree with each other is a positive?

So what is the point in giving readings if no two astrologers can agree?

Why would I give readings to a bunch of people who would reject everything I say practically on principle even if it was 100% accurate?

You could try doing this independently.
Ah, but that would involve using scientific methods which apparently you reject.

Hmm, doesn't seem like there is any way for you to demonstrate such an ability if you reject the only method we have of demonstrating things with any level of confidence.

Cars, Planes, Computers, Ex-Rays, Internet and Electricity. Really you do look think asking such questions.

Cars, planes, computers, Internet are not 'phenomena'. They are applications of scientific knowledge.
If you are going to redefine 'phenomena' as 'technological inventions'

Ex-Rays

Haaang on...
No way someone accidentally spells it 'Ex-Rays' or thinks electricity is new.

I officially call troll

 

[paximperium]

Personality orientation. Philosophical orientation. Strength and weakness in particular areas. Basic mood and concerns at particular times. Relationship compatability between two people probably.

So basic pop psychology...what's unique or even special about that?

What you are requiring is that we demonstrate psychic/magical powers and tell you stuff which is beyond the scope of what 'the stars' can possibly tell us.

Give the EXACT limits and powers YOU are claiming the stars can tell you.

What information do you need to perform you reading?

 

[paximperium]

I was making some observations on the simple nature of what passes for astrology these days. The modern idea of 'star signs' is a very small part of what was once astrology, which used to contain the entire body of what is now called astronomy.

I agree. Astronomy left the nonsense centuries ago.
However nowadays astrology is a mess composed of those who read using the sun, the planets, the stars etc. Some use one, some use all three and no one can agree on anything at all.

I wasn't really attempting to advance any specific point, just commenting on the topic in general from the point of view of a person who has actually studied some of the history of the subject in question. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject, just an interested reader on many topics, ancient forms of divination being one of many.

Much better. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Malkuth]

I agree. Astronomy left the nonsense centuries ago.
However nowadays astrology is a mess composed of those who read using the sun, the planets, the stars etc. Some use one, some use all three and no one can agree on anything at all.
Much better. Thanks for the clarification.

Not a problem.

 

[Aepervius]

I officially call troll

Who cares ? This is "officially" a welcome change from big foot threads .

But yeah, I agree with the analyze. It is quite obvious that the post was rigged to trigger stark reaction, which he/she gots.

OTOH we might be bored so we would have bitten anyway.

 

[plumjam]

Archaeology: coming up with an idea about where a population came from or went to. go there. find evidence they were there. dig more, find more evidence. Replicability.

paleontology: come up with an idea about what lived where and evolved into what. go there. find evidence they were there and evolved into something else. look at DNA of living relatives, re-evaluate, go dig more. Replicability.

paleobiology: find a fossil with a particular set of characteristics in a particular type of sedimentary rock. come up with an idea about how it lived. go to similar environments at similar time frames, find more. Replicability.

astronomy: come up with an idea of what is moving where, how old it is, what it's composed of. have other measure, then remeasure. Replicability.

So...what's the problem?

The problem is that you are using replicability in such a very wide sense that it renders ghost-hunting into an area of research which can justifiably claim to be a replicable form of investigation; thus you are arguing on the side of the OP.
So, following your rubric above -
Ghost-hunting: come up with a hypothesis that a particular kind of ghost appears in a particular place. Go there, do your own investigations. Interview witnesses. Gather more and more evidence for this ghost.
Replicability

I think you misunderstand the meaning of replication in this regard. With the exception of History (I can't imagine why this would be considered a natural science) independent replication is the routine method of validation.

An example from astronomy is that an astronomer reports that he has seen an asteroid, but it is not accepted unless he has photographed it so others can independently verify the authenticity of the claim. Even better is if others can locate and capture an image from their independent telescopes.

What you're talking about is 'running experiments' - not all natural sciences rely on experiments. Some are more dependent on observations. But the observations need independent replication to be accepted as anythnig more than anecdotes.

See above. Now you must agree that ghost-hunting is 'replicable'.

One of the differences, however, is that with the exception of very expensive equipment, all scientific findings can at least in principle be replicated by independent parties. There may be budgetary restrictions or limitations of interest or will, but there is a uniform claim that the phenomena can be replicated, or if not precisely replicated, there is a prediction about how it will be different. (eg: imagine the asteroid again - you may be able to say that the asteroid is no longer visible, but will be available for new observations when it comes around the sun in 400 days)

Whereas, psi models respond to the challenge that the phenomena seem to be totally unpredictable and impossible to replicate on demand. The explanation of intelligent agency seems to take priority over the explanation of coincidence.

Not really. The great majority of 'hard' scientific experiments could not be run except by a small number of people on the planet who have some combination of innate talent coupled with years of training in how to perform the experiments to a decent standard.
Exactly the same would apply to those performing psi experiments. It's also true that better results will be attained in psi experiments when the subjects of those experiments have a similar combination of talent and training.

I suspect plumjam is rather deliberately misunderstanding (one would sincerely hope so) in order to start a pointless argument (his favourite pastime).

That's right, have someone else argue for you.

 

[Ashles]

Oh My God.

Maybe Slayer is not a troll! (That's a scary thought)

http://www.bobmarksastrologer.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=96279&sid=e31ce92aa8d9ac2b639361f30f92f715

 

[Ashles]

That's right, have someone else argue for you.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

So the fact that astrologers cannot agree with each other is a positive?

So what is the point in giving readings if no two astrologers can agree?

So we can advance Astrology by working out which reading was more accurate. You know Science.

Haaang on...
No way someone accidentally spells it 'Ex-Rays' or thinks electricity is new.

I officially call troll

Your funny you know that. Simply because you knew exactly what I meant.

So basic pop psychology...what's unique or even special about that?

That it appears to actually work in my experiance perhaps. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Play it safe. Stick to what you have observed before about phenonoma. Take too many risks and you will get burnt.

Give the EXACT limits and powers YOU are claiming the stars can tell you.

What information do you need to perform you reading?

I would need to know the following.

The exact birth time and location.
The gender.
The present location.

The limits are as following I believe.

It cannot tell you what gender the person you are dealing with.
It cannot tell you anything extreme about the moral character of the person (like whether they are a murderer).
It cannot tell you what anyone else but that person is going to do, even if this directly affects the person in question, unless you perhaps had access to the other persons chart.
It cannot tell you anything that is beyond your own intelligence to deduce from the meaning of the Astrology itself.
It cannot tell you about inherited diseases obviously.
It cannot tell you what sort of family background, culture or religion they are born into.
It cannot tell you about about anything else that is completely beyond the persons control.

What it can tell you is the following.

It can tell you a persons basic motivations in life.
It can tell you a persons basic philosophical and intellectual biases.
It can tell you how they relate to other people.
It can tell you how at a particular date they are liable to behave, what they will likely be doing and what will be on their minds.
It can tell you what a person will choose to do as a job, if they have the freedom given other circumstances (not always the case).
It can 'probably' tell you what times a person will be prone to aquired illness maybe going as far as to the nature of the illness. However in the abscence of any particularly good period, it would not necceserily be the case that they would immediately recover just because the bad period was over.

 

[plumjam]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

The rest of us are discussing the topic. It would seem that the people arguing with me, one of whom you used in order to hide behind, don't see it as a pointless argument. So, so far you're outnumbered.
Now, back to the topic at hand.

 

[Ashles]

The rest of us are discussing the topic. It would seem that the people arguing with me, one of whom you used in order to hide behind, don't see it as a pointless argument. So, so far you're outnumbered.
Now, back to the topic at hand.

 

[paximperium]

I would need to know the following.

The exact birth time and location.
The gender.
The present location.

May 17th 1982; approx 1120pm
Assunta Medical Center, Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
Male.
Blackburn, England.

What it can tell you is the following.

It can tell you a persons basic motivations in life.
It can tell you a persons basic philosophical and intellectual biases.
It can tell you how they relate to other people.
It can tell you how at a particular date they are liable to behave, what they will likely be doing and what will be on their minds.
It can tell you what a person will choose to do as a job, if they have the freedom given other circumstances (not always the case).

Knock us out with your powers.

It can 'probably' tell you what times a person will be prone to aquired illness maybe going as far as to the nature of the illness. However in the abscence of any particularly good period, it would not necceserily be the case that they would immediately recover just because the bad period was over.

How about right now?

 

[Ashles]

So we can advance Astrology by working out which reading was more accurate. You know Science.

Clearly you don't.

If we didn't know which of several drugs actually had an effect on a particular ailment we wouldn't simply let companies roll them out to everyone and tell everyone they were all equally effective.

We would run controlled tests first and when the results were collated roll out the one that had the desired effect after also analysing other side-effects.

Do you see why this is completely differen- no you don't do you.

 

[themusicteacher]

pax, you beat me to it. I was going to give my info and see what he came up with. Of course, once he missed, he's probably claim that astrology can't be exact, I'm lying, etc or give such general answers that they could apply to anyone (a la a cold read).

I'm still waiting for slayer to accept the Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

 

[paximperium]

pax, you beat me to it. I was going to give my info and see what he came up with. Of course, once he missed, he's probably claim that astrology can't be exact, I'm lying, etc or give such general answers that they could apply to anyone (a la a cold read).

I'm still waiting for slayer to accept the Randi Million Dollar Challenge.

More interesting point. Is this person me? How is this person related to me? Brother? Cousin? Brother in law? College buddy? Gay lover? Is this person gay?

 

[pchams]

Am I to understand from (Oblivion game player) CliffRacerSlayer that static electricity didn't exist, and was never observed by people 2000 years ago?
How about mechanical machines/devices? Did they exist 2000 years ago?
Levers? Medicine?
I think many civilisations have built upon the knowledge that came before.
We now have amazing technologies and knowledge of medicine built upon this base.

Why is it that astrology hasn't grown, hasn't advanced in any useful way as the other technologies have?
It certainly has had the chance. Maybe you should blame the catholic church, or Canada.

 

[thaiboxerken]

The more I analyse the basic thinking process of so-called Skeptics here and elsewhere the more I am convinced that the principle driving pretty much all of them is this.

There is never enough evidence for what you don't believe in

Ahh, another mantra of the true believer. Such a statement has no bearing in reality. I don't believe in evolution, but I accept it as a factual occurance because of the evidence. In fact, as a skeptical person, i try not to believe in anything and just let the evidence help draw me to conclusions. Why don't you give it a try instead of letting your beliefs interpret reality for you?