Split Thread General astrology discussion with Astro Teacher

[Foster Zygote]

You ought to read more. You also would be very surprised just how many scientists not only place stock in astrology, but practice it themselves.

I'd love to read more about this. Please cite some evidence of the number of modern scientists who utilize astrology.

I'd also love to read about the invention of agriculture by astrologers as well as any actual historical evidence that Abraham invented the Chaldean alphabet. Your statement implies that such evidence is there to be read. I'm sure it will be quite simple for you to point me in the right direction.

 

[Kuko 4000]

How can you believe anything of conventional science these days? First coffee was bad for you, then good for you, then bad, then good. Chocolate was bad for you, then good, then bad, and so on.

Astro Teacher, consider this:

New York Times reports "Homeopathic medicine is not effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

The next day the same newspaper reports "Homeopathic medicine is effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

How would you proceed if you wanted to know which of the results is closer to the truth?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I sure would be. Name a couple.

A couple wouldn't surprise me. I can think of a couple who believe in alien abductions. I can think of a few who think that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I want to see some evidence that a considerable percentage of scientists practice astrology or consider it even remotely valid as a method of predicting human characteristics.

 

[Neally]

Let's get this straight Neally - there has never been ONE TEST of astrology that has proven anything conclusively - certainly not against it, and only mildly for it from some studies of researchers. Got That?

Calling a person a "liar" because you disagree does not constitute a valid argument.

And claiming that no study of astrology has disproven it does not make it so. Numerous controlled tests have been done and cited here. Your claiming that they are not accurate is not a valid argument. You seem to be torn between two opinions. First you say that they are not "true" astrologers, calling them "junk", then you defend them calling the tests faulty and spurious.

There is no way to confirm or deny the proof of evidence for, or against natal astrology. It cannot be done. Most astrologers who agreed to the protocol did so in tests that were faulty with results that are at best spurious, that continued debates into this time.

But see those other astrologers that were tested and failed did not practice your particular brand of astrology, and there is no debate in science as to the validity of astrology. Many controlled tests were done. Astrology failed. Conclusively.

If astrology was disproved - in the REAL world - then we would not even be talking about this right now.

Not a valid argument supporting the practice. People still practice homeopathy, a practice conclusively proven to be no more effective than placebo. All paranormal claims tested under controlled conditions by JREF have failed, yet people still widely believe in them.

 

[Astro Teacher]

Astro Teacher, consider this:

New York Times reports "Homeopathic medicine is not effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

The next day the same newspaper reports "Homeopathic medicine is effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

How would you proceed if you wanted to know which of the results is closer to the truth?

Exactly. How to proceed? Think for yourself. Until this bull stops people will tend not to believe anything from conventional science they hear simply because it will change the very next day. Science should not be driven by economics and self-interest, but it is, and that is one of the reasons why the world is screwed. It's going to get much worse before it gets better I'm afraid to say.

 

[Madalch]

I have a question.

I read your description of having caught a thief in the other thread- you could tell what this person was up to from their chart, and how they related to the client.

Now, if you can figure out how two people are interrelated (by theft, in this case) from their birth data, would you be able to tell me, given my birth information and that of three of the women I dated, which one married me? I could also give you the birth place and time of my children if that helps.

 

[Astro Teacher]

I have a question.

I read your description of having caught a thief in the other thread- you could tell what this person was up to from their chart, and how they related to the client.

Now, if you can figure out how two people are interrelated (by theft, in this case) from their birth data, would you be able to tell me, given my birth information and that of three of the women I dated, which one married me? I could also give you the birth place and time of my children if that helps.

Possibly. I've done it before.

 

[Astro Teacher]

And claiming that no study of astrology has disproven it does not make it so. Numerous controlled tests have been done and cited here. Your claiming that they are not accurate is not a valid argument. You seem to be torn between two opinions. First you say that they are not "true" astrologers, calling them "junk", then you defend them calling the tests faulty and spurious.
But see those other astrologers that were tested and failed did not practice your particular brand of astrology, and there is no debate in science as to the validity of astrology. Many controlled tests were done. Astrology failed. Conclusively.

Not a valid argument supporting the practice. People still practice homeopathy, a practice conclusively proven to be no more effective than placebo. All paranormal claims tested under controlled conditions by JREF have failed, yet people still widely believe in them.

And what does that tell you? Even if you are able to "test" such paranormal matters under controlled conditions, those conditions themselves usually interfere with the paranormal occurrences.

It's like putting an exposed live TV camera on a person - do you think most people do not react to such conditions and not change their behaviors from what they normally would do? Most people do. Therefore, it is the "controlled condition" that will usually yield negative results. Therefore, take the "test clown" out of the room and see what happens. Test when it is over, not during, not before.

If JREF really wants to observe these conditions, act normally, and do not attempt to "control" anything. There's plenty of paranormal events that have been filmed in "uncontrolled conditions" that yielded results. JREF ought to try that.

If you are to test - first see what is there and do not interfere or you will get no results. Then, test the results afterward to see if it really happened without trying to "explain" anything, that is the intellectualize forcing of things that most ego-centric skeptics do and they totally mess things up.

It's like being in love - you know it when it happens to you, silently, but say that you are in love enough times out loud under "controlled conditions" and you start to wonder and doubt if you really are in love.

 

[Kuko 4000]

How can you believe anything of conventional science these days? First coffee was bad for you, then good for you, then bad, then good. Chocolate was bad for you, then good, then bad, and so on.

Astro Teacher, consider this:

New York Times reports "Homeopathic medicine is not effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

The next day the same newspaper reports "Homeopathic medicine is effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

How would you proceed if you wanted to know which of the results is closer to the truth?

Exactly. How to proceed? Think for yourself. Until this bull stops people will tend not to believe anything from conventional science they hear simply because it will change the very next day. Science should not be driven by economics and self-interest, but it is, and that is one of the reasons why the world is screwed. It's going to get much worse before it gets better I'm afraid to say.

There are a number of ways to apporach this problem. I would first look at the original papers and see whether there are any obvious problems with either of the studies. If you look closer at the studies in this area you tend to find that the ones in favour of homeopathy are poorly designed, meaning that they do not stand the criteria of good science. A study like this is not scientifically rigorous if it's not, for example, blinded correctly. And, if it's not blinded correctly, the results are worth nothing.

In the light of what you have written previously about commenting on things one has no deep knowledge about, I found this answer very interesting. Nevertheless, welcome to the forums Astro Teacher, may your stay be constructive, interesting and educational.

 

[Nonpareil]

And what does that tell you? Even if you are able to "test" such paranormal matters under controlled conditions, those conditions themselves usually interfere with the paranormal occurrences.

It's like putting an exposed live TV camera on a person - do you think most people do not react to such conditions and not change their behaviors from what they normally would do? Most people do. Therefore, it is the "controlled condition" that will usually yield negative results. Therefore, take the "test clown" out of the room and see what happens. Test when it is over, not during, not before.

If JREF really wants to observe these conditions, act normally, and do not attempt to "control" anything. There's plenty of paranormal events that have been filmed in "uncontrolled conditions" that yielded results. JREF ought to try that.

If you are to test - first see what is there and do not interfere or you will get no results. Then, test the results afterward to see if it really happened without trying to "explain" anything, that is the intellectualize forcing of things that most ego-centric skeptics do and they totally mess things up.

It's like being in love - you know it when it happens to you, silently, but say that you are in love enough times out loud under "controlled conditions" and you start to wonder and doubt if you really are in love.

You obviously don't understand science in the slightest. Come back when you do.

 

[Astro Teacher]

There are a number of ways to apporach this problem. I would first look at the original papers and see whether there are any obvious problems with either of the studies. If you look closer at the studies in this area you tend to find that the ones in favour of homeopathy are poorly designed, meaning that they do not stand the criteria of good science. A study like this is not scientifically rigorous if it's not, for example, blinded correctly. And, if it's not blinded correctly, the results are worth nothing.

In the light of what you have written previously about commenting on things one has no deep knowledge about, I found this answer very interesting. Nevertheless, welcome to the forums Astro Teacher, may your stay be constructive, interesting and educational.

Thanks for the welcome Kuko. I agree with your thoughts on poorly designed protocols, most are doomed from the start mainly because of human interference through ego, jealousy, competition, self-interest, careerists, biases, personal issues, etc., etc.

It makes a mess of true exploration that yield discoveries. Until people quit with the ego-antics they will learn very little about the secrets of the universe, mainly because of hubris, which only the foolish partake of to suit their own sensibilities.

These are some of the same people yelling "scientific method, proof, evidence, science, yada yada yada," but would not know such things if it was presented to them on a silver platter.

Get rid of the hubris, get rid of the bias, get rid of the predetermined thoughts and opinions, open one's eyes, one's mind and use more than 10% of one's brain power, and guess what: the universe opens up and some decent headway can be made in critical thinking, and yes, even some real science, can now begin.

 

[Nonpareil]

Get rid of the hubris, get rid of the bias, get rid of the predetermined thoughts and opinions, open one's eyes, one's mind and use more than 10% of one's brain power, and guess what: the universe opens up and some decent headway can be made in critical thinking, and yes, even some real science, can now begin.

 

[Madalch]

Possibly. I've done it before.

Well, I'll have to leave it for someone else, since I've mentioned my wife's birthplace on this forum before.

But if I could get real birthdates and places from a friend (or an anonymous member of this forum via PM), shall we try?

 

[Madalch]

Possibly. I've done it before.

Or, a slightly different test-

I could provide the dates and birthplace of my mother and her siblings.
I could provide the dates and bithplace of my father and his siblings.

Given my birthdate and place, could you pick out which were my parents?

 

[Pixel42]

Chemistry was invented by astrologers. Agriculture was founded and developed by astrologers. The Chaldean alphabet was invented by an astrologer (Abraham.) Electricity was discovered by an astrologer (Ben Franklin.) The heliocentric solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Copernicus.) The planetary laws of the solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Kepler.) The telescope was invented by an astrologer (Galileo) and the practice of medicine was invented by an astrologer (Hippocrates, who said, "A physician without a knowledge of Astrology has no right to call himself a physician.".

Like others here I very much doubt most of those named were astrologers, but I'd prefer to address the underlying assumption.

Knowledge is cumulative. Every generation discovers and understands a little more about the world than the previous one, hands what they've learned on to their descendants who build on it and discover and understand a little more and hand that on ... There have been dark times when knowledge has been lost, or even deliberately suppressed, but the general trend over the last several thousand years has been for knowledge and understanding to grow whilst ignorance and superstition decrease. As a result you and I have available to us a veritable mountain of knowledge and understanding. Much of it was not available to previous generations, not even the great scientists of previous generations, but all of it is available to us. Isn't that wonderful?

The people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat, the earth went round the sun, the stars were points of light on a crystal sphere and the planets were gods. They didn't believe these things because they were stupid - they weren't stupid, they were the brightest minds of their generation - they believed them because they were ignorant. If all you know about the world is what you can personally see and hear then astrology seems perfectly reasonable, and the people who invented it had every excuse for believing it. But you and I have no such excuse. You and I know what the stars and planets really are, we know the laws of nature which really determine how the world unfolds, we know how and why our pattern-seeking brains evolved and how easily our perceptions can consequently be fooled, etc etc. Or at least we can know all that, if we choose to use google or pop along to our local library to find out.

Now I happen to believe that our hard-won store of knowledge and understanding is civilisation's greatest achievement. Humanity's greatest achievement. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who deliberately turns their back on it and actually chooses to waste their time faffing about in the last remaining dregs of ignorance and superstition is essentially spitting in the eye of every single one of their own ancestors who has ever contributed a smidgen of knowledge or understanding to that store. They are pissing on humanity's greatest achievement. That upsets me, it is to me what I imagine blasphemy is to a devout religious believer. When I see something like the cargo cult science - the calculation of 'transits', the pseudoscientific gibberish about magnetic resonances, the sheer inexcusable ignorance of basic physics - with which you try to justify claims to 'know' things for which there is not a shred of evidence I just want to sit down and weep.

ETA: Oh god. I just found this in the moderated thread, posted by Astro Teacher:

Most people use about 10-percent or less of their total brain function.

Of all the urban myths, this is the one that puzzles me the most. Do 90% of the people who suffer strokes or serious brain injury just carry on regardless? You only need to think about it for a few seconds to realise that this cannot possible be true. It beggars belief that anyone could post such a statement and still expect to taken seriously.

For the record: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Or, a slightly different test-

I could provide the dates and birthplace of my mother and her siblings.
I could provide the dates and bithplace of my father and his siblings.

Given my birthdate and place, could you pick out which were my parents?

There is another thread for developing a test for Astro Teacher. You might like to post this idea there:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158144

ETA: I've quoted it over there myself.

 

[SusanB-M1]

#95 Pixel42

Loud applause from the sidelines here! I really enjoyed reading that post.

 

[Nonpareil]

Like others here I very much doubt most of those named were astrologers, but I'd prefer to address the underlying assumption.

Knowledge is cumulative. Every generation discovers and understands a little more about the world than the previous one, hands what they've learned on to their descendants who build on it and discover and understand a little more and hand that on ... There have been dark times when knowledge has been lost, or even deliberately suppressed, but the general trend over the last several thousand years has been for knowledge and understanding to grow whilst ignorance and superstition decrease. As a result you and I have available to us a veritable mountain of knowledge and understanding. Much of it was not available to previous generations, not even the great scientists of previous generations, but all of it is available to us. Isn't that wonderful?

The people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat, the earth went round the sun, the stars were points of light on a crystal sphere and the planets were gods. They didn't believe these things because they were stupid - they weren't stupid, they were the brightest minds of their generation - they believed them because they were ignorant. If all you know about the world is what you can personally see and hear then astrology seems perfectly reasonable, and the people who invented it had every excuse for believing it. But you and I have no such excuse. You and I know what the stars and planets really are, we know the laws of nature which really determine how the world unfolds, we know how and why our pattern-seeking brains evolved and how easily our perceptions can consequently be fooled, etc etc. Or at least we can know all that, if we choose to use google or pop along to our local library to find out.

Now I happen to believe that our hard-won store of knowledge and understanding is civilisation's greatest achievement. Humanity's greatest achievement. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who deliberately turns their back on it and actually chooses to waste their time faffing about in the last remaining dregs of ignorance and superstition is essentially spitting in the eye of every single one of their own ancestors who has ever contributed a smidgen of knowledge or understanding to that store. They are pissing on humanity's greatest achievement. That upsets me, it is to me what I imagine blasphemy is to a devout religious believer. When I see something like the cargo cult science - the calculation of 'transits', the pseudoscientific gibberish about magnetic resonances, the sheer inexcusable ignorance of basic physics - with which you try to justify claims to 'know' things for which there is not a shred of evidence I just want to sit down and weep.

ETA: Oh god. I just found this in the moderated thread, posted by Astro Teacher:



Of all the urban myths, this is the one that puzzles me the most. Do 90% of the people who suffer strokes or serious brain injury just carry on regardless? You only need to think about it for a few seconds to realise that this cannot possible be true. It beggars belief that anyone could post such a statement and still expect to taken seriously.

For the record: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

Nominated.

ETA: Well, the first bit. Not the Snopes bit.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Of all the urban myths, this is the one that puzzles me the most. Do 90% of the people who suffer strokes or serious brain injury just carry on regardless? You only need to think about it for a few seconds to realise that this cannot possible be true. It beggars belief that anyone could post such a statement and still expect to taken seriously...

Maybe he meant "Most people who believe in astrology..."

 

[Astro Teacher]

Like others here I very much doubt most of those named were astrologers, but I'd prefer to address the underlying assumption.

Knowledge is cumulative. Every generation discovers and understands a little more about the world than the previous one, hands what they've learned on to their descendants who build on it and discover and understand a little more and hand that on ... There have been dark times when knowledge has been lost, or even deliberately suppressed, but the general trend over the last several thousand years has been for knowledge and understanding to grow whilst ignorance and superstition decrease. As a result you and I have available to us a veritable mountain of knowledge and understanding. Much of it was not available to previous generations, not even the great scientists of previous generations, but all of it is available to us. Isn't that wonderful?

The people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat, the earth went round the sun, the stars were points of light on a crystal sphere and the planets were gods. They didn't believe these things because they were stupid - they weren't stupid, they were the brightest minds of their generation - they believed them because they were ignorant. If all you know about the world is what you can personally see and hear then astrology seems perfectly reasonable, and the people who invented it had every excuse for believing it. But you and I have no such excuse. You and I know what the stars and planets really are, we know the laws of nature which really determine how the world unfolds, we know how and why our pattern-seeking brains evolved and how easily our perceptions can consequently be fooled, etc etc. Or at least we can know all that, if we choose to use google or pop along to our local library to find out.

Now I happen to believe that our hard-won store of knowledge and understanding is civilisation's greatest achievement. Humanity's greatest achievement. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who deliberately turns their back on it and actually chooses to waste their time faffing about in the last remaining dregs of ignorance and superstition is essentially spitting in the eye of every single one of their own ancestors who has ever contributed a smidgen of knowledge or understanding to that store. They are pissing on humanity's greatest achievement. That upsets me, it is to me what I imagine blasphemy is to a devout religious believer. When I see something like the cargo cult science - the calculation of 'transits', the pseudoscientific gibberish about magnetic resonances, the sheer inexcusable ignorance of basic physics - with which you try to justify claims to 'know' things for which there is not a shred of evidence I just want to sit down and weep.

ETA: Oh god. I just found this in the moderated thread, posted by Astro Teacher:



Of all the urban myths, this is the one that puzzles me the most. Do 90% of the people who suffer strokes or serious brain injury just carry on regardless? You only need to think about it for a few seconds to realise that this cannot possible be true. It beggars belief that anyone could post such a statement and still expect to taken seriously.

For the record: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

What "beggers belief" Pixel42 is that you would actually state that the "people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat." Are you serious? How is that possible for astrologers who work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies that are always in motion? Please.

I strongly advise you to do much more serious reading of the subject of Astrology because your comments above show that you are unable to debate this topic based on your lack of knowledge of this serious topic.

You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Study and when you do so - leave your opinions at home while you think about how you are going to "pop along to our local library to find out."

I suggest you do just that.