Split Thread General astrology discussion with Astro Teacher

[skip]

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. .

Isn’t this what the TAPS team does on TV?

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. .

If I put a monkey in a room along with a typewriter , leave the room unattended and then return at some undetermined time. If something is typed on the paper I should accept that the monkey typed it.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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?

... do you have a citation for your assertion that the originators of astrology believed the earth to be a spherical body in motion? This is also entirely inconsistent with my understanding of the ancient history of the art.

 

[Nonpareil]

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.

...This discussion has officially moved into the realm of the ludicrous.
Astro Teacher, yes, ancient astrologers and astronomers - which you appear not to know the difference between - DID believe that the Earth was flat. Believing that the Earth is flat rather than round does not make it impossible to measure the movements of stars. You can still draw lines on a piece of paper so that the lines follow the path of the stars.

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.

I strongly advise YOU to go do some basic reading on electromagnetism, physics and air, since you appear to be under the impression that sound can travel through a vacuum.

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.

Ironic, since you apparently haven't. Your beliefs are one huge mess of preconceived notions - you have admitted this yourself.

 

[Fiona]

To see this you would have to have open eyes first. You cannot see what is there blinded, and there are many who are so blinded by their own preconceptions that they cannot see - and do not want to. Who wants to test under those conditions?

People will believe whatever they want to believe. It will always be that way until things change, and when that change comes - and it is coming I can assure you - it will be much too late to say "give me a 89,289th chance to get it right."

You cannot "test" natal astrology, not with the current tools of conventional science. You can see correlations in people's lives, from past observations, but there is no way to replicate this in a lab. Period.

You cannot force a square into a round hole, no matter how much you want to try to do so. Some people can't see this because they do not want to.

They have their problems, they don't "believe" in this, they don't "believe" in that, and so on. When the hammer falls on someone else's finger it doesn't look so bad. When it falls on your finger, it's worse than bad. Why even waste your time? What is good for the goose is not for the gander and so on with human beings. Why even bother?

I don't see how this is an answer to my post.

 

[Pixel42]

What "beggers belief" is that you would actually state that the "people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat." Are your serious?

Yes.

How is this possible with astrologers who work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies?

Because the people who invented astrology - by which I mean the people who first came up with the notion that people and events on earth are influenced by the existence and movement of heavenly bodies - did not "work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies". That came later. Much later.

I strongly advise you to do much more serious reading of the subject of Astrology

Whilst I strongly advise you to do some serious reading on almost anything except astrology - starting with, most urgently, the scientific method. Then perhaps you will stop making appalingly ignorant statements like the one about us only using 10% of our brains, let alone all the other pseudoscientific drivel you've posted.

 

[Fiona]

Actually I do not think it is at all certain that astrology was invented by people who thought the earth was flat. But it hardly matters for the thrust of Pixel42's post.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Any chance of getting those citations I asked for in post #81?

 

[Pixel42]

Actually I do not think it is at all certain that astrology was invented by people who thought the earth was flat. But it hardly matters for the thrust of Pixel42's post.

Well quite. It's interesting that Astro Teacher chose to pick out that unimportant detail from my post and ignore the substance of it, isn't it?

 

[Nonpareil]

Well quite. It's interesting that Astro Teacher chose to pick out that unimportant detail from my post and ignore the substance of it, isn't it?

It's a common tactic when confronted with information that they can't refute. 9/11-investigator does the same thing over in the current Holocaust thread. Rramjet is doing the same thing in "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence". King of the Americas did it, before he disappeared. SnidelyW used to do it, but I think that we're getting through to him.
The point is that Astro Teacher is under no circumstances ever going to respond to that part of your post, because he/she knows that doing so would completely obliterate his/her position.

 

[Astro Teacher]

Well quite. It's interesting that Astro Teacher chose to pick out that unimportant detail from my post and ignore the substance of it, isn't it?

Because it is a very important detail, or, you would not have wrote it Pixel. The substance of your comments in that post are entirely opinion, but not fact, and these are important differences especially on this subject.

Your comments show a lack of knowledge of this subject, it's history, and its basic language, which you should have in order to debate Astrology, do you not agree? What is so difficult about learning more about serious astrology before engaging into a debate with one knowledgeable about the subject?

What is so hard about reading some serious materials to learn more so that you will be able to sound intelligent on this topic?

Or, is it much easier for you to sit behind your computer and opinionate to death while wasting valuable learning time to actually be able to form your arguments with knowledge of the subject you have chosen to debate?

 

[Astro Teacher]

Yes.


Because the people who invented astrology - by which I mean the people who first came up with the notion that people and events on earth are influenced by the existence and movement of heavenly bodies - did not "work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies". That came later. Much later.


Whilst I strongly advise you to do some serious reading on almost anything except astrology - starting with, most urgently, the scientific method. Then perhaps you will stop making appalingly ignorant statements like the one about us only using 10% of our brains, let alone all the other pseudoscientific drivel you've posted.

Such as the pseudo-skeptic comments you've written? I don't find you serious at all considering that you clearly haven't studied this subject, of which you are ignorant, from the content of your own words. One can be a skeptic and be informed on the topic of debate. I do not find that you are one of them. Period. Until you change that Pixel, you should serious review the "drivel" that you have submitted on this subject.

Still, no trip to the library, huh? A shame, England has such wonderful libraries. You should take a long tour of them.

See - http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt

 

[Olowkow]

AT: I'm curious where you got the notion that we only use 10% of our brains, a claim you posted in another thread. Can you back this up with any sources?

ETA: this myth has been persistent, but that does not make it true
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

I predict that Mr. Teacher will never get around to doing an actual test on this forum. He is just seeking attention.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Because it is a very important detail, or, you would not have wrote it Pixel. The substance of your comments in that post are entirely opinion, but not fact, and these are important differences especially on this subject.

Your comments show a lack of knowledge of this subject, it's history, and its basic language, which you should have in order to debate Astrology, do you not agree? What is so difficult about learning more about serious astrology before engaging into a debate with one knowledgeable about the subject?

What is so hard about reading some serious materials to learn more so that you will be able to sound intelligent on this topic?

Or, is it much easier for you to sit behind your computer and opinionate to death while wasting valuable learning time to actually be able to form your arguments with knowledge of the subject you have chosen to debate?

How about your claim regarding the number of scientists who practice astrology? Are you going to back up that claim with some evidence?

 

[Astro Teacher]

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.

Hi, I missed your post Foster, the home of Astrology and Agriculture came from Mesopotamia, this region that includes the country we know today as Iraq.

"Modern civilisation began in Iraq. The Iraqis invented agriculture. They invented astronomy and astrology. The entire astrological system still in use today in every Daily Newspaper was invented in Iraq over five thousand years ago. They discovered the planets, they mapped the stars. They invented the 24 hour day, the sixty minute hour and the sixty second minute. In a very real sense we still live within Iraqi time. They invented the seven day week. They invented mathematics and writing. The earliest known work of literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh, written in cuneiform script on clay tablets in about 2750 BC in the land of Sumeria, in a region of modern Iraq , talks about a place called Uruk, of which Gilgamesh is the King."

See - http://perun.users.sbb.co.yu/articles_astrology_types.htm

Book, Scientific Proof Of Astrology - http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Proof-Astrology-Music-Planets/dp/0572029063

Abraham - http://zaqen.info/hislangu.htm

http://www.yogaofabraham.com/the-yoga-of-abraham/the-22-letter-alphabet.html

Also - http://books.google.com/books?id=RG...m invented alphabet and as astrologer&f=false

 

[Pixel42]

Because it is a very important detail, or, you would not have wrote it Pixel.

Nonsense. It's a trivial detail. Whether or not that particular detail is true - and I think it most likely is, I'm talking about the origins of an idea that goes back thousands of years to the dawn of conscious thought - makes no difference to the point I was making.

The substance of your comments in that post are entirely opinion, but not fact, and these are important differences especially on this subject.

I was stating my opinions, yes, and my reasons for holding them. Unlike you I do have reasons for my opinions that I can clearly articulate.

Your comments show a lack of knowledge of this subject, it's history, and its basic language, which you should have in order to debate Astrology, do you not agree?

No. All it's necessary to know in order to debate the validity of astrology are the claims astrologers make for it, and the evidence they offer to support those claims. That evidence can then be examined by anyone familiar with the scientific method to see if it does indeed support the claims. None of the evidence I have examined (and I have examined a lot over the years, though you yourself have yet to offer any) stands up to the most casual scrutiny.

The minutia of how calculations are made, the history of how those ways of doing the calculations were arrived at and the explanations of how astrology may or may not work are irrelevant until it has been established that it does work. Until you, or any other astrologer, have established that I will not waste my time reading more about the supposed workings of something for which there is no evidence, and which is no more credible than creationism, homeopathy or Santa Claus. If there were people who spent their time writing serious books which attempted to explain how Santa's reindeers fly, or how by using quantum tunnelling he can visit every child in the world, should I have to spend time reading them before I'm allowed to ask whether they have any evidence that Santa Claus actually exists?

What is so hard about reading some serious materials to learn more so that you will be able to sound intelligent on this topic?

Or, is it much easier for you to sit behind your computer and opinionate to death while wasting valuable learning time to actually be able to form your arguments with knowledge of the subject you have chosen to debate?

Once again, right back at you.

 

[Astro Teacher]

Nonsense. It's a trivial detail. Whether or not that particular detail is true - and I think it most likely is, I'm talking about the origins of an idea that goes back thousands of years to the dawn of conscious thought - makes no difference to the point I was making.



I was stating my opinions, yes, and my reasons for holding them. Unlike you I do have reasons for my opinions that I can clearly articulate.



No. All it's necessary to know in order to debate the validity of astrology are the claims astrologers make for it, and the evidence they offer to support those claims. That evidence can then be examined by anyone familiar with the scientific method to see if it does indeed support the claims. None of the evidence I have examined (and I have examined a lot over the years, though you yourself have yet to offer any) stands up to the most casual scrutiny.

The minutia of how calculations are made, the history of how those ways of doing the calculations were arrived at and the explanations of how astrology may or may not work are irrelevant until it has been established that it does work. Until you, or any other astrologer, have established that I will not waste my time reading more about the supposed workings of something for which there is no evidence, and which is no more credible than creationism, homeopathy or Santa Claus. If there were people who spent their time writing serious books which attempted to explain how Santa's reindeers fly, or how by using quantum tunnelling he can visit every child in the world, should I have to spend time reading them before I'm allowed to ask whether they have any evidence that Santa Claus actually exists?


Once again, right back at you.

Pixel, you say that it's a "trivial detail" whether the Earth is flat or round? Then you mix in creationism, homeopathy, and Santa Claus using quantum tunneling?

Okay... try backing away from the fumes Pixel... back away and get yourself some fresh air.

 

[Fiona]

Well quite. It's interesting that Astro Teacher chose to pick out that unimportant detail from my post and ignore the substance of it, isn't it?

Indeed.

Let us look at what has happened so far in this thread:

1. Neally cites several tests which were designed, with astrologists, to determine if they can do what they say they can do. No evidence in support of their claims was found. Notice the burden of proof is with the astrologers.

AT dismisses these and insists one must prove a negative: the burden of proof is shifted.


2. JoeTheJuggler points out some of the more obvious flaws such as retro-fitting and information leakage

AT says astrology does not work like this. It seems that the purpose is to identify "auspicious" times for doing things: anything else is junk. She likens true astrology to a "weather report": although the information given must be of practical help we are not to consider it in terms of being right or wrong, for that is misguided. Thus there is no possibility of getting a claim out of a true astrologer: much less testing it. We rely on the report of those who are given advice: but all failures are attributed to their not following the advice: Heads I win: tails you lose

3.Curiously AT then gives an example of a very specific prediction based on her astrology: it turned out to be true. Many people took that to mean that specifics could in fact be derived, but that is at odds with earlier statements.

And this is the problem: the whole nature of the claim shifts in the course of the thread. What seems to me to happen is that AT is very careful at first to ensure that her claims are inherently untestable: unfortunately that makes them a lot less saleable. Specifics are much more impressive, and it seems he or she cannot resist them.

At refuses to answer any of the questions about the implications of these specific outcomes for testing: instead we get blather about "blindness" and an assertion that there is no point in trying as it would be a waste of time. We have seen this kind of evasion before too.

It may be that her reading said: "it is going to be pouring on x date and so you should stay home": but the particular analogy sadly makes it sound more impressive than it is. In fact it is a prediction that " this would be a good day to do something about the loss of your keys": so arranging to have the locks changed would be a hit: staying in and catching a thief would be a hit. In short a burglary or no burglary would be a hit. And the only determinant of a hit is the view of the person who interprets what the astrologer says. And those who say they were not helped are lying, apparently.

4. AT claims that there is no such thing as consensus on any question. This is not true, as Foster Zygote and others point out. He or she then repeats that it is necessary to prove a negative; and throws in the notion that we are not competent to speak on the subject unless we have made a study of it: it does not appear to occur to her or him that it is perfectly reasonable to ask an expert serious questions: and perfectly reasonable to expect to get comprehensible answers. We all spoke common before we spoke jargon.

Many on this board who are experts in various fields manage to convey why current thinking is as it is. But this is not possible for this busy professional. Generally I find that experts know they are experts and they are prepared to explain what they know to lay people. I am not very trusting of those who say this cannot be done: and less trusting of those who engage with lay people voluntarily and then refuse to try to communicate. We have seen this before.

5. Although AT demands that others study, he or she does make quite specific scientific claims:and when these are rebutted he or she does not do what she recommends. Neither does he or she support those claims with evidence, even when they relate to the material world.

6. As well as dismissing anything scientific as irrelevant to astrology's claim there is also a sustained attempt to say that science has no more validity than any vague and untestable claim. All belief is of equal status: which sits rather oddly with AT's use of the cliche, " you are not entitled to your own facts".

7. Numerous appeals to authority. It is interesting to note that AT tries to co-opt great figures from the past. It is true that Newton studied alchemy: he had no way to know it was a dead end. But his lasting contribution did not come from alchemy. And this is true of all the examples given which are not wholly speculative

8. And then the focus on small details rather than the substance of a post. We have, as PA notes, seen that before too.

This is all very familiar. I wonder what AT thinks of bee dancing

 

[Madalch]

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.

That's actually where I posted it first, but the moderator decided it fit better here.

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel, you say that it's a "trivial detail" whether the Earth is flat or round?

No, I said that whether or not the people who first came up with the idea that the stars and planets affect our daily lives believed that the earth was flat was a trivial detail. The point I was making, of which there is no doubt, is that they had no idea what the stars and planets actually were, so they had an excuse - which you and I don't have - to believe they affected their daily lives. Do at least try to follow the argument.

Then you mix in creationism, homeopathy, and Santa Claus using quantum tunneling?

Yes, as examples of ideas that have as much credibility and evidence to support them as astrology does, i.e. none whatever. Disagree? Then make a case, and offer some evidence to support it.

 

[Astro Teacher]

No, I said that whether or not the people who first came up with the idea that the stars and planets affect our daily lives believed that the earth was flat was a trivial detail. The point I was making, of which there is no doubt, is that they had no idea what the stars and planets actually were, so they had an excuse - which you and I don't have - to believe they affected their daily lives. Do at least try to follow the argument.


Yes, as examples of ideas that have as much credibility and evidence to support them as astrology does, i.e. none whatever. Disagree? Then make a case, and offer some evidence to support it.

Yes, mainly because I do not enjoy, nor agree with you mixing in such silliness like you have in your posts above, i.e., flat earth, Santa Claus, (and his reindeers quantum jumping?) creationism, etc., etc. What does any of that junk have to do with the topic at hand?

This is what I mean about lack of knowledge of Astrology. You are saying that the ancients did not know that there were stars and planets? What they were? As opposed to what - perhaps Santa Claus and reindeer? Make my case? Why don't you get outside more and then visit your excellent libraries and while you are at it take out some decent books on the subject?

Winter is coming on, and by next year, you might have at least a general idea of this topic enough to participate in a intelligent debate? Is that even possible for you to do?

Until that time, please, spare me from your flat earths-creationism-Santa Claus-and reindeer-quantum-jumping and all the rest of that total crap. What are you smoking?

Don't waste my time with such posts Pixel. Just unbelievable. Is this the kind of "critical thinking" to be found on JREF?