Astrology Readings.

[L The Detective]

Correct. It only works if you give us something to work with. Do you think we pulled all our ideas out of thin air? What you call Cold Reading is what we call Research.

But that's not "astrology." That's not getting information about people from the stars, that's getting information directly from people. In other words, by "cold reading," you are cutting the stars out of the equation.

In order for astrology to work and be meaningful, you have to be able to use it by itself to say something meaningful about the subject.

 

[quarky]

I would think something akin to reverse engineering might be useful to shed light on astrology.

An analysis would be made of various dead person's lives. Then, the list would be correlated for birth times, to see what overlap exists, if any.

Same could be done for numerology; year of the rat; ennegrams, etc.

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Anyway, I apologize for the people here who have mocked you, but putting that aside, they have also made lots of great points about the flaws in your ideas, points which you should seriously consider.

They seemed to use mockery as a substitute to dealing with flaws in their ideas.

But that's not "astrology." That's not getting information about people from the stars, that's getting information directly from people. In other words, by "cold reading," you are cutting the stars out of the equation.

In order for astrology to work and be meaningful, you have to be able to use it by itself to say something meaningful about the subject.

How would you work out what the Stars did in the first place EXCEPT through reading people? How would you work out what theories worked or not except by reading people? No reading, no theory and no theory, no Astrology.

What you are demanding is rather unreasonable. You are demanding is that we go by the stars and our theories in the face of all actual experiance to the contrary.

Cold Reading is only a vice if it adds new information to the system that isn't accounted for by any of the present stars. I never added anything to the system at least consciously due to 'Cold Reading'.

All I did was eliminate certain results, because I already knew they were wrong by 'cold reading'. Everything I predicted was backed up by an object and a theory.

I know that it is second nature to Skeptics to eliminate evidence based upon theories that say that the evidence should not be there. But I see no reason why I should have to imitate them.

 

[Ashles]

They seemed to use mockery as a substitute to dealing with flaws in their ideas.

No, you are focusing on the mockery as a substitute for honestly adressing the flaws that have been pointed out.

How would you work out what the Stars did in the first place EXCEPT through reading people? How would you work out what theories worked or not except by reading people? No reading, no theory and no theory, no Astrology.

And if the method you tried to read people with repeatedly proved to display no meaningful correlation to the actual things being read, at what point would you accept the method didn't work?
Clearly you wouldn't.

What you are demanding is rather unreasonable. You are demanding is that we go by the stars and our theories in the face of all actual experiance to the contrary.

We ask for evidence. That is not unreasonable.
You have no evidence for your claims, yet still you hpold them to be true.
That is unreasonable.

Cold Reading is only a vice if it adds new information to the system that isn't accounted for by any of the present stars. I never added anything to the system at least consciously due to 'Cold Reading'.

All I did was eliminate certain results, because I already knew they were wrong by 'cold reading'. Everything I predicted was backed up by an object and a theory.

But unfortunately was incorrect.
The theory doesn't matter if the results are not significant.

I know that it is second nature to Skeptics to eliminate evidence based upon theories that say that the evidence should not be there. But I see no reason why I should have to imitate them.

Why, when this has been explained to you multiple times, are you still clinging to this lie?

Is it that you realise that adressing our actual arguments and criticisms is entirely beyond your abilities?

 

[Patsy]

They seemed to use mockery as a substitute to dealing with flaws in their ideas.

Mockery tends to get used on people who substitute evasion and insults for dealing with the flaws in their ideas, for example, complete lack of any supporting evidence of any kind for their ideas.

I know that it is second nature to Skeptics to eliminate evidence based upon theories that say that the evidence should not be there. But I see no reason why I should have to imitate them.

I know that is is second nature to fuzzy thinkers to eliminate evidence that tends to show their pet bit of paranormal rubbish to be, well rubbish, but I see no reason why I should have to imitate them.

 

[Belz...]

Okay. You are being sneaky deliberately. For good reason.



By a major player in his church do you mean clergyman?

The saving money bit is interesting. Because of the 5th House is not exactly a frugal house, while the Tauros Sun definately is. The contradiction, the psuedo-hit as you put it makes Astrological sense.

Vegetarianism and not drinking is interesting because I don't know what exactly corresponds with them.

How could I be so stupid though! 9th House Mars I have seen represents travelling before!



I understand, trouble is the closest aspect to his Sun is Inconjunction to Neptune, which would mean something to do with conflict or difficulty.

Perhaps it actually means the precise opposite. Maybe it means that the person is prone to those things? I was betting it was you so I went for the former course.



Great. A fat lot of good you are. Can't even tell me if someone is bad or good.



Is he an emotionally charged speaker then?



It was Maths or Science.



It is what the Astrology says.



That might just be the more concrete effects of the Uranus opposition then. I did note a contradiction there.



Maybe 10th House Jupiter simply means Clergyman or Philosopher then. My sister has it and she got As at everything, despite all the difficulties she had.



Love life with whom? As for career well, something of the following.

Church/Philosophy (Jupiter).
Beauty/Fashion (Libra).
Leadership/Power (Ceres).

Apologetics. Gotta love it.

 

[Belz...]

This exercise is pointless. There is no way to tell if the readings are being percieved as more accurate than they would be by chance.

If you want to do a proper test which would produce meaningful results, get somone (a moderator perhaps) to collect the birth details of a bunch of posters by PM, and PM them to you. You then post the readings. The volunteers pick out the reading they think is theirs, and PM the moderator. The moderator then posts which reading each volunteer chose and which was really which, and we see how many picked the right one. If you do significantly better than chance, you've demonstrated that there is something to astrology.

You've proposed something far too rational. See:

However it assumes that the Astrologers knowledge of Astrology is flawless. Therefore it doesn't really test Astrology, merely Astrologers.

He has a pre-baked cop-out, ready to go.

 

[Belz...]

And you've never provided a mechanism for how the Earth goes round the Sun even though the Earth is so far away from the Sun?

Slayer, it's comments like these that get people frustrated, here. Before posting things like that it would be good for you to actually verify if what you are saying is true. And, no, what your friends told you isn't a good place to start. Read up on Relativity, and even if you don't understand it all (I certainly don't) you can see that we DO have a mechanism.

Nobody knows why the earth goes round the Sun silly. They just pretend to know, just because they know the rules for exactly how it does so and can give the process a name called Gravity.

Yes. Rules for exactly how it does so is called a mechanism.

 

[Belz...]

The trouble is that obviously everyone cannot become a clergymen.

Yes, indeed. If every comment you made applied to everyone, then you'd have more hits, wouldn't you ?

The Astrology was contradictory.

It's usually a good indication that it is a sham.

I am doing no such thing so relax. I admit that I was wrong.

You were wrong all the way, is the problem. Want to do MY horoscope ? I'm sure it would be terribly funny.

Your brothers horoscope is unusually simple. That's why it doesn't say much.

And you wonder why people resort to sarcasm ?

It still counts as a miss. I just I have to explain the misses away.

And you wonder why people resort to sarcasm ?

If I had to predict, I would predict that he is attracted primerily to people with a strong presence of Pisces in their charts.

Which could be anyone, I'm sure.

Scorpio supposadly rules all the following.

Which could be anyone, I'm sure.

 

[Belz...]

They seemed to use mockery as a substitute to dealing with flaws in their ideas.

No, they use mockery as a substitude to trying to get you to deal with flaws in YOUR ideas, because it seems that you can't.

 

[six7s]

They seemed to use mockery as a substitute to dealing with flaws in their ideas.

No, they use mockery as a substitude to trying to get you to deal with flaws in YOUR ideas, because it seems that you can't.

And you can't because you're a Virgo with Uranus rising, right?

 

[sanguine]

I would think something akin to reverse engineering might be useful to shed light on astrology.

An analysis would be made of various dead person's lives. Then, the list would be correlated for birth times, to see what overlap exists, if any.

Same could be done for numerology; year of the rat; ennegrams, etc.

This would be the way to do it. Use a Bayesian learning system and see if you can suss out any predictive relationships between birth date/time and events. Of course, this requires that you pin down an ontology of events that you want to evaluate your predictive power against, and I assure you, coming from an environment where we have to do this stuff that, "You want to fit in" and most of the rest of the readings we've seen are not at usefully predictive levels for this kind of analysis.

(Although it's worth noting that if you could demonstrate that astrology could reliably predict people who fall into the general category of sociopathy, or as I think it's now called, antisocial behavior, that alone would be a tremendous result. You could do that with anonymized health records, I'd think, as all you'd need is the diagnosis and the birth date/time, and then just see if there's a significant correlation.)

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

No, you are focusing on the mockery as a substitute for honestly adressing the flaws that have been pointed out.

I have spend 2 wretched days doing so.

And if the method you tried to read people with repeatedly proved to display no meaningful correlation to the actual things being read, at what point would you accept the method didn't work?
Clearly you wouldn't.

I have already accepted that certain methods didn't work. They are now languishing in the proverbial dustbin of ideas.

However some things turned out according to the theories. My own knowledge of Astrology has increased. My purpose is satisfied.

We ask for evidence. That is not unreasonable.
You have no evidence for your claims, yet still you hpold them to be true.
That is unreasonable.

No evidence will ever satisfy you. I have evidence of Astrology working and evidence of it not working. I see only my own lack of skill and knowledge in my failiures. And the fact you force me to take bets in positions of contradiction.

But unfortunately was incorrect.
The theory doesn't matter if the results are not significant.

And what makes you think the results are not significant?

Why, when this has been explained to you multiple times, are you still clinging to this lie?

Because it is not a lie. It seems to be totally accurate, admittadly it isn't Astrology where this is most evident.

Is it that you realise that adressing our actual arguments and criticisms is entirely beyond your abilities?

I say the same thing about you.

Mockery tends to get used on people who substitute evasion and insults for dealing with the flaws in their ideas, for example, complete lack of any supporting evidence of any kind for their ideas.

I have supporting evidence. People have done statistical evidence and found statistical correlations that are statistically significant.

I have also seen the physical evidence for Astrology in the feutures of people.

Yes, indeed. If every comment you made applied to everyone, then you'd have more hits, wouldn't you ?

But in this case, I was right. It's just I am weary to make definate conclusions for naturally rare outcomes.


It's usually a good indication that it is a sham.



You were wrong all the way, is the problem. Want to do MY horoscope ? I'm sure it would be terribly funny.



And you wonder why people resort to sarcasm ?



And you wonder why people resort to sarcasm ?



Which could be anyone, I'm sure.



Which could be anyone, I'm sure.[/QUOTE]

You've proposed something far too rational. See:



He has a pre-baked cop-out, ready to go.

Slayer, it's comments like these that get people frustrated, here. Before posting things like that it would be good for you to actually verify if what you are saying is true. And, no, what your friends told you isn't a good place to start. Read up on Relativity, and even if you don't understand it all (I certainly don't) you can see that we DO have a mechanism.

Yes. Rules for exactly how it does so is called a mechanism.

All relatively says is something bizzare about space bending, something that nobody has ever observed (no problem for physics). And then it makes a nice model which sees heavy objects as forming a sort of funnel through which smaller objects 'fall' towards the heavier object.

Of course in reality all Einstein is doing is using 'things fall' to model why 'things fall'. Without gravity, bending space would result in nothing since the objects would then remain above space, unless they were glued to space which I guess is the idea.

Of course heavy objects are 'bending' space precisely because gravity is being applied in your little mechanism to explain gravity.

The question of "why do things fall" is replaced with.

"why does objects mass bend space".

 

[L The Detective]

They seemed to use mockery as a substitute to dealing with flaws in their ideas.

Well, I guess I have to disagree with you here. I would say that they used mockery in addition to dealing with flaws in your ideas. To be more accurate, I would say that some posters have posed sincere criticisms, some have mocked, some have done both. Other than that minor quibble, I do agree with you that mockery is not constructive, and I am not in favor of it.

Cold Reading is only a vice if it adds new information to the system that isn't accounted for by any of the present stars. I never added anything to the system at least consciously due to 'Cold Reading'.

Right, which is why you shouldn't need him to elaborate, unless the reading is over. Well, I guess if the reading is officially "over," then there's no harm in you asking for additional information, that's true, in order to see how accurate you were. Just not during the actual reading.

All I did was eliminate certain results, because I already knew they were wrong by 'cold reading'. Everything I predicted was backed up by an object and a theory.

But again, isn't that "cheating"? Why should you need to eliminate certain results? If you need to do that, doesn't that speak to a weakness of astrology?

I know that it is second nature to Skeptics to eliminate evidence based upon theories that say that the evidence should not be there. But I see no reason why I should have to imitate them.

Well, that's not the way I see it. I don't really like labels like "skeptics," I mean we are all skeptical about something. I'm sure there are plenty of things you are skeptical about.

In the particular case of astrology, the reason why I am skeptical is because it doesn't seem to work. In order for astrology to work, the information it provides needs to be both accurate and specific. There is no kind of astrology or fortune telling I've ever seen that can reliably do both. That's why I'm skeptical. So it has nothing to do with "this evidence shouldn't be there," but rather it's "there is no evidence, and what you assert is evidence is actually not real evidence, and here's why."

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

The second reading.

To Godless Dave (or whoever else you may be).

You are fundamentally a hard-working person. This may create somewhat of a dilemma feedback wise, since do hardworking persons generally consider themselves to be so or do they normally consider themselves as slackers who need to work harder? You work particularly hard for the wellbeing of your family. Feedback wise however does the person who is hard-working usually think this is the case?

You are a person of great wit, you do not say exactly what you mean, but instead you are proficient at embellishing what you say with analogies and sly jokes. However this can cause you to be misunderstood by others. You are also rather fickle, given to sudden changes of character which gives you power over others since they cannot predict what you will do and you can adapt yourself quickly.

Despite the above however, you are not generally overly talkative, you talk as much as you need too. You prefer to talk within and write from the security of your own home, public speaking is not your thing. You also have a natural talent for singing.

You tend to reveal the cold truths that nobody else likes to hear, you have little patience for the illusions and wishful thinking of others and for religious and philosophical ideas that you do not consider to have sufficient rational grounding. You do not give ground easily to those who your initially consider deluded. Your changeability does not conflict with the permanence of your ideas.

You enjoy particularly good relationships with family members in particular your mother and/or wife. You emotions tend to govern your decisions as regards your career and education, you have often turned down opportunities in the past because it ‘didn’t feel right’.

Others tend to perceive you as a rebellious troublemaker, you are not trusted by authority figures, perhaps because you have a tendency to tell them what they don’t want to hear.

You spend a lot of time seeking out new and radical philosophical ideas and research, ideas that upset the proverbial applecart. You also appear to have a promising career ahead of you as a philosopher, arts teacher or professor or liberal clergyman.

It also appears that despite having a sharp tongue against those whose ideas you consider to be poorly grounded in solid reality, you are emotionally comfortable with deception and illusion. You also count among your friends many whose delusional ideas you also criticise heavily.

 

[Patsy]

I have supporting evidence. People have done statistical evidence and found statistical correlations that are statistically significant.

Now we are getting somewhere. Please provide links to examples. Be sure your examples are properly published, peer reviewed, double blind studies.

 

[L The Detective]

Do you think that anyone here is likely to be impressed by this reading? If not, why not? What sort of reasons do you think they will give?

 

[SlayerofCliffracers]

Well, I guess I have to disagree with you here. I would say that they used mockery in addition to dealing with flaws in your ideas. To be more accurate, I would say that some posters have posed sincere criticisms, some have mocked, some have done both. Other than that minor quibble, I do agree with you that mockery is not constructive, and I am not in favor of it.

I suppose your right.

Right, which is why you shouldn't need him to elaborate, unless the reading is over. Well, I guess if the reading is officially "over," then there's no harm in you asking for additional information, that's true, in order to see how accurate you were. Just not during the actual reading.

I never asked anything during the actual reading.

But again, isn't that "cheating"? Why should you need to eliminate certain results? If you need to do that, doesn't that speak to a weakness of astrology?

Because the individual constitutes evidence AGAINST the specific Astrological theory in question.

As I put it earlier, the problem is that there is only so much ROOM for particular outcomes. That is to say, there can only be so many artists, scientists, philosophers, clergymen etc. The annoying thing is that Astrology is geared up for identifying relatively rare things.

While the phenonoma which manifests itself with far above average regularity in such people, is also found in other people.

It is impossable for the Astrological destiny of everyone to be realised logically even if Astrology were true.

Only the strongest will survive. And who are the strongest? That is the million doller question that is I guess in some sense a 'holy grail'.

Well, that's not the way I see it. I don't really like labels like "skeptics," I mean we are all skeptical about something. I'm sure there are plenty of things you are skeptical about.

Well in a funny sort of a way, label like Skeptic and Woo are in themselves obstacles to actual Skepticism. Because parties tend to result in crystalisation of positions, rather than critical analysis of everything, even disbelief in evidence for paranormal phenonoma.

In the particular case of astrology, the reason why I am skeptical is because it doesn't seem to work. In order for astrology to work, the information it provides needs to be both accurate and specific. There is no kind of astrology or fortune telling I've ever seen that can reliably do both. That's why I'm skeptical. So it has nothing to do with "this evidence shouldn't be there," but rather it's "there is no evidence, and what you assert is evidence is actually not real evidence, and here's why."

I went into Astrology in order to see if Astrology worked. Maybe it was the biggest mistake I ever made, but it worked so well on me and other I know and on everyone else I observed that as far as I am concerned it worked. It wasn't vague and murky, it was quite clear and it worked.

No Astrologer has ever claimed to be able to pinpoint with complete accuracy and specificality anything at all. All that we can ever reveal is the general details of something. You are attacking a strawman, since no Astrologer does actuality claim to do that.

Horory Astrology come close to what you are talking about, but then the Horory Astrology KNOWS THE QUESTION! He/She knows the basic situation first and applies Astrology to the basic situation in order to get a specific answer to the question. He/She can apply specific meanings to planets, because he/she knows what 'root' those things have.

Natal Astrology is as far as possible away from that, because of the nature of personality is not precisely quantifiable. Everyone has a bit of every sign and planet necceserily.

Essentially everyone has every single planet and sign and house in their chart. The only question that can be tested is what is the strongest and most developed aspects of a person, demonstrated ultimately not by what answer they give to their own horoscopes but by ceaselessly WATCHING them to see how they behave and then comparing them with people with other Astrology.

That is why ultimately it doesn't matter how many hits or misses I get here. Because I primerily watch people and compare them to eachother rather than asking them if their horoscopes 'fit them'.

Because the character words I would be using are subject to analysis according to the observers own understanding of what the words mean, which differs from my own.

 

[Ashles]

I have spend 2 wretched days doing so.

I have already accepted that certain methods didn't work. They are now languishing in the proverbial dustbin of ideas.

However some things turned out according to the theories. My own knowledge of Astrology has increased. My purpose is satisfied.

How can your knowledge of Astrology have increased? You made readings that were incorrect.
It's like saying your knowledge of guessing has increased.

If you made another reading now there is absolutely no reason to think it would be in any way more acurate.

No evidence will ever satisfy you. I have evidence of Astrology working and evidence of it not working. I see only my own lack of skill and knowledge in my failiures. And the fact you force me to take bets in positions of contradiction.

It's guessing.
You can guess about coin tosses. Sometimes you will be right sometimes wrong. That's chance.
That's not evidence of your mystical coin-predicting powers sometimes working, sometimes not.
It's clear you do not understand experimental controls and statistical performance above chance.

Also you are repeatedly assigning meaning to anything that is even vaguely a hit, ignoring the misses as some form of 'learning experience' and even trying to make complete misses into some form of hit.
"You're an atheist"
"No the guy is very religious"
"Ah yes that was the other thing it could have meant"

Just simply not convincing.

There is absolutely no reason to think astrology performs at above chance.
Any hits are random or play to generic statements that are likely anyway.

And what makes you think the results are not significant?

The clear and obvious fact that they weren't.
Please, anyone can look at your readings and see how A) Generic B) Frequently incorrect they were.

Because it is not a lie. It seems to be totally accurate, admittadly it isn't Astrology where this is most evident.

It is a flat out lie.
Noone here has at any point attempted to "eliminate evidence based upon theories that say that the evidence should not be there".
You have presented no evidence.
Unless you can link to where somebody has done this, you are simply lying.

I say the same thing about you.

Well, compelling as the "I am rubber you are glue" school of argument is, I and others have raised very specific flaws in your methods, understanding, analysis and interpretation.
Not one of which you have beem able to counter.

The 'running rings around skeptics' thing isn't really working out too well for you here is it?

Remember, when you are floundering in your next post, pretty much everything we say is summed up in one question:

Evidence?

 

[Hokulele]

Why use astrology as opposed to numerology, palm reading, or Myers-Briggs?