• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

perhaps not everything is lost for astrology

idunno said:
As far as i know only presidents, prime ministers and ministers count. Do these senators have any power over people??
Please dont keep on repeating «astrology is bunk» till i believe it. Thats the tactics used by Hitler
Click to expand...

Hmm... does this mean that if we did repeat it a number of times, you actually would believe it? :)

I think Hitler used harsher methods than just nagging people. But a nice Godwin ;)
 
sthomson said:
What about countries where the religious leader IS the political leader - the Vatican, Tibet, Iran, etc.
Click to expand...

it only applies to people who achieve power through their effort and desire, so kings. or people who inherit titles may not qualify.
 
idunno said:
it only applies to people who achieve power through their effort and desire, so kings. or people who inherit titles may not qualify.
Click to expand...

Now I'm even more confused.
King who inherits title from birth = doesn't count.
King who had to murder his own uncle to get to the thrown = counts?

I'm just trying to point out that you can't deliberately pick your sample groups - if you want to claim that political power is correlated with something or other, then you have to thusly:

Come up with some metric for rating amount of political power (maybe non-unionized ditch diggers are at 0 and the Supreme Ruler of the Universe is at 10)

Rate a large, randomly selected sample of people based on those metrics.

Use their birthdates to determine whether or not Random Astrological Event occurs.

Group into Does and Does Not Occur. Find average Political Power Ranking of each group. Use statistics to show that there's a significant difference.
 
sthomson said:
Now I'm even more confused.
King who inherits title from birth = doesn't count.
King who had to murder his own uncle to get to the thrown = counts?

I'm just trying to point out that you can't deliberately pick your sample groups - if you want to claim that political power is correlated with something or other, then you have to thusly:

Come up with some metric for rating amount of political power (maybe non-unionized ditch diggers are at 0 and the Supreme Ruler of the Universe is at 10)

Rate a large, randomly selected sample of people based on those metrics.

Use their birthdates to determine whether or not Random Astrological Event occurs.

Group into Does and Does Not Occur. Find average Political Power Ranking of each group. Use statistics to show that there's a significant difference.
Click to expand...

to make it simple..anyone who wishes to achieve political power. If there is no power in the chart the person isnt really interested. If a future king has no power he may not like the idea of being king, but he may still become a king
 
idunno said:
monarchs too. I dont know about American politics thats why i asked what Senators do. Presidents and prime ministers i only found one without power, members of parliament have no real power, they can only speak. I mean politicians who really have power like Bush, Blair,Putin..
Click to expand...
Do you really understand how government works?
 
idunno said:
to make it simple..anyone who wishes to achieve political power. If there is no power in the chart the person isnt really interested.
Click to expand...
Ok then, so why are US senators off limits? Presumably they want to achieve political power, and have achieved some amount of it, so they should have a power feature in their chart. Do they?

What about state govenors? AFAICT a significant number of presidents were govenors, so it would seem that govenors should have a power feature?
 
idunno said:
to make it simple..anyone who wishes to achieve political power. If there is no power in the chart the person isnt really interested. If a future king has no power he may not like the idea of being king, but he may still become a king
Click to expand...

Wait, lemme see if I understand this...


Anyone who is interested in achieving power will have power in his chart.

The way to see if a person is interested in achieving power is to check his chart. If there is no power in his chart, then he is not interested in achieving power, and therefore you would not expect to see power in his chart.

Did I get that right?
 
NobbyNobbs said:
Wait, lemme see if I understand this...


Anyone who is interested in achieving power will have power in his chart.

The way to see if a person is interested in achieving power is to check his chart. If there is no power in his chart, then he is not interested in achieving power, and therefore you would not expect to see power in his chart.

Did I get that right?
Click to expand...
That is correct, but incomplete. A more fleshed out version of the argument goes like this (and I think it applies equally to idunno and Aquila):

Hypothesis: Astrology works in manner A, manner B, and manner C. Sometimes manner D.

Research: Hmmmm...... manner A doesn't seem to actually be true. How about......nope.....manner B isn't right, either. Must be C, then. And D.

Response to Counterargument: Well, yes, of course you have shown that manner C and manner D don't apply to any degree even approaching significance, but I'm not sure I didn't dismiss A and B too hastily. Besides, we haven't even discussed E.

Irrefutable Examplization: See here now. This, this, and this show quite clearly that astrology post-dicted these retrofitted characteristics when I cherry-picked the data. Oh, yes, and when I ignored conflicting data, too. Mustn't forget that.

Response to Refutation of Irrefutable Examplizationifiability: Ahem. You're getting tedious. I never claimed those examples actually exemplified anything beyond the general concept of the overall workingness of astrology.

Efforts, Last Ditch: Your focus is wrong. You can always find aspects that don't work, that are inconsistent, that are implausible, and that fail any test that remotely accounts for known mechanisms such as the Forer Effect. But don't. I'm telling you. Just. Don't.

Reaching of a Studied Conclusion: And there you have it. Ignore the inconsistencies. The implausibilities. The failures. The inability to predict anything. The well known mundane mechanisms. Do that and stand next to me--you're always welcome here--and proclaim what we both know is true:

Homeopathy Astrology Works!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom