will Mr. Randi accept this or help me ?

[chipotle]

try to predict something else

Spendtriftness is an expensive quantity to measure. Find some simpler to measure predictive variable and cook up an astrological theory for it:

Electability - Good since you don't need the subject's involvement to get birthdate and election result.
Shoe size - Easy to measure. But a pain to have to ask.
Longevity - Good again since one can use death records to avoid subject contact.

 

[RSLancastr]

Whil de_bunk may be correct, I will add that I have worked with many programmers from India, who are working here in the Los Angeles area. Several of them had an even poorer grasp of English than does Manish.

 

[DeathToSophists]

My proposition : We can predict WHEN we have a 'tendency' to spend money or 'extravengence' or let it go regarding money . WHEn above stated attitude is highlighted in everybody's life......It is predictable.....and here are the rule.

[/B]

Forget the Millon Dollar Challenge...

If you can come up with a statistical model that accurately predicts this kind of behavior, get in touch with John Nash at Princeton University or Stuart Kauffmann at Los Alamos.

Upon successful demonstartion of this statistical model, you will receive MILLIONS in private and international grants.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Shut the F*(&! up and send in your notorized application already!



Stupid astrologer.

 

[SpectorDetector]

Typical response kneekickerken

This is yet another example of your ignorance.

I hope this fellow takes the lousy million and proves his theory.

At least he has done something about it, while you sit around playing with fuel cells.

 

[xouper]

thaiboxerken: Shut the F*(&! up and send in your notorized application already! Stupid astrologer.

SpectorDetector: Typical response kneekickerken
This is yet another example of your ignorance.

Ken's response may be rude, but it is certainly not ignorant. The scientific evidence weighs heavily in his favor that astrologers cannot do what they claim.

At least he has done something about it, while you sit around playing with fuel cells.

OK, quiz time for the gallery. What is the name of the logical fallacy here?

 

[DeathToSophists]

...OK, quiz time for the gallery. What is the name of the logical fallacy here?

non sequitur logical fallacy; ad hominem.

 

[SpectorDetector]

Mabey this one can? Or isn't that a possibility?

What exactly is possible ?

Just because others have been proven wrong and downright deceptive doesnt mean every possibale unknown is as such

His response is typical xouper. Oh please lol .

Its simply the way of skeptics to bash what hasn't been proven scientificy with a closed mind.


Is this a board for discussion or is it a place to dismiss any usefull information because it doesnt fit neatly into the skeptical logic box?

If it were up to skeptics , there would be no electricity, or a vaccine for chickenpox . Vaccines for smallpox and other such diseases would have been dismissed as impossible. Alexander Gram Bell would have been told he was a lunatic for creating the birth of communication.
For that matter The world would still be considered flat for the lack of vision of skeptics.
Thank goodness that some folks have been brave enough to tell skeptics to go get stuffed and continued their work while the cynics and skeptics sat back on their a**es and did nothing except think of excuses as to why everything was impossible.

 

[no one in particular]

If it were up to skeptics , there would be no electricity, or a vaccine for chickenpox . Vaccines for smallpox and other such diseases would have been dismissed as impossible. Alexander Gram Bell would have been told he was a lunatic for creating the birth of communication.
For that matter The world would still be considered flat for the lack of vision of skeptics.
Thank goodness that some folks have been brave enough to tell skeptics to go get stuffed and continued their work while the cynics and skeptics sat back on their a**es and did nothing except think of excuses as to why everything was impossible.

By my count there are 9 assertions in the above diatribe. SpectorDetector, I challenge you to defend any one of those assertions. The respectable thing to do is to defend an assertion or withdraw it…

Oh heck, forget bout the rest of them, I just want you to defend the assertion that Alexander Gram Bell created the birth of communication!

 

[xouper]

SpectorDetector: Mabey this one can? Or isn't that a possibility?

Maybe he can. It seems to me, however, that the point Ken was making is go ahead and do it instead of just talking about doing it.

Its simply the way of skeptics to bash what hasn't been proven scientificy with a closed mind.

Oh my. And you have the nerve to accuse Ken of making ignorant statements?

I like the way Ian Rowland said it in his book Cold Reading on page 174:

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">This does not amount to proof that psychic beliefs are bogus remnants of outmoded, irrational and superstitious models of the world we live in. But it does amount to good reason to abandon an 'open mind', and to say instead that if the believers want us to acknowledge the reality of phychic ability, the onus is on them to prove their case. ...

In cases where prior knowledge is available, the alternative to an 'open mind' is not 'closed mind'. It is 'an informed mind'. In such contexts, any appeal to 'keep an open mind' is an appeal to prefer ignorance over knowledge. This is not advisable.</div>

For that matter The world would still be considered flat for the lack of vision of skeptics.

"no one in particular" has already called you on your questionable assertions, but I would like to see you justify this one about the flat earth.

Hint - my challenge to you is an intentional trap, so you may wish to be careful how you answer.

 

[thaiboxerken]

SG just doesn't like me, it's probably because of my "put up or shut up" attitude.

Lots of beleivers like to talk all about the paranormal, about what they've seen and what they've "researched". None of them, however, have yet to put their money where their mouth is.

Heck, with the JREF challenge, they aren't even gambling any money. If I had superpowers, I'd have the JREF money already.

Here is my conclusion based on this:

1. Believers are too scared to place their beliefs to the test.

2. Believers with superpowers are too stupid to take a free million dollars.

Find me a superpowered person and prove me wrong, SG.

 

[SpectorDetector]

My only assertion is that it is indeed necessary to test the unknown.

If I ever find enough evidence to take the test, I will be the first in line to take JREFs million.

You ask me to prove the unknown and you also imply that seeking to understand the unknown is ignroance on my part.

I say that making no effort to understand that which is not known is ignorance and denial that facts remain undiscovered is in itself ignorance.

While I respect the rights of others to do nothing , I find it interesting that inaction is acceptable to skeptics.

If nothing else , I have indeed gained an understanding of the nature of the closed mind here on JREF.

I learn much here. It is indeed and enjoyable experience.


P.S.

KneeKickerKen

Its not your so-called intelligence that bothers me , rather its your inability to see outside of the known that intrigues me.

I enjoy your responses a great deal .

Btw , Its not a matter of like or dislike , its more a matter of understanding and misunderstanding.

 

[thaiboxerken]

My only assertion is that it is indeed necessary to test the unknown.

Ok. That's my agenda as well. The astrologer here claims something that might be testable. I want him to shut up about it and go test.

If I ever find enough evidence to take the test, I will be the first in line to take JREFs million.

I won't hold my breath.

You ask me to prove the unknown and you also imply that seeking to understand the unknown is ignroance on my part.

Hardly. I just want results. Seek all you want, when you actually find something, take the JREF money and proclaim what you want.

I say that making no effort to understand that which is not known is ignorance and denial that facts remain undiscovered is in itself ignorance.

I make efforts to learn a little bit about something everyday, thus gaining more knowledge. I think many of us do. However, paranormal claims haven't panned out to be anything but fictional accounts or misunderstandings so far.

While I respect the rights of others to do nothing , I find it interesting that inaction is acceptable to skeptics.

Damn right. Why do you insist that skeptics and scientists should chase tall tales to prove that they are just tall tales? It's inefficient to chase every claim, to try and disprove every notion. Instead, we must only entertain those that have supporting evidence associated with them.

If nothing else , I have indeed gained an understanding of the nature of the closed mind here on JREF.

I'm very open minded, just show me what you claim to have and I'll believe it. Produce us a superpowered individual to take the JREF prize.

I learn much here. It is indeed and enjoyable experience.

You must be masochistic.

Its not your so-called intelligence that bothers me , rather its your inability to see outside of the known that intrigues me.

Appeals to ignorance are illogical and useless. You are pleading for people to use the unknown as reason to believe. I understand, you need people to rely on ignorance. Without that ignorance, there wouldn't be the gullibility, would there?


Btw , Its not a matter of like or dislike , its more a matter of understanding and misunderstanding.

I understand perfectly. You don't need evidence, science or logic because you have faith. You have faith that the paranormal exists, and it's this faith that lets you justify beliefs in such nonsense.

 

[SpectorDetector]

I learn much here. It is indeed and enjoyable experience.

You must be masochistic.

Nope , I just enjoy learning from objecting opinions . Thats not masochsitc , thats a sign of intelligence.

Actually if everyone agreed on everthing it would be a very boring existence for us all.

I understand, you need people to rely on ignorance. Without that ignorance, there wouldn't be the gullibility, would there?

This is true to a point. Its additionally important to see beyond the known in order to reach for the knowlege which sometimes escapes us.

You have faith that the paranormal exists, and it's this faith that lets you justify beliefs in such nonsense.

My so called faith is in the chance that the unkonwn holds unanswered questions that do indeed hold logical answers . The only way to find out for sure is to look.

Searching for answers is equal to personal growth and education. I have never found any fault in learning new lessons.

 

[thaiboxerken]

This is true to a point. Its additionally important to see beyond the known in order to reach for the knowlege which sometimes escapes us.

Yea, but the knowledge of what? Ghosts, spirits.. psychics, pixies.. smurfs and the like are all fictional aspects of reality. All BS claims that lead only to more BS. This is why the law of parsimony was laid out and the brilliance of Occam's razor shines throughout science. This is done so that we don't chase tall tales to find an answer when the answers are already in front of us.

You can go chasing ghosts and fairies, I'll stick with exploring reality.

 

[xouper]

Ken has addressed most of the points, so I will focus on the ones that I think still need some clarification:

SpectorDetector: ... you also imply that seeking to understand the unknown is ignroance on my part.

Since that isn't what I meant, I apologize for not being more clear. I am not saying that seeking to understand the unknown is ignorant. I know of no one who makes that claim, or even implies it.

I say that making no effort to understand that which is not known is ignorance and denial that facts remain undiscovered is in itself ignorance.

No one here has denied that there are facts which remain undiscovered. And you are walking on very dangerous ground by suggesting that the people here have made no effort to understand the unknown, especiallay with regard to astrology and various other topics JREF is interested in.

If nothing else , I have indeed gained an understanding of the nature of the closed mind here on JREF.

Apparently you didn't read the quote I posted from Rowland. Or if you did, you failed to grasp the significance of it.

What you are calling a 'closed mind' is actually a mind that has already looked at available evidence for astrology and made a provisional conclusion that there's nothing there. If someone offers NEW evidence, most skeptics I know are open minded enough to have a look.

If JREF was as closed minded as you seem to claim, there would be no million dollar challenge. And I assume most of the skeptics here support that challenge, which if true, would refute your assertion that we are closed minded.

Go back and reread the quote from Rowland before you accuse people here of being closed minded.

 

[XRX]

So...this person wants us all to believe

That a country where 75% of all its population speak and understand fluent english, and have used English since the mid 1800's...this board happens to get the only computer programmer that doesnt use English, either written or spoken everyday, in programming PC's...and, has trouble understanding ...and needs an interpreter..!!

Get real....

Even though English is spoken in preference to India's native language...and taught in nearly every school.....and spoken in every town... in every shop...on every TV station...every radio station...written in every newspaper...Computer manual...Windows OS...

He asks for an interpreter...and then goes on to use words that would shame a college professor...De_Bunk

You could be right about this being a joke. I don't care. I don't even care about this 'astrology' claim or this thread. I'm interested in your facts.

I was born in India. The country has no native language. Ignore your encyclopaedia if it claims otherwise. The claim is ridculous.
You have no way of knowing whether 75% of the population speak and understand fluent English or not. Try polling a billion people; it doesn't work. Any statistics claiming to cover the entire country are wildly inaccurate.

Two days ago I met a man in Bombay who couldn't communicate with -anyone- in the city. He was just from the next state (Gujarat). The person who finally managed to interpret for him just about understood a quarter of what he was saying, and this interpreter spoke the -same- language. The dialect wasn't different, but his accent was, and that was enough to render him unintelligible. My point is that not only do Indians have trouble with English, they have trouble with other Indian languages.
Because there are so ****ing many of them.

I find your little radio station factoid pretty interesting. My radio must be malfunctioning, because I can't seem to pick up any all-English stations. There are many English-language TV channels but they're far outnumbered by those in other languages. Very few are in Hindi. I can't understand most of what I get on cable.

The same goes for newspapers.

There are people here who haven't even -heard- of computers, so computer manuals and Windows don't matter.

Furthermore, all my college professors bar two spoke English at a level equivalent to or lower than that used by Mr Soni.



As a skeptic it is your duty to make sure your facts are right. If you're ignorant, just say you are - ignorance is different from stupidity and you can't be blamed for it. Nobody expects you to know everything. It's possible to be a know-nothing skeptic; it's the attitude that counts.
But when we're talking facts, being -correct- is what separates you from the occultniks, breatharians and crystal-gazers.

For Christ's sake.



(The Christ bit is a joke. To hell with Christ. Wait...am I allowed to say that here?)





PS: I assume you are a skeptic from your screen name and the content of your posts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[davefoc]

XRX, Thank you for your post. It is a pleasure to have somebody from India posting here and I hope you will post more.

Even though I'm not Indian and have never been to India, I do have a little experience on what you are talking about.

I worked with five Indian programmers. None was a native speaker of the same dialect. One guy spoke something of the native lanquages of the rest but everyone else only spoke English and his native dialect. Four of them spoke passable English, one of which was approaching complete fluency. One of them spoke only rudimentary English.

 

[XRX]

Thanks, Dave. Nice to meet you.

This is why the law of parsimony was laid out and the brilliance of Occam's razor shines throughout science. This is done so that we don't chase tall tales to find an answer when the answers are already in front of us.

You can go chasing ghosts and fairies, I'll stick with exploring reality.

Just checking something: Isn't the law of parsimony (the principle of parsimony) the same as Occam's razor?
Also, did William of Ockham really come up with it?

Anyway, I doubt it's infallible, and certainly hinders creative thinking during the creative stages. It may be applied later on to determine whether or not a theory is logical in hindsight (which it will be, if correct) and to discard the superfluous.
I disagree with the assertion that it is "essential for model building" (external quote). I would contend that it is useful for model testing.

It should be clear that I am not against the employment of the principle of parsimony in, for instance, the investigation of claims of the paranormal, where it is to be used throughout. I am against its unintelligent use in the conceptual stage(s) of design (at least). There is no point having useful tools such as Occam's Razor if we cannot use them appropriately. You have to know just when to take out the Razor.


It should also be clear that I am so off topic that I ought to now leave this thread to the discussion of scientific astrology.




XR