jakee 1,596 #51 February 11, 2008 QuoteQuote(And I'm sure you realise that this entire post is also completely irrelevant in justifying your original claim that scientists are really afraid of being wrong about astrology. All those scientists who apparently make a living from semi debunking astrology. Whoever the hell they are...) That is because I do not think you understood my original point. There are, AFAIK, no scientists who make a living from debunking astrology. None. Nadda. But there are many scientists who will laugh scornfully whenever astrology is mentioned in casual conversation. If they are so sure that astrology is wrong, why are they unwilling to put their careers on the line by actually conducting an experiment that would prove or disprove it once and for all? My criticism of scientists is not that they make a living debunking astrology. It is the exact opposite--they don't make a living debunking astrology despite their purported cocky self-assurance on the matter. Now as for the claim made by others in this thread that once, centuries ago, science and astrology may have been closely related but that astrology has (apparently) been relegated to the status of bogus superstition over the centuries. If that were true, then there should be a famous scientist who published the seminal work disproving astrology. For example, Copernicus disproved the notion that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Eratosthenes showed the Earth to be round, not flat, by his measurements, subsequently verified (from the European perspective, at least) by the voyages of Columbus and Magellan. Darwin disproved the account of creation given in the bible and other old religious texts. If science disproved astrology centuries ago, who exactly is the famous scientist who disproved it? You are very confused. Have you noticed that all of those scientists that you mentioned are famous because they came up with brand new positive explanatory theories. Eratosthenes showed that the world is round, not that it is not flat. Copernicus showed that the solar system is heliocentric, not that it is not geocentric. Darwin showed (or layed the groundwork) how evolution does happen, not that creation did not happen. Someone just saying "oh by the way, astrology is bollocks" is simply not, in any way comparable to the acts of genius that allowed these men you mentioned to formulate and bck up with the weight of evidence these new, positive theories. Other than that, all this that you are saying about putting careers on the line and all that business, well, all I can say is that you're simply wrong. That's about all there is to it.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #52 February 11, 2008 QuoteCopernicus showed that the solar system is heliocentric, not that it is not geocentric. Not to split hairs, but in On the Revolutions Copernicus proposed a heliostatic model of the solar system, not a heliocentric model. He placed the sun near, but not at the center of the solar system. (Source: Hawking, Stephen; On The Shoulders Of Giants, p. 5)Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #53 February 11, 2008 >who exactly is the famous scientist who disproved it? Who is the famous scientist disproved the idea that Thor threw thunderbolts? Which one disproved the Norse creation story? Which one proved that stepping on a crack does not, in fact, break your mother's back? Why are scientists afraid to study the relationship between children who tread on concrete seams and sudden and traumatic spinal fractures in older women? Is it just that they don't want to waste their time - or is it all a cover-up? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #54 February 11, 2008 Quote There are, AFAIK, no scientists who make a living from debunking astrology. None. Nadda. But there are many scientists who will laugh scornfully whenever astrology is mentioned in casual conversation. If they are so sure that astrology is wrong, why are they unwilling to put their careers on the line by actually conducting an experiment that would prove or disprove it once and for all? My criticism of scientists is not that they make a living debunking astrology. It is the exact opposite--they don't make a living debunking astrology despite their purported cocky self-assurance on the matter. Check the Want-Ads. There are no job openings for Bullshitologist. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #55 February 11, 2008 QuoteWho is the famous scientist disproved the idea that Thor threw thunderbolts? Which one disproved the Norse creation story? Which one proved that stepping on a crack does not, in fact, break your mother's back? Why are scientists afraid to study the relationship between children who tread on concrete seams and sudden and traumatic spinal fractures in older women? Is it just that they don't want to waste their time - or is it all a cover-up? The difference between the examples you cite and astrology is that I cannot think of a famous First Lady (or First Gentleman) within the last twenty years who based presidential decisions on Thor throwing thunderbolts or stepping on a crack, etc. However, Nancy Reagan, by all accounts based presidential decisions on astrology. I would think that disproving an incorrect theory that is improperly being used to make presidential decisions would be an honorable and patriotic use of a scientist's time, not a waste of time at all."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #56 February 11, 2008 QuoteYou are very confused. Have you noticed that all of those scientists that you mentioned are famous because they came up with brand new positive explanatory theories. Eratosthenes showed that the world is round, not that it is not flat. Copernicus showed that the solar system is heliocentric, not that it is not geocentric. Darwin showed (or layed the groundwork) how evolution does happen, not that creation did not happen. Yes--perhaps this is because no scientist has yet come up with a complete theory for modeling human behavior. It has not been for lack of trying. Freud certainly tried. Freud's theories were incomplete so Jung--a man who believed in astrology--attempted to improve upon them. If astrology is so bogus, why does a man such as Jung enjoy such respect in the academic community? I do not claim that Jung came up with the complete theory of human behavior either, but until someone does, perhaps maintaining an open mind to the prospect that astrology may play a role in whatever theory eventually does emerge would be prudent."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #57 February 11, 2008 QuoteMy conclusion is that the scientific and astrological camps are BOTH really afraid of being wrong, so both sides have a vested interest in ensuring that a study which could truly prove/disprove astrology never takes place. Thus, the same scenario gets replayed countless times: scientists conduct a study disproving Sun Sign astrology, and astrologers discount the study because Sun Sign astrology isn't "real" astrology. This stalemate allows both sides to continue to make a living at what they do. BTW, just a quick browse through JackC's links shows the lie in this statement. Take this one for instance - "Why astrology is a pseudoscience". The very front page states "It would be most unfair to evaluate astrology by reference to the daily horoscopes found in newspapers and popular magazines. These horoscopes deal only with sun signs whereas a full horoscope makes reference blah blah blah". As I said, you're making this up as you go along, aren't you?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #58 February 11, 2008 QuoteIf astrology is so bogus, why does a man such as Jung enjoy such respect in the academic community? Newton devoted half his career to alchemy and got nothing, but he's still respected by academics because the other half of his career was incredibly fruitful. QuoteI do not claim that Jung came up with the complete theory of human behavior either, but until someone does, perhaps maintaining an open mind to the prospect that astrology may play a role in whatever theory eventually does emerge would be prudent. Why, when it's never been shown to have the slightest predictive capability? Should you also maintain an open mind on the idea that leprechauns really did tell the arsonist to burn down the building?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #59 February 11, 2008 >The difference between the examples you cite and astrology is >that I cannot think of a famous First Lady (or First Gentleman) within the >last twenty years who based presidential decisions on Thor throwing >thunderbolts or stepping on a crack, etc. And I cannot think of a single ancient Norse leader who based their decisions on astrology - but a great many (including the legendary Rurik) based them on honoring Thor. Also, I have it on good authority that Nancy Reagan, when she was a child, enjoyed a good game of "step on a crack, break your mother's back." >However, Nancy Reagan, by all accounts based presidential decisions on astrology. So? I am sure Hilary Clinton based presidential decisions on the premise that her husband was being faithful to her. Does that prove that he was? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #60 February 11, 2008 QuoteYou haven't looked very hard. There are many studies on astrology and several scientists who have made such studies a large part of their career. Dr Susan Blackmore, the well-known paranormal researcher finally called it quits after 30 years of study. She finally admitted that she could no longer maintain an open mind because in 30 years of experiments and research she never once found one single claim that could withstand scrutiny. Not one. I partially stand corrected. However, I checked Susan Blackmore's website and I could only find one paper related to astrology. That paper did not appear to be addressing the question of whether astrology is valid but instead addressed the different question of whether people base real decisions on what they read in their horoscopes. Also a worthy question, to be sure, but not the topic of this thread. Blackmore seems to have focused on a wide variety of 'paranormal' claims, not specifically on astrology. The topic of this thread is astrology. If I say that I think people should keep an open mind about astrology, I have not stated any opinion on--and no opinion should be inferred--on channeling, out of body experiences, UFOs, near death experiences, etc. Astrology differs from some of these other 'fields' in that there is a core set of beliefs that most astrologers roughly agree on. It is therefore potentially subject to scientific inquiry in a way these other topics are not. I'd like to keep this thread focused on its topic which is astrology, not channeling, UFOs, etc."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #61 February 11, 2008 QuoteJung--a man who believed in astrology I've never heard that about Jung. Do you have a source?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #62 February 11, 2008 QuoteBTW, just a quick browse through JackC's links shows the lie in this statement. Take this one for instance - "Why astrology is a pseudoscience". The very front page states "It would be most unfair to evaluate astrology by reference to the daily horoscopes found in newspapers and popular magazines. These horoscopes deal only with sun signs whereas a full horoscope makes reference blah blah blah". As I said, you're making this up as you go along, aren't you? Not at all. It is an interesting article. Essentially the author seems to be acknowledging that a full horoscope has many aspects besides the Sun Sign but that there are so many 'influences' in a full horoscope that it has little predictive power. The deciding point in the author's decision to label astrology a "pseudoscience" appears to be the astrological community's unwillingness to acknowledge and remedy these weaknesses over an extended period of time (in this case centuries). I fully agree with that criticism. But one must understand that it is a criticism of astrologers, not of the underlying theory. The underlying theory remains untested precisely because of the unwillingness of astrologers to make it accessible in a way that allows its claims to be tested. The basic question, therefore, of whether astrology is valid remains unanswered."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #63 February 11, 2008 Quote>However, Nancy Reagan, by all accounts based presidential decisions on astrology. Hilary Clinton based presidential decisions on the premise that her husband was being faithful to her. It might be worth noting that neither Nancy Reagan nor Hillary Clinton have made presidential decisions, unless you are talking about being class president, or something like that.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #64 February 11, 2008 >It might be worth noting that neither Nancy Reagan nor Hillary >Clinton have made presidential decisions . . . Right. They merely both had some level of influence in the making of those decisions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #65 February 11, 2008 QuoteThe underlying theory remains untested precisely because of the unwillingness of astrologers to make it accessible in a way that allows its claims to be tested. If it's not testable, it's not science. Period. No exceptions. That's the whole point of science; it is the practice of the scientific method.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #66 February 11, 2008 QuoteI've never heard that about Jung. Do you have a source? I verified it in his article on Wikipedia before posting that but I had heard it before--I do not recall my original source years ago."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #67 February 11, 2008 QuoteIf it's not testable, it's not science. Period. No exceptions. That's the whole point of science; it is the practice of the scientific method. No it's not science. I merely claim it may have some validity. We often have to make decisions without the luxury of facts verified by scientific method."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #68 February 12, 2008 Quote Newton devoted half his career to alchemy and got nothing, but he's still respected by academics because the other half of his career was incredibly fruitful. "Fruitful"--was that a pun--as in the apple? "It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #69 February 12, 2008 Quote I verified it in his article on Wikipedia… Ahh. The most credible of all sources! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #70 February 12, 2008 QuoteIf you want to get anyone to take your ideas of birth date effects seriously, do the study yourself, get it published in a reputable statistics journal and people will take you seriously, without that people will quite rightly dismiss such ideas. I am a published PhD scientist. I know how to play that game. But if I came up with evidence proving the validity of astrology, the last thing I would do would be to publish it in a statistics journal. Instead I would sell what I know to a select circle of wealthy clients who would be able to benefit from my insights. In short, I would not give away my trade secrets by publishing them in a journal! That is the problem with evaluating astrology. The only published papers are likely to be negative results. Those with positive information keep it secret to protect their trade secrets!"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #71 February 12, 2008 QuoteBut if I came up with evidence proving the validity of astrology, the last thing I would do would be to publish it in a statistics journal. Instead I would sell what I know to a select circle of wealthy clients who would be able to benefit from my insights. Is that an admission that you currently have no valuable insights as to the validity of astrology?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #72 February 12, 2008 Quote Is that an admission that you currently have no valuable insights as to the validity of astrology? No. But it is an admission that anything I post in this thread has no information content as to whether I truly have valuable insights in this area. In other words--this is a public forum, just like a journal is. There are, and should be, limits to conversation in public forums. As to whether I'd be open to a more in-depth discussion over a beer if I ever meet some of the posters on here in person--that is another question entirely."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #73 February 12, 2008 >Those with positive information keep it secret to protect their trade secrets! Are you seriously suggesting that the fact that there seem to be no published papers on the validity of astrology as a way to predict actual events lends credence to the idea that there ARE such papers, but they are all secret? By that measure, the whole UFO thing should be a slam dunk! I have hard proof that UFO's exist, of course, but there's no way I am showing any of you since I will be able to sell those secrets for $17,500,000 (SEVENTEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND) dollars to the finance minister of Nigeria. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
br0k3n 0 #74 February 12, 2008 Quote So we are left with my original statement: I truly do not know which side is right, and I do not expect to ever know. I find it extremely hard to believe that any educated person would believe astrology. Siva Ganesha let me ask you this, as you seem to believe this Astrology woo woo.. What force is it that the planets use influence us?? Now you might at first think this is a tricky question, but its not really, there are 5 possible answers here.. Either it’s the 4 known forces. 1 Gravity 2 electromagnetism 3 strong force 4 weak force Or its a “Force unknown to science” Now first off we can categorically say and prove beyond doubt that it is none of the 4 known forces. So that leaves “Force Unknown to Science” Would you agree??----------------------------------------------------------- --+ There are 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.. --+ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SivaGanesha 2 #75 February 12, 2008 QuoteAre you seriously suggesting that the fact that there seem to be no published papers on the validity of astrology as a way to predict actual events lends credence to the idea that there ARE such papers, but they are all secret? No. I am suggesting that the continued financial viability of astrology--the fact that astrologers continue to earn a good living--lends credence to the idea that there is some evidence supporting astrology. I have at least a little faith in people and I believe if they are willing to let an astrologer part them from their hard earned money, there must be a reason and they are not totally fools. Quote By that measure, the whole UFO thing should be a slam dunk! I have hard proof that UFO's exist, of course, but there's no way I am showing any of you since I will be able to sell those secrets for $17,500,000 (SEVENTEEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND) dollars to the finance minister of Nigeria. Again, though, the analogy doesn't work. There is simply no agreed-upon set of facts or theories surrounding UFOs like there is with astrology."It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
