SivaGanesha

There appears to be a lot more information at the following site than at the petition page: Skydivers against NPA 99-148 You will need to register for facebook first. Glad to see my old DZ in Canada is taking the lead on this although there is only one person I recognize on their website! "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

I am a Canadian citizen living in the USA. I just signed the petition. The petition itself might benefit from being worded somewhat more sharply so that it is clearer precisely what is being petitioned for. It is not entirely clear from the petition whether NPA 99-148 is detrimental to Canadian skydiving in its entirety, or whether only portions of NPA 99-148 affect skydiving and it is proposed to amend NPA 99-148 to remove the parts that affect Canadian skydiving. Obviously, though, in spirit I am opposed to anything that would be harmful to Canadian skydiving and have signed the petition! "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

I thought the above was the Newtonian theory of gravitation. The Einsteinian theory--general relativity--has, I thought, subsumed Newton. Einstein theorized that gravity is essentially a side effect of the curvature of spacetime that occurs in the vicinity of large (or small) objects. So all it would take for astrological effects to occur through gravity would be if the curvature of spacetime effected by large objects were more complex than Einstein theorized. Einstein may have gotten it mostly right but maybe there were smaller effects that he overlooked. "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

Absent clear scientific evidence either way, the decision of whether to accept astrology becomes a life decision, not a scientific decision. "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

P.T. Barnum was in the entertainment business. He was being paid, in essence, to deceive others. No one gets too upset if an entertainer has a few tricks up their sleeve--in fact it is rather expected. A professional astrologer, on the other hand, is being paid to help people. If they don't do a good job--if they take the attitude of "there's a sucker born every minute"--they will quickly find themselves out of work. "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

Either a force unknown to science, or science doesn't understand one or more of the four known forces as well as it thinks it does. As for the claim that "educated" people would not believe in astrology--education is generally a tool used to control and limit people's thought processes, not to enlighten them. "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

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. 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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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? "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

First jump was 24 years ago. Yes I have 85 jumps (actually 87 now) but very, very few between 1986 and 2007. Certainly I had lots of solo freefall time back in the 80's (45 second delays, etc). In the 80's I did the static line progression. Last year I took the approach of starting AFF from the beginning. Maybe this year I should ask if there is another way of getting back into the sport. I do feel comfortable in my basic ability to fall stable, deploy at an agreed-upon altitude, and deal with the unlikely event of a malfunction. But I also don't want to do anything unsafe. There seems to be some debate in these forums whether 'years in sport' represents active years or years since first jump. In my case it is the latter. But I do have > 85 jumps--it is just that most of them were > 20 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

Mike's Hard Lemonade! "Once you've been around the block, you're right back where you started!" "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

Because I discovered last year that AFF is rather expensive. I want to be able to make a commitment to finishing the course, including the possibility of repeating jumps, before getting back in the air. Right now I owe the IRS back taxes for 2006 and I want to get those squared away before they get too nasty. I expect to have that cleared up about the time the rainy season ends here in CA--plus it looks like I won't owe anything for 2007. Plus the rain here was absolutely relentless in January although I must say we have blue skies today! Bottom line is I expect to be back in the air, and ready to make a serious commitment to this sport for 2008, some time in March. "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

This is where it starts to get rather tricky rather fast. As soon as you start talking about people being mentally ill--and drawing comparisons to situations where we have clear laws--it is a very slippery slope to having people being committed for their beliefs. I do think that, in general, people's civil liberties trump a scientist's personal distaste with irrational behavior. Generally I think we should only be applying the "mentally ill" label--with its potential for both denial of civil liberties and social stigma--to behaviors clearly shown to be harmful to others. Driving clearly creates risk to others. There is a clear reason for restricting this privilege for those acting in a way that creates danger to others. There is no such clear evidence that astrology is harmful to others. Before scientists start throwing around the "mentally ill" label with respect to astrology, they would need to prove two things beyond a reasonable doubt: that astrology is bogus, and that astrology is harmful to others. To the best of my knowledge scientists have not yet come close to doing so. "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

Astrology scares shitless those scientists who get emotional about it--who cannot talk about astrology without raising their voice and getting upset. As to why it scares them shitless, I'm not really sure. Perhaps it is because the whole life of a scientist is based around the idea that the rational mind is ideal. If a scientist encounters a significant number of people who cannot think rationally, and who cannot be persuaded to think rationally, the scientist becomes frightened. The reason is that if a majority of people ever started to think in non-rational ways, the whole world of the scientist would fall apart. The scientist relies on a rational worldview and must marginalize those who do not subscribe to that worldview. As long as the scientist can believe that the numbers of those with opposing views is low, the scientist can sleep at night. You see, the real issue that bothers a scientist is not the influence of Jupiter or Venus on people's lives. Rather, it is that the scientist cannot explain why--despite all the scientific, educational, and technological advances of the last 100 years--they cannot influence a significant part of the population. That scares a scientist because a scientist believes with every fiber of their being that most people will listen to reason with enough education. When they don't, it threatens a scientist's very view of the world. "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

You perfectly describe the situation in Europe prior to 1492. Such a "study" was eventually funded by Isabella only because there was a potential to make money, not for the purpose of learning the truth for its own sake. Indeed, the truth and Columbus--a habitual liar--were not well acquainted. "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

I hate to kick a guy when he's dead, but a good example would be Carl Sagan. That guy was definitely a professional skeptic, and definitely had a vested interest--or at least publicly proclaimed himself to have a vested interest--in disproving everything he didn't understand. There is a certain scientific machismo of pretending not to give a fuck about astrology--that is because it scares them shitless. Again, I don't know who is right--science scares the astrologers shitless just as much. "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

I'm rather skeptical of this study because I would expect a correlation even if astrology is completely bogus. Here's why. People start school (kindergarten, etc) in a cohort of a whole year at a time. That means that someone born in December may, in kindergarten, have to compete physically, socially, intellectually, etc., with someone born in January who is nearly a whole year older. That difference is huge for a 4- or 5-year old. I have to believe that there would be small, but measurable, differences in personality that carry over to adulthood based on the time of year one is born, simply because those born later in the year are thrust into certain experiences at a younger age than those born earlier in the year. Now would such an effect have anything at all to do with astrology? Of course not. But it makes me skeptical of a study that claims there is no connection between personality and month of birth--because there are good non-astrological reasons for believing such a correlation would exist. Additionally, the astrologers noted in the article are correct in asserting that serious astrologers do not use Sun Sign astrology. Sun Sign astrology is generally understood by serious astrologers to be for entertainment purposes only. Real astrology does, indeed, look at a person's complete natal chart. Of course, this by no means provides proof that "real" astrology is any more valid than Sun Sign astrology. My 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. 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. "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