Total Posts:108|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is Astrology really totally bogus?

Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Hey cats.....

I was speaking with me ex-wife the other day. As a art-time job she actually composes astrological charts for people. She does both what they call "natal" and "progressed" charts. The "natal" ones show the position of all the planets when you were born. The "progressed" show them now.
So as you can see, and as I learned when we were married, there is a LOT more to Astrology than just the Sun Sign stuff you read in the newspaper for your Horoscope.
They talk about houses, and declinations, and retrogrades, and ruling houses, et al.

And I must admit--I have always been a skeptic. But when we were dating before marriage she did my charts and she came up with some very interesting comments and questions about my past that she did not know about me. She made me cautiously lend a bit more credence to this discipline.

Ah..but then college. Psychology major. I learned how the human mind works and how it has evolved to "want to believe" in causes and patterns and answers to "The Big Picture" which in reality are just not there.

I remember a Psych class on Mythology, I believe it was. One day the proff asked us to write our names and b-dates on a sheet of paper and pass them forward. We did. He returned on a few days for the next class and gave us each our "personal horoscope" for the coming week.

The week passed. he then surveyed us as to how accurate our respective Horoscopes were. There were three possible answers: "Extremely Accurate." "Somewhat Accurate." And: "Not accurate at all-this is bullsh1t." (LOL--he actually worded it that way).

So....80% of the class claimed their "scopes were either Extremely or Somewhat Accurate.

Now the bombshell: he admitted to us after class on that 1st day when he collected out b-dates he threw them in the garbage. The alleged "personal" horoscopes he gave us were totally random.

OK...so there are my two sides about Astrology.

What say you? Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?

Thank you for your attention.

Drew,
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:09:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?
Pseudoscience, in that it's methodology and jargon failing basic tests of independent evidentiary accountability and theoretical cohesion, and frequently being invalidated with empirical data.

Moreover, while there are many astrological traditions, the most popular European traditions, based as they are on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios, and practiced in astronomical ignorance, frequently fail in basic measures -- such as not accommodating the earth's axial precession, shifting the apparent location of the constellations over time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I think belief in astrology is a good measure of scientific ignorance. A study published last year by the US National Science Foundation showed that just 55% of Americans viewed astrology as "not at all scientific", while 32% thought it was "sort of scientific" and 10% thought it "very scientific". Disbelief is down 10% from a decade ago, and at its lowest point since 1983. [Summary: http://www.nsf.gov...] [Data: http://www.nsf.gov...]
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:09:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?
Pseudoscience, in that it's methodology and jargon failing basic tests of independent evidentiary accountability and theoretical cohesion, and frequently being invalidated with empirical data.

Moreover, while there are many astrological traditions, the most popular European traditions, based as they are on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios, and practiced in astronomical ignorance, frequently fail in basic measures -- such as not accommodating the earth's axial precession, shifting the apparent location of the constellations over time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

I think belief in astrology is a good measure of scientific ignorance. A study published last year by the US National Science Foundation showed that just 55% of Americans viewed astrology as "not at all scientific", while 32% thought it was "sort of scientific" and 10% thought it "very scientific". Disbelief is down 10% from a decade ago, and at its lowest point since 1983. [Summary: http://www.nsf.gov...] [Data: http://www.nsf.gov...]

I tend to agree with you on Astrology being a psuedo-science.

But I will add two "Devil's Advocate" statements for you. I will in other words, tell you what a professional Astrologist would counter you with.......

"Most people when they speak of the accuracy of validity of Astrology are only talking about the one tiny aspect of it they are familiar with: their horoscope accuracy. ANd the vast majority of these people get their from their daily newspaper of a magazine, which DOES NOT take the time to go into depth in the Progressive Charts for those people. (How could they?)

Rather..these periodicals or whatever only take ONE out of dozens of "apsects" of the chart: the "Sun Sign." That is, Capricorn; Taurus; Leo, et al.

Thus, this is much akin to going to an MD for a full physical and him only taking your temperature.

The only way a person is really knowledgeable enough to voice an opinion as to the validity and accuracy of Astrology--one of the Oldest Sciences, by the way--if is they have had their complete charts, both Natal and progressive--formulated and read by a professional Astrologer."


Then.....that Astrologer might tell you that... the opinions of the American people should be taken with a huge grain of sodium chloride.

After all....80% of them believe there is a personal God up there in Heaven who cares about them and keeps track of their actions and thoughts and might even reward them with a ticket into the Pearly Gates! LOL
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,560
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:24:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


What say you? Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?

Ask any astrologer what effects exactly are being propagated by the planets, stars, etc. and they haven't a clue to answer. That's because there are no effects other than gravity, but are cancelled out by the effects of Earths gravity.

Essentially, astrology is just mindless entertainment.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:27:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote::
Hm. So, only professional astrologers can interpret astrological charts and the like? Well, that makes astrology sound like a religion with an elite group of priests. Sounds like it's promoting reliance on authorities like "professional astrologers".

I agree with you and Ruv that it is bogus.
You can call me Mark if you like.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:28:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:24:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


What say you? Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?

Ask any astrologer what effects exactly are being propagated by the planets, stars, etc. and they haven't a clue to answer. That's because there are no effects other than gravity, but are cancelled out by the effects of Earths gravity.

Essentially, astrology is just mindless entertainment.

It may not hold true for all astrologers that they don't understand the effects created by bodies in space, but their "science" is most definitely bogus.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:30:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:24:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


What say you? Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?

Ask any astrologer what effects exactly are being propagated by the planets, stars, etc. and they haven't a clue to answer. That's because there are no effects other than gravity, but are cancelled out by the effects of Earths gravity.

Essentially, astrology is just mindless entertainment.

MIndless entertainment? LOL--they used to say that about people when they spoke of going to the moon.

An Astrologist might tell you something like this when asked how exactly it works.......

While gravity or electromagnetism are forces by which astrology might possibly function, current scientific wisdom deems these unlikely explanations, though no detailed studies conclusively disprove their involvement.

Quantum physics, a vast scientific frontier, suggests that objects can and do influence other objects that are far away, through forces not currently fully understood by experts, which could hold the missing key to astrological mechanics. While such relatively new ideas challenge long-standing scientific law, they haven't yet been fully explored as a system that verifies the truth of astrology.

Astrology is also seen as an illustration of what psychiatrist Carl Jung called synchronicity, the idea that meaningful coincidences occur between psychological states (i.e., our lives) and outer events, outside any causal relationship. In other words, both planets and people have cycles, which mirror each other through the collectively symbolic language of archetypes (a la 'as above, so below'), but do not necessarily cause each other.

Of course, synchronicity requires belief in interconnectedness, the intrinsic unity of everything-a rather mystical concept, one perhaps unprovable but not necessarily at odds with modern physics.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:33:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:28:20 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:24:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


What say you? Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?

Ask any astrologer what effects exactly are being propagated by the planets, stars, etc. and they haven't a clue to answer. That's because there are no effects other than gravity, but are cancelled out by the effects of Earths gravity.

Essentially, astrology is just mindless entertainment.

It may not hold true for all astrologers that they don't understand the effects created by bodies in space, but their "science" is most definitely bogus.

An interesting article on Astrology that shows that..in a way..Science HAS PROVED IT WORKS! (But not in the way most Astrologers think it might).

Check it out....a little tidbit of food for thought............https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:35:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:33:26 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:28:20 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:24:06 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:


What say you? Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?

Ask any astrologer what effects exactly are being propagated by the planets, stars, etc. and they haven't a clue to answer. That's because there are no effects other than gravity, but are cancelled out by the effects of Earths gravity.

Essentially, astrology is just mindless entertainment.

It may not hold true for all astrologers that they don't understand the effects created by bodies in space, but their "science" is most definitely bogus.



An interesting article on Astrology that shows that..in a way..Science HAS PROVED IT WORKS! (But not in the way most Astrologers think it might).

Check it out....a little tidbit of food for thought............https://www.psychologytoday.com...

I'll look at it, but I'm still no astrologer. I haven't met any astrologers on this site, come to think of it.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:36:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:27:01 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote::
Hm. So, only professional astrologers can interpret astrological charts and the like? Well, that makes astrology sound like a religion with an elite group of priests. Sounds like it's promoting reliance on authorities like "professional astrologers".

I agree with you and Ruv that it is bogus.

You misinterpret what that means. About only certain knowledgeable people being able to read the charts.

Priests? Where did you get that?

How about like MDs? Like a radiologist who reads your X-Rays. Or interprets your blood work?

Or a Math PhD who explains to you an Integral Calculus Equation?

Those ate better examples than your "priest" hoo-hah.

You should probably Google an Astrological Natal Chart to see all what is involved, amigo.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:38:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:09:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?
Pseudoscience, in that it's methodology and jargon failing basic tests of independent evidentiary accountability and theoretical cohesion, and frequently being invalidated with empirical data.
I tend to agree with you on Astrology being a psuedo-science.
But I will add two "Devil's Advocate" statements for you. I will in other words, tell you what a professional Astrologist would counter you with.......

I've had these debates with real professional astrologers, and like all pseudoscience apologians, they offer excuse after excuse. Essentially their strategy is to try and show that some astrology can work (or not be proved false), even if it's not theirs, and though they can't say which one. If you debunk one form, they just choose another.

Arguing in this way represents a fundamental misapprehension regarding the role of professional accountability.

Moreover, all such arguments are simply refuted by pointing claimants to a $1M prize offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation for anyone who can show anykind of astrology to work under scientific standards of evidence in clinical conditions. [http://web.randi.org...]

I don't believe this is worth the effort of a mock debate.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:39:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:36:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:27:01 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote::
Hm. So, only professional astrologers can interpret astrological charts and the like? Well, that makes astrology sound like a religion with an elite group of priests. Sounds like it's promoting reliance on authorities like "professional astrologers".

I agree with you and Ruv that it is bogus.

You misinterpret what that means. About only certain knowledgeable people being able to read the charts.

Priests? Where did you get that?

How about like MDs? Like a radiologist who reads your X-Rays. Or interprets your blood work?

Or a Math PhD who explains to you an Integral Calculus Equation?

Those ate better examples than your "priest" hoo-hah.

You should probably Google an Astrological Natal Chart to see all what is involved, amigo.

Here...I did it for you. This is an example of the complexity in which Astrology can delve.

And a good Astrologer can tell you what ALL those symbols and signs mean.

https://www.google.com...
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:43:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:38:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:09:24 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:42:27 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
Is there anything at all to it? Or is it pure Pseudo--Science? Worthy of the contempt it so often receives from real Science?
Pseudoscience, in that it's methodology and jargon failing basic tests of independent evidentiary accountability and theoretical cohesion, and frequently being invalidated with empirical data.
I tend to agree with you on Astrology being a psuedo-science.
But I will add two "Devil's Advocate" statements for you. I will in other words, tell you what a professional Astrologist would counter you with.......

I've had these debates with real professional astrologers, and like all pseudoscience apologians, they offer excuse after excuse. Essentially their strategy is to try and show that some astrology can work (or not be proved false), even if it's not theirs, and though they can't say which one. If you debunk one form, they just choose another.

Arguing in this way represents a fundamental misapprehension regarding the role of professional accountability.

Moreover, all such arguments are simply refuted by pointing claimants to a $1M prize offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation for anyone who can show anykind of astrology to work under scientific standards of evidence in clinical conditions. [http://web.randi.org...]

I don't believe this is worth the effort of a mock debate.

My D.A. responses were not "excuses." They were explanations. And the latter one you cannot even refute--which was about the general opinion of the American people. Which you should have known better to include anyway, as it is a lame appeal to general consensus. LOL.

And if you maybe knew a little but more about Astrology you would know it NEVER claims to predict. Did you even know that?

Thought not.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:45:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:36:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:27:01 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote::
Hm. So, only professional astrologers can interpret astrological charts and the like? Well, that makes astrology sound like a religion with an elite group of priests. Sounds like it's promoting reliance on authorities like "professional astrologers".

I agree with you and Ruv that it is bogus.

You misinterpret what that means. About only certain knowledgeable people being able to read the charts.

I thought only "professional astrologers" could interpret it, according to them, which is what your earlier comments lead me to believe.

Priests? Where did you get that?

It's a comparison I made, and I didn't mean to suggest that they were really priests. It reminds me of the Catholic church in the Middle Ages, which acted as a governing body that had all the authority on Scripture and how it was interpreted.

How about like MDs? Like a radiologist who reads your X-Rays. Or interprets your blood work?

It's not like that. You don't have to be an MD or a radiologist or one who analyzes blood for a living to understand what those people understand.

I thought you HAD to be a professional astrologer to understand astrology... or at least, that's what your earlier comments lead me to believe about the opinions of professional astrologers, as they call themselves.

Or a Math PhD who explains to you an Integral Calculus Equation?

Those ate better examples than your "priest" hoo-hah.

They ate them? Oh, dear Lord. How horrible. And pardon my metaphorical hoo-hah for going over your head.

You should probably Google an Astrological Natal Chart to see all what is involved, amigo.

I think I'll pass. I'm not of the opinion that astrology is a reliable science or even a science in the first place.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:47:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:45:16 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:36:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:27:01 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote::
Hm. So, only professional astrologers can interpret astrological charts and the like? Well, that makes astrology sound like a religion with an elite group of priests. Sounds like it's promoting reliance on authorities like "professional astrologers".

I agree with you and Ruv that it is bogus.

You misinterpret what that means. About only certain knowledgeable people being able to read the charts.

I thought only "professional astrologers" could interpret it, according to them, which is what your earlier comments lead me to believe.

Priests? Where did you get that?

It's a comparison I made, and I didn't mean to suggest that they were really priests. It reminds me of the Catholic church in the Middle Ages, which acted as a governing body that had all the authority on Scripture and how it was interpreted.

How about like MDs? Like a radiologist who reads your X-Rays. Or interprets your blood work?

It's not like that. You don't have to be an MD or a radiologist or one who analyzes blood for a living to understand what those people understand.

I thought you HAD to be a professional astrologer to understand astrology... or at least, that's what your earlier comments lead me to believe about the opinions of professional astrologers, as they call themselves.

Or a Math PhD who explains to you an Integral Calculus Equation?

Those ate better examples than your "priest" hoo-hah.

They ate them? Oh, dear Lord. How horrible. And pardon my metaphorical hoo-hah for going over your head.

You should probably Google an Astrological Natal Chart to see all what is involved, amigo.

I think I'll pass. I'm not of the opinion that astrology is a reliable science or even a science in the first place.

Sorry.

"Those ARE better examples that your Priest one."

And...ya really should take a quick gander at those charts. I believe you would be impressed at their complexity. Or at least admit that there is indeed more to it than you were aware.

Or maybe not. Your choice, amigo.

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:59:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:43:29 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:38:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
And if you maybe knew a little but more about Astrology you would know it NEVER claims to predict. Did you even know that?

Not only did I not even know it, SoM, I outright refute it. :) Here's a quote from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios -- the most seminal work in mainstream European astrological tradition:

When, therefore, a thorough knowledge of the motions of the stars, and of the Sun and Moon, shall have been acquired, and when the situation of the place, the time, and all the configurations actually existing at that place and time, shall also be duly known; and such knowledge be yet further improved by an acquaintance with the natures of the heavenly bodies--not of what they are composed, but of the effective influences they possess; as, for instance, that heat is the property of the Sun, and moisture of the Moon, and that other peculiar properties respectively appertain to the rest of them;--when all these qualifications for prescience may be possessed by any individual, there seems no obstacle to deprive him of the insight, offered at once by nature and his own judgment, into the effects arising out of the quality of all the various influences compounded together. So that he will thus be competent to predict the peculiar constitution of the atmosphere in every season, as, for instance, with regard to its greater heat or moisture, or other similar qualities; all which may be foreseen by the visible position or configuration of the stars and the Moon towards the Sun.
[http://www.sacred-texts.com...]

Astrology has a 2,000 year history of prediction in Europe and elsewhere. Like bibliomancy (tarot, I ching etc...), one might use it for creative reflection too, but that's not its chief traditional use.

I can't help but feel that you're baiting here with strawmen, rather than debating a position you genuinely hold. :D

As I said, I really don't think it's worth the effort to argue on it. Nice troll though. :)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 5:01:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:59:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Here's a quote from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios -- the most seminal work in mainstream European astrological tradition:

Sorry.. .I missed the key following paragraph:

Since it is thus clearly practicable, by an accurate knowledge of the points above enumerated, to make predictions concerning the proper quality of the seasons, there also seems no impediment to the formation of similar prognostication concerning the destiny and disposition of every human being.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 5:04:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:47:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:45:16 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:36:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:27:01 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote::
Hm. So, only professional astrologers can interpret astrological charts and the like? Well, that makes astrology sound like a religion with an elite group of priests. Sounds like it's promoting reliance on authorities like "professional astrologers".

I agree with you and Ruv that it is bogus.

You misinterpret what that means. About only certain knowledgeable people being able to read the charts.

I thought only "professional astrologers" could interpret it, according to them, which is what your earlier comments lead me to believe.

Priests? Where did you get that?

It's a comparison I made, and I didn't mean to suggest that they were really priests. It reminds me of the Catholic church in the Middle Ages, which acted as a governing body that had all the authority on Scripture and how it was interpreted.

How about like MDs? Like a radiologist who reads your X-Rays. Or interprets your blood work?

It's not like that. You don't have to be an MD or a radiologist or one who analyzes blood for a living to understand what those people understand.

I thought you HAD to be a professional astrologer to understand astrology... or at least, that's what your earlier comments lead me to believe about the opinions of professional astrologers, as they call themselves.

Or a Math PhD who explains to you an Integral Calculus Equation?

Those ate better examples than your "priest" hoo-hah.

They ate them? Oh, dear Lord. How horrible. And pardon my metaphorical hoo-hah for going over your head.

You should probably Google an Astrological Natal Chart to see all what is involved, amigo.

I think I'll pass. I'm not of the opinion that astrology is a reliable science or even a science in the first place.

Sorry.

"Those ARE better examples that your Priest one."

heh. I'm sorry for being sarcastic.

And...ya really should take a quick gander at those charts. I believe you would be impressed at their complexity. Or at least admit that there is indeed more to it than you were aware.

I believe I will, actually... though complex doesn't mean right. Whatever. I'll take your advice and then formulate more qualified opinions.
You can call me Mark if you like.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 5:06:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:59:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:43:29 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:38:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
And if you maybe knew a little but more about Astrology you would know it NEVER claims to predict. Did you even know that?

Not only did I not even know it, SoM, I outright refute it. :) Here's a quote from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios -- the most seminal work in mainstream European astrological tradition:

When, therefore, a thorough knowledge of the motions of the stars, and of the Sun and Moon, shall have been acquired, and when the situation of the place, the time, and all the configurations actually existing at that place and time, shall also be duly known; and such knowledge be yet further improved by an acquaintance with the natures of the heavenly bodies--not of what they are composed, but of the effective influences they possess; as, for instance, that heat is the property of the Sun, and moisture of the Moon, and that other peculiar properties respectively appertain to the rest of them;--when all these qualifications for prescience may be possessed by any individual, there seems no obstacle to deprive him of the insight, offered at once by nature and his own judgment, into the effects arising out of the quality of all the various influences compounded together. So that he will thus be competent to predict the peculiar constitution of the atmosphere in every season, as, for instance, with regard to its greater heat or moisture, or other similar qualities; all which may be foreseen by the visible position or configuration of the stars and the Moon towards the Sun.
[http://www.sacred-texts.com...]

Astrology has a 2,000 year history of prediction in Europe and elsewhere. Like bibliomancy (tarot, I ching etc...), one might use it for creative reflection too, but that's not its chief traditional use.

I can't help but feel that you're baiting here with strawmen, rather than debating a position you genuinely hold. :D

As I said, I really don't think it's worth the effort to argue on it. Nice troll though. :)

Ptolemy?

LOL. Are you serious.

Isn't he the cat that thought the Earth was the center of the Universe?

Rather than the Sun..like ol' Copernicus claimed?

Why on Earth (see what I did there?) would you post something by him to prove a science point?

Wow.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 5:07:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 5:04:55 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:47:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:45:16 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:36:51 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:27:01 PM, debate_power wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:19:28 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote::
Hm. So, only professional astrologers can interpret astrological charts and the like? Well, that makes astrology sound like a religion with an elite group of priests. Sounds like it's promoting reliance on authorities like "professional astrologers".

I agree with you and Ruv that it is bogus.

You misinterpret what that means. About only certain knowledgeable people being able to read the charts.

I thought only "professional astrologers" could interpret it, according to them, which is what your earlier comments lead me to believe.

Priests? Where did you get that?

It's a comparison I made, and I didn't mean to suggest that they were really priests. It reminds me of the Catholic church in the Middle Ages, which acted as a governing body that had all the authority on Scripture and how it was interpreted.

How about like MDs? Like a radiologist who reads your X-Rays. Or interprets your blood work?

It's not like that. You don't have to be an MD or a radiologist or one who analyzes blood for a living to understand what those people understand.

I thought you HAD to be a professional astrologer to understand astrology... or at least, that's what your earlier comments lead me to believe about the opinions of professional astrologers, as they call themselves.

Or a Math PhD who explains to you an Integral Calculus Equation?

Those ate better examples than your "priest" hoo-hah.

They ate them? Oh, dear Lord. How horrible. And pardon my metaphorical hoo-hah for going over your head.

You should probably Google an Astrological Natal Chart to see all what is involved, amigo.

I think I'll pass. I'm not of the opinion that astrology is a reliable science or even a science in the first place.

Sorry.

"Those ARE better examples that your Priest one."

heh. I'm sorry for being sarcastic.

And...ya really should take a quick gander at those charts. I believe you would be impressed at their complexity. Or at least admit that there is indeed more to it than you were aware.

I believe I will, actually... though complex doesn't mean right. Whatever. I'll take your advice and then formulate more qualified opinions.

And that's all I'm askin' my friend!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 5:13:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 5:06:07 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:59:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:43:29 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:38:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
And if you maybe knew a little but more about Astrology you would know it NEVER claims to predict. Did you even know that?
Not only did I not even know it, SoM, I outright refute it. :) Here's a quote from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios -- the most seminal work in mainstream European astrological tradition:
Astrology has a 2,000 year history of prediction in Europe and elsewhere. Like bibliomancy (tarot, I ching etc...), one might use it for creative reflection too, but that's not its chief traditional use.

Ptolemy?
Yup.

LOL. Are you serious.
Ayup.

Why on Earth (see what I did there?) would you post something by him to prove a science point?
Uh, because pretty much the whole of mainstream European astrological tradition -- -- including their star-charts and analyses -- are based on Ptolemy?

Wow.
Uh-huh. Good ol' Ptolemy, right? A guy who can't be trusted astronomically is nevertheless relied-on for astrological prognostications in tabloid newspapers and women's magazines across the English-speaking world.

But if you knew anything about astrology, surely you'd have to know that, yes? ;)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 5:56:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
An afterthought, SoM -- because your tone is a bit at odds with what you say you believe...

Are you seeking a clear distinction between science and pseudoscience? I realise that in a technical, computational practice like astrology, this may be blurred.

Please poke me if you want clarification.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 6:30:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 5:13:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 5:06:07 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:59:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:43:29 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:38:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
And if you maybe knew a little but more about Astrology you would know it NEVER claims to predict. Did you even know that?
Not only did I not even know it, SoM, I outright refute it. :) Here's a quote from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios -- the most seminal work in mainstream European astrological tradition:
Astrology has a 2,000 year history of prediction in Europe and elsewhere. Like bibliomancy (tarot, I ching etc...), one might use it for creative reflection too, but that's not its chief traditional use.

Ptolemy?
Yup.

LOL. Are you serious.
Ayup.

Why on Earth (see what I did there?) would you post something by him to prove a science point?
Uh, because pretty much the whole of mainstream European astrological tradition -- -- including their star-charts and analyses -- are based on Ptolemy?

Wow.
Uh-huh. Good ol' Ptolemy, right? A guy who can't be trusted astronomically is nevertheless relied-on for astrological prognostications in tabloid newspapers and women's magazines across the English-speaking world.

But if you knew anything about astrology, surely you'd have to know that, yes? ;)

Nope/

No credible Astrologer uses his stuff today. Again..please look at the charts. You will see they clearly depict a Heliocentric Solar System. NOT a Geocentric.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 7:09:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 6:30:12 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 5:13:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 5:06:07 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:59:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:43:29 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:38:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
And if you maybe knew a little but more about Astrology you would know it NEVER claims to predict. Did you even know that?
Not only did I not even know it, SoM, I outright refute it. :) Here's a quote from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios -- the most seminal work in mainstream European astrological tradition:
Astrology has a 2,000 year history of prediction in Europe and elsewhere. Like bibliomancy (tarot, I ching etc...), one might use it for creative reflection too, but that's not its chief traditional use.

Ptolemy?
Yup.

LOL. Are you serious.
Ayup.

Why on Earth (see what I did there?) would you post something by him to prove a science point?
Uh, because pretty much the whole of mainstream European astrological tradition -- -- including their star-charts and analyses -- are based on Ptolemy?

Wow.
Uh-huh. Good ol' Ptolemy, right? A guy who can't be trusted astronomically is nevertheless relied-on for astrological prognostications in tabloid newspapers and women's magazines across the English-speaking world.

But if you knew anything about astrology, surely you'd have to know that, yes? ;)

Nope/

No credible Astrologer uses his stuff today. Again..please look at the charts. You will see they clearly depict a Heliocentric Solar System. NOT a Geocentric.

That's a false repudiation, since Ptolemy's meticulously-gathered data underpinned astronomy and astrology for about fourteen centuries, and is still reportedly used by many astrologers today for planetary calculations.

Putting the sun at the centre makes for a simpler predictive model, but doesn't substantially improve on Ptolemy's planetary calculations. However, failing to get axial precession right causes creeping drift that invalidates his data on constellations over a couple of millennia. Ptolemy was aware of this drift, but was out by around 50% on the measure. This example illustrates astronomical ignorance invalidating centuries of supposedly-meticulous and successful astrology.

We can dig into the technics if you want, SoM, but it won't address why, despite being technical, astrology is a pseudoscience. Even if one incorporates axial precession and the latest astronomical data (as I understand some astrologers now do, though many still don't), it will remain pseudoscience.

if you're not clear on why, you're welcome to poke.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 7:28:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 7:09:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 6:30:12 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 5:13:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 5:06:07 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:59:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:43:29 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:38:45 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
And if you maybe knew a little but more about Astrology you would know it NEVER claims to predict. Did you even know that?
Not only did I not even know it, SoM, I outright refute it. :) Here's a quote from Ptolemy's Tetrabiblios -- the most seminal work in mainstream European astrological tradition:
Astrology has a 2,000 year history of prediction in Europe and elsewhere. Like bibliomancy (tarot, I ching etc...), one might use it for creative reflection too, but that's not its chief traditional use.

Ptolemy?
Yup.

LOL. Are you serious.
Ayup.

Why on Earth (see what I did there?) would you post something by him to prove a science point?
Uh, because pretty much the whole of mainstream European astrological tradition -- -- including their star-charts and analyses -- are based on Ptolemy?

Wow.
Uh-huh. Good ol' Ptolemy, right? A guy who can't be trusted astronomically is nevertheless relied-on for astrological prognostications in tabloid newspapers and women's magazines across the English-speaking world.

But if you knew anything about astrology, surely you'd have to know that, yes? ;)

Nope/

No credible Astrologer uses his stuff today. Again..please look at the charts. You will see they clearly depict a Heliocentric Solar System. NOT a Geocentric.

That's a false repudiation, since Ptolemy's meticulously-gathered data underpinned astronomy and astrology for about fourteen centuries, and is still reportedly used by many astrologers today for planetary calculations.

Putting the sun at the centre makes for a simpler predictive model, but doesn't substantially improve on Ptolemy's planetary calculations. However, failing to get axial precession right causes creeping drift that invalidates his data on constellations over a couple of millennia. Ptolemy was aware of this drift, but was out by around 50% on the measure. This example illustrates astronomical ignorance invalidating centuries of supposedly-meticulous and successful astrology.

We can dig into the technics if you want, SoM, but it won't address why, despite being technical, astrology is a pseudoscience. Even if one incorporates axial precession and the latest astronomical data (as I understand some astrologers now do, though many still don't), it will remain pseudoscience.

if you're not clear on why, you're welcome to poke.

Oh..I have no doubt that Astrology will remain a psuedo-science for some for at least a little while. Since it most likely works by incorporating Quantum Mechanics; a field of study we are just now scratching the surface of. (this possible mechanism for how Astrology works was mentioned in one of the several links I provided, if you recall).

But..I would respectfully ask you to consider that these things were also the provence of Psuedo-Science for many years......

Rogue Waves

String Theory

Steady State Theory

Earthquake Light

Flight my heavier-than-air machines

Ball Lightening

Chronobiology and Chronomedicine

Space Travel

That the Ether existed

Neuroplasticity
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 7:49:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 7:28:08 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:09:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
We can dig into the technics if you want, SoM, but it won't address why, despite being technical, astrology is a pseudoscience. Even if one incorporates axial precession and the latest astronomical data (as I understand some astrologers now do, though many still don't), it will remain pseudoscience.

Oh..I have no doubt that Astrology will remain a psuedo-science for some for at least a little while.

But..I would respectfully ask you to consider that these things were also the provence of Psuedo-Science for many years......

SoM, I'm concerned about these statements. By way of clarification, conjecture can be rejected for lack of evidence, only to become accepted scientific theory later, but pseudoscience cannot itself become science.

Until your post, it never occurred to me that anyone would think it could, and I'm only just beginning to realise that some people may think pseudoscience is unproven science.

It's not. I don't want to launch into an unwelcome lecture, but if you'd like to know why not, I'd be happy to explain and defend why not.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 8:50:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 7:49:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:28:08 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:09:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
We can dig into the technics if you want, SoM, but it won't address why, despite being technical, astrology is a pseudoscience. Even if one incorporates axial precession and the latest astronomical data (as I understand some astrologers now do, though many still don't), it will remain pseudoscience.

Oh..I have no doubt that Astrology will remain a psuedo-science for some for at least a little while.

But..I would respectfully ask you to consider that these things were also the provence of Psuedo-Science for many years......

SoM, I'm concerned about these statements. By way of clarification, conjecture can be rejected for lack of evidence, only to become accepted scientific theory later, but pseudoscience cannot itself become science.

Until your post, it never occurred to me that anyone would think it could, and I'm only just beginning to realise that some people may think pseudoscience is unproven science.

It's not. I don't want to launch into an unwelcome lecture, but if you'd like to know why not, I'd be happy to explain and defend why not.

OK...well, let's see if you agree with my own definition of Psuedo-science.

To me, it means beliefs or theories that have been considered scientific by some people, but according to others--usually in the scientific community--actually have no basis in scientific fact. No proof.

Now.....this might mean they were disproved scientifically, but mot always. It can also mean they so far can"t be tested. Or, they simply lack enough evidence for the naysayers to support them.

Is that close?

Thanks.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 8:55:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 8:50:17 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:49:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:28:08 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:09:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
We can dig into the technics if you want, SoM, but it won't address why, despite being technical, astrology is a pseudoscience. Even if one incorporates axial precession and the latest astronomical data (as I understand some astrologers now do, though many still don't), it will remain pseudoscience.

Oh..I have no doubt that Astrology will remain a psuedo-science for some for at least a little while.

But..I would respectfully ask you to consider that these things were also the provence of Psuedo-Science for many years......

SoM, I'm concerned about these statements. By way of clarification, conjecture can be rejected for lack of evidence, only to become accepted scientific theory later, but pseudoscience cannot itself become science.

Until your post, it never occurred to me that anyone would think it could, and I'm only just beginning to realise that some people may think pseudoscience is unproven science.

It's not. I don't want to launch into an unwelcome lecture, but if you'd like to know why not, I'd be happy to explain and defend why not.

OK...well, let's see if you agree with my own definition of Psuedo-science.

To me, it means beliefs or theories that have been considered scientific by some people, but according to others--usually in the scientific community--actually have no basis in scientific fact. No proof.

Now.....this might mean they were disproved scientifically, but mot always. It can also mean they so far can"t be tested. Or, they simply lack enough evidence for the naysayers to support them.

Is that close?

Thanks.

PS..I also want to add that as per my own definition...I disagree with you when you say that something alleged by some to be psuedo science can never become science.

Like my ether example--until Mickleson-Morley it was science. It is now psuedo. Works both ways I guess..
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 9:24:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 8:50:17 PM, Saint_of_Me wrote:
At 6/25/2015 7:49:12 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
By way of clarification, conjecture can be rejected for lack of evidence, only to become accepted scientific theory later, but pseudoscience cannot itself become science.
I don't want to launch into an unwelcome lecture, but if you'd like to know why not, I'd be happy to explain and defend why not.

OK...well, let's see if you agree with my own definition of Psuedo-science.

To me, it means beliefs or theories that have been considered scientific by some people, but according to others--usually in the scientific community--actually have no basis in scientific fact. No proof.

Now.....this might mean they were disproved scientifically, but mot always. It can also mean they so far can"t be tested. Or, they simply lack enough evidence for the naysayers to support them.

Is that close?

It's close, but I'd like to try and refine it. There has been some contention over the definition, and that might be confusing itself. Please forgive what might be a lengthy exposition.

Colloquially, pseudoscience generally means anything that sounds like science but isn't -- so that's consistent with your definition -- however the question of why it isn't science is pivotal.

Newtonian mechanics for example, isn't pseudoscience; it's just superseded science -- it got replaced by Einsteinian mechanics. However, alchemy isn't science, but a pseudoscientific theory.

Now, Isaac Newton worked on both. So sometimes he was a scientist; sometimes a pseudoscientist. How can we tell what's what, except in retrospect? And how can we tell whether we've made the right call even in retrospect, if later knowledge proves some dismissed conjectures true?

We need to untangle it, and I think the trick is not to just look at the conjectures, but how they're being approached.

Science does a very good job of acquiring and improving knowledge, but does this by eliminating error -- conceptual error in models and theories, oversights in observations, and imprecisions in measurements. And the way science works is: once an error is eliminated, it doesn't come back. That's why our sciences continuously improve, rather than spiraling or stalling. So falsification is critical to scientific integrity. A conjecture that can be tested and falsified becomes part of scientific knowledge, even if it's wrong; but a conjecture that can't be falsified or only confirmed, or a theory where practitioners make no effort to falsify it, isn't science.

The reason alchemy is pseudoscience is that it's based on a conjecture that couldn't be falsified: the idea that all matter was made out of four or five elements; that these elements could be extracted and refined, and used to make any material you wanted. As a conjecture, if that had worked it would have been very useful. But how do you know if it's wrong? If an extraction process fails, is that the theory, or the process?

Newton couldn't know. In fact, he finished most of his substantive work on physics by the tender age of 25, and wasted the rest of his life on alchemy. But by contrast, his work on mechanics, optics and gravity was easy to falsify: you just needed to run tests, take measurements and see if they matched Newton's specific predictions. So his mechanics, optics and gravity were science -- even if later theories superseded them. But his work on alchemy was (alas) pseudoscience.

And here's the problem with pseudoscience, Saint... Even if you guess right, so what? Suppose Newton had found a process to turn lead into gold. Does that make the four element theory of matter correct, or did the process work for some other reason? There's no way of knowing.

By the time we had a viable atomic theory of matter, we had a robust way of validating or falsifying it, through the work of 19th century chemist, John Dalton: elements only ever combined in specific proportions. So we could find the fundamental proportions, and work out atomic weights. And that indicated there were more elements than alchemy had said.

Switching back to astrology, European astrology is based on some very smart conjectures of second century CE philosopher Ptolemy: that:
(1) Conjecture: matter was based on four elements (hence the 'fire sign', 'water sign' etc... of astrology);
(2) Observation: clearly celestial bodies somehow affected the seasons, the behaviour of animals and peoples' moods (more an observation without explanation than a conjecture);
(3) Observation: the movement of celestial bodies was precisely predictable; and therefore
(4) Conjecture: if celestial bodies affected everything, then
(5) Conclusion: the destiny of everything should be precisely predictable from studying the celestial bodies.

Running through the propositions, we now know (1) is false, but let's set that aside, because we now have a better model. (2) is overstated and Ptolemy had no mechanisms for effect, but there's still some truth in it; (3) is absolutely correct; (5) is a reasonable conclusion if everything else is true, but (4) -- which I underlined -- is purely speculative. And how can it be falsified?

Astrologers never both to test or falsify (4); and they overstate (2) without proposing a mechanism. Thus, like alchemy, astrology is unfalsifiable. It can improve its precision technically (replacing Ptolemaic calculations with modern ones), but can never eliminate its own conceptual errors.

Thus, even if celestial bodies could somehow influence people in subtle ways (bearing out Ptolemy's conjecture (2)), the resulting scientific study would not produce a Department of Astrology in any self-respecting Science faculty. Instead, it'd be the Department of something else, and they'd start from a blank sheet of paper, investigating mechanisms, and making falsifiable predictions and testing them.

As astrologers do not, and never shall do. :)

Hence, and with apologies to your ex-wife, even stretching to allow some truth in astrological conjectures, astrology is and always shall be, pseudoscience.

I hope that helps. :)