Star-signs!

[Tarbicus]

I personally find nothing more wonderful than a person who does good deeds without the fear of Hell to motivate them. There are far too many people in this world with a desire for Heaven that drives them to acts of pure evil.

[Ramesses II]

In many cases you might be right in asking "what is right and what is wrong". A good and wise philosophical question. But don't stop in looking for an answer or worse propose a non-answer and simply say that is there are no such things as "right" and "wrong". THAT is bad philosophy. It gets you no where and you are simply "sticking your head in a hole", "turning the lights off". Of course you may do as you wish.

Not all claims are on an equal level. Some are good and useful and get you somewhere, others are just bla bla. There ARE some cases were an answer can be given to the question as whether something is right or wrong. Energy may be transfered in many ways, but telepathy is a bogus idea. Life is a complex and in many ways mysterious phenomena, but reincarnation is a bogus idea. Religion is a very human necessity but to believe the world is 6000 years old and was simply made to look as if it were billions is not even right or wrong, it is so philosophically dishonest to even be considered.

To summarize: some claims can be interesting and provocative and may benefit from many doubts. Other claims are simply wrong. Others yet are simply dishonest. I am not saying that the person making the claim is dishonest like Al Capone, but that the claim doesn't allow an open discussion. A claim such as "the world just looks to be billions of year old" might be tooted by an honest and sincere person, but his claim is intellectually a rip off. It steals me the possibility of making any form of argument. The same is true of claims that hide behind the notion that "science does not explain everything". Science does NOT explain everything! Indeed scientists never say thay! Indeed those that say science "wants to explain everything" are those that have no scientific background.

To conclude my position: Some strange claim can be unexplained but still be CONSISTENT with what science knows with a high degree of certainty. Such a claim would not be as great problem but as a challange and it would be interesting to study. Other strange claims are INCONSISTENT with what little we know. Here is where I can REASONABLY state that that strange idea is wrong! I put the word "reasonably" in CAPITAL LETTERS because the word plays a central role. If you question the usefulness or soundness of the notion of "reasonable", be careful how you do it. You might be risking a fall into the categories of "uselessness" and "dishonesty".

It doesn't mean I'm blind ... I don't want to get too philosophical, I admit I haven't got the abilities to do so. I can say from my part that people can blindy follow science. I'm studying science, believe it or not. Physics, chemical stuff, mathematics, biology, whatever. None of those things can explain why people can 'see' more that others. Whether they're there or not, doesn't matter. As I said before, I'm talking about personal experience. Yes I do get a lot of critics too about the things I tell other people (yet I don't tell everything, just to seem not a complete idiot (not yet)). But as you call me, or someone who does believe those things, blind, I can call you 'non-believers' people who aren't open-minded.

How was he making money? The horoscope he provided was free. This was an experiment specifically designed to demonstrate that astrology is rubbish and to embarrass those who think otherwise. He succeeded IMO. If you believe otherwise perhaps you could answer one of my questions.

Sorry, I've read over the word 'experiment'. My mistake. But who can say with clear evidence there are no such things and it's all rubbish ? Unless they can absolutely proof the opposite, you cannot say there is no such thing. Same thing with "aliens" or "life outside this planet". The majority of the people don't believe there's life outside of this planet and the earth is the only populated planet. Yet nothing or no one has ever proved that to be correct. You can't say it isn't so as no one got any proof. I know, you can turn the sentence to the fact that no one has proved there is life outside this planet, but basically it's the same. Same thing for astrology. There are people who believe, people that endure something. People who aren't aware don't believe.

I suggest we just let it go (second try). It's quite an endless discussion, you're contra and I'm pro. Apparently we're too stubborn to admit towards each other :roll: :wink:

[Ramesses II]

I personally find nothing more wonderful than a person who does good deeds without the fear of Hell to motivate them. There are far too many people in this world with a desire for Heaven that drives them to acts of pure evil.

Yes me too. Quite easy if you don't believe in heavon or hell, to do good deeds without the fear of hell

[Matt Lukes]

Science is indeed a lovely thing, but in truth it seems that the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know. Often an answer creates several more questions, which is both the fascination and the curse of science I think. Cell biology is my particular area and although I understand in great detail many of the inner workings of a living cell, whenever I think of all that has to work in harmony and then to think how much more must work to keep say an organ system working and then an entire organism- it just blows me away really :lol: Throw in physics, chemistry, psychology and all the other 'ologies'... this universe is mind-bogglingly complex- unBELIEVEABLY complex... so as much as I might think that things like astrology are ridiculous on one hand, on the other I can't help but reserve judgement because there is so very much we just don't know.

It's intriguing how the characteristics of the signs can actually be somewhat accurate- I used to be a fairly typical Virgo (although I'm much better now :lol: ), as is my little sister, 12 years younger. Do I consider that the stars, planets and moon actually have an influence on someone's personality, etc.? Not really- by known facts, there's just no way to explain how they could, and yet who knows? There are certainly forces as yet undiscovered by science, what if one of those is at work? Or maybe it's something else altogether- maybe it's actually the time of year and all the environmental influences that cause the personality traits and the stars are just contemporaneous observations rather than being actually involved? It's far more likely to be the influence of the microconditions in utero that affect development (if that's what creates the personality traits described by astrology)- environment affects mom, mom affects developing baby.

To further complicate things, it's my understanding that insanely serious mathematicians have worked-out that there should be at least 11 dimensions- 7 more than the 4 we're consciously aware of, so who knows what nature these others have or what's in them? I haven't the foggiest idea how they figured this out (I'm a mess when it comes to basic calculus), but they're damn smart people, so I'll take their word for it :lol: Science has this lovely self-checking apparatus called 'peer-review'- all the data is made available so that anyone who cares to can check a person's work and see if the conclusions are indeed valid. This makes me far more secure in taking scientific facts 'on faith' than those from most other sources where nothing can be checked.

The long and short of it is that there's just a whole lot of weird stuff in the universe that can be observed but not explained (yet), so I try to keep an open mind. Admitting ignorance is far better than being shown to be wrong

Matt

[hoplite14gr]

I liked Matt´s answer. Seems to agree with Socrates very much:lol: :!:
I want to add that as philosophical belief (I include religion there) starts based on axioms so does science. Maths are full of axioms. So some degree of "belief" is required. As a conclusion I would like to add that "belivers" and "sceptics" are both needed if we want to have a balanced world and to have progress.
Kind regards

[Dan Howard]

Sorry, I've read over the word 'experiment'. My mistake. But who can say with clear evidence there are no such things and it's all rubbish ? Unless they can absolutely proof the opposite, you cannot say there is no such thing.

It is a logical impossibility to prove a negative. It is up to those who support a hypothesis to provide evidence to support its validity. All I have asked for is a single scientific experiment that does this. If there is a balance of experiments some showing positive and some showing negative results then one is entitled to say that we don't know. When the overwhelming number of experiments all produce the same results, it is extremely likely that this is the "right" answer.

Here are some formal tests

In 1971 the Survey Research Centre of the University of California, Berkeley sampled 1000 adults in the bay area getting information on natal signs and lots of attributes claimed by astrology to correspond. For instance, Leos are supposed to have good leadership qualities. An analysis found no correlation for leadership, political stand, intelligence, belief in astrology, musical ability, artistic ability, confidence, creativity, occupation, religion, ability to make friends, to organise or to feel deeply. This showed that these tendencies do not differ between signs, and that natal signs cannot be used to predict personality traits.

In 1982 Australian Skeptics collected thirteen newspaper horoscope columns for the last week of August, rated them for good, bad and vague predictions about News, Health and Luck; Relationships; Finance and Travel. They found very little consistency, in fact most signs had a fairly even spread so, for instance, you could find one paper telling you it would be a lucky week and another saying the opposite. This shows that newspaper horoscopes are essentially random.

In 1985, Harry Edwards checked all the predictions from Old Moore's Almanack for 1984. These were written by a couple of top astrologers. Of the 200 predictions it was possible to check, less than 5% materialised and practically all of those could have been based solely on probability, prior knowledge or astute speculation. Astrologers are no better at predicting the future than anyone else.

In 1985, at the University of California, Berkeley, Shawn Carlson designed a test in conjunction with a number of America's top Astrologers to test the fundamental thesis of natal astrology. Considerable effort was spent ensuring that all parties were happy with the experiments beforehand. In the first experiment, people in a test group were given three horoscopes, one of which was theirs, and asked to rate them for fit. A control group, matched for sun-sign, was given the same horoscopes. The astrologers said the test group should pick their own horoscope at least 50% of the time but both groups did no better than chance. This showed that people can't identify their own horoscope and find any horosope satisfactory. In a second experiment participating astrologers were asked to match horoscopes with corresponding personality inventory tests. Again the astrologers did no better than chance. This shows that horoscopes do not predict personality.

On June 7, 1989, on American television, James Randi offered $100,000 to any psychic or Astrologer who could prove the truth of their claims. An astrologer who took up the challenge was given the birth information of twelve people and had cast their charts. He interviewed the twelve without knowing who was whom and was to identify them by matching them with horoscopes. He got none right.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
Alexander the great.....descendant of Hercules....the constellation of Leo named for the Numidian Lion Hercules killed.
Alexander with his 'lions mane' hair and symbolism of the lion, a leader of men - a king -
The Macedonian calendar was changed after his birth and in modern terms he could indeed be a Leo...born around 11th August* and ruled by the Sun .... just a strange coincidence especially as he passed away in Babylon....whose symbolism was the winged lion? (what do wings usually depict)
http://www.astrologycom.com/leo.html
* In the old calander it could be around 20th July, which makes him the cusp of Cancer and Leo.
Regards
Arthes

[Ramesses II]

In 1982 Australian Skeptics collected thirteen newspaper horoscope columns for the last week of August, rated them for good, bad and vague predictions about News, Health and Luck; Relationships; Finance and Travel. They found very little consistency, in fact most signs had a fairly even spread so, for instance, you could find one paper telling you it would be a lucky week and another saying the opposite. This shows that newspaper horoscopes are essentially random.

What I've said early in this topic : newspaper/magazine-horoscopes are just cr*p.

Science is indeed a lovely thing, but in truth it seems that the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know. Often an answer creates several more questions, which is both the fascination and the curse of science I think. Cell biology is my particular area and although I understand in great detail many of the inner workings of a living cell, whenever I think of all that has to work in harmony and then to think how much more must work to keep say an organ system working and then an entire organism- it just blows me away really :lol: Throw in physics, chemistry, psychology and all the other 'ologies'... this universe is mind-bogglingly complex- unBELIEVEABLY complex... so as much as I might think that things like astrology are ridiculous on one hand, on the other I can't help but reserve judgement because there is so very much we just don't know.

It's intriguing how the characteristics of the signs can actually be somewhat accurate- I used to be a fairly typical Virgo (although I'm much better now :lol: ), as is my little sister, 12 years younger. Do I consider that the stars, planets and moon actually have an influence on someone's personality, etc.? Not really- by known facts, there's just no way to explain how they could, and yet who knows? There are certainly forces as yet undiscovered by science, what if one of those is at work? Or maybe it's something else altogether- maybe it's actually the time of year and all the environmental influences that cause the personality traits and the stars are just contemporaneous observations rather than being actually involved? It's far more likely to be the influence of the microconditions in utero that affect development (if that's what creates the personality traits described by astrology)- environment affects mom, mom affects developing baby.

To further complicate things, it's my understanding that insanely serious mathematicians have worked-out that there should be at least 11 dimensions- 7 more than the 4 we're consciously aware of, so who knows what nature these others have or what's in them? I haven't the foggiest idea how they figured this out (I'm a mess when it comes to basic calculus), but they're damn smart people, so I'll take their word for it :lol: Science has this lovely self-checking apparatus called 'peer-review'- all the data is made available so that anyone who cares to can check a person's work and see if the conclusions are indeed valid. This makes me far more secure in taking scientific facts 'on faith' than those from most other sources where nothing can be checked.

The long and short of it is that there's just a whole lot of weird stuff in the universe that can be observed but not explained (yet), so I try to keep an open mind. Admitting ignorance is far better than being shown to be wrong

Matt

The answer that makes the most sence in this topic I believe

[Goffredo]

Dear Ramsess II

Matt's response is very reasonable. Life and intelligent life is probably the most complex phenomena. There are many things we do not know and it is good to keep an open mind. But he is a biologist and I know many biologists and have noted they tend not to value the few laws that physics are instead quite sure about. Not certain, but if we reasonably consider the many ways astrology doesn't fit with the few things we know well, and of how there is no credible evidence what-so-ever, besides ancedotal evidence that cannot be examined or reproduced by its very nature but for which there are always armies of gullible people ready to accept acritically, and finally then consider the odds, it is BY FAR more likely that astrology is a bunch of hog-wash rather that science missed out on something so "fantastic".

I know you will not agree. But please do not try to rob the show and try to show us the way of what it means to keep an "open mind". Don't take advantage of Matt's experience and wisdom to pretend to quote him and say he makes sense. Your personal experiences and beliefs are simply that and they are not to be acritically accepted simply because you feel strongly about them. You are not the center of the universe! Please don't trying passing as the "wise" person and elevate yourself to the one that is going to close this topic, else I will keep challanging your being the best to judge what makes "most sense". I find it odd you complained "here we go again" when I jumped back in this pseudo-discussion.

[Dan Howard]

What I've said early in this topic : newspaper/magazine-horoscopes are just cr*p.

I like how you selectively take the only example that is possible to debunk and ignore the others. I'm also still awaiting answers for any of my initial questions.

[Dan Howard]

Alexander the great.....descendant of Hercules....the constellation of Leo named for the Numidian Lion Hercules killed.

You do know that Alexander wasn't really descended from Herakles?

[Tarbicus]

You do know that Alexander wasn't really descended from Herakles?

But Commodus was, or at least his reincarnation.

Nice description of Commodus here:

Commodus (180-192)

* bad, insane emperor

o [Gladiator]

* Commodus as Heracles / Hercules

* strangled by buddies

[Dan Howard]

But Commodus was, or at least his reincarnation.

yeah but was he a Leo? :wink:

For that matter, was Herakles a Leo?

[Tarbicus]

yeah but was he a Leo? :wink:

boom boom

[Dan Howard]

The latest study on this subject will be published in the May issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1623400.htm
More confirmation that "star signs" are bollocks.