View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Why I think astrology is false

Discuss Divination, Fortune Telling - Astrology, Tarot, Runes, I Ching, Tea Leaves, etc. and Predictions.

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby Don » 11 Oct 2009, 02:17

ciscop wrote:don i would really appretiate if you can share some of your research that led you to believe astrology is real.


I have never once said that I believe astrology is real. Unfortunately, debunkers often like to come up with false arguments. When it comes to something like astrology I am a true skeptic. I want to investigate all sides of an issue and not simply be a debunker. It would seem that certain aspects of astrology have some degree of statistical validity. Further research may prove that those statistics were based on too small a sample.




ooh... and by the way
i also found it amusing that in your opinion, your astronomy professor might had a heart attack because he cheated in gauquelin's mars effect investigation.. but you FORGOT that actually GAUQUELIN KILLED HIMSELF after he was debunked by the protocol he accepted.


Even the debunker god Kurtz admits that Gauquelin had been ill for months ( http://books.google.com/books?id=q34zda ... de&f=false ) and that the debunkers hadn't disproved him, just wore him out.

However, let's assume what you're saying was true.
In the case of Abel, his heart attack may have been caused by his fraudulent act of data manipulation and the revelation of it.
In the case of Gauquelin, his suicide (by your inference) may have been caused by the actions of debunkers.

So you're saying that debunkers are responsible for two deaths. My, that's something to be proud of--NOT!


oh by the way
i love astrology, is the best way to learn how to read people, tell them a lot about themselves without even saying anything meanigful or personal at all.


Then clearly you know nothing about astrology.
Don
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 31 Aug 2009, 08:02






Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby Don » 11 Oct 2009, 02:24

ProfWag wrote:
Don wrote:
That's like saying many plumbers don't want their craft scrutinized by academic evaluation because they would have little to gain but much to lose. LOL!

In fact, I've personally met hundreds of astrologers who would love to have their science scrutinized by academic evaluation. How many have you actually met in order to make your claim, or is that just your fantasy? The problem is that there is NO reason for academics to evaluate astrology. What purpose is there in it? So who ends up doing it? People who have an agenda, and more times than not, the agenda is debunking.What you're failing to understand is that you have a belief system that doesn't allow for astrology. That's fine. That's you're belief. Cool. That doesn't mean astrology isn't valid. It just means you don't believe it.


No, that's like saying many plumbers want to be members of the better business bureau so their work is recognized as being respectable.


The BBB is a self-regulatory organization primarily for the enhancement of the businesses involved. They do not send out for scientists to academically evaluate member businesses. Your suggestion is waaaaaay off.

So, you have "personally met hundreds of astrologers who would love to have their science scrutinezed by academic evaluation." Perhaps that is what they tell you (interesting that comes up in so many of your conversations), but if they are so interested, then why are there no academic journal articles with this scientific evaluation?


What part of " The problem is that there is NO reason for academics to evaluate astrology" didn't you understand?

I've looked through my journal access of ProQuest and Lexus Nexus with no results. Surely at least ONE of these astrologers, if they are so interested, lives close enough to a communicty college that would be willing to evaluate this astrologer. The rest of your paragraph is simply an excuse. You say there "is NO reason for academics to evaluate astrology." Whaaaaa? You astrologers are the FIRST people to want to be considered as a science, yet you say there is NO reason to evaluate it? Sorry Don, but the only reason there is no reason to evaluate it is because it is a science that has little or no merit. Scientific studies that would show that astrology has no merit would mean fewer people would be willing to fork out money to astrologers. It would hurt their pocketbook and THAT's the only reason astrologers won't get themselves tested.


Your argument is so devoid of logic that it's astounding. Statisticians are simply not interested in astrology. But tell you what. YOU put up U.S. $500,000 and I'm sure we can find some academic scholars willing to do this objectively rather than from those who wish to promote their agenda from either side of the issue.

Put up or shut up.
Don
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 31 Aug 2009, 08:02

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby ciscop » 11 Oct 2009, 04:00

hahahahaha i never said skeptics killed gauquelin
i am not sure you understand the word suicide so i will tell you what it means: suicide is the intentional killing of one's self
gauquelin killed himself, not the skeptics. (i guess Mars was particullary unstable that day)

Then clearly you know nothing about astrology.


and im sorry
but what do you know about astrology? :-p to start, Which one? the Chinese? The Mayan? the Greek? is nothing but a belief system
are you familiar with the forer effect? and how many psychologist and magicians have replicated the test?
but hey if you are into believing particular groups of stars rule your life and behavior while there´s no scientific evidence to back it up then.. Ok.. whatever makes you happy Don...
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2009, 21:20

Don wrote: ...and can easily recognize and illogical, bad argument when I read one.


So can I...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2009, 21:30

Don wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
Don wrote:
That's like saying many plumbers don't want their craft scrutinized by academic evaluation because they would have little to gain but much to lose. LOL!

In fact, I've personally met hundreds of astrologers who would love to have their science scrutinized by academic evaluation. How many have you actually met in order to make your claim, or is that just your fantasy? The problem is that there is NO reason for academics to evaluate astrology. What purpose is there in it? So who ends up doing it? People who have an agenda, and more times than not, the agenda is debunking.What you're failing to understand is that you have a belief system that doesn't allow for astrology. That's fine. That's you're belief. Cool. That doesn't mean astrology isn't valid. It just means you don't believe it.


No, that's like saying many plumbers want to be members of the better business bureau so their work is recognized as being respectable.


The BBB is a self-regulatory organization primarily for the enhancement of the businesses involved. They do not send out for scientists to academically evaluate member businesses. Your suggestion is waaaaaay off.

So, you have "personally met hundreds of astrologers who would love to have their science scrutinezed by academic evaluation." Perhaps that is what they tell you (interesting that comes up in so many of your conversations), but if they are so interested, then why are there no academic journal articles with this scientific evaluation?


What part of " The problem is that there is NO reason for academics to evaluate astrology" didn't you understand?

I've looked through my journal access of ProQuest and Lexus Nexus with no results. Surely at least ONE of these astrologers, if they are so interested, lives close enough to a communicty college that would be willing to evaluate this astrologer. The rest of your paragraph is simply an excuse. You say there "is NO reason for academics to evaluate astrology." Whaaaaa? You astrologers are the FIRST people to want to be considered as a science, yet you say there is NO reason to evaluate it? Sorry Don, but the only reason there is no reason to evaluate it is because it is a science that has little or no merit. Scientific studies that would show that astrology has no merit would mean fewer people would be willing to fork out money to astrologers. It would hurt their pocketbook and THAT's the only reason astrologers won't get themselves tested.


Your argument is so devoid of logic that it's astounding. Statisticians are simply not interested in astrology. But tell you what. YOU put up U.S. $500,000 and I'm sure we can find some academic scholars willing to do this objectively rather than from those who wish to promote their agenda from either side of the issue.

Put up or shut up.

I think that both of our statements about plumbers is called an "analogy," Don. Nothing to get all uptight about.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2009, 21:42

Don wrote:
I love that you mentioned Newton in defense of your position. Newton was an astrologer. So were Tyco Brahe, Kepler, and Copernicus. Astronomy evolved as a way to help astrologers before it separated. Originally, astronomy was the minor science created to help astrologers.

It has been said that when Halley, discoverer of the Comet named after him, told Newton that he (Halley) believe astrology was bunk, Newton replied, "Sir, I have studied it, you have not." That may or may not be true.

No, the evidence does not point to Newton being an astrologer.
S.J. Tester, A History of Western Astrology (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1987), pp. 229-230; P. Curry, Prophecy and Power: Astrology in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), pp. 142-144.

T.G. Cowling, Isaac Newton and Astrology (Leeds: Leeds University Press, 1977), p. 3.
Last edited by ProfWag on 12 Oct 2009, 22:09, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2009, 22:08

Don wrote:
What part of " The problem is that there is NO reason for academics to evaluate astrology" didn't you understand?

Nothing, Don. I don't agree with your statement in the least and you don't provide anything to back up your statement. Dr. Tapan Das (as just one example) wrote a complete book on why astrology is a science. So, if it is, then why don't they make it scientific? What would you believe if I said: "Hey, I'm a genius! But I'm not taking an IQ test."
You gave lame excuses for astrology not being evaluated. You stated:
"What purpose is there in it?" Answer, to give credence to a highly misunderstood and unscrutinized discipline.
"So who ends up doing it?" Academia. Who else?
"People who have an agenda, and more times than not, the agenda is debunking." Purely an opinion with no basis. Sure, the JREF and others may have an agenda, however, most respected academics and scientists do not have an agenda. Perhaps that's just the way you think.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby Don » 17 Oct 2009, 14:32

ProfWag wrote:
Don wrote:
I love that you mentioned Newton in defense of your position. Newton was an astrologer. So were Tyco Brahe, Kepler, and Copernicus. Astronomy evolved as a way to help astrologers before it separated. Originally, astronomy was the minor science created to help astrologers.

It has been said that when Halley, discoverer of the Comet named after him, told Newton that he (Halley) believe astrology was bunk, Newton replied, "Sir, I have studied it, you have not." That may or may not be true.

No, the evidence does not point to Newton being an astrologer.
S.J. Tester, A History of Western Astrology (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1987), pp. 229-230; P. Curry, Prophecy and Power: Astrology in Early Modern England (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989), pp. 142-144.

T.G. Cowling, Isaac Newton and Astrology (Leeds: Leeds University Press, 1977), p. 3.


It's clear that Newton knew astrology and used it. Does that make him an astrologer? Depends upon your definition of the term. Next you're going to be saying that he wasn't an alchemist or a writer on religion.
Don
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 31 Aug 2009, 08:02

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby Don » 17 Oct 2009, 14:37

ProfWag wrote:
Don wrote:
What part of " The problem is that there is NO reason for academics to evaluate astrology" didn't you understand?


Nothing, Don. I don't agree with your statement in the least and you don't provide anything to back up your statement. Dr. Tapan Das (as just one example) wrote a complete book on why astrology is a science. So, if it is, then why don't they make it scientific? What would you believe if I said: "Hey, I'm a genius! But I'm not taking an IQ test."
You gave lame excuses for astrology not being evaluated. You stated:
"What purpose is there in it?" Answer, to give credence to a highly misunderstood and unscrutinized discipline.
"So who ends up doing it?" Academia. Who else?
"People who have an agenda, and more times than not, the agenda is debunking." Purely an opinion with no basis. Sure, the JREF and others may have an agenda, however, most respected academics and scientists do not have an agenda. Perhaps that's just the way you think.


Fine. YOU supply a few hundred thousand dollars to test it. If you won't. We'll just have to settle for 10,000 years of people using it (earliest references seem to be in the Rg Veda dated to 8,000 b.c.e.).

Of course scientists have agendas. Ones who claim they don't are only deceiving themselves. The spate of bad research and faked testing over the past few decades only proves it. Even Mendel probably faked his research with peas--there's not enough deviation from mean to be realistic. He had an agenda.
Don
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 31 Aug 2009, 08:02

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby ProfWag » 17 Oct 2009, 19:48

Don wrote:Fine. YOU supply a few hundred thousand dollars to test it. If you won't. We'll just have to settle for 10,000 years of people using it (earliest references seem to be in the Rg Veda dated to 8,000 b.c.e.).

Don, please help with my confusion. Astrology has been around for 10,000 years. I won't dispute that at all as it's quite probable that your right. Yet, it's just been in the last 100 years or so that people's birth times have been recorded and known. How did they give astrology readings up until that point if, as you have said, the time of birth is important to an accurate reading? I can only come up with two reasons. 1) Astrology was not acurate for the first 9,900 years or 2), astrology has been accurate for 10,000 years and birth times aren't necessary. Do you have a another explanation?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby accidentsinspace » 19 Oct 2009, 01:25

The Illuminati are obsessed with symbolism.numerology and astrology, it is all part and parcel of their devotion to Luciferianism. Case closed.
User avatar
accidentsinspace
 
Posts: 162
Joined: 17 Oct 2009, 01:31

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby Don » 01 Nov 2009, 10:38

ProfWag wrote:
Don wrote:Fine. YOU supply a few hundred thousand dollars to test it. If you won't. We'll just have to settle for 10,000 years of people using it (earliest references seem to be in the Rg Veda dated to 8,000 b.c.e.).

Don, please help with my confusion. Astrology has been around for 10,000 years. I won't dispute that at all as it's quite probable that your right. Yet, it's just been in the last 100 years or so that people's birth times have been recorded and known. How did they give astrology readings up until that point if, as you have said, the time of birth is important to an accurate reading? I can only come up with two reasons. 1) Astrology was not acurate for the first 9,900 years or 2), astrology has been accurate for 10,000 years and birth times aren't necessary. Do you have a another explanation?



Sure! The problem is you are a closed-minded dogmatist intent upon debunking a straw man version of astrology that you've invented in your mind even though you've admitted you know almost nothing about astrology. Your question is like asking how the sun worked for billions of years before we figured out the way fusion works.

However:
1) People have recorded their birth times for ages. Merely because they haven't done it in the West doesn't mean it didn't take place all over the world (especially in India and the Middle East where astrology began). You're like the "scientists" of Europe who denied that there were little people-like animals in Africa and who had to admit their error when gorillas were finally introduced to European zoos.
2) What you call an "astrological reading" is a superficial and incomplete term. What you actually mean is a horoscope interpretation. Horoscope interpretations are only one part of astrology. There are a wide variety of astrological techniques that have nothing to do with people's birth horoscopes.

You know, you'd be a much better debunker if you'd actually try to debunk real astrology instead of the fantasy you've made up in your mind.
Don
 
Posts: 52
Joined: 31 Aug 2009, 08:02

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby ProfWag » 01 Nov 2009, 20:59

Don wrote:
Sure! The problem is you are a closed-minded dogmatist intent upon debunking a straw man version of astrology that you've invented in your mind even though you've admitted you know almost nothing about astrology. Your question is like asking how the sun worked for billions of years before we figured out the way fusion works.

However:
1) People have recorded their birth times for ages. Merely because they haven't done it in the West doesn't mean it didn't take place all over the world (especially in India and the Middle East where astrology began). You're like the "scientists" of Europe who denied that there were little people-like animals in Africa and who had to admit their error when gorillas were finally introduced to European zoos.
2) What you call an "astrological reading" is a superficial and incomplete term. What you actually mean is a horoscope interpretation. Horoscope interpretations are only one part of astrology. There are a wide variety of astrological techniques that have nothing to do with people's birth horoscopes.

You know, you'd be a much better debunker if you'd actually try to debunk real astrology instead of the fantasy you've made up in your mind.

Thanks for the response Don. It appears you have not answered my question, but instead, call me names and point fingers. I go to astrology.com and here are the topics I discover on their homepage: Horoscopes, Love, Psychic Readings, Tarot, Numerology, Vedic, Chinese, Feng Shui, Maya Aztec. Is it your stance that some are valid and some are not? How have you come to reach your opinion? Or, is this not a valid astrology source? If not, do you have a better one you could provide? Although you have stated earlier that you have never said astrology was real, yet you state in the above post that I would be a better debunker if I'd try to debunk “real astrology.” What do you consider "real astrology" if you don’t believe something about astrology is real? I can only present evidence and ask questions on information that is provided to me. Please Don, I would like to debate a subject that I believe may not have credibility, but when I ask questions, I get told I'm a "closed-minded dogmatist" and get analogies that have nothing to do with debating astrology. So, why don't you make it easy for both of us? What exactly is your stance on astrology? Do you believe that all of the topics on the astrology.com homepage have validity? Why do you believe in whatever way you answer? You have used www.astrologer.com as a source before, so when I go there, I see links to all of the above subjects as well. So if you would like to present your views, I request you do so without name calling and defensive attacks. This is a serious subject worthy of debate, but as of now, I have nothing from anyone to debate.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby NinjaPuppy » 01 Nov 2009, 21:10

I prefer Susan Miller at http://astrologyzone.com/. :D
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why I think astrology is false

Postby ProfWag » 03 Nov 2009, 05:08

Don wrote:
However:
1) People have recorded their birth times for ages. Merely because they haven't done it in the West doesn't mean it didn't take place all over the world (especially in India and the Middle East where astrology began). You're like the "scientists" of Europe who denied that there were little people-like animals in Africa and who had to admit their error when gorillas were finally introduced to European zoos.
2) What you call an "astrological reading" is a superficial and incomplete term. What you actually mean is a horoscope interpretation. Horoscope interpretations are only one part of astrology. There are a wide variety of astrological techniques that have nothing to do with people's birth horoscopes.

I forgot to mention Don, you are incorrect about your statement #1 above. You 1) clearly either did not understand what point I was trying to make concerening the time of birth and Natal Charts or 2), you did, but tried to change the subject by countering it with completely false information. Could you be a little more specific about how people recorded their time of birth in the Middle East and India? Clocks weren't even invented in a practical matter until the late 1600's. Sundials were invented prior to that, but those are hardly accurate enough to record a time of birth and compare it to a natal chart.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Divination / Fortune Telling / Predictions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest