|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 12, 2010 1:05:01 GMT -5
1) I wasn't arguing the info in that link per-se. you asked for an explanation, I gave you one.
2)I'll admit I've not studied this,I know there are things like that. but I'm not aware to the extent it's "quantifying" emotion it's just showing perhaps a physical origin within the mapping of the brain, ie. activity in this area causes people to emote this way. I tend to think these parts of humanity have greater meaning then pistons firing. Sure on some level maybe that's why we emote, but isn't there a bigger purpose to it all? empathy certainly has an evolutionary argument, but is it really a means to an end? I don't know.
3) people argue things that are not "natural" or "scientific" offer no insight or value. I am a philosophy major and therefore find theoretical thought very valuable, and the pursuit and love of knowledge very valuable as well as some occult practices. What is unbalanced about believing in only the thought process used in the scientific method? (critical, evidence based argumentation) I think there are other ways of thinking that also prove to be insightful. Philosophers have challenged everything we take to be common knowledge, even the value of science and philosophy themselves and if we even exist at all. I think this sort of thinking is important becuase it reinforces all that we do in the name of "higher thought" but it also challenges religious thought. In other words. "nothing's sacred" should be the philosophy, not to say that any ideas should be disrespected outright, but that we can't make special exception for any idea and that includes the scientific method. (for instance explore Hume's criticisms of the scientific method, Hick's "Problem of evil" in relation to religion, Aquinas and his arguments for the Christian god and any ideas that challenge or defend a status quo. )
4) You completely misread that. I'm not saying look at things that are not about finding truth and knowledge. I'm saying if you dismiss the unproven only becuase it's unproven, you're being dogmatic. sure it's perfectly reasonable to hold proven ideas to a higher standard then unproven, but to outright dismiss ideas before you explore them in earnest is no better then the christian church shutting down ideas becuase they contradicted the bible. To do so would to be a blatant enemy of ideas and thus knowledge.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 12, 2010 1:44:05 GMT -5
I'm not merely dismissing the unproven here. I'm dismissing the proven wrong. There is a vast difference between unproven and proven wrong. God's existence is unproven. Young earth creationism is proven wrong. Philosophy that we should question our existence is unproven. Astrology's ability to divine the future or aspects of people's personalities is proven wrong.
Speculate as you will about the unproven. But when an idea is tested and found to be wrong, then that idea is done, unless it can be adjusted to the new data.
Oh, and one other thing. I don't think it's closed-minded to discard the unproven. The vast majority of the unproven makes no sense whatsoever. It's unproven that there are no unicorns in the universe. It's unproven that there are worms living in the core of the earth adapted to life there. I dismiss both of these things. Discarding something with no evidence for it whatsoever is not closed-minded. Refusing to consider it in the first place is -- but considering it and discarding it due to the lack of evidence is not. But that I suppose is an entirely unrelated debate.
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 12, 2010 1:57:37 GMT -5
I'm not merely dismissing the unproven here. I'm dismissing the proven wrong. There is a vast difference between unproven and proven wrong. God's existence is unproven. Young earth creationism is proven wrong. Philosophy that we should question our existence is unproven. Astrology's ability to divine the future or aspects of people's personalities is proven wrong. Speculate as you will about the unproven. But when an idea is tested and found to be wrong, then that idea is done, unless it can be adjusted to the new data. Oh, and one other thing. I don't think it's closed-minded to discard the unproven. The vast majority of the unproven makes no sense whatsoever. It's unproven that there are no unicorns in the universe. It's unproven that there are worms living in the core of the earth adapted to life there. I dismiss both of these things. Discarding something with no evidence for it whatsoever is not closed-minded. Refusing to consider it in the first place is -- but considering it and discarding it due to the lack of evidence is not. But that I suppose is an entirely unrelated debate. that wasn't directed at you. but yes, I suppose that's fine. once again I have to sate. Astrology isn't something I've studied a lot, but I have done so more then the average joe. I can only speculate to the depth of your experience. But I'm unaware as to how astrology has ever been proven wrong, you can't prove the celestial bodies have nothing to do with behavior. You can only say "it doesn't work for me" or "I find it to be untrue" but in my experience divination isn't really as much about fortune telling (as in literally knowing the future) as people tend to expect. in fact Lunacy (the idea that the full moon has psychological effects on us) has been well documented (but never proven, occasionally with statistics that contradict a premise of Lunacy, but never disproven outright to my knowledge.) and if one sphere in the sky effects us, why not others? I'm not saying I'm a believer. I'm saying the reason I always thought it was labeled as a pseudoscience is BECAUSE it's unfalsifiable.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 12, 2010 2:12:28 GMT -5
But you can prove it wrong... the same way you prove anything in science. You make observations (in this case about the planets and alignments and such, and then about the people they're supposed to affect) and you can calculate the accuracy. You can look at the future divinations after time has passed and find their accuracy. You can also check for wording that causes the statement to be overly vague increasing its odds of being initially correct. Astrology has come under tests like this from sceptics countless times, and the results are always the same; astrology fails the test. If the planets honestly had an influence on our lives, it would be measurable and verifiable. When we attempt to verify it, we end up finding it didn't work out. Thus we conclude astrology was wrong. When it turns out to be wrong the majority of the time, we conclude astrology as a whole was wrong. As for lunacy... Source - Full article
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 12, 2010 2:31:24 GMT -5
But you can prove it wrong... the same way you prove anything in science. You make observations (in this case about the planets and alignments and such, and then about the people they're supposed to affect) and you can calculate the accuracy. You can look at the future divinations after time has passed and find their accuracy. You can also check for wording that causes the statement to be overly vague increasing its odds of being initially correct. Astrology has come under tests like this from sceptics countless times, and the results are always the same; astrology fails the test. If the planets honestly had an influence on our lives, it would be measurable and verifiable. When we attempt to verify it, we end up finding it didn't work out. Thus we conclude astrology was wrong. When it turns out to be wrong the majority of the time, we conclude astrology as a whole was wrong. As for lunacy... Source - Full article1) how can you prove astrology, you can't correlate the planets to human behavior. if there was a test that "proved it" I would dare say it would look like either bias or coincidence. I really think it's more unfalsifiable then anything. you can't measure the effects of the planets. and also you can't judge astrological predictions becuase their not meant to be taken as "set in stone" and if the prediction is fluid to begun with. you can't test it. you can't change the rules halfway through the game and expect to be taken seriously, "it isn't really telling the literal future, just what may happen" doesn't fly. 2) While I find the scientific breakdown of "Lunacy" and moon lore helpful please consider Lunacy is believed to be psychological effect of sparatic behavior and some particular events happening "more often" even if we conclude that those behaviors don't happen more likely if Lunacy is meant to be characterized by unusual behavior and unpredictability then we can't quantify how or when or to whom it will happen. I will say the moon is an archetypal image which holds particular significance to the unconscious mind even if "moon madness" isn't real once again my conclusion is really it's unfalsifiable, While no evidence for lunacy exists. i think we can agree the moon is an important symbol and has some psychological effect, even if it isn't what "lunacy" is said to entail I guess my point is the theory that was set forth that the mind is effected by water manipulation in the mind is bogus. but can we deny that the moon can effect certain individuals psychologically?, of course not, anything can! but can we deny that the moon is a symbol of great power and archetypal significance? my answer is of course. no. The moon and sun and stars are some of the very most powerful symbols in the human psyche. rivaling fire itself.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 12, 2010 3:06:32 GMT -5
What are you talking about? Astrology attempts to do two things: one is determine what kind of person someone will be based on the position of planets at the time of their birth. The other is that it attempts to predict the future, and what actions would be beneficial to that person on particular days. In both cases, we can check afterward to see if those predictions turned out true. That is perfectly testable. If on a regular basis astrological predictions prove to be incorrect, then astrology has been shown to be inaccurate. Your last argument, about "just what may happen" not flying is more an argument against astrology than for it!
Again with the unfalsifiable. Did you read the full article? They took in all the research they could and found it quite falsifiable. Yes, people sometimes think of the moon superstitiously. No, it has no notable effect on the mentally ill. Could Joe Random see the full moon and think "oh I should act weird then?" Sure. But anyone could do that with anything, and it really means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 12, 2010 10:10:22 GMT -5
What are you talking about? Astrology attempts to do two things: one is determine what kind of person someone will be based on the position of planets at the time of their birth. The other is that it attempts to predict the future, and what actions would be beneficial to that person on particular days. In both cases, we can check afterward to see if those predictions turned out true. That is perfectly testable. If on a regular basis astrological predictions prove to be incorrect, then astrology has been shown to be inaccurate. Your last argument, about "just what may happen" not flying is more an argument against astrology than for it! Again with the unfalsifiable. Did you read the full article? They took in all the research they could and found it quite falsifiable. Yes, people sometimes think of the moon superstitiously. No, it has no notable effect on the mentally ill. Could Joe Random see the full moon and think "oh I should act weird then?" Sure. But anyone could do that with anything, and it really means nothing. 1) perhaps a false idea of what astrology is due to my experience with tarot. I've become very comfortable of the idea of it foretelling a "possible future" I would speculate that astrology deals with a similar idea, if not do tell. But most divination forms say "this is the future based on current trends, if you change your behavior this too is likely to change" now if what you speculate is to happen is that subject to change, putting it under a microscope accomplishes nothing. That's all I was saying (simply put if your test subject spontaneously changes, there is no control, so the experiment can't be anything but inconclusive) 2) I did read the full article. I'm not saying it does have an effect on the mentally ill. I'll saying it's a psychologically powerful symbol. perhaps I worded myself wrong. Lunacy was falsified, but similar ideas pertaining to the psychological significance of symbols (and the moon being one of them) are still very valid. But the belief in moon madness and the belief that certain symbols have significance in the human psyche are two very different things, so I made an error in my choice of language. and for that I apologize.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 12, 2010 11:05:06 GMT -5
Ah. Yes, symbols have a mental value at least to some. As for astrology and making a prediction toward the future, I think that even if your case were true, there would be a level of accuracy there. One can measure the possibility that the prediction could have been right, it just takes more effort. The lack of any accuracy makes predictions made via astrology to be of no value.
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 12, 2010 12:49:53 GMT -5
well I won't argue the point. but to me if a result can change so easily, experimentation through the scientific method isn't helpful. after-all. if your using the wrong answer key it's only natural that most of the answers on the test are wrong
But it can hardly be blamed on the part of the test taker (astrology) for getting the answers wrong (prediction inaccuracy) becuase the teacher (the universe?) went and used the wrong answer key.
that's really why I feel astrology is considered pseudoscience, it's unscientific becuase it can't be controlled and tested as easily as something else, it may have some merit, but put under a microscope it's almost doomed to fail. I mean what's the point of measuring something that "could have been right" I mean while I have defended astrology and divination in general, partly becuase I practice them but mostly becuase for this to be a debate there needs to be two sides. (that's called playing the devils advocate)
I guess what I mean is, considering the expression "even a broken clock is right twice a day" we really have to take another look.
whether you say astrology is useless becuase it has no logical scientific basis, or you say, it seems to work, but you can't quantify it with science, or just have no opinion on it, it's just as well. But science isn't equipped to deal with as many variables as astrology has
But in the arena of scientific evidence and study (an arena I never willingly would submit astrology to anyway, it just doesn't belong there imo) I would say the burden of truth is on astrology.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Apr 12, 2010 22:19:34 GMT -5
I think science is capable of testing most any practice used on earth no matter how many variables there are. I suggest another way of falsifying astrological readings, by looking at the grounding of the hypothesis. It seems to me any good hypothesis is based upon and observation known to be true, (See Dan's video about the big bang, he explains what led us to have the idea of the big bang to oppose the misconception that we just made it up and it sounded good). If there is no measurable way of observing astrology and we don't even know whether we are observing it or not what reason would there be to produce a hypothesis? Furthermore it has never been subject to any testing or evidence or any kind of observable prroof which if my definitions are correct leaves it out of theory category.
The problem with astrology is that it is not falsifiable or provable, all it does is makes a LOT of money from teenaged girls. I shall not believe in it because I am incapable of feeling blind faith and practically it holds no value. As you say even if it was true the answers are so fluid they seem to be of no practical use.
-Quinn
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 12, 2010 22:41:14 GMT -5
The problem with astrology is that it is not falsifiable or provable, all it does is makes a LOT of money from teenaged girls. I shall not believe in it because I am incapable of feeling blind faith and practically it holds no value. As you say even if it was true the answers are so fluid they seem to be of no practical use. -Quinn that's fine. you'll get no argument form me. ^_^ afterall I'm not really a "believer" either. I'd like to study it more in the future though. Perhaps Astrology is superfluous, I find the tarot to be a useful tool with many practical applications but Horoscope? I could take it or leave it..
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 12, 2010 23:51:55 GMT -5
The universe is the answer key by any reasonable definition of prediction. Astrology is trying to figure out what will happen in the universe. "It might be wrong because the future might change" is really no different from me saying "science shows it's not correct." You're giving a reason for astrology being false, but it doesn't change the fact that it is false.
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 13, 2010 0:52:24 GMT -5
The universe is the answer key by any reasonable definition of prediction. Astrology is trying to figure out what will happen in the universe. "It might be wrong because the future might change" is really no different from me saying "science shows it's not correct." You're giving a reason for astrology being false, but it doesn't change the fact that it is false. I wouldn't go that far. I'm not familiar with astrological prediction but in tarot, it's a likely outcome based on current trends, which means it's subject to change, that's not the same as saying the act of divining is inherently wrong (while I admit it could be) science relies on making observations based on certain factors. if a factor is subject to change independent of the experiment then it can't be deemed any sort of reliable experiment. that is NOT the same as saying the premise is wrong (though it might be) red and blue make purple. if I predict mixing red and blue paint will create purple paint but I find when I actually do it. my red paint spontaneously becomes yellow, thus making green instead, can I now conclude red and blue paint do not make purple paint when mixed? the simple answer is no. the integrity of my test was compromised by having variables that can, for all intensive purposes, change on a whim.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 13, 2010 1:41:43 GMT -5
But the claim of astrology is the ability to predict the future. That is the assertion. So one only needs to disprove that ability. If the claim is changed to 'state one possible future that may not even be remotely right' then sure, you can't disprove it, but who needs to? It's effectively admitting that astrology is utterly useless. If there is any claimed use to it whatsoever, then that use can be tested to the extent that it's claimed.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on Apr 13, 2010 10:47:05 GMT -5
Can no-one who believes in this just explain what forces cause star position to effect lives on earth. Well the moon control's the sea and our bodies are 90% water. It's obvious that the speed the earth turns at has a biological effect on us because of our Circadian rhythms are affected by it, and a "month" is not an arbitrary measurement of time it has to do with the phases of the moon and in most languages the word for "month" and the word for "moon" are directly related if not the same word. Then of course you know a woman's cycle and those of other animals are directly effected by the moon, so is it so hard to believe that the moon and the sun and the planets and the other stars might have some tiny effect on us too in a way we can't clearly see? I don't believe in it, but it's more based in science than most religions! (That's not really saying much!)
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 13, 2010 12:12:16 GMT -5
Science actually debunked the moon's apparent effect on the water in our bodies. The amount of water is too small for the moon to have effect, and moreover it's not like we're a container with pure water -- when they say we're made of a lot of water, that water is in cells, in blood and so forth. Moreover if menstrual cycles were based on the moon, one would expect them to be patterned to it, but they're not. While the length is roughly the same as a cycle of the moon for the average woman, they begin and end all throughout the moon's cycle.
You see, gravitational force like the moon has on the ocean is directly proportional to the mass of both objects involved. So the force of the Earth can hold the moon in orbit even from as far away as it is, because both are huge. But if a human being were dropped off in space an equal distance from the Earth (and far enough away from the moon not to be stuck in its gravitational field), that human would just sit there, because they would be too small for Earth's gravity to have a significant impact on. Similarly, the ocean as a whole is big enough for the moon to affect, but individual humans are not.
All this has been thoroughly investigated by science (and I believe touched on in the article I linked before). So while it was a good hypothesis, based on things we knew to be true like gravity and the moon's effect on oceans, it did turn out to be false and provably so.
As for our circadian rhythm, it's not a direct result of the Earth's motion; it's a result of the light we get from the sun due to the Earth's motion. Month was indeed based on the moon because it served as a convenient measurement of time prior to calendars and other recorded forms of time, not due to any scientific effect on our bodies or such. (Tribal cultures could agree to meet the next full moon and everyone would know when that was.)
|
|
|
Post by bunnyfulwanderer on Apr 14, 2010 10:45:20 GMT -5
But the claim of astrology is the ability to predict the future. That is the assertion. So one only needs to disprove that ability. If the claim is changed to 'state one possible future that may not even be remotely right' then sure, you can't disprove it, but who needs to? It's effectively admitting that astrology is utterly useless. If there is any claimed use to it whatsoever, then that use can be tested to the extent that it's claimed. Well I always thought of it like any time-travel movie you've seen. the future you forsee is basically the future if you were to be on autopilot, no epiphanies or attempts to alter your general behavior. Basically what is likely to happen right now a major behavioral change can change the future (afterall it's in the future, so all the power to change it exists in you)
|
|
|
Post by hey light on Apr 14, 2010 10:59:28 GMT -5
I think it's crap. If the gravity of the eight planets, pluto, and all those moons influences our lives, why don't we take into account the hundreds of extrasolar planets? If the extremely weak gravitational force from the planets around us can influence us, then why don't we take into account the (apparently still valid) infinitesimally small gravitational force from extrasolar planets?
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 14, 2010 13:11:56 GMT -5
But the claim of astrology is the ability to predict the future. That is the assertion. So one only needs to disprove that ability. If the claim is changed to 'state one possible future that may not even be remotely right' then sure, you can't disprove it, but who needs to? It's effectively admitting that astrology is utterly useless. If there is any claimed use to it whatsoever, then that use can be tested to the extent that it's claimed. Well I always thought of it like any time-travel movie you've seen. the future you forsee is basically the future if you were to be on autopilot, no epiphanies or attempts to alter your general behavior. Basically what is likely to happen right now a major behavioral change can change the future (afterall it's in the future, so all the power to change it exists in you) If that is the only obstacle to measuring astrology's accuracy, we could take horoscopes for people without actually revealing them to those people. We could then determine if the horoscope is accurate without the person being able to act on the knowledge of it and thereby invalidate it.
|
|
|
Post by hey light on Apr 14, 2010 13:27:38 GMT -5
Well I always thought of it like any time-travel movie you've seen. the future you forsee is basically the future if you were to be on autopilot, no epiphanies or attempts to alter your general behavior. Basically what is likely to happen right now a major behavioral change can change the future (afterall it's in the future, so all the power to change it exists in you) If that is the only obstacle to measuring astrology's accuracy, we could take horoscopes for people without actually revealing them to those people. We could then determine if the horoscope is accurate without the person being able to act on the knowledge of it and thereby invalidate it. That sounds interesting. But we would need to know things like the person's date of birth.
|
|