ForumGarden

Galbally;492521 wrote: Koan, all I said was "I" thought it was nonsense, astrology, (as an aside, it was Novelty who got all annoyed so I just expanded why I held that view). I didn't say novelty was an idiot or that being spiritual was wrong, I just gave my honest opinion on astrology, and I think its a fair opinion, when you actually look at the evidence. What people want to believe I have no problem with, but I am not going to just say that oh yes, its all perfectly valid, like Newton, because it isn't and thats just a fact. Its superstition, and if you are into that its fine, but its not science and there is no evidence for it whatsoever and I will debate that with any astrologer anywhere in the world, whenever.


Your clarification that you, personally, find it to be nonsense resolves any desire on my part to argue about it. Thank you for the clarification.

I also agree that charlatans ought to be exposed and charged - including doctors who consistently misdiagnose patients. I've never personally had any luck with the medical profession which science endorses but I've been rescued by "pseudoscientists". I owe a lot to people that would be scoffed at by science so we agree to disagree.

koan;492539 wrote: Your clarification that you, personally, find it to be nonsense resolves any desire on my part to argue about it. Thank you for the clarification.

I also agree that charlatans ought to be exposed and charged - including doctors who consistently misdiagnose patients. I've never personally had any luck with the medical profession which science endorses but I've been rescued by "pseudoscientists". I owe a lot to people that would be scoffed at by science so we agree to disagree.


I think thats a fair point, I am not here to defend every scientist or doctor, no more than you are here to extol the virtues of every faith healer or religious leader that ever was. The pertinent thing is results, honesty, transparency, oversight, and accountability, that should be the case for all professions. The debate between science/mysticism is as old as science itself (which is not very fashionable nowadays whatever about technology), there are plenty to make the case for mysticism here, I will make the case for science, as usual trying to offend anyone, if possible.

Pinky;492540 wrote: Well, as much as I love 'Julius Caesar', i'd have to say it still contains Hubris when he says 'The Ides of march...' tempting fate as it is. He still has the confidence to stand against his stars, and meets a sorry end...


Its Shakespeare, he's a genius, he says it all, if you want to know what the human mind and spirit are like, read Shakespeare, (you already do of course as its your job) he explains these many, many ideas better than anyone else ever has managed it in my opinion. I actually met my English teacher from secondary last year, and I thanked her for trying her best to teach us Shakespeare and explain why he was so good, being 14 of course at the time I already knew that Ghostbusters, Eddie Murphy, and UB40 were much more important than silly old Shakespeare.

Pinky;492547 wrote: :wah: :wah:

Of course, we all think that until we read it when our lives have become much fuller, and realise the themes he include still relate to our lives now...Love, Death, Society at war, etc etc. Modern Soaps build on these because they are subjects we can all relate to.


I'm glad that those kids have a good teacher like you to teach them, some of them will remember your efforts one day, don't worry!

I understand there is a movement working towards creating a reverse astrology for those of us who live in the Southern Hemisphere.

This may mean, that I'm really not a Virgo at all, the first month of Northern Autumn (September, Virgo) in fact Down Under being the first month of Southern Spring. So by rights maybe I should have been born in March which would make me...??? um.. well someone will know.

I kinda like being a Virgo. The independent champagne-sipping, perfectionist (perfect?) woman who lives alone and likes it. Some of it at least is moi. I don't live alone, exactly.. :sneaky: But I like it!

Guppy is a gemini....sign of the twins. an air sign. split personality........

SnoozeControl;492648 wrote: Does that make you a flying fish? :-2


:wah: :wah: a flying airheaded fish.........:p

Just to mention the obvious, the stars form a fixed background against which the movement of the planets can be described, that's where "star signs" come into astrology. The influence is the planets, not the stars.

While I'm here, this is a favourite passage from "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul"

by Douglas Adams:Dirk gave a gracious bow of his head to the man's

retreating back, and then hurried on, opening the newspaper at

the horoscope page as he did so.

"Virtually everything you decide today will be wrong," it

said bluntly.

Dirk slapped the paper shut with a grunt. He did not for a

second hold with the notion that great whirling lumps of rock

light years away knew something about your day that you didn't.

It just so happened that "The Great Zaganza" was an old friend

of his who knew when Dirk's birthday was, and always wrote his

column deliberately to wind him up. The paper's circulation had

dropped by nearly a twelfth since he had taken over doing the

horoscope, and only Dirk and The Great Zaganza knew why.

Novelty;492880 wrote: I will KP, i'm just disappointed with such ppl that think it's OK to insult anybody or thing that they dont like or understand, i'm just glad not all are that ignorant...


Its not an "insult" to say that astrology is nonsense, its a valid opinion, its not because I don't understand it, its because I do actually. There is no need for you to get personally disappointed because I think that, its up to you what you want to believe, and again I wasn't attacking you or anyone else, I was talking about astrology.

spot;492951 wrote: Just to mention the obvious, the stars form a fixed background against which the movement of the planets can be described, that's where "star signs" come into astrology. The influence is the planets, not the stars.

While I'm here, this is a favourite passage from "The Long Dark Tea-Time of the Soul"

by Douglas Adams:Dirk gave a gracious bow of his head to the man's

retreating back, and then hurried on, opening the newspaper at

the horoscope page as he did so.

"Virtually everything you decide today will be wrong," it

said bluntly.

Dirk slapped the paper shut with a grunt. He did not for a

second hold with the notion that great whirling lumps of rock

light years away knew something about your day that you didn't.

It just so happened that "The Great Zaganza" was an old friend

of his who knew when Dirk's birthday was, and always wrote his

column deliberately to wind him up. The paper's circulation had

dropped by nearly a twelfth since he had taken over doing the

horoscope, and only Dirk and The Great Zaganza knew why.


Of course because the stars are not actually "fixed" at all, but are all moving relative to one another, this is another problem that astrologer actually generally ignore.

Galbally;492973 wrote: Of course because the stars are not actually "fixed" at all, but are all moving relative to one another, this is another problem that astrologer actually generally ignore.I expect that astrologers ignore stars and concentrate entirely on the Solar System, that stellar drift is only apparent to a naked-eye observer over periods of at least hundreds of years, and that "fixed background" is consequently a reasonable description.

Ditto Pam VIRGO'S RULE..!!

[QUOTE]I kinda like being a Virgo. The independent champagne-sipping, perfectionist (perfect?) woman who lives alone and likes it. Some of it at least is moi. I don't live alone, exactly.. But I like it![/QUOTE]

My wife is a Leo and she was a very happy kitty last night.

spot;492995 wrote: I expect that astrologers ignore stars and concentrate entirely on the Solar System, that stellar drift is only apparent to a naked-eye observer over periods of at least hundreds of years, and that "fixed background" is consequently a reasonable description.


Yes they seem to be able to ignore most things that aren't particularly convenient to their theories, I mean by what mechanism is all of this actually supposed to work, and so when they discovered Pluto in 1930 was it that the effect of Pluto was never noticed by astrologers (why have they never predicted the presence of other planets beyond the 5 naked-eye visible ones if they are so tuned into the cosmos?), or is it that the planets don't have any discernible action upon us unless we actually notice them first? Has the effect of Pluto been removed now that its been declassified as a planetoid?

What about the asteroid belt?, thats got the mass of about one earth-like planet in it, or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn (Titan after all is actually bigger than Pluto), or the Kupier belt, or comets, the expansion of the universe, the movement of galaxies relative to each other. I mean if the planets are able to effect our fates and personalities with no specific mechanism or reasonable explanation of how they do such a thing, why not throw everything in, its the same principal. Is it that such a system would involve too much actual work, or is it (as I suspect) a case of make it up as you go along in order to maximize your returns on your bunko act?

As I understand it they have no theories, they have experience and the language they've developed to describe what they discover includes, among a stack of other words, the classical planets, the sun and the moon. Astrology is a minor branch of an experiential system and those are the words they find meaningful. It's not a branch I find much fascination with myself. The widely known horoscope and the apparent repeated inability to correlate statistics predictively makes me wonder quite what the casters of horoscopes or the describer of personality traits thinks he's achieving. To whatever level astrology is applied beyond those areas I have little idea, but I don't think those other areas should be dismissed simply on the basis of gimcrackery in the public arena of fortune-telling.

spot;493164 wrote: As I understand it they have no theories, they have experience and the language they've developed to describe what they discover includes, among a stack of other words, the classical planets, the sun and the moon. Astrology is a minor branch of an experiential system and those are the words they find meaningful. It's not a branch I find much fascination with myself. The widely known horoscope and the apparent repeated inability to correlate statistics predictively makes me wonder quite what the casters of horoscopes or the describer of personality traits thinks he's achieving. To whatever level astrology is applied beyond those areas I have little idea, but I don't think those other areas should be dismissed simply on the basis of gimcrackery in the public arena of fortune-telling.


Experience without material evidence is always a subjective phenomenon in any intellectual field, and language can be as precise and accurate, or as fuzzy and meaningless as its authors wish it to be. There is certainly nothing new in the idea of astrology, the stars have always fascinated man (and woman), am I right in my belief that what we take now as being the basis of western (as opposed to Chinese) astrology is based on ideas that first became popular in ancient babylonia and were from there transported around the near east, along with star maps and a myth involving a great flood, and a man/god called Gilgamesh?

I know that this astrology idea operates firstly on a very simplistic level which everyone enjoys, (including myself as a very proud sagitarian!) but very few take seriously. Then there is the more profound and mystical, venerable version (or versions) of astrology, which seem to have come back in a big way in the 19th and 20th century along with a lot of old ideas such as the occult (which never really went away), spiritualism, Faith-healing, spirit-contact, Witchcraft (which never really went away either), dowsing, diving, oracles, all manner of myth and folk belief. This all got mixed up with a awakening of interest in eastern ideas and philosophies, and the religions of the ancient world (Paganism, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Aztec, African, Norse, and various other pantheons). Its all interesting and intriguing, I find many paranormal ideas fascinating as I am sure most people do, and I also find the study of ancient ideas interesting, or interest in the value systems, and belief systems of our own culture and others.

However, when asked as a scientist about what the actual physical validity of something like astrology really is, brass tax, no messing around, (compared to say the law of partial pressures) I would have to say very clearly "not very much". People may indeed gain much personal benefit from studying these ideas, and it might be a good and relatively harmless and quite interesting way to occupy themselves, but would I myself use it as the basis of mapping out my year, determining a potential spouses' suitability, or determining my country's possible actions for that year, no I wouldn't though I would enjoy trying it out for a laugh like everyone else.

Ah. I hate going anywhere near newspaper horoscopes myself. Dreadful concept.

The only area of life which is worked on by these processes you mention is mind, soul and spirit, not many people are seeking a transmutation of base metals into gold for example. The mind is something of a deep well as far as science currently goes. The old-fashioned tool for exploring and changing it is thought. "soul" and "spirit" are descriptions of that physical mental process which simplify discussion. I've seen nothing in "spiritualism, Faith-healing, spirit-contact, Witchcraft dowsing, divining, oracles" or anything else which has any other basis. That doesn't mean they're not powerful tools for exploration, or that the language used isn't meaningful when exchanging information.

One might end up with machinery which both analyses and changes the mind at as fine a level as thought currently does but it's not built yet. Meanwhile anyone who goes exploring does it outside of the scientific process. That's not a choice, it's the nature of the territory.

eta: "harmless"? I doubt that. The mind's a subtle thing to tinker with.