General astrology discussion with Astro Teacher

[Astro Teacher]

Split from: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156374

Collect the birth data for 10 people and label those 1-10. Have your astrologer use some randomization device, such as a 10-sided die, to pick a number. Send him the birth details that correspond to that number and have him write an essay for only that person. Check the essay to make sure that it doesn't have any obvious clues (references to age, etc.). Send the same essay to all 10 people and have all of them rate it as if it were their own. The highest rating should match the person for whom the essay was written.

To make the test even more exacting, have the astrologer do two or three essays and all of the participants rate all two or three. If the highest rating for each matches in all three cases, I would be impressed.

ETA: Your astrologer should be warned that he should use very distinct features and descriptions in his essays. Vague language will not be rated very well by a bunch of skeptics!

It is nearly impossible to "test" Astrology in this way. Natal astrology especially falls into the difficulty of validating astrology in this manner. I always tell my students of astrology that is it very hard to "prove" anything of Astrology within Natal Astrology because it belongs to the advanced Judicial Branch which is only for those who have achieved superior knowledge and understanding of celestial forces after first practicing Natural Astrology.

That branch of Natural Astrology includes areas that are better suited to "test" since it includes Weather Forecasting, and Medical Astrology, which is much easier to test scientifically than is Judicial Astrology. This is because the analog data from cases in these fields can be easily used to prove the validity of astrological principles as they relate to the Physical World, and not the metaphysical.

One of the problems some skeptics have in understanding this fact is that they are under the false impression that "astrology" is reduced only by Natal Astrology, which it surely is not. The physical, or material world is easier to measure.

The metaphysical world of natal astrology is very hard to measure since there exists no one method for measurement of the happenings in a person's life applying conventional tools of measurement. Do attempt this is folly since it requires a system of conventional measurement that does not exist.

It is very difficult to prove anything in the natal area of astrology as it is a very complex metaphysical field and can only be measured by those who have had many years of astrological study, and who have first mastered the Natural Astrological Branch.

[Neally]

That branch of Natural Astrology includes areas that are better suited to "test" since it includes Weather Forecasting, and Medical Astrology, which is much easier to test scientifically than is Judicial Astrology.So do you concede that Natural astrology has been conclusively proven in multiple tests to be bogus?

[Astro Teacher]

So do you concede that Natural astrology has been conclusively proven in multiple tests to be bogus?

No, I do not. There has been very few honest conventional tests of Natural astrology - mainly because those who pretend to do this research are not qualified to do so based on their own lack of knowledge of even the most basic astrological princips.

If a skeptic is to even consider doing such a test - the skeptic must first learn basic principles in order to thus perform such tests. Anyone who professes to attempt this must be objective and allow any outcome to develop on its own.

Predetermined opinions, and bias on the part of anyone performing such tests would immediately invalidate them as an objective researcher.

[Neally]

Actually there have been many studies and meta analysis of studies that fail to find any truth to astrology.

1. Psychologist Bernard Silverman of Michigan State University looked at the birth dates of 2,978 couples who were getting married and 478 who were getting divorced in the state of Michigan. No correlations found between "incompatable" signs.

2. Physicist John McGervey at Case Western Reserve University looked at biographies and birth dates of some 6,000 politicians and 17,000 scientists to see if members of these professions would cluster among certain signs, as astrologers predict. He found the signs of both groups to be distributed completely at random.=09

3. Physicist Shawn Carlson of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory got groups of volunteers and asked to provide information necessary for casting a full horoscope and to fill out the California Personality Inventory, a standard psychologists' questionnaire that uses just the sorts of broad, general, descriptive terms astrologers use.

A "respected" astrological organization constructed horoscopes for the volunteers, and 28 professional astrologers who had approved the procedure in advance were each sent one horoscope and three personality profiles, one of which belonged to the subject of the horoscope. Their task was to interpret the horoscope and select which of the three profiles it matched.

Although the astrologers had predicted that they would score better than 50 percent correct, their actual score in 116 trials was only 34 percent correct - just what you would expect by guessing. Carlson published his results in the December 5, 1985, issue of Nature, much to the embarrassment of the astrological community.

4. French statistician Michel Gauquelin sent the horoscope for one of the worst mass murderers in French history to 150 people and asked how well it fit them. Ninety-four percent of the subjects said they recognized themselves in the description.

5. Geoffrey Dean, an Australian researcher who has conducted extensive tests of astrology, reversed the astrological readings of 22 subjects, substituting phrases that were the opposite of what the horoscopes actually stated. Yet the subjects in this study said the readings applied to them just as often (95 percent of the time) as people to whom the correct phrases were given.

6. Astronomers Culver and Ianna tracked the published predictions of well-known astrologers and astrological organizations for five years. Out of more than 3,000 specific predictions (including many about politicians, film stars, and other famous people), only about 10 percent came to pass.

7. In 1992 the Quebec Skeptics tested an astrologer of 25 years experience who claimed that her chart readings would be rated at least 75% accurate by their owners. Under an agreed procedure she prepared 3-page readings for each of seven anonymous subjects, who then rated all seven readings for accuracy on a scale of 0-100%. The mean accuracy rating of the authentic readings was 33%, more than the mean rating of 29% but less than the mean highest rating of 45% and well below the claimed 75%. Only one subject gave an accuracy rating of more than 75% but this was not for the authentic reading, which was rated at 28%.

8. An attempt on the Randi $10,000 prize was made in 1983 by US astrologer John McCall who, in an ad in the Washington Post in late 1982 announcing that "I also can demonstrate astrology in a scientific way". He challenged scientists to test his discovery and thus "prove once and for all that there is a scientific basis to astrology". McCall proposed the following test: "Let a person write down the date and place of his birth, plus four times of day. One of those times is to be his actual time of birth. By studying the face and build of that person and consulting astrological tables, I can pick out the true time of birth." His claimed hit rate was above 80% provided the births were not induced or Caesarean and the subjects were not non-Caucasian or senile. Randi provided under double-blind conditions a trial sample of five subjects that McCall agreed met all his requirements. But McCall scored only one hit, the result expected by chance (5/4), which he attributed to the small number of subjects. So a second test was arranged, this time with 28 subjects. McCall was completely satisfied with the test conditions, but he scored only 7 hits, again the result expected by chance.

9. Meta-analyses of nearly 300 empirical studies reveals zero support for astrological claims. http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/d-meta2.htm

[Astro Teacher]

Actually there have been many studies and meta analysis of studies that fail to find any truth to astrology.

1. Psychologist Bernard Silverman of Michigan State University looked at the birth dates of 2,978 couples who were getting married and 478 who were getting divorced in the state of Michigan. No correlations found between "incompatable" signs.

2. Physicist John McGervey at Case Western Reserve University looked at biographies and birth dates of some 6,000 politicians and 17,000 scientists to see if members of these professions would cluster among certain signs, as astrologers predict. He found the signs of both groups to be distributed completely at random.=09

3. Physicist Shawn Carlson of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory got groups of volunteers and asked to provide information necessary for casting a full horoscope and to fill out the California Personality Inventory, a standard psychologists' questionnaire that uses just the sorts of broad, general, descriptive terms astrologers use.

A "respected" astrological organization constructed horoscopes for the volunteers, and 28 professional astrologers who had approved the procedure in advance were each sent one horoscope and three personality profiles, one of which belonged to the subject of the horoscope. Their task was to interpret the horoscope and select which of the three profiles it matched.

Although the astrologers had predicted that they would score better than 50 percent correct, their actual score in 116 trials was only 34 percent correct - just what you would expect by guessing. Carlson published his results in the December 5, 1985, issue of Nature, much to the embarrassment of the astrological community.

4. French statistician Michel Gauquelin sent the horoscope for one of the worst mass murderers in French history to 150 people and asked how well it fit them. Ninety-four percent of the subjects said they recognized themselves in the description.

5. Geoffrey Dean, an Australian researcher who has conducted extensive tests of astrology, reversed the astrological readings of 22 subjects, substituting phrases that were the opposite of what the horoscopes actually stated. Yet the subjects in this study said the readings applied to them just as often (95 percent of the time) as people to whom the correct phrases were given.

6. Astronomers Culver and Ianna tracked the published predictions of well-known astrologers and astrological organizations for five years. Out of more than 3,000 specific predictions (including many about politicians, film stars, and other famous people), only about 10 percent came to pass.

7. In 1992 the Quebec Skeptics tested an astrologer of 25 years experience who claimed that her chart readings would be rated at least 75% accurate by their owners. Under an agreed procedure she prepared 3-page readings for each of seven anonymous subjects, who then rated all seven readings for accuracy on a scale of 0-100%. The mean accuracy rating of the authentic readings was 33%, more than the mean rating of 29% but less than the mean highest rating of 45% and well below the claimed 75%. Only one subject gave an accuracy rating of more than 75% but this was not for the authentic reading, which was rated at 28%.

8. An attempt on the Randi $10,000 prize was made in 1983 by US astrologer John McCall who, in an ad in the Washington Post in late 1982 announcing that "I also can demonstrate astrology in a scientific way". He challenged scientists to test his discovery and thus "prove once and for all that there is a scientific basis to astrology". McCall proposed the following test: "Let a person write down the date and place of his birth, plus four times of day. One of those times is to be his actual time of birth. By studying the face and build of that person and consulting astrological tables, I can pick out the true time of birth." His claimed hit rate was above 80% provided the births were not induced or Caesarean and the subjects were not non-Caucasian or senile. Randi provided under double-blind conditions a trial sample of five subjects that McCall agreed met all his requirements. But McCall scored only one hit, the result expected by chance (5/4), which he attributed to the small number of subjects. So a second test was arranged, this time with 28 subjects. McCall was completely satisfied with the test conditions, but he scored only 7 hits, again the result expected by chance.

9. Meta-analyses of nearly 300 empirical studies reveals zero support for astrological claims.

Actually, your list above is not accurate. However, nonetheless, to try to come up with ways to "measure" the metaphysical actions within Natal astrology is a fruitless effort that will yield no determined correlative results under the context of how these nativities, or horoscopes, are to be measured.

You cannot even use the so-called studies of "psychology" which, as a science, has not proven to be anything more than a pseudo-science itself.

The Gauquelin study is about the closest to seeing any relevant astrological factors in nativities. The rest you can dispense with as just as useless as a skeptic's opinion towards disproving astrology as a whole, or, even in part.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually, your list above is not accurate.
That's an insufficient refutation of very solid evidence. My answer which rises to exactly the same level of discourse is, "Is so!"

However, nonetheless, to try to come up with ways to "measure" the metaphysical actions within Natal astrology is a fruitless effort that will yield no determined correlative results under the context of how these nativities, or horoscopes, are to be measured.

You cannot even use the so-called studies of "psychology" which, as a science, has not proven to be anything more than a pseudo-science itself.

This is all nonsense. Astrology and astrologers make testable claims. In fact, many of them take money in exchange for readings that are based on these testable claims (one way or another, all astrology claims a correlation, maybe even a causal relationship, between the apparent location of the planets in our sky and human endeavors). The claims have been tested and found to be false.

Oh, and your dig at psychology as a pseudo-science won't make you a lot of friends!

ETA: well done, Neally.

[Astro Teacher]

That's an insufficient refutation of very solid evidence. My answer which rises to exactly the same level of discourse is, "Is so!"



This is all nonsense. Astrology and astrologers make testable claims. In fact, many of them take money in exchange for readings that are based on these testable claims (one way or another, all astrology claims a correlation, maybe even a causal relationship, between the apparent location of the planets in our sky and human endeavors). The claims have been tested and found to be false.

Oh, and your dig at psychology as a pseudo-science won't make you a lot of friends!

ETA: well done, Neally.

Wow! So I suppose that ends it all right? It's all nonsense and that's that. You would not know how to to test astrology mainly because you do not know what it is that you are testing.

BTW - just where, tell me, has psychology, which is supposed to "measure" a person's "psyche" (something that is not seen in the physical world) is a qualified science with results. How can you prove this to be?

[Hokulele]

The moderated thread has been requested. I will PM you the details and location when they have been determined.

[Astro Teacher]

The moderated thread has been requested. I will PM you the details and location when they have been determined.

Thank you Hokulele.

[Astro Teacher]

I understand your point, but I don't think you're getting mine. It doesn't matter what system or school of astrology the astrologer subscribes to. The fact that the subjects are aware of their Western zodiac sun signs (which is something that correlates with their birth info) means you have to be careful to remove anything that could be a hint to that as a source of information leakage. Basically, I'm saying whatever the astrologer purports to be doing is irrelevant, he could still cheat if he could slip through references to typical sun-sign things. Similarly, he could cheat if he were allowed to say "your family was preparing for Christmas when you were born" in a profile.



Yup. If it's only a self-test, then cheating isn't an issue. But if it's any kind of public test, I'm of the opinion that the question of a well-designed protocol is really an all or nothing thing. Either it is conclusive or it is not conclusive. If it's not conclusive, that means no one has to accept the results. If that's true, it's better not to do it at all.


I agree. I still think someone connected with a university psych department might be able to have access to already complete personality profile test data.

Otherwise, I'd be more inclined to get the astrologer to agree to a very specific claim, like the ability to match a current occupation with birth info. (And try to get all the subjects in a fairly similar "stage of life" age.)

I just don't much like the idea of trying to evaluate all the Forer effect type of "profiles" the astrologer provides. For one, there's always the chance of information leakage. Also, you end up awarding hits that are based on retrofitting and cherry picking. I remember in that one Campbell film, the astrologer said of one person that he thinks they are either a dancer or a martial artist. The subject claimed both as a hit because, she said, "I like to dance" and she once took some sort of karate-type of class. I think it would be rare to find a subject that couldn't retrofit a hit that way.

(Additionally, if the gestalt of the profile is an obvious miss, how can it be meaningful to claim even one or two minor "hits"? This is my issue on Sylvia Browne supporters claiming she had a "hit" in naming Shawn Horbeck's abductor as "Mike" when her overall reading was wrong since she claimed he was dead, and that the abductor was a murderer. You can't claim she was even 2% accurate. On that case, she was zero for 1.)

Real Astrology does not work like this. I continue to make this point. Most people falsely believe that the whole purpose of an "astrology reading" is to tell the person something about themselves. This is not true, and any so-called "astrologer" who says so is not a true astrologer.

When a client seeks my professional astrological help I ask as many questions as possible, and not to predict anything for them, rather, to help them through whatever it is that they want to know, or need to know about their future options from their own transits.

I do not waste my time with so-called "personality readings." People know themselves very well, and it is useless to pay for a reading based on telling a person about themselves. Never have I told a person "about themselves" - they tell me, I don't know them better than they know themselves, but I do know their personal transits better than they do, and that is the whole point of consulting with a professional astrologer.

You will find many so-called "astrologers" playing the "prediction" game to prove that they "know something" about the future to "impress" the client with what they "think" they know about them. That's a joke, but it is not funny to this teacher of astrology. If I ever caught one of my students doing this, they know what will happen to them - and it will not be funny at all. The first rule is to protect the client at all costs, and to respect their needs, their personal information, and their privacy. If any of my students broke this principle they get my wrath. It is not wise to piss off a real astrologer.

The whole point of any astrological reading is to help the person to gain more knowledge than they had before the reading, and this is done by helping the client answer some complex questions about their transits so the person can make informed decisions about times and dates to accomplish their professional and personal goals.

The client is sacred, their dreams, wishes, and hopes for the future must be respected, and protected at all cost, and never, ever, ever give a client a "personality reading." Ever.

All this is practical: to help direct the client to their own goals, and to be real about it, adding none of the superfluous junk astrology that is so common these days with all the charlatans and wannabes who say they are "astrologers" when they surely are not.

The only "test" needed for junk astrology is to simply watch for those who make general "personality readings" their bread and butter. Know this: you are wasting your money, and more importantly, your time.

[Kuko 4000]

You will find many so-called "astrologers" playing the "prediction" game to prove that they "know something" about the future to "impress" the client with what they "think" they know about them. That's a joke, but it is not funny to this teacher of astrology. If I ever caught one of my students doing this, they know what will happen to them - and it will not be funny at all. The first rule is to protect the client at all costs, and to respect their needs, their personal information, and their privacy. If any of my students broke this principle they get my wrath. It is not wise to piss off a real astrologer.


I'm intrigued, what have you told would happen to your students if they behaved in a way that would piss you off?

[AvalonXQ]

I do not waste my time with so-called "personality readings." People know themselves very well, and it is useless to pay for a reading based on telling a person about themselves. Never have I told a person "about themselves" - they tell me, I don't know them better than they know themselves, but I do know their personal transits better than they do, and that is the whole point of consulting with a professional astrologer.

The whole point of any astrological reading is to help the person to gain more knowledge than they had before the reading, and this is done by helping the client answer some complex questions about their transits so the person can make informed decisions about times and dates to accomplish their professional and personal goals.

All right. If you claim that making decisions at certain times and dates will best accomplish my personal goals, and someone else claims that making those decisions at different times and dates will accomplish my personal goals better, is there any objective way to tell which of you is right? Is there any way to test how good your predictions actually are?

[Astro Teacher]

All right. If you claim that making decisions at certain times and dates will best accomplish my personal goals, and someone else claims that making those decisions at different times and dates will accomplish my personal goals better, is there any objective way to tell which of you is right? Is there any way to test how good your predictions actually are?

Say you want to drive in bad weather conditions from Point A to Point B and then return from Point B to Point A and need instructions and directions how to do this. You can ask a person who does not know, a person who thinks that they know, and a person with a map who does know.

This is the dilemma facing people who come to astrologers for help. The astrologer can be a person who does not know, a person who thinks that they know and a person with a map who does know.

The client who needs these instructions must make a decision on whom to ask, and whom to trust. This is the hardest thing to do for a person choosing an astrologer because there is no way to really know who is going to give you the proper directions unless you do your own initial homework to come to a determination about what you need.

It is useless to see a person who is going to tell you about your personality when you need instructions to get from Point A to Point B and then back again. What the hell do you need that for? What you need is something you can use, to apply in the physical world.

This is why I am very tough on my students who want to learn applied astrology. Principles must be maintained and astrological practice must be synthesized to the point of providing the proper report for the individual client who can use this knowledge to navigate their particular part of the world.

The only way to prove that the directions worked is by the client. They can say that it worked well, not so well, or not at all, depending on their own experiences. How do you test such a thing?

You cannot. You can ask the person how it went, and they can say it went well, or that it did not go well, and discover that they did follow your instructions, or that they chose to do something else entirely.

This is something that depends on the person, and there is no way to test this unless the person tells the truth about their own experiences about getting back and forth from Point A to Point B.

[AvalonXQ]

The only way to prove that the directions worked is by the client. They can say that it worked well, not so well, or not at all, depending on their own experiences. How do you test such a thing?

I can distinguish between a person that has a map and a person that doesn't have a map by asking each of them questions that I already know the answer to, and seeing whether or not they can provide the information that map gives. I could test your claim by going to certain places along the route and asking you what is at those places. If you actually have a map, you would be able to tell me -- and then I would know to trust you when I need to navigate an unknown region.
To get back to the case of astrology: I agree with you that a "personality profile" might not be useful to actually use in my life -- but it would be a valid test that you actually know what you're talking about in the first place.
The point is that, in any case where you can make meaningful predictions, we can come up with a way to test whether or not you ACTUALLY have that power.
How can I distinguish between a real astrologer, like you claim to be, and a fake -- or even just someone who claims that all of your predictions are off by three weeks and need to be adjusted accordingly? How can I objectively know which of you is right?

[Professor Yaffle]

If it is so difficult to do a proper test of this sort of astrology, can I ask you how you came to your conviction that it works? On what evidence did you base your opinion of its validity?

[Astro Teacher]

I can distinguish between a person that has a map and a person that doesn't have a map by asking each of them questions that I already know the answer to, and seeing whether or not they can provide the information that map gives. I could test your claim by going to certain places along the route and asking you what is at those places. If you actually have a map, you would be able to tell me -- and then I would know to trust you when I need to navigate an unknown region.
To get back to the case of astrology: I agree with you that a "personality profile" might not be useful to actually use in my life -- but it would be a valid test that you actually know what you're talking about in the first place.
The point is that, in any case where you can make meaningful predictions, we can come up with a way to test whether or not you ACTUALLY have that power.
How can I distinguish between a real astrologer, like you claim to be, and a fake -- or even just someone who claims that all of your predictions are off by three weeks and need to be adjusted accordingly? How can I objectively know which of you is right?

How can you distinguish between a person who has a map and does not? Have you ever asked a person for directions who did not have a map in their hand, thinking that they already know how to give you the proper directions?

To do this with astrology then, you should have some basic knowledge of what you are asking directions. Education of what constitutes applied astrology - that is real astrology - means that in order to ask for directions you should at least have some basic level of knowledge of astrology to then be able to ask questions about transits. It is hard enough for an astrologer to do this complex work for you, then they have to educate you on top of that, so, you can see how hard this work is for any astrologer.

Reading such total rubbish like that of popular culture junk astrology, and asking silly questions based on your sun-sign isn't going to do it. You must make a decent effort to read a little serious astrological material, which there is plenty of in the world so you can then have a foundation to stand on so you are able to then meet the astrologer eye to eye with some knowledge of transits and the world around you.

To answer your question: the best way to distinguish between a real astrologer and one who is not, is to ask if they give "personality readings," and then ask them if they write their own astrological reports. Most astrologers do not. I do. I do not allow any computerized astrological software to interpret a report. Some astrologers do, and I am very harsh on them.

The astrologer must be the most serious person you will ever meet, but kind, and a good listener. They must not be flippant or casual with astrology. If they talk more than they listen at the first meeting, or consultation and if you get a so-called "astrologer" who goes into "you're like this, and you're like that" and "your horoscope tells me that you are like this and like that," and so on and so forth - it's a pretty good sign that you are dealing with a clueless dummy who is wasting your time. Keep your money tucked deep in your pocket and walk out.

I've cracked a number of these losers by pretending to be a client who needed astrological work and exposed the frauds for who they were. I'm sick of these wannabe losers. Astrological work is difficult enough without these bozos pretending that they can read the motions of time and forecast accurately.

As for knowing who is right: you will have no guarantee of this at all; especially in natal astrology. You must make your own decision anyway on how to proceed with what it is that you want to do from the guidance of the professional astrologer.

The best you can hope for is something like a weather report, which helps you to know the kinds of climates ahead in the future that then allows you to plan - in advance - for those favorable and unfavorable climates. You have your own free will to make your choices. That is the best any astrologer can offer you and a true astrologer can provide you with better views on the future climates than a bad one.

[Astro Teacher]

If it is so difficult to do a proper test of this sort of astrology, can I ask you how you came to your conviction that it works? On what evidence did you base your opinion of its validity?

From direct observations of the influences of celestial bodies on the natural world - the physical world. From this, one can see how time works, and is inclined by the motions and mathematical configurations of the celestial bodies on the Earth.

[AvalonXQ]

To answer your question: the best way to distinguish between a real astrologer and one who is not is to ask if they give personality readings, and then ask them if they write their own astrological reports.

If someone comes along and gives the exact same answers to these questions that you do, but her forecasts are the complete opposite of yours, is she wrong?
If she's wrong and you're right, how could you prove it?

[Professor Yaffle]

From direct observations of the influences of celestial bodies on the natural world - the physical world. From this, one can see how time works, and is inclined by the motions and mathematical configurations of the celestial bodies on the Earth.

Can you give some examples of these direct observations that are so convincing to you - and how they relate to giving astrological advice?

[Astro Teacher]

If someone comes along and gives the exact same answers to these questions that you do, but her forecasts are the complete opposite of yours, is she wrong?
If she's wrong and you're right, how could you prove it?

Not necessarily. Just as there are different kinds of doctors, and specialists, so there are different kinds of astrologers. They will look at your transits from their own specialty, according to your needs.

I teach students to listen to the client, and to then read their horoscope to delineate what can help them into, or out of situations that they are encountering, or about to encounter.

As for being "right" and "wrong" - try not to see it this way. The intricacies of an individual are very tough to see, and only advanced astrologers are able to deconstruct personal transits enough to then come up with solutions.

The "personality" astrologers come a dime a dozen. You would never need them because your "personalty" is not an issue - your personal transits from your own nativity is the issue. You have free will. You can make informed choices or uninformed choices that have impact on the future.

[AvalonXQ]

Not necessarily. Just as there are different kinds of doctors, and specialists, so there are different kinds of astrologers. They will look at your transits from their own specialty, according to your needs.

If another expert can take the exact same data than you can, get totally opposite answers, and there's no objective way to tell which of the two of you I should listen to, I'm not very happy.

[Astro Teacher]

Can you give some examples of these direct observations that are so convincing to you - and how they relate to giving astrological advice?

The growth of plants, the climate and weather, and events in history that correlate to past world transits... all this showed me that the ancients were right.

As for personal transits, years ago I once had a client come to me who said that he lost his keys while swimming at the beach. I asked him when this happened, where he went, and who was with him. I run time cycle charts on these dates against his own transits. I saw positions in his own personal transits relative to the present geographical transits that indicated that his keys were stolen from him by a person he knew.

I will not go into detail here about how I knew this because it is quite advanced, but the method is one that has been around for a long time and is known by experienced astrologers.

I triangulated his transits into the near future, running them into the days and weeks relative to his geographical position and told him that the person he knew would attempt to enter his apartment at a specific time and date when he thought his friend was not home.

Because he was scared, I helped him out by changing the geographic direction of observation of his apartment and waiting for a person to show up at the eastern position I noted.

The person, his friend, showed up, at night at the time and date I forecasted, and watched his friend's apartment. We were right behind him. He jumped when we confronted him, so we cornered him, asked him what he was doing there so late at night, and checked his pockets. My client found his keys. The guy was scared out of his wits and we told him that we were watching him watching his friend's apartment.

[AvalonXQ]

The growth of plants, the climate and weather, and events in history that correlate to past world transits... all this showed me that the ancients were right.

As for personal transits, years ago I once had a client come to me who said that he lost his keys while swimming at the beach. I asked him when this happened, where he went, and who was with him. I run time cycle charts on these dates against his own transits. I saw positions in his own personal transits relative to the present geographical transits that indicated that his keys were stolen from him by a person he knew.

I will not go into detail here about how I knew this because it is quite advanced, but the method is one that has been around for a long time and is known by experienced astrologers.

I triangulated his transits into the near future, running them into the days and weeks relative to his geographical position and told him that the person he knew would attempt to enter his apartment at a specific time and date when he thought his friend was not home.

Because he was scared, I helped him out by changing the geographic direction of observation of his apartment and waiting for a person to show up at the eastern position I noted.

The person, his friend, showed up, at night at the time and date I forecasted, and watched his friend's apartment. We were right behind him. He jumped when we confronted him, so we cornered him, asked him what he was doing there so late at night, and checked his pockets. My client found his keys. The guy was scared out of his wits and we told him that we were watching him watching his friend's apartment.

That's a pretty amazing story.
If you can consistently do things like this, why do you insist that there's no way to test your power? Surely if you can figure out what you described above, you can determine objectively identifiable information that a person already knows well enough to be tested.

[Astro Teacher]

If another expert can take the exact same data than you can, get totally opposite answers, and there's no objective way to tell which of the two of you I should listen to, I'm not very happy.

Listen, you are going to get two different answers from many people on the same question in anything you ask. What's the problem? It is for you to make the choice about whom to listen to pal. You have free will, and there are no easy answers for how to live your own life. You can educate yourself to the point of knowing who is apt to give you better solutions and answers to your questions/dilemmas, etc., than who is not.

This is not about "prediction" - this is about forecasting. Objectivity means different things to different people. Sure, get the best you can from whomever you might think can get you closer to what you want, or need, but, in the end you are going to have to make the decision. That means thinking for yourself at some time in the process. That's life and we all have to deal with this fact of life.

[AvalonXQ]

Listen, you are going to get two different answers from many people on the same question in anything you ask. What's the problem? It is for you to make the choice about whom to listen to pal. You have free will, and there are no easy answers for how to live your own life. You can educate yourself to the point of knowing who is apt to give you better solutions and answers to your questions/dilemmas, etc., than who is not.

Right. And the way to do this is through outcome-based objective testing. "Right" and "wrong" is not a matter of personal choice; it's a matter of record.
If a meteorologist claims to be able to forecast the weather, I can give him data from the past, have him give me forecasts based on that data, and compare what he says against the known facts (the actual weather) to see whether there's anything to his claims.
Could you use your techniques to forecast the past in the same way you forecast the future? If so, couldn't we find a way to test whether or not your forecasts are more accurate than chance would predict?

[Astro Teacher]

That's a pretty amazing story.
If you can consistently do things like this, why do you insist that there's no way to test your power? Surely if you can figure out what you described above, you can determine objectively identifiable information that a person already knows well enough to be tested.

Because it is something only advanced astrologers would know is true. How am I to prove that I saw that transiting Mars was going to rise at that particular location at that particular time on the eastern horizon, and that this symbolized the individual who was up to no good?

The client didn't care how I did this, he just wanted his keys back, but he didn't know that his friend had stolen his keys and wanted to rip him off. I knew this, but how to prove it unless we were actually there at that particular time and place?

The client could have listened to his girlfriend who wanted him to spend the night at her place, if not for his astrologer saying no, we have to be here at this particular time and place and then wait.

See the problem of testing? It was the client's choice to tell his girlfriend that he could not stay with her that night (which led her to believe that he was cheating until I had to impress upon her that he was not and needed to be with me at this particular time) and so he made a free will choice. Now, if he decided to say hell no and go and stay at his girlfriend's place that night, he would have been ripped off.

Things often work like this. It is all about choices and decisions on the individual's part. But the transits, the "climate" is still there nonetheless. Transits are always on time - all the time. Most of the problems in the world come directly from people's own ignorance to transits and the poor choices and decisions they make.

[Professor Yaffle]

The growth of plants, the climate and weather, and events in history that correlate to past world transits... all this showed me that the ancients were right.



If these past correlations are so strong, why can't you predict classes of future events that will correlate with certain astrological features. Or is it the case that you can't tell what kind of events will be relevant until afterwards (postdiction).

[AvalonXQ]

Because it is something only advanced astrologers would know is true. How am I to prove that I saw that transiting Mars was going to rise at that particular location at that particular time on the eastern horizon, and that this symbolized the individual who was up to no good?

The client didn't care how I did this, he just wanted his keys back, but he didn't know that his friend had stolen his keys and wanted to rip him off. I knew this, but how to prove it unless we were actually there at that particular time and place?

You answered your own question. Your friend cared about getting his keys back; you provided evidence that your practices were accurate by describing exactly what turned out to be true.
It doesn't require advanced astrological knowledge to verify whether or not my friend stole my keys.
Certainly if the transits can predict that, there's something more mundane they can predict -- like what sort of car someone drives, or when their last hair cut was. Something testable.

[Astro Teacher]

Right. And the way to do this is through outcome-based objective testing. "Right" and "wrong" is not a matter of personal choice; it's a matter of record.
If a meteorologist claims to be able to forecast the weather, I can give him data from the past, have him give me forecasts based on that data, and compare what he says against the known facts (the actual weather) to see whether there's anything to his claims.
Could you use your techniques to forecast the past in the same way you forecast the future? If so, couldn't we find a way to test whether or not your forecasts are more accurate than chance would predict?

You can do this with long-range weather forecasting, which can be tested. This has been done before, and found to be accurate. This is Natural Astrology, the one area that I believe that astrology can be tested because we can see the percentage rates of accuracy and non-accuracy in the physical world.

When it comes to natal astrology - no way. Only the people themselves can say if they "believe" that they have been helped or not, and there is no way to measure if this is true or not. People can say sure, or they can be embarrassed and lie about it because it involves astrology. How can you measure that?

[AvalonXQ]

When it comes to natal astrology - no way. Only the people themselves can say if they "believe" that they have been helped or not, and there is no way to measure if this is true or not. People can say sure, or they can be embarrassed and lie about it because it involves astrology. How can you measure that?

If you can predict easy-to-determine things, like gender or automobile type or career choice, then we don't have to depend on the person to judge whether or not they were "helped".
And, again, if astrology can actually forecast anything real, there is some way to test it.

[Professor Yaffle]

You can do this with long-range weather forecasting, which can be tested. This has been done before, and found to be accurate.

Can you provide us with evidence that astrological forecasting of weather has been found to be accurate?

[Pure_Argent]

When it comes to natal astrology - no way. Only the people themselves can say if they "believe" that they have been helped or not, and there is no way to measure if this is true or not. People can say sure, or they can be embarrassed and lie about it because it involves astrology. How can you measure that?

So you don't make predictions. You write fortune cookies.

[SumDood]

Because it is something only advanced astrologers would know is true. How am I to prove that I saw that transiting Mars was going to rise at that particular location at that particular time on the eastern horizon, and that this symbolized the individual who was up to no good?

The client didn't care how I did this, he just wanted his keys back, but he didn't know that his friend had stolen his keys and wanted to rip him off. I knew this, but how to prove it unless we were actually there at that particular time and place?

The client could have listened to his girlfriend who wanted him to spend the night at her place, if not for his astrologer saying no, we have to be here at this particular time and place and then wait.

See the problem of testing? It was the client's choice to tell his girlfriend that he could not stay with her that night (which led her to believe that he was cheating until I had to impress upon her that he was not and needed to be with me at this particular time) and so he made a free will choice. Now, if he decided to say hell no and go and stay at his girlfriend's place that night, he would have been ripped off. Is this the only prediction you have ever made?

Things often work like this. It is all about choices and decisions on the individual's part. But the transits, the "climate" is still there nonetheless. Transits are always on time - all the time. Most of the problems in the world come directly from people's own ignorance to transits and the poor choices and decisions they make.

How you do it or what the client's choices were are not important to a test. You said you knew the thief would show up to a specific place at a specific time. That is a prediction that can be easily tested. That's exactly what you guys did. You went to the apartment and waited. Had no one showed up, the prediction would have been proven false. Since the thief did show up, the prediction was proven true. Is this the only prediction you have ever made? If you make specific predictions such as this one, they can easily be tested.

[Neally]

Astrology has never been disproven. What we find today are little more than opinions built on preconceived biases by those with no knowledge of the subject itself. Astrology has conclusively been disproven by way of the studies I previously cited. Since there is no astrologer among the many that have participated in controlled tests has been successful, it can be said that that astrology itself is disproven since there are no astrologers that can make it work.

Real Astrology does not work like this. I continue to make this point. Most people falsely believe that the whole purpose of an "astrology reading" is to tell the person something about themselves. This is not true, and any so-called "astrologer" who says so is not a true astrologer.
You are conveniently redefining the field according to your biases. All the astrologers that have participated in studies or have made predictions used in studies have defined themselves as "true" astrologers, following the principles of astrology. You conveniently have chosen to redefine the field in a way that you claim makes it impossible to even objectively test the validity. Further you state that so called natural astrology can make objective predictions, but people that make them are not true astrologers.

[Astro Teacher]

How you do it or what the client's choices were are not important to a test. You said you knew the thief would show up to a specific place at a specific time. That is a prediction that can be easily tested. That's exactly what you guys did. You went to the apartment and waited. Had no one showed up, the prediction would have been proven false. Since the thief did show up, the prediction was proven true. Is this the only prediction you have ever made? If you make specific predictions such as this one, they can easily be tested.

No, try not to see it that way. It was "tested" by the actions of the person who stole my client's keys in that climate. The transits show what the "inclinations" are, and there was a range of times and dates over a period of time that indicated to me that this was what was going on. Only my experience and knowledge of transits narrowed that range down enough to see if this was indeed the potential, and, it was.

You can be right, and still be wrong, and can be wrong and still be right. There are nuances and complexities of astrological forecasting that cannot be debated akin to some of the "pro wrestling comments" from some seen on this subject. I am always amazed at how some skeptics seem to think that they alone have Carte Blanche on what constitutes "truth" and "evidence" when many times the "truth" is staring them in the face.

The only problem with this is that some skeptics are not knowledgeable about the subjects to be expert enough to see some truths because to them there is only material in the world that must show all to be true relevant to their own present limited senses of what constitutes truth. In effect, they are thinking "inside the box" - not out of it, and in order to understand, and explore the nuances and complexities of the world one must think outside of the box.

[Astro Teacher]

Astrology has conclusively been disproven by way of the studies I previously cited. Since there is no astrologer among the many that have participated in controlled tests has been successful, it can be said that that astrology itself is disproven since there are no astrologers that can make it work.


You are conveniently redefining the field according to your biases. All the astrologers that have participated in studies or have made predictions used in studies have defined themselves as "true" astrologers, following the principles of astrology. You conveniently have chosen to redefine the field in a way that you claim makes it impossible to even objectively test the validity. Further you state that so called natural astrology can make objective predictions, but people that make them are not true astrologers.

I cannot speak for them. I can speak for myself. I have redefined nothing. I am restating matters on this topic that have been said many, many times before.

[Foster Zygote]

Listen, you are going to get two different answers from many people on the same question in anything you ask.
This has not been my actual experience regarding questions about objective facts. In matters of objectivity in which the persons queried possesses actual knowledge of the subject I am likely to get similar, if not identical answers. If I ask two chemistry professors about the second law of thermodynamics they will give me the same answer. Fire burns flesh and anyone who says otherwise is a fool.

However, I've found that widely varied, even mutually exclusive answers are the norm in subjective or imaginary situations because there is no objective answer.

If there is any objective truth to your claims you should be able to demonstrate it.

[Hokulele]

I have not yet heard back from the moderating team (they do have lives outside the forum), so I will give them another day. If I have not heard from them by this time tomorrow, I will start an open thread for Astro Teacher's test and hope we can keep the crosstalk down to a minimum.

If anyone wants to volunteer as subjects for this, please notify me by PM.

Please do not post anything regarding your participation in this test publically.

[Neally]

I cannot speak for them. I can speak for myself. I have redefined nothing. I am restating matters on this topic that have been said many, many times before.In fact you have spoken for them. You have essentially called all astrologers that do what we all know as "predictions", frauds, and science agrees with you. All their claims have been disproven, and thereby the field of astrology itself.

[Pure_Argent]

No, try not to see it that way. It was "tested" by the actions of the person who stole my client's keys in that climate. The transits show what the "inclinations" are, and there was a range of times and dates over a period of time that indicated to me that this was what was going on. Only my experience and knowledge of transits narrowed that range down enough to see if this was indeed the potential, and, it was.

You can be right, and still be wrong, and can be wrong and still be right. There are nuances and complexities of astrological forecasting that cannot be debated akin to some of the "pro wrestling comments" from some seen on this subject. I am always amazed at how some skeptics seem to think that they alone have Carte Blanche on what constitutes "truth" and "evidence" when many times the "truth" is staring them in the face.

The only problem with this is that some skeptics are not knowledgeable about the subjects to be expert enough to see some truths because to them there is only material in the world that must show all to be true relevant to their own present limited senses of what constitutes truth. In effect, they are thinking "inside the box" - not out of it, and in order to understand, and explore the nuances and complexities of the world one must think outside of the box.

Okay, guys, I think I've figured out what Astro Teacher is trying to say here.

Astrology, according to AT, doesn't deal in predictions. It deals in chances. Essentially, you go to AT, AT says "Hey, this may happen".
It's a very handy system for AT, because he/she is never straight-up wrong. If it DOES happen, then "wow, you're amazing!" If it doesn't, then "well, he said that it only MIGHT happen, so I guess he was right that it might not!"
While it's impossible to disprove, it's also quite a dishonest way of thinking.

[AvalonXQ]

Okay, guys, I think I've figured out what Astro Teacher is trying to say here.

Astrology, according to AT, doesn't deal in predictions. It deals in chances. Essentially, you go to AT, AT says "Hey, this may happen".
It's a very handy system for AT, because he/she is never straight-up wrong. If it DOES happen, then "wow, you're amazing!" If it doesn't, then "well, he said that it only MIGHT happen, so I guess he was right that it might not!"
While it's impossible to disprove, it's also quite a dishonest way of thinking.

If that is all that AT is saying, then it's certainly not beyond testing. Even probabilistic claims can be tested, and are tested often.
In order for the transit to be meaningful, the event in question would need to be more likely to happen than we would expect from chance.
If we can find an experienced astrologer willing to do so, we can have the astrologer tell us that something is more likely than it would usually be, by a certain margin, many times in a row. We can then count the number of successes and failures of the established event, compare the results to chance, and see if the transits appeared to have any actual positive effect on the odds.

[Pure_Argent]

If that is all that AT is saying, then it's certainly not beyond testing. Even probabilistic claims can be tested, and are tested often.
In order for the transit to be meaningful, the event in question would need to be more likely to happen than we would expect from chance.
If we can find an experienced astrologer willing to do so, we can have the astrologer tell us that something is more likely than it would usually be, by a certain margin, many times in a row. We can then count the number of successes and failures of the established event, compare the results to chance, and see if the transits appeared to have any actual positive effect on the odds.

Perhaps, but I doubt that AT actually deals in "this is more probable than usual" so much as a simple "this might happen".

[AvalonXQ]

Perhaps, but I doubt that AT actually deals in "this is more probable than usual" so much as a simple "this might happen".

But if she doesn't mean "this is more likely to happen around this specific period of time than it normally would," what value does it have?

[Hokulele]

Testing of Astro Teacher's claims is being attempted here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5265614#post5265614

[Astro Teacher]

In fact you have spoken for them. You have essentially called all astrologers that do what we all know as "predictions", frauds, and science agrees with you. All their claims have been disproven, and thereby the field of astrology itself.

No, but that is the problem with your so-called assessment. You define science as if it is one giant monolithic ship with one thought like the Borg or something - "resistance is futile." Please.

If you stop with the one-line simple thinking on this subject and accept the fact that not all astrologers are "frauds" - as you have done in your comment above, then state, rather ignorantly if I might add, that "all their claims have been disproven," so, by effect astrology is disproven, you are living in a dreamworld of your own making. Astrology has never been disproven at all which is why so many rail on and on to do so. Even those who have severely critiqued astrology became astrologers themselves.

Try seeing that to actually get anywhere on this subject is the difference between seeing the difference between a boar of a thought like the one you just made, and coming to study the much deeper nuances and complexities of applied astrology.

[AvalonXQ]

Try seeing that to actually get anywhere on this subject is the difference between seeing the difference between a boar of a thought like the one you just made, and coming to study the much deeper nuances and complexities of applied astrology.

If the nuances and complexities of astrology cannot produce anything testable, what value is there in using them to help plan your life?
If there is value in using them to help plan your life, why can't we test this?

[SumDood]

No, try not to see it that way. It was "tested" by the actions of the person who stole my client's keys in that climate. The transits show what the "inclinations" are, and there was a range of times and dates over a period of time that indicated to me that this was what was going on. Only my experience and knowledge of transits narrowed that range down enough to see if this was indeed the potential, and, it was.


So how often does the 'potential' of one of your predictions turn out to be true?


You can be right, and still be wrong, and can be wrong and still be right. There are nuances and complexities of astrological forecasting that cannot be debated akin to some of the "pro wrestling comments" from some seen on this subject. I am always amazed at how some skeptics seem to think that they alone have Carte Blanche on what constitutes "truth" and "evidence" when many times the "truth" is staring them in the face.


You predicted where and when the thief would show up. I don't need Carte Blanche truth and evidence to test your prediction. Either the thief shows up in the right place at the right time or he doesn't.


The only problem with this is that some skeptics are not knowledgeable about the subjects to be expert enough to see some truths because to them there is only material in the world that must show all to be true relevant to their own present limited senses of what constitutes truth. In effect, they are thinking "inside the box" - not out of it, and in order to understand, and explore the nuances and complexities of the world one must think outside of the box.

So how exactly do you measure truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

[Astro Teacher]

So how often does the 'potential' of one of your predictions turn out to be true?



You predicted where and when the thief would show up. I don't need Carte Blanche truth and evidence to test your prediction. Either the thief shows up in the right place at the right time or he doesn't.



So how exactly do you measure truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

I don't measure truths. I accept them for what they are. and leave them alone. In effect, don't try to fix what ain't broken. Life is less complicated that way.

[Pure_Argent]

But if she doesn't mean "this is more likely to happen around this specific period of time than it normally would," what value does it have?

Absolutely none, but therein lies the contradiction. AT claims that the effects of astrology aren't measurable in any way, yet they matter.

No, but that is the problem with your so-called assessment. You define science as if it is one giant monolithic ship with one thought like the Borg or something - "resistance is futile." Please.

If you stop with the one-line simple thinking on this subject and accept the fact that not all astrologers are "frauds" - as you have done in your comment above, then state, rather ignorantly if I might add, that "all their claims have been disproven," so, by effect astrology is disproven, you are living in a dreamworld of your own making. Astrology has never been disproven at all which is why so many rail on and on to do so. Even those who have severely critiqued astrology became astrologers themselves.

Try seeing that to actually get anywhere on this subject is the difference between seeing the difference between a boar of a thought like the one you just made, and coming to study the much deeper nuances and complexities of applied astrology.

So to believe in astrology, you must first accept that astrology is real?

Sorry, circular reasoning is no better than bare assertion.

[Astro Teacher]

Testing of Astro Teacher's claims is being attempted here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5265614#post5265614

Thank you Hokulele, you've been kind and straight up. Send me a PM so we can work out the nuances when you are ready.

[Astro Teacher]

Absolutely none, but therein lies the contradiction. AT claims that the effects of astrology aren't measurable in any way, yet they matter.



So to believe in astrology, you must first accept that astrology is real?

Sorry, circular reasoning is no better than bare assertion.

Aha, a good question from you finally. You are now on ignore probation Pure_Argent. And, no, do not accept astrology as real at first. Nor at face value. Study it, get yourself an astronomical ephemeris, learn to read it while also reading some serious astrological materials and observe yourself.

Assume nothing.

Believe nothing.

Just work, study, and observe.

Now, if you can do that you will then be actually performing the true scientific method which is exploration and discovery - not sitting on your behind saying, "Tell me it ain't so Joe."

[AvalonXQ]

I don't measure truths. I accept them for what they are. and leave them alone. In effect, don't try to fix what ain't broken. Life is less complicated that way.

"The unexamined life is not worth living." -Socrates

Testing our assumptions, teasing our truths, and trying to understand IF and WHEN things in our world behave in certain ways -- these are the things that humans do that separate us from animals. These are the principles we uphold in order to better ourselves, to hold a candle to the darkness, and to separate truth from fiction.

[Pure_Argent]

Aha, a good question from you finally. You are now on probation. And, no, do not accept astrology as real at first. Study it, get astronomical ephemeris, read some serious materials and observe yourself. Assume nothing, and believe nothing. Just work, study, and observe.

Now, if you can do that you will then be actually performing the true scientific method which is exploration and discovery - not sitting on your behind saying, "Tell me it ain't so Joe."

I've studied it. I read your links. And I have come to believe that they are one hundred percent bull.
The distance between any given human and any given stellar body are so great that neither their gravitational nor electromagnetic fields can have any effect. Both forces follow the inverse square law for distances, so the total force exerted is essentially x over infinity, which is zero. Therefore, there is no effect.

[Fiona]

Because it is something only advanced astrologers would know is true. How am I to prove that I saw that transiting Mars was going to rise at that particular location at that particular time on the eastern horizon, and that this symbolized the individual who was up to no good?

The client didn't care how I did this, he just wanted his keys back, but he didn't know that his friend had stolen his keys and wanted to rip him off. I knew this, but how to prove it unless we were actually there at that particular time and place?

The client could have listened to his girlfriend who wanted him to spend the night at her place, if not for his astrologer saying no, we have to be here at this particular time and place and then wait.

See the problem of testing? It was the client's choice to tell his girlfriend that he could not stay with her that night (which led her to believe that he was cheating until I had to impress upon her that he was not and needed to be with me at this particular time) and so he made a free will choice. Now, if he decided to say hell no and go and stay at his girlfriend's place that night, he would have been ripped off.

Things often work like this. It is all about choices and decisions on the individual's part. But the transits, the "climate" is still there nonetheless. Transits are always on time - all the time. Most of the problems in the world come directly from people's own ignorance to transits and the poor choices and decisions they make.

I am sorry: I do not see at all how this renders the matter untestable. In this case there was a very specific prediction and that prediction turned out to be true. So either it would have been true whether the native went to the apartment or went to his girlfriend's: or his decision would have affected the decison of the bad guy. I have not seen anything in AT's posts so far to suggest that this is a schrodinger's cat. So I am assuming it would have been true wherever the native was. Any independent observer would have been able to confirm the prediction was accurate, surely?

If astrology is able to make predictions like this then they are eminently testable. Even if most of the time the predictions are dependent on the native's action it is reasonable to suppose that some of the time natives will not be so perverse as to pay for advice and then resolutely refuse to follow it: so one would expect such predictions to be fulfilled at a rate better than chance. One could improve that rate by testing on people who agreed to follow the advice given: this is not as if we are saying they agree to be "good" or "more decisive" or anything vague like that. This is very specific: be at a certain place at a certain time and x will happen

What is the problem with testing this?

[Neally]

If you stop with the one-line simple thinking on this subject and accept the fact that not all astrologers are "frauds" - as you have done in your comment above, then state, rather ignorantly if I might add, that "all their claims have been disproven," so, by effect astrology is disproven, you are living in a dreamworld of your own making. Look, I get it. You think that all other astrologers are frauds, not the ones like you:

Real Astrology does not work like this. I continue to make this point. Most people falsely believe that the whole purpose of an "astrology reading" is to tell the person something about themselves. This is not true, and any so-called "astrologer" who says so is not a true astrologer.

All this is practical: to help direct the client to their own goals, and to be real about it, adding none of the superfluous junk astrology that is so common these days with all the charlatans and wannabes who say they are "astrologers" when they surely are not.

The only "test" needed for junk astrology is to simply watch for those who make general "personality readings" their bread and butter. Know this: you are wasting your money, and more importantly, your time.

So all the tests in which the astrologers failed are not real astrologers like you and since your particular version of astrology can't be objectively tested, it can never be disproven. Again, your definitions. You have self defined "true"astrology but the vast majority of what is commonly practiced as astrology has been quite conclusively found to be bogus quackery in multiple controlled tests with the astrologers themselves agreeing the the protocol.

[SumDood]

I don't measure truths. I accept them for what they are. and leave them alone. In effect, don't try to fix what ain't broken. Life is less complicated that way.

Is it the word 'measure' that is the issue? Lets try some others:

So how exactly do you discover truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

So how exactly do you experience truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

So how exactly do you view truths that don't exist in our 'material' world?

So how exactly do you know truths that don't exist in our 'material' world are actually true?

So how exactly do you know truths that don't exist in our 'material' world actually exist?

Is it some sort of 'second site' thing? Is it opening one's mind to the interpretation of astrological charts? I know you say its complicated, but can you dumb it down for a layperson such as I?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You can do this with long-range weather forecasting, which can be tested. This has been done before, and found to be accurate. This is Natural Astrology, the one area that I believe that astrology can be tested because we can see the percentage rates of accuracy and non-accuracy in the physical world.

Would you please give some documentation of this? I spent 7 years working for the Canadian Weather Service and would be delighted to see this to be true?



<snip>

[Foster Zygote]

So to believe in astrology, you must first accept that astrology is real?

Sorry, circular reasoning is no better than bare assertion.

"You would believe in Jesus if you would just believe in Jesus." Where have I read that before?

[Hokulele]

Thank you Hokulele, you've been kind and straight up. Send me a PM so we can work out the nuances when you are ready.


No problem. I would prefer to keep as much of the discussion as public as possible (other than the test participants), as many people can help look for weaknesses in the protocol. Although posting in a moderated thread tends to be a little more tedious, what with the waiting period for posts to get approved and all, I think it would be best to keep all discussion relating to the protocol and your requirements in the thread I linked.


ETA: Whoops, you are already over there. Never mind!

[Astro Teacher]

I am sorry: I do not see at all how this renders the matter untestable. In this case there was a very specific prediction and that prediction turned out to be true. So either it would have been true whether the native went to the apartment or went to his girlfriend's: or his decision would have affected the decison of the bad guy. I have not seen anything in AT's posts so far to suggest that this is a schrodinger's cat. So I am assuming it would have been true wherever the native was. Any independent observer would have been able to confirm the prediction was accurate, surely?

If astrology is able to make predictions like this then they are eminently testable. Even if most of the time the predictions are dependent on the native's action it is reasonable to suppose that some of the time natives will not be so perverse as to pay for advice and then resolutely refuse to follow it: so one would expect such predictions to be fulfilled at a rate better than chance. One could improve that rate by testing on people who agreed to follow the advice given: this is not as if we are saying they agree to be "good" or "more decisive" or anything vague like that. This is very specific: be at a certain place at a certain time and x will happen

What is the problem with testing this?

To see this you would have to have open eyes first. You cannot see what is there blinded, and there are many who are so blinded by their own preconceptions that they cannot see - and do not want to. Who wants to test under those conditions?

People will believe whatever they want to believe. It will always be that way until things change, and when that change comes - and it is coming I can assure you - it will be much too late to say "give me a 89,289th chance to get it right."

You cannot "test" natal astrology, not with the current tools of conventional science. You can see correlations in people's lives, from past observations, but there is no way to replicate this in a lab. Period.

You cannot force a square into a round hole, no matter how much you want to try to do so. Some people can't see this because they do not want to.

They have their problems, they don't "believe" in this, they don't "believe" in that, and so on. When the hammer falls on someone else's finger it doesn't look so bad. When it falls on your finger, it's worse than bad. Why even waste your time? What is good for the goose is not for the gander and so on with human beings. Why even bother?

[AvalonXQ]

People will believe whatever they want to believe.

What if someone "wants" to believe in whatever tests and experiences show them to be true?

[Astro Teacher]

No problem. I would prefer to keep as much of the discussion as public as possible (other than the test participants), as many people can help look for weaknesses in the protocol. Although posting in a moderated thread tends to be a little more tedious, what with the waiting period for posts to get approved and all, I think it would be best to keep all discussion relating to the protocol and your requirements in the thread I linked.


ETA: Whoops, you are already over there. Never mind!

Thanks. I am busy though. I had a brief break in astrological work, but must get back to it today and through the week. I try to give myself a couple of days off to get people's transits out of my head (you have no idea what this is like when you just want to chill out and watch a comedy and eat some chips.) Anyhow, I will be back and forth checking in, so please try to arrange things for me so I do not have my time wasted, I would appreciate that.

I can do about 4-5 personal transits a day. Most people think I have to read one single chart, but that's not so. For each person, I have to read a natal and progressed horoscope and daily transits. You would not believe the amount of complexities involved, so I prefer to deal with people who are not playing silly games because nothing pisses me off more than that from people who cannot even read their own transits from their own birth dates. If I have to do it, saying "thank you" helps for spending hours and hours, and days and weeks and sometimes months doing this complex work for people who cannot do this for themselves.

I sent along a list of the rules on the moderated thread. Let me know what's up with a PM when you can. Thanks.

[Astro Teacher]

Look, I get it. You think that all other astrologers are frauds, not the ones like you:



So all the tests in which the astrologers failed are not real astrologers like you and since your particular version of astrology can't be objectively tested, it can never be disproven. Again, your definitions. You have self defined "true"astrology but the vast majority of what is commonly practiced as astrology has been quite conclusively found to be bogus quackery in multiple controlled tests with the astrologers themselves agreeing the the protocol.

Let's get this straight Neally - there has never been ONE TEST of astrology that has proven anything conclusively - certainly not against it, and only mildly for it from some studies of researchers. Got That?

There is no way to confirm or deny the proof of evidence for, or against natal astrology. It cannot be done. Most astrologers who agreed to the protocol did so in tests that were faulty with results that are at best spurious, that continued debates into this time. If astrology was disproved - in the REAL world - then we would not even be talking about this right now.

How can you believe anything of conventional science these days? First coffee was bad for you, then good for you, then bad, then good. Chocolate was bad for you, then good, then bad, and so on. Wine was bad for you, then good, then bad, now good, oh, now its bad. A little alcohol was bad for you, then good, then bad, and so was marijuana, then bad, now good, then bad, then good again (for people with terminal conditions.) First Mars had no water, they are crazy to say it did, then a little water, maybe ice, then none, then some, then a little more, now there might have been rivers on Mars. The Moon did not have any atmosphere, then a thin one, no, not, it does not, then it does, oh, it may have a little water too, maybe. The Moon had no effect on tides, now it did, no, not that much, oh, it does, maybe more, maybe less, oh, a little more, then none, now it does for sure. Climate change was laughed at 20 years ago, it did not exist, ha ha silly silly people, then a little, no, not even that, then maybe, then wow, even more, and wow wow, some more, now it is everywhere, now not so much.

And on and on.

With this kind of conventional science just how can you say that anything is determined to be real from the sacred mouths of that sacred cow you call "science?"

Please. Stop blowing this wind in my ear.

[Pure_Argent]

"You would believe in Jesus if you would just believe in Jesus." Where have I read that before?

Probably in, oh, I dunno, every single response to kurious_kathy I ever made.

[SumDood]

The growth of plants, the climate and weather, and events in history that correlate to past world transits... all this showed me that the ancients were right.

As for personal transits, years ago I once had a client come to me who said that he lost his keys while swimming at the beach. I asked him when this happened, where he went, and who was with him. I run time cycle charts on these dates against his own transits. I saw positions in his own personal transits relative to the present geographical transits that indicated that his keys were stolen from him by a person he knew.

I will not go into detail here about how I knew this because it is quite advanced, but the method is one that has been around for a long time and is known by experienced astrologers.

I triangulated his transits into the near future, running them into the days and weeks relative to his geographical position and told him that the person he knew would attempt to enter his apartment at a specific time and date when he thought his friend was not home.

Because he was scared, I helped him out by changing the geographic direction of observation of his apartment and waiting for a person to show up at the eastern position I noted.

The person, his friend, showed up, at night at the time and date I forecasted, and watched his friend's apartment. We were right behind him. He jumped when we confronted him, so we cornered him, asked him what he was doing there so late at night, and checked his pockets. My client found his keys. The guy was scared out of his wits and we told him that we were watching him watching his friend's apartment.

Is that the only prediction you have ever made? If not, how many others have come true?

[AvalonXQ]

How can you believe anything of conventional science these days?

If you use a computer, drive a car, watch TV, eat processed foods, have a house with electricity or running water, take medication of any kind -- the list goes on. If you do any of the above, then you should believe things of conventional science, being as it's conventional science that makes all of the above possible.
All of the examples you gave were from competing theories of new science, and more often than not, were actually situations where science was still sorting out the facts and media reported the results as though they were gospel.
The fact that media hype fills in gaps where science is still sorting stuff out is an indictment on our culture. If you want to claim science itself is totally unreliable, you're going to have to walk here (on foot) and say it to my face.

Oh, and make sure you're walking here on legs that haven't ever been looked at by a medical doctor.

[Astro Teacher]

If you use a computer, drive a car, watch TV, eat processed foods, have a house with electricity or running water, take medication of any kind -- the list goes on. If you do any of the above, then you should believe things of conventional science, being as it's conventional science that makes all of the above possible.
All of the examples you gave were from competing theories of new science, and more often than not, were actually situations where science was still sorting out the facts and media reported the results as though they were gospel.
The fact that media hype fills in gaps where science is still sorting stuff out is an indictment on our culture. If you want to claim science itself is totally unreliable, you're going to have to walk here (on foot) and say it to my face.

Oh, and make sure you're walking here on legs that haven't ever been looked at by a medical doctor.

Chemistry was invented by astrologers. Agriculture was founded and developed by astrologers. The Chaldean alphabet was invented by an astrologer (Abraham.) Electricity was discovered by an astrologer (Ben Franklin.) The heliocentric solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Copernicus.) The planetary laws of the solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Kepler.) The telescope was invented by an astrologer (Galileo) and the practice of medicine was invented by an astrologer (Hippocrates, who said, "A physician without a knowledge of Astrology has no right to call himself a physician."

What you call "science" today came directly from its Mother - Astrology.

[AvalonXQ]

Which technologies that you mentioned requires astrological principles to function? Which of the inventors you mentioned relied on astrology to invent what we use today?
I can deny the principles of astrology and live in modern society with no hypocrisy. I cannot do the same for the principles of science.

[Foster Zygote]

Chemistry was invented by astrologers.
In the same way that that physicians who bled people invented organ transplant surgery. Just because superstition was given up gradually in favor of the scientific method does not validate the superstition.

Agriculture was founded and developed by astrologers.
Can you cite a source for this? I've never heard that the Neolithic Revolution has been credited to astrologers. Later, as agricultural practices grew more sophisticated, observation of seasonal patterns of planetary motion helped agricultural societies to plan ahead and increase efficiency, but this observation of the motions of the sun, moon and stars would be more properly termed "astronomy" than "astrology". If those responsible for creating the agricultural calendars also believed that they could predict the futures of individuals that does not mean that they were right.

The Chaldean alphabet was invented by an astrologer (Abraham.)
Pure myth.

Electricity was discovered by an astrologer (Ben Franklin.) The heliocentric solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Copernicus.) The planetary laws of the solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Kepler.) The telescope was invented by an astrologer (Galileo) and the practice of medicine was invented by an astrologer (Hippocrates, who said, "A physician without a knowledge of Astrology has no right to call himself a physician."
Well Kepler called wrote that astrology was to astronomy as the foolish daughter of a wise mother. As to the rest: So what? this is just an argument from authority fallacy. Did the practice of astrology lead to any scientific discoveries? Are modern scientists likely to practice astronomy, or have they abandoned it as superstition?

What you call "science" today came directly from its Mother - Astrology.
No, what we today call science came from the practice of observation. And science has examined astrology and found no validity to it. Tell me, how many modern scientists place any stock in the practice of astrology? Do those who remotely explore the surfaces of other planets practice astrology? Do those unravel the mechanisms of our genetic coding practice astrology?

[Pure_Argent]

Let's get this straight Neally - there has never been ONE TEST of astrology that has proven anything conclusively - certainly not against it, and only mildly for it from some studies of researchers. Got That?

Bare-faced lie (http://www.imsc.res.in/~jayaram/Articles/astro/astro.html).

There is no way to confirm or deny the proof of evidence for, or against natal astrology. It cannot be done. Most astrologers who agreed to the protocol did so in tests that were faulty with results that are at best spurious, that continued debates into this time. If astrology was disproved - in the REAL world - then we would not even be talking about this right now.

Except that it makes money, and there's one born every minute.

How can you believe anything of conventional science these days? First coffee was bad for you, then good for you, then bad, then good. Chocolate was bad for you, then good, then bad, and so on. Wine was bad for you, then good, then bad, now good, oh, now its bad. A little alcohol was bad for you, then good, then bad, and so was marijuana, then bad, now good, then bad, then good again (for people with terminal conditions.) First Mars had no water, they are crazy to say it did, then a little water, maybe ice, then none, then some, then a little more, now there might have been rivers on Mars. The Moon did not have any atmosphere, then a thin one, no, not, it does not, then it does, oh, it may have a little water too, maybe. The Moon had no effect on tides, now it did, no, not that much, oh, it does, maybe more, maybe less, oh, a little more, then none, now it does for sure. Climate change was laughed at 20 years ago, it did not exist, ha ha silly silly people, then a little, no, not even that, then maybe, then wow, even more, and wow wow, some more, now it is everywhere, now not so much.

And on and on.

That is WHY you can trust science. Science is impartial. If it is wrong, it is because of human error and will be corrected.
And AvalonXQ has already - quite neatly - pointed out the hypocrisy of your views.

With this kind of conventional science just how can you say that anything is determined to be real from the sacred mouths of that sacred cow you call "science?"

Please. Stop blowing this wind in my ear.

Astro Teacher, there have been PLENTY of verified scientific advances. Vaccines. Evolution. Gravity, relativity, the Big Bang, geology, biology, chemistry, medicine... the list goes on. All of them can be shown to be correct through experimentation. So please, stop lying.

Chemistry was invented by astrologers.

Also a bare-faced lie.

Agriculture was founded and developed by astrologers.

Bare assertion. The origins of agriculture are so far back in history that no one knows who invented it. We can say "it started here, at this time" but no record exists of the professions of the first farmers.

The Chaldean alphabet was invented by an astrologer (Abraham.)

Bare assertion.

Electricity was discovered by an astrologer (Ben Franklin.)

Astronomer. Huge difference.

The heliocentric solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Copernicus.)

Astronomer.

The planetary laws of the solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Kepler.)

Astronomer.

The telescope was invented by an astrologer (Galileo)

Astronomer.

and the practice of medicine was invented by an astrologer (Hippocrates, who said, "A physician without a knowledge of Astrology has no right to call himself a physician."

Yes, but he also believed that the body consisted of four humors, and that by altering their balance changes in the health could be caused. :rolleyes
Seriously, Astro Teacher. Hippocrates said this because he believed that each part of the body was under the influence of a different celestial body. We now know that to be false.

What you call "science" today came directly from its Mother - Astrology.

No.

[Astro Teacher]

Bare-faced lie (http://www.imsc.res.in/~jayaram/Articles/astro/astro.html).



Except that it makes money, and there's one born every minute.



That is WHY you can trust science. Science is impartial. If it is wrong, it is because of human error and will be corrected.
And AvalonXQ has already - quite neatly - pointed out the hypocrisy of your views.



Astro Teacher, there have been PLENTY of verified scientific advances. Vaccines. Evolution. Gravity, relativity, the Big Bang, geology, biology, chemistry, medicine... the list goes on. All of them can be shown to be correct through experimentation. So please, stop lying.



Also a bare-faced lie.



Bare assertion. The origins of agriculture are so far back in history that no one knows who invented it. We can say "it started here, at this time" but no record exists of the professions of the first farmers.



Bare assertion.



Astronomer. Huge difference.



Astronomer.



Astronomer.



Astronomer.



Yes, but he also believed that the body consisted of four humors, and that by altering their balance changes in the health could be caused. :rolleyes
Seriously, Astro Teacher. Hippocrates said this because he believed that each part of the body was under the influence of a different celestial body. We now know that to be false.



No.

Calling a person a "liar" because you disagree does not constitute a valid argument. Back on ignore Pure_Argent. I gave you a chance and you blew it. Bye.

[AvalonXQ]

Calling a person a "liar" because you disagree does not constitute a valid argument. Back on ignore Pure_Argent. I gave you a chance and you blew it. Bye.

I hope Pure continues his thoughtful responses to your unsupported claims; they're very informative to me.

[Astro Teacher]

In the same way that that physicians who bled people invented organ transplant surgery. Just because superstition was given up gradually in favor of the scientific method does not validate the superstition.


Can you cite a source for this? I've never heard that the Neolithic Revolution has been credited to astrologers. Later, as agricultural practices grew more sophisticated, observation of seasonal patterns of planetary motion helped agricultural societies to plan ahead and increase efficiency, but this observation of the motions of the sun, moon and stars would be more properly termed "astronomy" than "astrology". If those responsible for creating the agricultural calendars also believed that they could predict the futures of individuals that does not mean that they were right.


Pure myth.


Well Kepler called wrote that astrology was to astronomy as the foolish daughter of a wise mother. As to the rest: So what? this is just an argument from authority fallacy. Did the practice of astrology lead to any scientific discoveries? Are modern scientists likely to practice astronomy, or have they abandoned it as superstition?


No, what we today call science came from the practice of observation. And science has examined astrology and found no validity to it. Tell me, how many modern scientists place any stock in the practice of astrology? Do those who remotely explore the surfaces of other planets practice astrology? Do those unravel the mechanisms of our genetic coding practice astrology?

You ought to read more. You also would be very surprised just how many scientists not only place stock in astrology, but practice it themselves.

[Pure_Argent]

Calling a person a "liar" because you disagree does not constitute a valid argument. Back on ignore Pure_Argent. I gave you a chance and you blew it. Bye.

I don't call you a liar because your opinions differ from mine. I call you a liar because you lie. I even linked to the source of the information which proved you a liar.
You're just digging yourself deeper into the little hole of non-credibility that you started in. Here's a hint: when you hit China, stop.

:dig:

You ought to read more. You also would be very surprised just how many scientists not only place stock in astrology, but practice it themselves.

If there are so many, you should be able to name a few. I think you'd be surprised at a) how few there really are and b) how little credibility they have.

[Astro Teacher]

Which technologies that you mentioned requires astrological principles to function? Which of the inventors you mentioned relied on astrology to invent what we use today?
I can deny the principles of astrology and live in modern society with no hypocrisy. I cannot do the same for the principles of science.

And, so what? Just because you "deny" it does not mean those principles are not operational all around you. What hubris!

[Pure_Argent]

And, so what? Just because you "deny" it does not mean those principles are not operational all around you. What hubris!

Just because you say that they're in operation does not mean that they actually are. What hubris!

ETA: Thanks for the support, Avalon. I'm not going to stop. If I beat my head against this brick wall long enough, it WILL come down!

...plus I'm into masochism. :P

[AvalonXQ]

And, so what? Just because you "deny" it does not mean those principles are not operational all around you. What hubris!

If the principles are operational all around me, we should be able to SEE them.
I'm not particularly concerned with the operations of principles that have no observable effects.
The neat thing about science is that I don't have to take anyone's word for it -- I can see it working for myself, as can anyone else.

[AvalonXQ]

...plus I'm into masochism. :P

We already knew that from your... other affiliations. ;)

[KingMerv00]

And, so what? Just because you "deny" it does not mean those principles are not operational all around you. What hubris!

He isn't right because he denies it. He denies it because he is right.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

You ought to read more. You also would be very surprised just how many scientists not only place stock in astrology, but practice it themselves.


I sure would be. Name a couple. :(

[Foster Zygote]

You ought to read more. You also would be very surprised just how many scientists not only place stock in astrology, but practice it themselves.
I'd love to read more about this. Please cite some evidence of the number of modern scientists who utilize astrology.

I'd also love to read about the invention of agriculture by astrologers as well as any actual historical evidence that Abraham invented the Chaldean alphabet. Your statement implies that such evidence is there to be read. I'm sure it will be quite simple for you to point me in the right direction.

[Kuko 4000]

How can you believe anything of conventional science these days? First coffee was bad for you, then good for you, then bad, then good. Chocolate was bad for you, then good, then bad, and so on.


Astro Teacher, consider this:

New York Times reports "Homeopathic medicine is not effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

The next day the same newspaper reports "Homeopathic medicine is effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

How would you proceed if you wanted to know which of the results is closer to the truth?

[Foster Zygote]

I sure would be. Name a couple. :(

A couple wouldn't surprise me. I can think of a couple who believe in alien abductions. I can think of a few who think that the Earth is only 6000 years old. I want to see some evidence that a considerable percentage of scientists practice astrology or consider it even remotely valid as a method of predicting human characteristics.

[Neally]

Let's get this straight Neally - there has never been ONE TEST of astrology that has proven anything conclusively - certainly not against it, and only mildly for it from some studies of researchers. Got That?

Calling a person a "liar" because you disagree does not constitute a valid argument.And claiming that no study of astrology has disproven it does not make it so. Numerous controlled tests have been done and cited here. Your claiming that they are not accurate is not a valid argument. You seem to be torn between two opinions. First you say that they are not "true" astrologers, calling them "junk", then you defend them calling the tests faulty and spurious.

There is no way to confirm or deny the proof of evidence for, or against natal astrology. It cannot be done. Most astrologers who agreed to the protocol did so in tests that were faulty with results that are at best spurious, that continued debates into this time.But see those other astrologers that were tested and failed did not practice your particular brand of astrology, and there is no debate in science as to the validity of astrology. Many controlled tests were done. Astrology failed. Conclusively.

If astrology was disproved - in the REAL world - then we would not even be talking about this right now.Not a valid argument supporting the practice. People still practice homeopathy, a practice conclusively proven to be no more effective than placebo. All paranormal claims tested under controlled conditions by JREF have failed, yet people still widely believe in them.

[Astro Teacher]

Astro Teacher, consider this:

New York Times reports "Homeopathic medicine is not effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

The next day the same newspaper reports "Homeopathic medicine is effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

How would you proceed if you wanted to know which of the results is closer to the truth?

Exactly. How to proceed? Think for yourself. Until this bull stops people will tend not to believe anything from conventional science they hear simply because it will change the very next day. Science should not be driven by economics and self-interest, but it is, and that is one of the reasons why the world is screwed. It's going to get much worse before it gets better I'm afraid to say.

[Madalch]

I have a question.

I read your description of having caught a thief in the other thread- you could tell what this person was up to from their chart, and how they related to the client.

Now, if you can figure out how two people are interrelated (by theft, in this case) from their birth data, would you be able to tell me, given my birth information and that of three of the women I dated, which one married me? I could also give you the birth place and time of my children if that helps.

[Astro Teacher]

I have a question.

I read your description of having caught a thief in the other thread- you could tell what this person was up to from their chart, and how they related to the client.

Now, if you can figure out how two people are interrelated (by theft, in this case) from their birth data, would you be able to tell me, given my birth information and that of three of the women I dated, which one married me? I could also give you the birth place and time of my children if that helps.

Possibly. I've done it before.

[Astro Teacher]

And claiming that no study of astrology has disproven it does not make it so. Numerous controlled tests have been done and cited here. Your claiming that they are not accurate is not a valid argument. You seem to be torn between two opinions. First you say that they are not "true" astrologers, calling them "junk", then you defend them calling the tests faulty and spurious.
But see those other astrologers that were tested and failed did not practice your particular brand of astrology, and there is no debate in science as to the validity of astrology. Many controlled tests were done. Astrology failed. Conclusively.

Not a valid argument supporting the practice. People still practice homeopathy, a practice conclusively proven to be no more effective than placebo. All paranormal claims tested under controlled conditions by JREF have failed, yet people still widely believe in them.

And what does that tell you? Even if you are able to "test" such paranormal matters under controlled conditions, those conditions themselves usually interfere with the paranormal occurrences.

It's like putting an exposed live TV camera on a person - do you think most people do not react to such conditions and not change their behaviors from what they normally would do? Most people do. Therefore, it is the "controlled condition" that will usually yield negative results. Therefore, take the "test clown" out of the room and see what happens. Test when it is over, not during, not before.

If JREF really wants to observe these conditions, act normally, and do not attempt to "control" anything. There's plenty of paranormal events that have been filmed in "uncontrolled conditions" that yielded results. JREF ought to try that.

If you are to test - first see what is there and do not interfere or you will get no results. Then, test the results afterward to see if it really happened without trying to "explain" anything, that is the intellectualize forcing of things that most ego-centric skeptics do and they totally mess things up.

It's like being in love - you know it when it happens to you, silently, but say that you are in love enough times out loud under "controlled conditions" and you start to wonder and doubt if you really are in love.

[Kuko 4000]

How can you believe anything of conventional science these days? First coffee was bad for you, then good for you, then bad, then good. Chocolate was bad for you, then good, then bad, and so on.

Astro Teacher, consider this:

New York Times reports "Homeopathic medicine is not effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

The next day the same newspaper reports "Homeopathic medicine is effective in treating asthma, new study suggests".

How would you proceed if you wanted to know which of the results is closer to the truth?

Exactly. How to proceed? Think for yourself. Until this bull stops people will tend not to believe anything from conventional science they hear simply because it will change the very next day. Science should not be driven by economics and self-interest, but it is, and that is one of the reasons why the world is screwed. It's going to get much worse before it gets better I'm afraid to say.


There are a number of ways to apporach this problem. I would first look at the original papers and see whether there are any obvious problems with either of the studies. If you look closer at the studies in this area you tend to find that the ones in favour of homeopathy are poorly designed, meaning that they do not stand the criteria of good science. A study like this is not scientifically rigorous if it's not, for example, blinded correctly. And, if it's not blinded correctly, the results are worth nothing.

In the light of what you have written previously about commenting on things one has no deep knowledge about, I found this answer very interesting. Nevertheless, welcome to the forums Astro Teacher, may your stay be constructive, interesting and educational.

[Pure_Argent]

And what does that tell you? Even if you are able to "test" such paranormal matters under controlled conditions, those conditions themselves usually interfere with the paranormal occurrences.

It's like putting an exposed live TV camera on a person - do you think most people do not react to such conditions and not change their behaviors from what they normally would do? Most people do. Therefore, it is the "controlled condition" that will usually yield negative results. Therefore, take the "test clown" out of the room and see what happens. Test when it is over, not during, not before.

If JREF really wants to observe these conditions, act normally, and do not attempt to "control" anything. There's plenty of paranormal events that have been filmed in "uncontrolled conditions" that yielded results. JREF ought to try that.

If you are to test - first see what is there and do not interfere or you will get no results. Then, test the results afterward to see if it really happened without trying to "explain" anything, that is the intellectualize forcing of things that most ego-centric skeptics do and they totally mess things up.

It's like being in love - you know it when it happens to you, silently, but say that you are in love enough times out loud under "controlled conditions" and you start to wonder and doubt if you really are in love.

You obviously don't understand science in the slightest. Come back when you do.

[Astro Teacher]

There are a number of ways to apporach this problem. I would first look at the original papers and see whether there are any obvious problems with either of the studies. If you look closer at the studies in this area you tend to find that the ones in favour of homeopathy are poorly designed, meaning that they do not stand the criteria of good science. A study like this is not scientifically rigorous if it's not, for example, blinded correctly. And, if it's not blinded correctly, the results are worth nothing.

In the light of what you have written previously about commenting on things one has no deep knowledge about, I found this answer very interesting. Nevertheless, welcome to the forums Astro Teacher, may your stay be constructive, interesting and educational.

Thanks for the welcome Kuko. I agree with your thoughts on poorly designed protocols, most are doomed from the start mainly because of human interference through ego, jealousy, competition, self-interest, careerists, biases, personal issues, etc., etc.

It makes a mess of true exploration that yield discoveries. Until people quit with the ego-antics they will learn very little about the secrets of the universe, mainly because of hubris, which only the foolish partake of to suit their own sensibilities.

These are some of the same people yelling "scientific method, proof, evidence, science, yada yada yada," but would not know such things if it was presented to them on a silver platter.

Get rid of the hubris, get rid of the bias, get rid of the predetermined thoughts and opinions, open one's eyes, one's mind and use more than 10% of one's brain power, and guess what: the universe opens up and some decent headway can be made in critical thinking, and yes, even some real science, can now begin.

[Pure_Argent]

Get rid of the hubris, get rid of the bias, get rid of the predetermined thoughts and opinions, open one's eyes, one's mind and use more than 10% of one's brain power, and guess what: the universe opens up and some decent headway can be made in critical thinking, and yes, even some real science, can now begin.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u65/Maestro134/irony.jpg

[Madalch]

Possibly. I've done it before.
Well, I'll have to leave it for someone else, since I've mentioned my wife's birthplace on this forum before.

But if I could get real birthdates and places from a friend (or an anonymous member of this forum via PM), shall we try?

[Madalch]

Possibly. I've done it before.

Or, a slightly different test-

I could provide the dates and birthplace of my mother and her siblings.
I could provide the dates and bithplace of my father and his siblings.

Given my birthdate and place, could you pick out which were my parents?

[Pixel42]

Chemistry was invented by astrologers. Agriculture was founded and developed by astrologers. The Chaldean alphabet was invented by an astrologer (Abraham.) Electricity was discovered by an astrologer (Ben Franklin.) The heliocentric solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Copernicus.) The planetary laws of the solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Kepler.) The telescope was invented by an astrologer (Galileo) and the practice of medicine was invented by an astrologer (Hippocrates, who said, "A physician without a knowledge of Astrology has no right to call himself a physician.".


Like others here I very much doubt most of those named were astrologers, but I'd prefer to address the underlying assumption.

Knowledge is cumulative. Every generation discovers and understands a little more about the world than the previous one, hands what they've learned on to their descendants who build on it and discover and understand a little more and hand that on ... There have been dark times when knowledge has been lost, or even deliberately suppressed, but the general trend over the last several thousand years has been for knowledge and understanding to grow whilst ignorance and superstition decrease. As a result you and I have available to us a veritable mountain of knowledge and understanding. Much of it was not available to previous generations, not even the great scientists of previous generations, but all of it is available to us. Isn't that wonderful?

The people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat, the earth went round the sun, the stars were points of light on a crystal sphere and the planets were gods. They didn't believe these things because they were stupid - they weren't stupid, they were the brightest minds of their generation - they believed them because they were ignorant. If all you know about the world is what you can personally see and hear then astrology seems perfectly reasonable, and the people who invented it had every excuse for believing it. But you and I have no such excuse. You and I know what the stars and planets really are, we know the laws of nature which really determine how the world unfolds, we know how and why our pattern-seeking brains evolved and how easily our perceptions can consequently be fooled, etc etc. Or at least we can know all that, if we choose to use google or pop along to our local library to find out.

Now I happen to believe that our hard-won store of knowledge and understanding is civilisation's greatest achievement. Humanity's greatest achievement. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who deliberately turns their back on it and actually chooses to waste their time faffing about in the last remaining dregs of ignorance and superstition is essentially spitting in the eye of every single one of their own ancestors who has ever contributed a smidgen of knowledge or understanding to that store. They are pissing on humanity's greatest achievement. That upsets me, it is to me what I imagine blasphemy is to a devout religious believer. When I see something like the cargo cult science - the calculation of 'transits', the pseudoscientific gibberish about magnetic resonances, the sheer inexcusable ignorance of basic physics - with which you try to justify claims to 'know' things for which there is not a shred of evidence I just want to sit down and weep.

ETA: Oh god. I just found this in the moderated thread, posted by Astro Teacher:

Most people use about 10-percent or less of their total brain function.

Of all the urban myths, this is the one that puzzles me the most. Do 90% of the people who suffer strokes or serious brain injury just carry on regardless? You only need to think about it for a few seconds to realise that this cannot possible be true. It beggars belief that anyone could post such a statement and still expect to taken seriously.

For the record: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

[Professor Yaffle]

Or, a slightly different test-

I could provide the dates and birthplace of my mother and her siblings.
I could provide the dates and bithplace of my father and his siblings.

Given my birthdate and place, could you pick out which were my parents?

There is another thread for developing a test for Astro Teacher. You might like to post this idea there:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158144

ETA: I've quoted it over there myself.

[SusanB-M1]

#95 Pixel42

Loud applause from the sidelines here! I really enjoyed reading that post.

[Pure_Argent]

Like others here I very much doubt most of those named were astrologers, but I'd prefer to address the underlying assumption.

Knowledge is cumulative. Every generation discovers and understands a little more about the world than the previous one, hands what they've learned on to their descendants who build on it and discover and understand a little more and hand that on ... There have been dark times when knowledge has been lost, or even deliberately suppressed, but the general trend over the last several thousand years has been for knowledge and understanding to grow whilst ignorance and superstition decrease. As a result you and I have available to us a veritable mountain of knowledge and understanding. Much of it was not available to previous generations, not even the great scientists of previous generations, but all of it is available to us. Isn't that wonderful?

The people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat, the earth went round the sun, the stars were points of light on a crystal sphere and the planets were gods. They didn't believe these things because they were stupid - they weren't stupid, they were the brightest minds of their generation - they believed them because they were ignorant. If all you know about the world is what you can personally see and hear then astrology seems perfectly reasonable, and the people who invented it had every excuse for believing it. But you and I have no such excuse. You and I know what the stars and planets really are, we know the laws of nature which really determine how the world unfolds, we know how and why our pattern-seeking brains evolved and how easily our perceptions can consequently be fooled, etc etc. Or at least we can know all that, if we choose to use google or pop along to our local library to find out.

Now I happen to believe that our hard-won store of knowledge and understanding is civilisation's greatest achievement. Humanity's greatest achievement. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who deliberately turns their back on it and actually chooses to waste their time faffing about in the last remaining dregs of ignorance and superstition is essentially spitting in the eye of every single one of their own ancestors who has ever contributed a smidgen of knowledge or understanding to that store. They are pissing on humanity's greatest achievement. That upsets me, it is to me what I imagine blasphemy is to a devout religious believer. When I see something like the cargo cult science - the calculation of 'transits', the pseudoscientific gibberish about magnetic resonances, the sheer inexcusable ignorance of basic physics - with which you try to justify claims to 'know' things for which there is not a shred of evidence I just want to sit down and weep.

ETA: Oh god. I just found this in the moderated thread, posted by Astro Teacher:



Of all the urban myths, this is the one that puzzles me the most. Do 90% of the people who suffer strokes or serious brain injury just carry on regardless? You only need to think about it for a few seconds to realise that this cannot possible be true. It beggars belief that anyone could post such a statement and still expect to taken seriously.

For the record: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

Nominated.

ETA: Well, the first bit. Not the Snopes bit.

[Jeff Corey]

...Of all the urban myths, this is the one that puzzles me the most. Do 90% of the people who suffer strokes or serious brain injury just carry on regardless? You only need to think about it for a few seconds to realise that this cannot possible be true. It beggars belief that anyone could post such a statement and still expect to taken seriously...
Maybe he meant "Most people who believe in astrology..."

[Astro Teacher]

Like others here I very much doubt most of those named were astrologers, but I'd prefer to address the underlying assumption.

Knowledge is cumulative. Every generation discovers and understands a little more about the world than the previous one, hands what they've learned on to their descendants who build on it and discover and understand a little more and hand that on ... There have been dark times when knowledge has been lost, or even deliberately suppressed, but the general trend over the last several thousand years has been for knowledge and understanding to grow whilst ignorance and superstition decrease. As a result you and I have available to us a veritable mountain of knowledge and understanding. Much of it was not available to previous generations, not even the great scientists of previous generations, but all of it is available to us. Isn't that wonderful?

The people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat, the earth went round the sun, the stars were points of light on a crystal sphere and the planets were gods. They didn't believe these things because they were stupid - they weren't stupid, they were the brightest minds of their generation - they believed them because they were ignorant. If all you know about the world is what you can personally see and hear then astrology seems perfectly reasonable, and the people who invented it had every excuse for believing it. But you and I have no such excuse. You and I know what the stars and planets really are, we know the laws of nature which really determine how the world unfolds, we know how and why our pattern-seeking brains evolved and how easily our perceptions can consequently be fooled, etc etc. Or at least we can know all that, if we choose to use google or pop along to our local library to find out.

Now I happen to believe that our hard-won store of knowledge and understanding is civilisation's greatest achievement. Humanity's greatest achievement. So as far as I'm concerned, anyone who deliberately turns their back on it and actually chooses to waste their time faffing about in the last remaining dregs of ignorance and superstition is essentially spitting in the eye of every single one of their own ancestors who has ever contributed a smidgen of knowledge or understanding to that store. They are pissing on humanity's greatest achievement. That upsets me, it is to me what I imagine blasphemy is to a devout religious believer. When I see something like the cargo cult science - the calculation of 'transits', the pseudoscientific gibberish about magnetic resonances, the sheer inexcusable ignorance of basic physics - with which you try to justify claims to 'know' things for which there is not a shred of evidence I just want to sit down and weep.

ETA: Oh god. I just found this in the moderated thread, posted by Astro Teacher:



Of all the urban myths, this is the one that puzzles me the most. Do 90% of the people who suffer strokes or serious brain injury just carry on regardless? You only need to think about it for a few seconds to realise that this cannot possible be true. It beggars belief that anyone could post such a statement and still expect to taken seriously.

For the record: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

What "beggers belief" Pixel42 is that you would actually state that the "people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat." Are you serious? How is that possible for astrologers who work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies that are always in motion? Please.

I strongly advise you to do much more serious reading of the subject of Astrology because your comments above show that you are unable to debate this topic based on your lack of knowledge of this serious topic.

You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Study and when you do so - leave your opinions at home while you think about how you are going to "pop along to our local library to find out."

I suggest you do just that.

[skip]

If JREF really wants to observe these conditions, act normally, and do not attempt to "control" anything. There's plenty of paranormal events that have been filmed in "uncontrolled conditions" that yielded results. JREF ought to try that. .

Isn’t this what the TAPS team does on TV?

If you are to test - first see what is there and do not interfere or you will get no results. Then, test the results afterward to see if it really happened without trying to "explain" anything, that is the intellectualize forcing of things that most ego-centric skeptics do and they totally mess things up. .

If I put a monkey in a room along with a typewriter , leave the room unattended and then return at some undetermined time. If something is typed on the paper I should accept that the monkey typed it.

[AvalonXQ]

What "beggers belief" Pixel42 is that you would actually state that the "people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat." Are you serious? How is that possible for astrologers who work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies that are always in motion?

... do you have a citation for your assertion that the originators of astrology believed the earth to be a spherical body in motion? This is also entirely inconsistent with my understanding of the ancient history of the art.

[Pure_Argent]

What "beggers belief" Pixel42 is that you would actually state that the "people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat." Are you serious? How is that possible for astrologers who work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies that are always in motion? Please.

...This discussion has officially moved into the realm of the ludicrous.
Astro Teacher, yes, ancient astrologers and astronomers - which you appear not to know the difference between - DID believe that the Earth was flat. Believing that the Earth is flat rather than round does not make it impossible to measure the movements of stars. You can still draw lines on a piece of paper so that the lines follow the path of the stars.

I strongly advise you to do much more serious reading of the subject of Astrology because your comments above show that you are unable to debate this topic based on your lack of knowledge of this serious topic.

I strongly advise YOU to go do some basic reading on electromagnetism, physics and air, since you appear to be under the impression that sound can travel through a vacuum.

You have the right to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Study and when you do so - leave your opinions at home while you think about how you are going to "pop along to our local library to find out."

I suggest you do just that.

Ironic, since you apparently haven't. Your beliefs are one huge mess of preconceived notions - you have admitted this yourself.

[Fiona]

To see this you would have to have open eyes first. You cannot see what is there blinded, and there are many who are so blinded by their own preconceptions that they cannot see - and do not want to. Who wants to test under those conditions?

People will believe whatever they want to believe. It will always be that way until things change, and when that change comes - and it is coming I can assure you - it will be much too late to say "give me a 89,289th chance to get it right."

You cannot "test" natal astrology, not with the current tools of conventional science. You can see correlations in people's lives, from past observations, but there is no way to replicate this in a lab. Period.

You cannot force a square into a round hole, no matter how much you want to try to do so. Some people can't see this because they do not want to.

They have their problems, they don't "believe" in this, they don't "believe" in that, and so on. When the hammer falls on someone else's finger it doesn't look so bad. When it falls on your finger, it's worse than bad. Why even waste your time? What is good for the goose is not for the gander and so on with human beings. Why even bother?

I don't see how this is an answer to my post.

[Pixel42]

What "beggers belief" is that you would actually state that the "people who invented astrology believed that the earth was flat." Are your serious?
Yes.

How is this possible with astrologers who work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies?
Because the people who invented astrology - by which I mean the people who first came up with the notion that people and events on earth are influenced by the existence and movement of heavenly bodies - did not "work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies". That came later. Much later.

I strongly advise you to do much more serious reading of the subject of Astrology
Whilst I strongly advise you to do some serious reading on almost anything except astrology - starting with, most urgently, the scientific method. Then perhaps you will stop making appalingly ignorant statements like the one about us only using 10% of our brains, let alone all the other pseudoscientific drivel you've posted.

[Fiona]

Actually I do not think it is at all certain that astrology was invented by people who thought the earth was flat. But it hardly matters for the thrust of Pixel42's post.

[Foster Zygote]

Any chance of getting those citations I asked for in post #81?

[Pixel42]

Actually I do not think it is at all certain that astrology was invented by people who thought the earth was flat. But it hardly matters for the thrust of Pixel42's post.
Well quite. It's interesting that Astro Teacher chose to pick out that unimportant detail from my post and ignore the substance of it, isn't it?

[Pure_Argent]

Well quite. It's interesting that Astro Teacher chose to pick out that unimportant detail from my post and ignore the substance of it, isn't it?

It's a common tactic when confronted with information that they can't refute. 9/11-investigator does the same thing over in the current Holocaust thread. Rramjet is doing the same thing in "UFOs: The Research, the Evidence". King of the Americas did it, before he disappeared. SnidelyW used to do it, but I think that we're getting through to him.
The point is that Astro Teacher is under no circumstances ever going to respond to that part of your post, because he/she knows that doing so would completely obliterate his/her position.

[Astro Teacher]

Well quite. It's interesting that Astro Teacher chose to pick out that unimportant detail from my post and ignore the substance of it, isn't it?

Because it is a very important detail, or, you would not have wrote it Pixel. The substance of your comments in that post are entirely opinion, but not fact, and these are important differences especially on this subject.

Your comments show a lack of knowledge of this subject, it's history, and its basic language, which you should have in order to debate Astrology, do you not agree? What is so difficult about learning more about serious astrology before engaging into a debate with one knowledgeable about the subject?

What is so hard about reading some serious materials to learn more so that you will be able to sound intelligent on this topic?

Or, is it much easier for you to sit behind your computer and opinionate to death while wasting valuable learning time to actually be able to form your arguments with knowledge of the subject you have chosen to debate?

[Astro Teacher]

Yes.


Because the people who invented astrology - by which I mean the people who first came up with the notion that people and events on earth are influenced by the existence and movement of heavenly bodies - did not "work with variable mathematics of spherical bodies". That came later. Much later.


Whilst I strongly advise you to do some serious reading on almost anything except astrology - starting with, most urgently, the scientific method. Then perhaps you will stop making appalingly ignorant statements like the one about us only using 10% of our brains, let alone all the other pseudoscientific drivel you've posted.

Such as the pseudo-skeptic comments you've written? I don't find you serious at all considering that you clearly haven't studied this subject, of which you are ignorant, from the content of your own words. One can be a skeptic and be informed on the topic of debate. I do not find that you are one of them. Period. Until you change that Pixel, you should serious review the "drivel" that you have submitted on this subject.

Still, no trip to the library, huh? A shame, England has such wonderful libraries. You should take a long tour of them.

See - http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt

[Olowkow]

AT: I'm curious where you got the notion that we only use 10% of our brains, a claim you posted in another thread. Can you back this up with any sources?

ETA: this myth has been persistent, but that does not make it true
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

I predict that Mr. Teacher will never get around to doing an actual test on this forum. He is just seeking attention.

[Foster Zygote]

Because it is a very important detail, or, you would not have wrote it Pixel. The substance of your comments in that post are entirely opinion, but not fact, and these are important differences especially on this subject.

Your comments show a lack of knowledge of this subject, it's history, and its basic language, which you should have in order to debate Astrology, do you not agree? What is so difficult about learning more about serious astrology before engaging into a debate with one knowledgeable about the subject?

What is so hard about reading some serious materials to learn more so that you will be able to sound intelligent on this topic?

Or, is it much easier for you to sit behind your computer and opinionate to death while wasting valuable learning time to actually be able to form your arguments with knowledge of the subject you have chosen to debate?

How about your claim regarding the number of scientists who practice astrology? Are you going to back up that claim with some evidence?

[Astro Teacher]

I'd love to read more about this. Please cite some evidence of the number of modern scientists who utilize astrology.

I'd also love to read about the invention of agriculture by astrologers as well as any actual historical evidence that Abraham invented the Chaldean alphabet. Your statement implies that such evidence is there to be read. I'm sure it will be quite simple for you to point me in the right direction.

Hi, I missed your post Foster, the home of Astrology and Agriculture came from Mesopotamia, this region that includes the country we know today as Iraq.

"Modern civilisation began in Iraq. The Iraqis invented agriculture. They invented astronomy and astrology. The entire astrological system still in use today in every Daily Newspaper was invented in Iraq over five thousand years ago. They discovered the planets, they mapped the stars. They invented the 24 hour day, the sixty minute hour and the sixty second minute. In a very real sense we still live within Iraqi time. They invented the seven day week. They invented mathematics and writing. The earliest known work of literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh, written in cuneiform script on clay tablets in about 2750 BC in the land of Sumeria, in a region of modern Iraq , talks about a place called Uruk, of which Gilgamesh is the King."

See - http://perun.users.sbb.co.yu/articles_astrology_types.htm

Book, Scientific Proof Of Astrology - http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Proof-Astrology-Music-Planets/dp/0572029063

Abraham - http://zaqen.info/hislangu.htm

http://www.yogaofabraham.com/the-yoga-of-abraham/the-22-letter-alphabet.html

Also - http://books.google.com/books?id=RG3wwiZMrCUC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Abraham+invented+alphabet+and+as+astrologer&source=bl&ots=poNuWEB1Lv&sig=9Bjhpd_4LCvm_NR5Q95IjL6MZYI&hl=en&ei=L1vwSsX3E8fHlAfVz7T8CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Abraham%20invented%20alphabet%20and%20as%20astro loger&f=false

[Pixel42]

Because it is a very important detail, or, you would not have wrote it Pixel.

Nonsense. It's a trivial detail. Whether or not that particular detail is true - and I think it most likely is, I'm talking about the origins of an idea that goes back thousands of years to the dawn of conscious thought - makes no difference to the point I was making.

The substance of your comments in that post are entirely opinion, but not fact, and these are important differences especially on this subject.

I was stating my opinions, yes, and my reasons for holding them. Unlike you I do have reasons for my opinions that I can clearly articulate.

Your comments show a lack of knowledge of this subject, it's history, and its basic language, which you should have in order to debate Astrology, do you not agree?

No. All it's necessary to know in order to debate the validity of astrology are the claims astrologers make for it, and the evidence they offer to support those claims. That evidence can then be examined by anyone familiar with the scientific method to see if it does indeed support the claims. None of the evidence I have examined (and I have examined a lot over the years, though you yourself have yet to offer any) stands up to the most casual scrutiny.

The minutia of how calculations are made, the history of how those ways of doing the calculations were arrived at and the explanations of how astrology may or may not work are irrelevant until it has been established that it does work. Until you, or any other astrologer, have established that I will not waste my time reading more about the supposed workings of something for which there is no evidence, and which is no more credible than creationism, homeopathy or Santa Claus. If there were people who spent their time writing serious books which attempted to explain how Santa's reindeers fly, or how by using quantum tunnelling he can visit every child in the world, should I have to spend time reading them before I'm allowed to ask whether they have any evidence that Santa Claus actually exists?

What is so hard about reading some serious materials to learn more so that you will be able to sound intelligent on this topic?

Or, is it much easier for you to sit behind your computer and opinionate to death while wasting valuable learning time to actually be able to form your arguments with knowledge of the subject you have chosen to debate?
Once again, right back at you.

[Astro Teacher]

Nonsense. It's a trivial detail. Whether or not that particular detail is true - and I think it most likely is, I'm talking about the origins of an idea that goes back thousands of years to the dawn of conscious thought - makes no difference to the point I was making.



I was stating my opinions, yes, and my reasons for holding them. Unlike you I do have reasons for my opinions that I can clearly articulate.



No. All it's necessary to know in order to debate the validity of astrology are the claims astrologers make for it, and the evidence they offer to support those claims. That evidence can then be examined by anyone familiar with the scientific method to see if it does indeed support the claims. None of the evidence I have examined (and I have examined a lot over the years, though you yourself have yet to offer any) stands up to the most casual scrutiny.

The minutia of how calculations are made, the history of how those ways of doing the calculations were arrived at and the explanations of how astrology may or may not work are irrelevant until it has been established that it does work. Until you, or any other astrologer, have established that I will not waste my time reading more about the supposed workings of something for which there is no evidence, and which is no more credible than creationism, homeopathy or Santa Claus. If there were people who spent their time writing serious books which attempted to explain how Santa's reindeers fly, or how by using quantum tunnelling he can visit every child in the world, should I have to spend time reading them before I'm allowed to ask whether they have any evidence that Santa Claus actually exists?


Once again, right back at you.

Pixel, you say that it's a "trivial detail" whether the Earth is flat or round? Then you mix in creationism, homeopathy, and Santa Claus using quantum tunneling?

Okay... try backing away from the fumes Pixel... back away and get yourself some fresh air.

[Fiona]

Well quite. It's interesting that Astro Teacher chose to pick out that unimportant detail from my post and ignore the substance of it, isn't it?

Indeed.

Let us look at what has happened so far in this thread:

1. Neally cites several tests which were designed, with astrologists, to determine if they can do what they say they can do. No evidence in support of their claims was found. Notice the burden of proof is with the astrologers.

AT dismisses these and insists one must prove a negative: the burden of proof is shifted.


2. JoeTheJuggler points out some of the more obvious flaws such as retro-fitting and information leakage

AT says astrology does not work like this. It seems that the purpose is to identify "auspicious" times for doing things: anything else is junk. She likens true astrology to a "weather report": although the information given must be of practical help we are not to consider it in terms of being right or wrong, for that is misguided. Thus there is no possibility of getting a claim out of a true astrologer: much less testing it. We rely on the report of those who are given advice: but all failures are attributed to their not following the advice: Heads I win: tails you lose

3.Curiously AT then gives an example of a very specific prediction based on her astrology: it turned out to be true. Many people took that to mean that specifics could in fact be derived, but that is at odds with earlier statements.

And this is the problem: the whole nature of the claim shifts in the course of the thread. What seems to me to happen is that AT is very careful at first to ensure that her claims are inherently untestable: unfortunately that makes them a lot less saleable. Specifics are much more impressive, and it seems he or she cannot resist them.

At refuses to answer any of the questions about the implications of these specific outcomes for testing: instead we get blather about "blindness" and an assertion that there is no point in trying as it would be a waste of time. We have seen this kind of evasion before too.

It may be that her reading said: "it is going to be pouring on x date and so you should stay home": but the particular analogy sadly makes it sound more impressive than it is. In fact it is a prediction that " this would be a good day to do something about the loss of your keys": so arranging to have the locks changed would be a hit: staying in and catching a thief would be a hit. In short a burglary or no burglary would be a hit. And the only determinant of a hit is the view of the person who interprets what the astrologer says. And those who say they were not helped are lying, apparently.

4. AT claims that there is no such thing as consensus on any question. This is not true, as Foster Zygote and others point out. He or she then repeats that it is necessary to prove a negative; and throws in the notion that we are not competent to speak on the subject unless we have made a study of it: it does not appear to occur to her or him that it is perfectly reasonable to ask an expert serious questions: and perfectly reasonable to expect to get comprehensible answers. We all spoke common before we spoke jargon.

Many on this board who are experts in various fields manage to convey why current thinking is as it is. But this is not possible for this busy professional. Generally I find that experts know they are experts and they are prepared to explain what they know to lay people. I am not very trusting of those who say this cannot be done: and less trusting of those who engage with lay people voluntarily and then refuse to try to communicate. We have seen this before.

5. Although AT demands that others study, he or she does make quite specific scientific claims:and when these are rebutted he or she does not do what she recommends. Neither does he or she support those claims with evidence, even when they relate to the material world.

6. As well as dismissing anything scientific as irrelevant to astrology's claim there is also a sustained attempt to say that science has no more validity than any vague and untestable claim. All belief is of equal status: which sits rather oddly with AT's use of the cliche, " you are not entitled to your own facts".

7. Numerous appeals to authority. It is interesting to note that AT tries to co-opt great figures from the past. It is true that Newton studied alchemy: he had no way to know it was a dead end. But his lasting contribution did not come from alchemy. And this is true of all the examples given which are not wholly speculative

8. And then the focus on small details rather than the substance of a post. We have, as PA notes, seen that before too.

This is all very familiar. I wonder what AT thinks of bee dancing :)

[Madalch]

There is another thread for developing a test for Astro Teacher. You might like to post this idea there:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158144

ETA: I've quoted it over there myself.

That's actually where I posted it first, but the moderator decided it fit better here.

[Pixel42]

Pixel, you say that it's a "trivial detail" whether the Earth is flat or round?
No, I said that whether or not the people who first came up with the idea that the stars and planets affect our daily lives believed that the earth was flat was a trivial detail. The point I was making, of which there is no doubt, is that they had no idea what the stars and planets actually were, so they had an excuse - which you and I don't have - to believe they affected their daily lives. Do at least try to follow the argument.

Then you mix in creationism, homeopathy, and Santa Claus using quantum tunneling?
Yes, as examples of ideas that have as much credibility and evidence to support them as astrology does, i.e. none whatever. Disagree? Then make a case, and offer some evidence to support it.

[Astro Teacher]

No, I said that whether or not the people who first came up with the idea that the stars and planets affect our daily lives believed that the earth was flat was a trivial detail. The point I was making, of which there is no doubt, is that they had no idea what the stars and planets actually were, so they had an excuse - which you and I don't have - to believe they affected their daily lives. Do at least try to follow the argument.


Yes, as examples of ideas that have as much credibility and evidence to support them as astrology does, i.e. none whatever. Disagree? Then make a case, and offer some evidence to support it.

Yes, mainly because I do not enjoy, nor agree with you mixing in such silliness like you have in your posts above, i.e., flat earth, Santa Claus, (and his reindeers quantum jumping?) creationism, etc., etc. What does any of that junk have to do with the topic at hand?

This is what I mean about lack of knowledge of Astrology. You are saying that the ancients did not know that there were stars and planets? What they were? As opposed to what - perhaps Santa Claus and reindeer? Make my case? Why don't you get outside more and then visit your excellent libraries and while you are at it take out some decent books on the subject?

Winter is coming on, and by next year, you might have at least a general idea of this topic enough to participate in a intelligent debate? Is that even possible for you to do?

Until that time, please, spare me from your flat earths-creationism-Santa Claus-and reindeer-quantum-jumping and all the rest of that total crap. What are you smoking?

Don't waste my time with such posts Pixel. Just unbelievable. Is this the kind of "critical thinking" to be found on JREF?

[AvalonXQ]

What does any of that junk have to do with the topic at hand? This is what I mean about your lack of knowledge. You are saying that the ancients did not know that there were stars and planets?

Ahem.

The point I was making, of which there is no doubt, is that they had no idea what the stars and planets actually were, so they had an excuse - which you and I don't have - to believe they affected their daily lives. Do at least try to follow the argument.

[SumDood]

I think you might have missed this teacher:

Yes, as examples of ideas that have as much credibility and evidence to support them as astrology does, i.e. none whatever. Disagree? Then make a case, and offer some evidence to support it.

(my bold)

[Olowkow]

The Greeks called them "planeta", because they thought the planets were "wandering stars". Ah, yes, when logic fails, try the ad homs. What else is new?
How you coming with that evidence for the 10% brain use?

[Foster Zygote]

Hi, I missed your post Foster, the home of Astrology and Agriculture came from Mesopotamia, this region that includes the country we know today as Iraq.

"Modern civilisation began in Iraq. The Iraqis invented agriculture. They invented astronomy and astrology. The entire astrological system still in use today in every Daily Newspaper was invented in Iraq over five thousand years ago. They discovered the planets, they mapped the stars. They invented the 24 hour day, the sixty minute hour and the sixty second minute. In a very real sense we still live within Iraqi time. They invented the seven day week. They invented mathematics and writing. The earliest known work of literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh, written in cuneiform script on clay tablets in about 2750 BC in the land of Sumeria, in a region of modern Iraq , talks about a place called Uruk, of which Gilgamesh is the King."

See - http://perun.users.sbb.co.yu/articles_astrology_types.htm
This does nothing to support the claim that astrology is responsible for the development of agriculture. The Neolithic Revolution is thought to have developed independently in at least seven or eight places around the world. In fact, agriculture is what made those much later civilizations possible. The Neolithic Revolution occurred in the Middle East around 10,000 BCE. The Sumerian civilization doesn't appear until around 6000 BCE. That's four thousand years after the advent of agriculture in the region.

By the way, your source doesn't seem to be very historically literate. The Epic of Gilgamesh was collected from a number of poems and stories not long before the 7th century BCE. That's over nine thousand years later. It's thought that there might have been a real King Gilgamesh upon whom the mythical character is loosely based (unless you believe that he really was two thirds god) who lived during the 27th century BCE. So your source doesn't even get the date for the Epic of Gilgamesh right.

Book, Scientific Proof Of Astrology - http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Proof-Astrology-Music-Planets/dp/0572029063
I found an interesting article from The Guardian regarding this book:
The argument Seymour puts forward is that the movement of the Sun, moon and sundry planets from Jupiter to Mars, interfere with the Earth's magnetic field. In doing so, the unborn offspring of expectant mothers around the world are exposed to different magnetic fields that toy with the development of their budding brains.

Seymour's suggestion that the stars and planets rule over us has largely been received with the shortest of shrifts. "All I can say is that I have yet to meet another scientist that agrees with his views," says Jacqueline Mitton of the Royal Astronomical Society. "It's right up there with stuff like crop circles being made by extra-terrestrials," says Robert Massey, astronomer at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, where Seymour worked as a planetarium lecturer in the early 70s.

Most scientists dismiss Seymour's arguments simply because the changes in the Earth's magnetic field that he believes are so significant for our behaviour are so minute. The magnetic field, which is generated by the Earth's spinning molten iron core, is pathetically weak compared with the magnetic fields our gadgets and infrastructure produce. Earlier this year, the government's radiation watchdog, the National Radiological Protection Board, recommended that Britain cut magnetic field exposure from power lines to 100 microteslas, which is still twice the Earth's natural field strength.

"If the Earth's magnetic field collapsed to zero, we'd get a higher dose of radiation from space and that would have an effect on our behaviour, but I don't think it would make it any easier to predict if you're going to come into money one week or the next," says Massey. "Your mobile phone, your television, your washing machine - any electrical equipment you have generates far stronger magnetic fields than the Earth's field."

And this doesn't really address what I asked anyway. I wanted to see evidence that a significant number of scientists practice astrology. Can you back up this claim?

Abraham - http://zaqen.info/hislangu.htm
Come on, this isn't an academic source. This site speaks of the Noachian Flood as an historical event.

http://www.yogaofabraham.com/the-yoga-of-abraham/the-22-letter-alphabet.html
This source is no more informed, but it doesn't even support your claim that Abraham invented the Chaldean alphabet.

Also - http://books.google.com/books?id=RG3wwiZMrCUC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Abraham+invented+alphabet+and+as+astrologer&source=bl&ots=poNuWEB1Lv&sig=9Bjhpd_4LCvm_NR5Q95IjL6MZYI&hl=en&ei=L1vwSsX3E8fHlAfVz7T8CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Abraham%20invented%20alphabet%20and%20as%20astro loger&f=false
Again, not an informed source. The idea that Abraham invented the Chaldean alphabet is an old legend, like the legend that the Emperor Shennong invented tea (not to mention agriculture and medicine. Go figure). There is no historical evidence that Abraham was the inventor of the Chaldean alphabet any more than Moses personally wrote the Pentateuch.


What I would really like to see is some evidence that a significant number of scientists practice astrology. If you cannot justify this claim with evidence then you are doing exactly what you have accused others of doing

[AvalonXQ]

It's thought that there might have been a real King Gilgamesh upon whom the mythical character is loosely based (unless you believe that he really was two thirds god)

How can you be two thirds any ancestry? Don't we have to stick to fractions of powers of two?

[Pure_Argent]

Your comments show a lack of knowledge of this subject, it's history, and its basic language, which you should have in order to debate Astrology, do you not agree? What is so difficult about learning more about serious astrology before engaging into a debate with one knowledgeable about the subject?

Argument ad hominem does not advance your position. Claiming that your opponent has no knowledge of the subject doesn't change the fact that it is you who is making stuff up.

What is so hard about reading some serious materials to learn more so that you will be able to sound intelligent on this topic?

Or, is it much easier for you to sit behind your computer and opinionate to death while wasting valuable learning time to actually be able to form your arguments with knowledge of the subject you have chosen to debate?

I would post the irony poster again, but I'm afraid that it would clutter up the page, and there's really no point as you can't see it anyway.

...Ah, what the hell.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u65/Maestro134/irony.jpg

Such as the pseudo-skeptic comments you've written? I don't find you serious at all considering that you clearly haven't studied this subject, of which you are ignorant, from the content of your own words. One can be a skeptic and be informed on the topic of debate. I do not find that you are one of them. Period. Until you change that Pixel, you should serious review the "drivel" that you have submitted on this subject.

See above comment. Astro Teacher, you are the one ignoring the facts at hand. You are the one trying to support your position with lies and appeals to authority. To claim that someone who is doubtful of your truthfulness is not a skeptic is ludicrous, as well as ironic.

Still, no trip to the library, huh? A shame, England has such wonderful libraries. You should take a long tour of them.

See - http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt

Argument ad hominem again? Come on, AT. You can do better than that. At least, I hope you can. If you can't... well, then I feel sorry for you.

Hi, I missed your post Foster, the home of Astrology and Agriculture came from Mesopotamia, this region that includes the country we know today as Iraq.

"Modern civilisation began in Iraq. The Iraqis invented agriculture. They invented astronomy and astrology. The entire astrological system still in use today in every Daily Newspaper was invented in Iraq over five thousand years ago. They discovered the planets, they mapped the stars. They invented the 24 hour day, the sixty minute hour and the sixty second minute. In a very real sense we still live within Iraqi time. They invented the seven day week. They invented mathematics and writing. The earliest known work of literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh, written in cuneiform script on clay tablets in about 2750 BC in the land of Sumeria, in a region of modern Iraq , talks about a place called Uruk, of which Gilgamesh is the King."

See - http://perun.users.sbb.co.yu/articles_astrology_types.htm

Book, Scientific Proof Of Astrology - http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Proof-Astrology-Music-Planets/dp/0572029063

Abraham - http://zaqen.info/hislangu.htm

http://www.yogaofabraham.com/the-yoga-of-abraham/the-22-letter-alphabet.html

Also - http://books.google.com/books?id=RG3wwiZMrCUC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Abraham+invented+alphabet+and+as+astrologer&source=bl&ots=poNuWEB1Lv&sig=9Bjhpd_4LCvm_NR5Q95IjL6MZYI&hl=en&ei=L1vwSsX3E8fHlAfVz7T8CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CCIQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Abraham%20invented%20alphabet%20and%20as%20astro loger&f=false

This does not show that agriculture, mathematics or medicine were invented by astrologers. They came from the same area, yes. So what?
Nice try at covering up your lies, though.

Yes, mainly because I do not enjoy, nor agree with you mixing in such silliness like you have in your posts above, i.e., flat earth, Santa Claus, (and his reindeers quantum jumping?) creationism, etc., etc. What does any of that junk have to do with the topic at hand?

This is what I mean about lack of knowledge of Astrology. You are saying that the ancients did not know that there were stars and planets? What they were? As opposed to what - perhaps Santa Claus and reindeer? Make my case? Why don't you get outside more and then visit your excellent libraries and while you are at it take out some decent books on the subject?

No, the "ancients" did not know that the lights in the sky were stars and planets. They believed them to be various other supernatural phenomena. A popular explanation was that the stars and planets were the gods flying across the night sky in their chariots of light.

Winter is coming on, and by next year, you might have at least a general idea of this topic enough to participate in a intelligent debate? Is that even possible for you to do?

See the irony picture again, please. I think posting it twice in one go would count as spam.

Until that time, please, spare me from your flat earths-creationism-Santa Claus-and reindeer-quantum-jumping and all the rest of that total crap. What are you smoking?

Don't waste my time with such posts Pixel. Just unbelievable. Is this the kind of "critical thinking" to be found on JREF?

Yes. Impressive, isn't it? In less than one hundred and fifty of your posts we have managed to prove you to be completely and utterly ignorant of any scientific facts on your own subject, as well as discovering that you are incredibly self-deluded, as evidenced by the fact that you consider yourself to be winning this debate.

[Marduk]

Astrology did use to work in Mesopotamia, but thats only because they based their real life decisions around celestial ritual dates

e.g.new buildings were not begun until the court astrologer divined that a certain date would be most auspicious

Wars were not started until it was perceived that the stars were showing good fortune

marriages were arranged when the stars said was a good time for union

Astroteacher, a lot of your posts contain accurate information, its the context your missing, heres a legend about a Babylonian king that should serve as a warning

The only person i know of who ever really benefited from astrology was a grdener called Bani and he was the luckiest Gardener on earth. Irra-Imitti was a king who ruled at the end of the Akkadian period just before the rise of Babylonia. He was not a particularly good king and had started his reign as an usurper to the throne. One day his soothsayers had approached him with terrible news. A terrible omen towards the king had been foretold and Irra Imiiti decided to enact an old tradition that acted as a safeguard in these sort of events
He chose a gardener to act as “king for a day” and planned at the end of the day to have the new king executed therefore drawing the bad omen to him and leaving Irra unscathed. The plan was going well until that night Irra-Imitti drank some soup too quickly without realising it was boiling and so managed to achieve “death by soup” by Asphyxia caused by the swelling. This left the gardener on the throne as the rightful king and he was crowned King Enlil Bani in honour of Enlil, who surely because of his God like luck, had been entered by the holy spirit and was him the whole time. A poem was written to commemorate the event and it starts with the following lines
“Enlil-bani, wondrous king among the princes! Created by An, elevated by Enlil, like Utu the light of all lands, born to princedom, girded with all the divine powers, watched over by Enlil and listened to by Ninlil on account of the widespread people living at the boundary of heaven and earth! Fair of face, lordly of limb! With the shepherd's crook you have settled innumerable people. he ruled for 24 years
and as it later turned out
the astrological prediction that foretold the bad omen was based on the movements of Venus
and the tables the Soothsayers had used were years out of date
Gardeners have all the luck

after this they didn't rely too heavily on using astrology in mesopotamia, they made a science out of hepatomancy instead (foretelling omens from studying a sacrificial animals liver) and started studying astronomy as a pure science
so by promoting that the Mesopotamians used astrology and it worked you are stating a fact, but you are missing that they found they could get the same or better results from looking at goat entrails and so they abandoned astrology as junk belief. They moved on, some people could learn from their example.....
:D

as with all of my posts on this subject, if anyone would like supporting links from credible academic sources just say so.

[Pixel42]

Don't waste my time with such posts Pixel.
It's clear I'm wasting my time by trying to engage with you. You seemed to be a lot more articulate than most of the astrology apologists we get here, but alas you've turned out to make no more sense than the worst of them.

Is this the kind of "critical thinking" to be found on JREF?
Pertinant questions and a tendancy to notice when they aren't answered, requests for evidence and a tendancy to notice when none is offered, and an ability to recognise pseudoscientific drivel and gross scientific errors? Yes, I'm afraid it is.

[Kuko 4000]

No. All it's necessary to know in order to debate the validity of astrology are the claims astrologers make for it, and the evidence they offer to support those claims. That evidence can then be examined by anyone familiar with the scientific method to see if it does indeed support the claims. None of the evidence I have examined (and I have examined a lot over the years, though you yourself have yet to offer any) stands up to the most casual scrutiny.

The minutia of how calculations are made, the history of how those ways of doing the calculations were arrived at and the explanations of how astrology may or may not work are irrelevant until it has been established that it does work. Until you, or any other astrologer, have established that I will not waste my time reading more about the supposed workings of something for which there is no evidence, and which is no more credible than creationism, homeopathy or Santa Claus. If there were people who spent their time writing serious books which attempted to explain how Santa's reindeers fly, or how by using quantum tunnelling he can visit every child in the world, should I have to spend time reading them before I'm allowed to ask whether they have any evidence that Santa Claus actually exists?



Astro Teacher, Pixel makes a very good point in this post (my emphasis). It would benefit the whole discussion if you'd address this point seriously.

[Marduk]

How can you be two thirds any ancestry? Don't we have to stick to fractions of powers of two?

his father was a god king, and his mother was entered by the holy spirit of Inanna at the time of his conception so she was half and half. = 2/3 god

it must be true, it was in a story

[Professor Yaffle]

3/4 god by my calculations.

[jakesteele]

4. French statistician Michel Gauquelin



Isn't this the guy that came up with the Mars Effect that caused founding member of CSI, Dennis Rawlins, to resign from CSICOP?

Mars effect

An early controversy concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer Dennis Rawlins, along with Paul Kurtz, George Abel and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for the pro-paranormal magazine Fate, he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism."[18] CSICOP's Philip Klass responded by circulating an article to CSICOP members critical of Rawlins' arguments and motives;[19] Klass's unpublished response itself becoming the target for further criticism.

[AvalonXQ]

his father was a god king, and his mother was entered by the holy spirit of Inanna at the time of his conception so she was half and half. = 2/3 god

That doesn't work out unless "god king" = 5/6 god.

[jakesteele]

Neally;5265125]

4. French statistician Michel Gauquelin

[quote]Neally;5265125]
Quote:
4. French statistician Michel Gauquelin

Isn't this the guy that came up with the Mars Effect that caused founding member of CSI, Dennis Rawlins, to resign from CSICOP?

Quote:
Mars effect

An early controversy concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer Dennis Rawlins, along with Paul Kurtz, George Abel and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for the pro-paranormal magazine Fate, he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism."[18] CSICOP's Philip Klass responded by circulating an article to CSICOP members critical of Rawlins' arguments and motives;[19] Klass's unpublished response itself becoming the target for further criticism.
__________________
In the insane society the sane man must act insane
Mr. Spock

[jakesteele]

Sorry about the double post, I screwed up.

[Olowkow]

It's clear I'm wasting my time by trying to engage with you. You seemed to be a lot more articulate than most of the astrology apologists we get here, but alas you've turned out to make no more sense than the worst of them.
Pertinant questions and a tendancy to notice when they aren't answered, requests for evidence and a tendancy to notice when none is offered, and an ability to recognise pseudoscientific drivel and gross scientific errors? Yes, I'm afraid it is.

Well spoken. I suspect AT may be using only 10% of his brain.;) :popcorn1

[Astro Teacher]

It's clear I'm wasting my time by trying to engage with you. You seemed to be a lot more articulate than most of the astrology apologists we get here, but alas you've turned out to make no more sense than the worst of them.


Pertinant questions and a tendancy to notice when they aren't answered, requests for evidence and a tendancy to notice when none is offered, and an ability to recognise pseudoscientific drivel and gross scientific errors? Yes, I'm afraid it is.

So be it. That is your uninformed opinion and it is duly noted.

[Astro Teacher]

This does nothing to support the claim that astrology is responsible for the development of agriculture. The Neolithic Revolution is thought to have developed independently in at least seven or eight places around the world. In fact, agriculture is what made those much later civilizations possible. The Neolithic Revolution occurred in the Middle East around 10,000 BCE. The Sumerian civilization doesn't appear until around 6000 BCE. That's four thousand years after the advent of agriculture in the region.

By the way, your source doesn't seem to be very historically literate. The Epic of Gilgamesh was collected from a number of poems and stories not long before the 7th century BCE. That's over nine thousand years later. It's thought that there might have been a real King Gilgamesh upon whom the mythical character is loosely based (unless you believe that he really was two thirds god) who lived during the 27th century BCE. So your source doesn't even get the date for the Epic of Gilgamesh right.


I found an interesting article from The Guardian regarding this book:


And this doesn't really address what I asked anyway. I wanted to see evidence that a significant number of scientists practice astrology. Can you back up this claim?


Come on, this isn't an academic source. This site speaks of the Noachian Flood as an historical event.


This source is no more informed, but it doesn't even support your claim that Abraham invented the Chaldean alphabet.


Again, not an informed source. The idea that Abraham invented the Chaldean alphabet is an old legend, like the legend that the Emperor Shennong invented tea (not to mention agriculture and medicine. Go figure). There is no historical evidence that Abraham was the inventor of the Chaldean alphabet any more than Moses personally wrote the Pentateuch.


What I would really like to see is some evidence that a significant number of scientists practice astrology. If you cannot justify this claim with evidence then you are doing exactly what you have accused others of doing

Please. I included those reference links so you could get started on your own. Do more reading and study and you will find more on these subjects. Thanks.

[AvalonXQ]

Please. I included those reference links so you could get started on your own. Do more reading and study and you will find more on these subjects. Thanks.

So you believe that a lot of respectable scientists practice astrology, but you can't actually name any?

[Astro Teacher]

Astro Teacher, Pixel makes a very good point in this post (my emphasis). It would benefit the whole discussion if you'd address this point seriously.

I would respond to her question if I didn't have to sift through the obvious fluff that Pixel goes on about... Santa Claus and the whole bit, etc., etc. Once she learns to actually form a intelligent thought minus the silliness, and intellectual snobbery then perhaps we can talk. Until that time, she is better off doing some homework on the subject of astrology and drop her bull****.

[Astro Teacher]

So you believe that a lot of respectable scientists practice astrology, but you can't actually name any?

I already named one for you. Perhaps you ought to stop playing with your light saber Avalon, and do some serious reading. Thanks.

[AvalonXQ]

All it's necessary to know in order to debate the validity of astrology are the claims astrologers make for it, and the evidence they offer to support those claims. That evidence can then be examined by anyone familiar with the scientific method to see if it does indeed support the claims.
The minutia of how calculations are made, the history of how those ways of doing the calculations were arrived at and the explanations of how astrology may or may not work are irrelevant until it has been established that it does work.
Can you address this point, please?

[AvalonXQ]

Perhaps you ought to stop playing with your light saber Avalon, and do some serious reading.

Getting personal, I see.
Oh, well. It looked like it might become productive for a little while.

[Madalch]

Chemistry was invented by astrologers. Agriculture was founded and developed by astrologers. The Chaldean alphabet was invented by an astrologer (Abraham.) Electricity was discovered by an astrologer (Ben Franklin.) The heliocentric solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Copernicus.) The planetary laws of the solar system was discovered by an astrologer (Kepler.) The telescope was invented by an astrologer (Galileo) and the practice of medicine was invented by an astrologer (Hippocrates, who said, "A physician without a knowledge of Astrology has no right to call himself a physician."

What you call "science" today came directly from its Mother - Astrology.

While there is a grain of truth in this, it's a small one.

Chemistry grew out of alchemy, not astrology. While many alchemists did dabble in astrology, the two fields were as separate as chemistry and biology.

Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo lived in a time when astrology and astronomy were not yet separate fields. Nobody with more than half a brain ridicules Newton for working in alchemy instead of chemistry; no scientist holds Kepler's astrological studies against him.

Claiming that astrology must have had a factual basis because Hippocrates said so is akin to Comfort's argument that Newton was a creationist and not an evolutionist.


Seriously- ancient people believed that astrology was a science. They also believed that the earth was the centre of the universe (even if they didn't believe it was flat); that fire and water were elements; that disease was caused by demons, spells cast by witches, angry gods, or imbalances of humours; that their own race was inherently superior to others; that slavery was part of the natural order; that dragons, manticores and unicorns were real creatures; that salamanders liked to play in fire; that raping a virgin would cure AIDS....the list goes on and on.

You're perfectly welcome to try to prove that your methods of astrology will work. I've offered a couple of possible tests, and I'd like to try them. I'm open to having my mind changed. But you won't change my mind by listing off all of the wonderful people who used to believe in astrology. Because these wonderful people also believed in other things that I considered nonsense.

[Marduk]

3/4 god by my calculations.
That doesn't work out unless "god king" = 5/6 god.
yup, they weren't great at fractions
:D

[Astro Teacher]

All it's necessary to know in order to debate the validity of astrology are the claims astrologers make for it, and the evidence they offer to support those claims. That evidence can then be examined by anyone familiar with the scientific method to see if it does indeed support the claims.
The minutia of how calculations are made, the history of how those ways of doing the calculations were arrived at and the explanations of how astrology may or may not work are irrelevant until it has been established that it does work.
Can you address this point, please?

These kinds of studies have been addressed here -

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/g-hist2.htm

And here - http://openlibrary.org/b/OL7858919M/The_Scientific_Proof_of_Astrology

And here - http://www.discord.org/~lippard/rawlins-starbaby.txt

[AvalonXQ]

So, you agree or disagree with the concept that you don't have to understand the principles behind it to establish, through the scientific method, whether it works?

[Foster Zygote]

Please. I included those reference links so you could get started on your own. Do more reading and study and you will find more on these subjects. Thanks.
But those references were garbage.



Agriculture predates Sumerian civilization by some 4000 years.

The magnetic influence of household appliances is vastly greater than the magnetic influence of any planets, Earth included, on the prenatal development of children.

Abraham did not invent the Chaldean alphabet. That is a cultural legend along the same lines as George Washington and the cherry tree, or Chief Gadao. In fact, we don't even know if a real Abraham existed or if he is simply a legend.



And should I assume that you cannot back up your claim about the number of scientists who practice astrology?

[Astro Teacher]

While there is a grain of truth in this, it's a small one.

Chemistry grew out of alchemy, not astrology. While many alchemists did dabble in astrology, the two fields were as separate as chemistry and biology.

Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo lived in a time when astrology and astronomy were not yet separate fields. Nobody with more than half a brain ridicules Newton for working in alchemy instead of chemistry; no scientist holds Kepler's astrological studies against him.

Claiming that astrology must have had a factual basis because Hippocrates said so is akin to Comfort's argument that Newton was a creationist and not an evolutionist.


Seriously- ancient people believed that astrology was a science. They also believed that the earth was the centre of the universe (even if they didn't believe it was flat); that fire and water were elements; that disease was caused by demons, spells cast by witches, angry gods, or imbalances of humours; that their own race was inherently superior to others; that slavery was part of the natural order; that dragons, manticores and unicorns were real creatures; that salamanders liked to play in fire; that raping a virgin would cure AIDS....the list goes on and on.

You're perfectly welcome to try to prove that your methods of astrology will work. I've offered a couple of possible tests, and I'd like to try them. I'm open to having my mind changed. But you won't change my mind by listing off all of the wonderful people who used to believe in astrology. Because these wonderful people also believed in other things that I considered nonsense.

Come on, there's more than a "grain of truth" in those famous practitioners of astrology. You are going to say that these great scientific minds: Hippocrates, Galileo, Copernicus, Franklin, Kepler, among many others - all astrologers mind you - contains just a grain of truth?

[Pure_Argent]

Come on, there's more than a "grain of truth" in those famous practitioners of astrology. You are going to say that these great scientific minds: Hippocrates, Galileo, Copernicus, Franklin, Kepler, among many others - all astrologers mind you - contains just a grain of truth?

Their practicing astrology has nothing to do with the other fields. They may have utilized mathematics in astrology, but that does not mean that math grew from astrological practices. Quite the other way around, in fact.

[Astro Teacher]

But those references were garbage.



Agriculture predates Sumerian civilization by some 4000 years.

The magnetic influence of household appliances is vastly greater than the magnetic influence of any planets, Earth included, on the prenatal development of children.

Abraham did not invent the Chaldean alphabet. That is a cultural legend along the same lines as George Washington and the cherry tree, or Chief Gadao. In fact, we don't even know if a real Abraham existed or if he is simply a legend.



And should I assume that you cannot back up your claim about the number of scientists who practice astrology?

You make these statements but did not say who did invent the Chaldean alphabet, and of course Abraham existed. "Have IQs dropped since I've been away? says Ripley.

[Pure_Argent]

You make these statements but did not say who did invent the Chaldean alphabet, and of course Abraham existed. "Have IQs dropped since I've been away? says Ripley.

Evidence for Abraham's existence?

[Foster Zygote]

I already named one for you. Perhaps you ought to stop playing with your light saber Avalon, and do some serious reading. Thanks.

One. I can name a few who believe in alien abductions.

You implied that a significant number of scientists practice astrology, but you have thus far failed to provide evidence to support this claim.

[SumDood]

You ought to read more. You also would be very surprised just how many scientists not only place stock in astrology, but practice it themselves.

I already named one for you. Perhaps you ought to stop playing with your light saber Avalon, and do some serious reading. Thanks.

I am not surprised that exactly one scientist places stock in astrology and actually practices it.

[AvalonXQ]

I feel the need to clarify: Crono's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crono#Crono) katana is not a light saber.

[Foster Zygote]

You make these statements but did not say who did invent the Chaldean alphabet, and of course Abraham existed. "Have IQs dropped since I've been away? says Ripley.

Who invented tea? If I don't know does it mean that the Emperor Shennong must have done so?

Any evidence of the historical existence of Abraham?

You can make petulant remarks about my intelligence all you like. Far from supporting your position it serves to highlight your failure to defend your position logically and factually.

[Skeptical Greg]

I would lile to commend Astro Teacher on the choice of avatar..

It looks a lot like a chow chip ..

[Fiona]

I would respond to her question if I didn't have to sift through the obvious fluff that Pixel goes on about... Santa Claus and the whole bit, etc., etc. Once she learns to actually form a intelligent thought minus the silliness, and intellectual snobbery then perhaps we can talk. Until that time, she is better off doing some homework on the subject of astrology and drop her bull****.

With this, and the style, I give you:

The love child of Yrreg and Rosinbio

[Akhenaten]

I feel the need to clarify: Crono's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crono#Crono) katana is not a light saber.





http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/Crono.jpg

Crono, about to have an astrologist for breakfast

[Pixel42]

These kinds of studies have been addressed here -

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/g-hist2.htm
Ah, Rudolf Smit, a man I have a great deal of time for, though I'm surprised you have. A professional astrologer who had the integrity to question his beliefs and honestly examine the evidence, and the courage to acknowledge that it was all nonsense. Have you read his moving life story?:

http://www.rudolfhsmit.nl/a-pass2.htm

It seems to happen quite often that people who have lost a belief, whether it is a religious belief or say a belief in astrology, tend to develop a revulsion against their former conviction. Not so with me. Astrology still has my interest, but the focus is now mainly on the big question why astrology still exerts so much attraction to so many people. In other words, why do astrologers still go on believing whereas the evidence against it is mounting and mounting?

I have discussed this question at length in my article Moment Supreme, where I conclude that astrologers go on believing because the apparent match between horoscope and client is such an extremely persuasive situation that it is easy for them to ignore every evidence against astrology -- as indeed it seems they have always done.

Other factors may also apply depending on the astrologer. Thus astrology has undeniable appeal, and satifies the longing of many people to be part of an all-encompassing whole, to feel part of the universe as a living entity, and to know that one's life has a definite meaning since it is part of that living entity. For is this not exactly the Big Question for most people -- has my life meaning, why am I here, where am I going? For many, and that included me, astrology seems to provide an answer. My devastation when I discovered that this answer was a Grand Illusion should therefore not come as a surprise.

I have learned to live with this sobering knowledge. And, in addition, I have set up my own website (Astrology-and-Science) which is a fountain of knowledge for all those people, astrologers and skeptics alike, who wish to know more about recent scientific findings about astrology. In contrast to what hostile skeptics do, we (that is, my collaborators and myself) do not ignore the good side of astrology. We simply supply the facts as they are. And as regards astrologers, we do not consider the great majority to be charlatans, since most astrologers tend to be nice people whose only sincere desire is to genuinely help their clients.

As for me, after twenty odd years I have taken up again the reading of charts (now and then, that is), if only to experience again the wonderful feeling when such a reading turns out to be successful. However, I am not asking money for such sessions, and I tell my new "clients" in advance that I am offering them a Grand Illusion, which may be helpful nonetheless. If it is helpful, it is not because astrology itself is helpful, but because astrology sets a scene that helps me to be helpful.

[Astro Teacher]

Neally;5265125]



[quote]Neally;5265125]
Quote:
4. French statistician Michel Gauquelin

Isn't this the guy that came up with the Mars Effect that caused founding member of CSI, Dennis Rawlins, to resign from CSICOP?

Quote:
Mars effect

An early controversy concerned the so-called Mars effect: French statistician Michel Gauquelin’s claim that champion athletes are more likely to be born when the planet Mars is in certain positions in the sky. In late 1975, prior to the formal launch of CSICOP, astronomer Dennis Rawlins, along with Paul Kurtz, George Abel and Marvin Zelen (all subsequent members of CSICOP) began investigating the claim. Rawlins, a founding member of CSICOP at its launch in May 1976, resigned in early 1980 claiming that other CSICOP researchers had used incorrect statistics, faulty science, and outright falsification in an attempt to debunk Gauquelin’s claims. In an article for the pro-paranormal magazine Fate, he wrote: "I am still skeptical of the occult beliefs CSICOP was created to debunk. But I have changed my mind about the integrity of some of those who make a career of opposing occultism."[18] CSICOP's Philip Klass responded by circulating an article to CSICOP members critical of Rawlins' arguments and motives;[19] Klass's unpublished response itself becoming the target for further criticism.
__________________
In the insane society the sane man must act insane
Mr. Spock

Yes, it was. This was typical of such attempts to even mess around with scientific attempts to validate astrology using faulty science, incorrect stats, and outright falsification to debunk Gauguelin, and, it backfired. This is why pseudo-skeptics are not suited to the scientific method - they cannot be honest enough to even apply it because any scientific findings that annoy their predisposed sensitivities are immediately falsified to debunk rather than to accept the scientific findings.

[AvalonXQ]

This is why pseudo-skeptics are not suited to the scientific method - they cannot be honest enough to even apply it because any scientific findings that annoy their predisposed sensitivities are immediately falsified to debunk rather than to accept the scientific findings.

Do you have any evidence that this misconduct is typical for skeptical studies? Do you have any evidence that scientific studies by believers are less prone to such misconduct?

Can you provide evidence showing that the methodology of the Gauquelin study is more rigorous and definitive than each of the studies that have been cited showing a failure of astrology?

[Jeff Corey]

"As for me, after twenty odd years I have taken up again the reading of charts (now and then, that is), if only to experience again the wonderful feeling when such a reading turns out to be successful. However, I am not asking money for such sessions, and I tell my new "clients" in advance that I am offering them a Grand Illusion, which may be helpful nonetheless. If it is helpful, it is not because astrology itself is helpful, but because astrology sets a scene that helps me to be helpful."
Funny, I knew a clinical psychologist that said the same thing about the Rorschach test.

[Astro Teacher]

Do you have any evidence that this misconduct is typical for skeptical studies? Do you have any evidence that scientific studied by believers are less prone to such misconduct?

Can you provide evidence showing that the methodology of the Gauquelin study is more rigorous and definitive than each of the studies that have been cited showing a failure of astrology?

Have you read the Gauquelin series of scientific study of astrology of occupation?

[AvalonXQ]

Have you read the Gauquelin series of scientific study of astrology of occupation?

I have not. I have only read abstracts and summaries of the studies; never the studies themselves. I'd love to if you have a link.
Can you please answer my questions?

[sackett]

...The magnetic influence of household appliances is vastly greater than the magnetic influence of any planets, Earth included, on the prenatal development of children....

A quick-thinking astrologer might conceivably pounce on that, crying, "Ah HA! And that explains everything right there! If all those electrical doohicky things weren't messing up the picture, you could see astrology working!"

Poor old Astro Preacher would add, "I can't prove it, but I know it's so!" With supplementary remarks on other people's intellectual laziness. Ah well. We all have to make a living somehow.

[Jack by the hedge]

Have you read the Gauquelin series of scientific study of astrology of occupation?

I haven't. If I had, would it have answered AvalonXQ's requests for evidence above?

If so, would you summarise, please?
(If not, why did you ask?)

[Jack by the hedge]

A quick-thinking astrologer might conceivably pounce on that, crying, "Ah HA! And that explains everything right there! If all those electrical doohicky things weren't messing up the picture, you could see astrology working!"

A quicker-thinking astrologer would grasp the implication - that modern electrical pollution means astrology has stopped working - and keep their trap shut. :)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So be it. That is your uninformed opinion and it is duly noted.

"duly noted"? Do you keep a little book? :scared:

[Pure_Argent]

Yes, it was. This was typical of such attempts to even mess around with scientific attempts to validate astrology using faulty science, incorrect stats, and outright falsification to debunk Gauguelin, and, it backfired. This is why pseudo-skeptics are not suited to the scientific method - they cannot be honest enough to even apply it because any scientific findings that annoy their predisposed sensitivities are immediately falsified to debunk rather than to accept the scientific findings.

Standard believer tactic: instead of actually explaining why the study is invalid, scream that it is with absolutely no evidence. Bare assertion totally works as a support for bare assertion.

[Pixel42]

Standard believer tactic: instead of actually explaining why the study is invalid, scream that it is with absolutely no evidence. Bare assertion totally works as a support for bare assertion.
I notice that it's always Gauquelin's flawed Mars Effect study that believers in astrology dig up when forced to present some evidence for their beliefs. Gauquelin committed suicide in 1991 after spending his entire professional life trying to find some evidence for astrology and having nothing to show for it except a couple of minor statistical anomalies. Dozens of much better studies have been done since, most of which are summarised on Rudolf Smit's site so AT must have seen them as he linked to Smit's summary of Gauquelin's work, yet he completely ignores them, as well as Smit's own conclusions based on the totality of the evidence he presents.

Cherry-picking whatever tiny pieces of evidence that you can find to support your belief whilst ignoring mountains of evidence that contradict it is of course a standard woo tactic, but it's rare to see it done so blatantly.

[Akhenaten]

"duly noted"? Do you keep a little book? :scared:





No, it's written in the stars.

[jakesteele]

Hey, Astro Teacher, I was wondering if you could take a moment and explain to me what the difference is between Vedic Astrology vs the kind most Americans are familiar with, whatever that is?

[Pure_Argent]

Hey, Astro Teacher, I was wondering if you could take a moment and explain to me what the difference is between Vedic Astrology vs the kind most Americans are familiar with, whatever that is?

No, he can't. He'll just tell you to go look it up, without explaining what "it" is.

[Astro Teacher]

Hey, Astro Teacher, I was wondering if you could take a moment and explain to me what the difference is between Vedic Astrology vs the kind most Americans are familiar with, whatever that is?

Most Americans, and those of western nations are familiar with what is the Tropical system of Astrology Jake. The Vedic system, is mainly used in the Sub-Asian culture, mainly India, and eastern astrologers, which is the Sidereal system of astrology.

I use both systems as a constellational astrologer who views the stars in real time and I also use the tropical zodiac as the symbolic zodiac. The sidereal, or "Vedic" system is older than the tropical system and is used to observe where the actual constellations is located when seen from points on the Earth.

Both the tropical and sidereal zodiacs met in the year 221 A.D., but have moved at a rate about about one-degree every 71.5 years with the movement of the tropical zodiac on the ecliptic. Because of the precession of the equinoxes the views of the constellations from points on the earth has shifted over the centuries.

The tropical system was devised by astrologers to accurately measure and map the skies as best as possible and this was done by seeing that the Sun was near the first degree of Aries. The tropical system developed from this point, since all the other zodiacal signs followed after Aries which is the vernal equinox and this system made the motions of the planets easier to map out.

Any tropical positions that need to be changed to sidereal is done by adding the degree, minutes and seconds of the Synetic Vernal Point to tropical longitude then subtract that by one zodiacal sign. Right now, there is a difference of about 24 degrees between Tropical and Sidereal zodiacal signs.

[Pure_Argent]

Most Americans, and those of western nations are familiar with what is the Tropical system of Astrology Jake. The Vedic system, is mainly used in the Sub-Asian culture, mainly India, and eastern astrologers, which is the Sidereal system of astrology.

I use both systems as a constellational astrologer who views the stars in real time and I also use the tropical zodiac as the symbolic zodiac. The sidereal, or "Vedic" system is older than the tropical system and is used to observe where the actual constellations is located when seen from points on the Earth.

Both the tropical and sidereal zodiacs met in the year 221 A.D., but have moved at a rate about about one-degree every 71.5 years with the movement of the tropical zodiac on the ecliptic. Because of the precession of the equinoxes the views of the constellations from points on the earth has shifted over the centuries.

The tropical system was devised by astrologers to accurately measure and map the skies as best as possible and this was done by seeing that the Sun was near the first degree of Aries. The tropical system developed from this point, since all the other zodiacal signs followed after Aries which is the vernal equinox and this system made the motions of the planets easier to map out.

Any tropical positions that need to be changed to sidereal is done by adding the degree, minutes and seconds of the Synetic Vernal Point to tropical longitude then subtract that by one zodiacal sign. Right now, there is a difference of about 24 degrees between Tropical and Sidereal zodiacal signs.

Okay, so the two zodiacs are in different positions. Somebody tell him thanks for actually answering a question.
But now I'd like to ask: what makes one more valid than the other?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Okay, so the two zodiacs are in different positions. Somebody tell him thanks for actually answering a question.
But now I'd like to ask: what makes one more valid than the other?

Hey. Even I can answer that question. It's "Nothing" because neither has a shred of validity. :duck:

[dafydd]

More free entertainment,I love this site,thank you AT.

[Akhenaten]

Now look at what you've done! He hath runned orf. Don't you realise how scary you are?

[Pure_Argent]

It wasn't me. It was the hamster. He bites.

[Astro Teacher]

It's clear I'm wasting my time by trying to engage with you. You seemed to be a lot more articulate than most of the astrology apologists we get here, but alas you've turned out to make no more sense than the worst of them.


Pertinant questions and a tendancy to notice when they aren't answered, requests for evidence and a tendancy to notice when none is offered, and an ability to recognise pseudoscientific drivel and gross scientific errors? Yes, I'm afraid it is.

What you should be "afraid" of Pixel is your own ignorance of the topic you've chosen to debate. I am "articulate" on this topic because I know what I am talking about. You should try it sometime so you can actually form questions that show that you read on this topic to the point of actually being about to form a decent thought, and thus, decent questions.

If you should "request" anything - it is a free library card with your name on it.

[Pure_Argent]

What you should be "afraid" of Pixel is your own ignorance of the topic you've chosen to debate. I am "articulate" on this topic because I know what I am talking about. You should try it sometime so you can actually form questions that show that you read on this topic to the point of actually being about to form a decent thought, and thus, decent questions.

If you should "request" anything - it is a free library card with your name on it.

Ooh, argument ad hominem when pressured. Never seen that before.

[bookitty]

What you should be "afraid" of Pixel is your own ignorance of the topic you've chosen to debate. I am "articulate" on this topic because I know what I am talking about. You should try it sometime so you can actually form questions that show that you read on this topic to the point of actually being about to form a decent thought, and thus, decent questions.

If you should "request" anything - it is a free library card with your name on it.

You keep saying this sort of thing. But then offer nothing but a link to a page filled with every book ever written on the subject, ranging from the in-depth to the dilettante. Without a guide to the validity of the authors or topics, this list is completely useless. I am a bit surprised that a "teacher" (especially one who insists that he can not teach before the student thouroughly informs themselves) can not present a succinct list of materials.

[Astro Teacher]

You keep saying this sort of thing. But then offer nothing but a link to a page filled with every book ever written on the subject, ranging from the in-depth to the dilettante. Without a guide to the validity of the authors or topics, this list is completely useless. I am a bit surprised that a "teacher" (especially one who insists that he can not teach before the student thouroughly informs themselves) can not present a succinct list of materials.

First of all, you are not my "student." Second of all, you can easily take the time to find any of those books I linked to. Try getting off your behind and turning some pages, or is that too much to ask of you? I am sure that you can easily find many serious materials on Astrology. It is the oldest body of knowledge on this planet you know.

[tsig]

You would not know how to to test astrology mainly because you do not know what it is that you are testing.



And it seems you will not tell us beyond a vague "read some books".

[tsig]

If any of my students broke this principle they get my wrath. It is not wise to piss off a real astrologer.



You have powers?

Have we made you mad? Should we be worried?

[tsig]

Listen, you are going to get two different answers from many people on the same question in anything you ask. What's the problem? It is for you to make the choice about whom to listen to pal. You have free will, and there are no easy answers for how to live your own life. You can educate yourself to the point of knowing who is apt to give you better solutions and answers to your questions/dilemmas, etc., than who is not.

This is not about "prediction" - this is about forecasting. Objectivity means different things to different people. Sure, get the best you can from whomever you might think can get you closer to what you want, or need, but, in the end you are going to have to make the decision. That means thinking for yourself at some time in the process. That's life and we all have to deal with this fact of life.

Well I think if I ask many people what is 2+2 the answer will cluster around 4.


Prediction isn't forecasting?

[Pure_Argent]

First of all, you are not my "student." Second of all, you can easily take the time to find any of those books I linked to. Try getting off your behind and turning some pages, or is that too much to ask of you?

Well, when you ask us to read two-hundred-something books before you'll even begin a discussion, yes, I'd say that it is too much to ask.

I am sure that you can easily find many serious materials on Astrology. It is the oldest body of knowledge on this planet you know.

:dl:

No, it isn't.

[Astro Teacher]

Well I think if I ask many people what is 2+2 the answer will cluster around 4.


Prediction isn't forecasting?

The point is 2+2 of what? I think we can all agree on that it equals 4. Duh.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The point is 2+2 of what? I think we can all agree on that it equals 4. Duh.


Woosh!

[Hokulele]

Woosh!


Yeah, that one was actually pretty funny.

[Astro Teacher]

You have powers?

Have we made you mad? Should we be worried?

You will have serious worries in the near future, you can bet on it from the astrological transits to come. Keep your eyes on the skies, and pray that you've lived a decent life because the "proof" you are looking for may be detrimental to your very existence if you don't get it together in your own life.

The solar system is basically a giant clock, and if you haven't learn to "read" this clock then how are you to know what time it really is?

[Third Eye Open]

Astro teacher, here is the deal. As I'm sure you can tell, the people posting so far think that astrology is a load of bull. I think that astrology is a load of bull. The best way to convince us otherwise is not to call us closed-minded and tell us that we need to read up on the subject.

I don't want to read up on the subject, I only have so much time in my life to study things, and I don't want to waste that time reading a bunch of useless crap that has no effect on my life.

What you should be doing is trying to convince people that astrology has merit, that it can be useful in any way. Instead, I expect you will simply 'strongly advise' that I read up on the subject, so that my 'eyes will be opened.' In fact, let me take a stab at predicting your response.

Judging by your screen name, I would have expected you to be more open minded. If you would take the time to do the research that I have, you would know that astrology is not a 'load of bull' and does have a large impact on your life. I strongly suggest that you read up on the subject, then you will see that it is useful and great and I'm really a genius and haven't wasted my life on superstition.

[Madalch]

You will have serious worries in the near future, you can bet on it from the astrological transits to come. Keep your eyes on the skies, and pray that you've lived a decent life because the "proof" you are looking for may be detrimental to your very existence if you don't get it together in your own life.

The solar system is basically a giant clock, and if you haven't learn to "read" this clock then how are you to know what time it really is?

Look, At, we're just asking you to show us some proof. Don't tell us to go read a pile of books. Don't tell us to believe you just because people have believed in such stuff for thousands of years. Don't tell us to believe just because dire things will happen if we don't.

Just show us some proof.

I am a chemist. If I claim that acids can react with various metals, I can prove that. I can get a number of different acids, and react them with the metals in question, and show that they react. If you give me some flasks with solutions, one of which is reasonably strong hydrochloric acid and the rest are non-acidic solutions, I can figure out which one the acid is. If you give me a number of different metals, I can figure out which one is zinc and which one is silver by the way they react with acid.

I can back up my claims, without telling you to run to a library and learn about chemistry, or claiming that all science is based on alchemy, or that Noah (having figured out fermentation) must have been a chemist.

I would like to give you the opportunity to back up yours.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

you will have serious worries in the near future, you can bet on it from the astrological transits to come. Keep your eyes on the skies, and pray that you've lived a decent life because the "proof" you are looking for may be detrimental to your very existence if you don't get it together in your own life.

The solar system is basically a giant clock, and if you haven't learn to "read" this clock then how are you to know what time it really is?

snicker

[Foster Zygote]

I'd still just like to see some evidence that a significant number of scientists practice astrology.

[SezMe]

You have powers?

Have we made you mad? Should we be worried?
Damn straight. Lookout for upcoming hellfire quotes.

[Madalch]

Come on guys. Let's be civil here.

Let's encourage AstroTeacher to show us some evidence instead of mocking him.

If he does not provide evidence, let it be because there is no evidence, not because he can't stand talking to us.

[Foster Zygote]

You will have serious worries in the near future, you can bet on it from the astrological transits to come.
Can you be more specific? Are you predicting trouble for tsig specifically, or the human population in general? What will the nature of this trouble be? In what time frame is it to occur? A week? A month? A year? Ten years?

Keep your eyes on the skies, and pray that you've lived a decent life because the "proof" you are looking for may be detrimental to your very existence if you don't get it together in your own life.
Is James Arness coming?

The solar system is basically a giant clock, and if you haven't learn to "read" this clock then how are you to know what time it really is?
And my wristwatch is a little clock. It has no more influence or predictive power than the positions of stars and planets. Its regularity can be used as a metric for the passage of time, but it can't predict the future of individuals or empires.

[bookitty]

First of all, you are not my "student." Second of all, you can easily take the time to find any of those books I linked to. Try getting off your behind and turning some pages, or is that too much to ask of you? I am sure that you can easily find many serious materials on Astrology. It is the oldest body of knowledge on this planet you know.

Here is the link you presented:
http://www.astroamerica.com/author.html

It was offered without any commentary, or recommendation. There are hundreds of books on that page. Some of them are serious, some are frivolous. If a person hasn't studied astrology, there would be no way to tell them apart. Please tell me how this link could be of any worth to someone who wanted to understand astrology. You can't possibly suggesting that I read all of them.

On the off chance that you are suggesting that one need to read every book on this list in order to have a discussion with you, then perhaps it would be best if you didn't call yourself a teacher.

[ynot]

Wrong thread

[ynot]

You will have serious worries in the near future, you can bet on it from the astrological transits to come. Keep your eyes on the skies, and pray that you've lived a decent life because the "proof" you are looking for may be detrimental to your very existence if you don't get it together in your own life.

The solar system is basically a giant clock, and if you haven't learn to "read" this clock then how are you to know what time it really is?
Can you be more specific as to what you mean by “near future”? do you mean days, months, years or decades?

Does you reference to “a decent life” have a religious connotation?

What do you mean by “get it together“? Do you mean study and accept astrology or a god (or both)? Is astrology a religious science?

[sackett]

...you are not my "student." ....

How much would it cost me to enroll as your student?

[Marduk]

It is the oldest body of knowledge on this planet you know.

and it was discarded by the same people in favour of splanchnomancy and Hepatoscopy as they were discovered to be far more accurate.

Why don't you use those ?
:p

[tsig]

You will have serious worries in the near future, you can bet on it from the astrological transits to come. Keep your eyes on the skies, and pray that you've lived a decent life because the "proof" you are looking for may be detrimental to your very existence if you don't get it together in your own life.

The solar system is basically a giant clock, and if you haven't learn to "read" this clock then how are you to know what time it really is?

I use my sidereal digital clock.

[tsig]

Damn straight. Lookout for upcoming hellfire quotes.

Check out post #192. I think something wicked my way comes.

[Bronwyn Elko]

You will find many so-called "astrologers" playing the "prediction" game to prove that they "know something" about the future to "impress" the client with what they "think" they know about them. That's a joke, but it is not funny to this teacher of astrology. If I ever caught one of my students doing this, they know what will happen to them - and it will not be funny at all. The first rule is to protect the client at all costs, and to respect their needs, their personal information, and their privacy. If any of my students broke this principle they get my wrath. It is not wise to piss off a real astrologer.

:boxedin:

Please. . . stop . . . in the name of Urania.

[Bronwyn Elko]

You will have serious worries in the near future, you can bet on it from the astrological transits to come. Keep your eyes on the skies, and pray that you've lived a decent life because the "proof" you are looking for may be detrimental to your very existence if you don't get it together in your own life.

You call this helpful? Ethical? Specific? Practical?

:(

[Akhenaten]

<time for a snip>

The solar system is basically a giant clock, and if you haven't learn to "read" this clock then how are you to know what time it really is?





Close, but backwards.

Clocks are little, tiny models of the Solar System, which we use to keep track of stuff.

They mostly go around in circles, similarly to some peoples' perception of logic.

[Bronwyn Elko]

Jack, post 168 & electro-pollution: Dr. Seymour brought up that exact point to me in 1998, and in his books written years earlier. Some astrologers do wonder if HARRP's ionospheric heating may alter earth's magnetosphere in some way. Earth's magnetic field has about two thousand different frequencies, most of which are random, come and go. However, two of these frequencies are well known to geophysicists: the lunar daily magnetic variation, the solar daily magnetic variation. Could those frequencies become scrambled, washed out, etc., via HARRP or other electromagnetic technologies? I don't know; but it certainly seems possible.

[Garrette]

Gar: I never said that.I know. I said it because it is the inevitable implication of what you did say.

I said that when it comes to a test of matching the charts of a volunteer's father and mother to his own, that one should not also include the siblings of either parent as test subjects.Because they share a gene pool and therefore possibly some of the same astro points.

Therefore they may not be distinguishable.

Therefore you can't foretell the differing death times or circumstances of siblings and parents, even if they are so radically different as a childhood disease and an octagenaric passage into blissful death.

Words have two meanings, not one. The first is the emotional impact that can be caused by them. The other is that which is factually conveyed. In their readings and charts, astrologers rely solely on the first while pretending they use the second. You have done the same thing here. You have used words, hoping they would convey a feeling of "rightness," but that which they actually convey implies something completely counter to what you intend.

[Bronwyn Elko]

RE: solar and lunar daily geomagnetic variations go to:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/EG993147.html

Q: Solar and lunar daily geomagnetic variations provide the basic scientific material for electromagnetic sounding of the earth . . . variations also provide information on the upper atmosphere . . . which give rise to the ionospheric dynamo . . .

If HARRP inadverdantly alters this delicate ionospheric dynamo, who knows what effects it may wreak on the natural GMF, not mention the weather. I would suggest that the solar-planetary-intergalactic-terrestrial 'magnetic complex' is connected like a web, more intricately interactive and interdependent than present science can accurately measure.

If all subspace, as Dr. Seymour suggests in his latest book, Dark Matters, is permeated by "electrified tunnels," then literally every speck of the universe, including our electrified brains and bodies, has at least the potential to respond to resonance phenomena. I'm not saying it's true, or that it is the physical mechanism by which astrology operates. Only that it's possible that resonance phenomena may play a role. I'm agnostic on how astrology may work -- I don't know. (yes, yes, I know you believe that it does not work, period.)

[Bronwyn Elko]

I know. I said it because it is the inevitable implication of what you did say.

Therefore you can't foretell the differing death times or circumstances of siblings and parents, even if they are so radically different as a childhood disease and an octagenaric passage into blissful death.

Whaa?

Certainly if an astrologer is trying to ascertain the day or period of days when death is most likely to occur, he/she would want to examine the chart's of close relatives: sons, daughters, mother, father, etc. Technically, from an astrological viewpoint, a person's death should show up somewhere in the chart's of their daughters and sons, etc.

[Jack by the hedge]

RE: solar and lunar daily geomagnetic variations go to:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/EG993147.html

Sorry, Bronwyn, but your link doesn't appear to work.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Whaa?

Certainly if an astrologer is trying to ascertain the day or period of days when death is most likely to occur, he/she would want to examine the chart's of close relatives: sons, daughters, mother, father, etc. Technically, from an astrological viewpoint, a person's death should show up somewhere in the chart's of their daughters and sons, etc.

Why? :boggled:

[Bronwyn Elko]

Because they share a gene pool and therefore possibly some of the same astro points.

Therefore they may not be distinguishable.

Therefore you can't foretell the differing death times or circumstances of siblings and parents, even if they are so radically different as a childhood disease and an octagenaric passage into blissful death.

I never said you can't tell the difference between dying of childhood disease or in octag-bliss. I said (in previous threads) I don't believe in predicting death. I also said that if an astrologer does look for death in the chart, that they (meaning me if I were doing it) would want to see death corroborated in the charts of the subject's sons, daughters, mother and father, etc.


Just a thought.

[Bronwyn Elko]

Madalch: No worries. The thread may be convoluted and sometimes anally silly, but I will be back to post links supporting my preceding woo statements. Tomorrow.

First: Can we all agree that electromagnetism is omnipresent throughout the universe?

B) That resonance phenomena is a wave phenomena not exclusive to electromagnetic phenomena?

C) That all atoms, quarks and living organisms utilize EM fields as a kind of messenger medium, relaying some type of interaction?

[Garrette]

Whaa? A sentiment that perfectly expresses my response to the following:


Certainly if an astrologer is trying to ascertain the day or period of days when death is most likely to occur, he/she would want to examine the chart's of close relatives: sons, daughters, mother, father, etc. Should? Is it necessary or is it not necessary? If it is necessary then all the readings in all the world that have been done solely on the chart of an individual are worthless. If it is not necessary, then your "should want to" is meaningless.


Technically, from an astrological viewpoint, a person's death should show up somewhere in the chart's of their daughters and sons, etc.If astrology has meaning at all it would show up in the actual individual's chart. Does it or does it not?

[Darat]

If you can't post within your Membership Agreement then do not post.

[Akhenaten]

I apologise to all concerned for my part in derailing the thread.

Akhenaten

[Jack by the hedge]

First: Can we all agree that electromagnetism is omnipresent throughout the universe?Yes

B) That resonance phenomena is a wave phenomena not exclusive to electromagnetic phenomena?Yes, all sorts of oscillating systems can resonate. <nitpick> phenomenon in the singular.</nitpick>

C) That all atoms, quarks and living organisms utilize EM fields as a kind of messenger medium, relaying some type of interaction?Umm. Well, that's a huge sweep, and it's bit vague. Fair comment up to a point. So it depends what you mean, which we shall doubtless discover.

[Professor Yaffle]

I've moved some posts here from the moderated thead. Apologies if the mixing of the posts makes it difficult to follow.

[Garrette]

.

I never said you can't tell the difference between dying of childhood disease or in octag-bliss. I said (in previous threads) I don't believe in predicting death. I also said that if an astrologer does look for death in the chart, that they (meaning me if I were doing it) would want to see death corroborated in the charts of the subject's sons, daughters, mother and father, etc.


Just a thought.Okay. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm explaining what I get out of what you have said. This bit helps. Let me step back a moment and restate what I understand you to be saying in as clear a manner as I can. Please correct me where I'm wrong.

1. You do not predict death using astrology, but you could if you chose to

2. Anyone using astrology to predict death can do so

3. Any such prediction would have more reliability if corroborated with astrological readings of family members

Before I ask more questions, I'll let you comment on whether I am understanding you correctly.

[Bronwyn Elko]

YesYes, all sorts of oscillating systems can resonate. <nitpick> phenomenon in the singular.</nitpick>Umm. Well, that's a huge sweep, and it's bit vague. Fair comment up to a point. So it depends what you mean, which we shall doubtless discover.

Please explain to me why it's a huge sweep. :confused:

Sorry the link I provided seems not to work. Strange. I bookmarked the page and it works fine for me . . . The bit I quoted, "Solar and lunar daily geomagnetic variations provide the basic scientific material for electromagnetic sounding of the Earth . . ." is from CSIRO Publishing, The Bulletin of the Australian Society of Exploration. Geophyscists Explorations Geophysics 24(2) 147 - 150. D.E. Winch is the author.

The reason I bring this up is to establish that earth's magnetosphere contains variations known to geophysicists, called the solar and lunar daily magnetic variations. These geomagnetic variations can be measured by scientists and correspond to planetary cycles, i.e., correlate with the Sun and Moon.

Garrrette:
1. correct
2. No. Not anyone. Predicting death years in advance, prior to any physical symptoms, if it's even possible, would be/is very,very difficult. I for one do not believe our fate is "written in the stars." For many reasons; for one, the stars and planets are not static but dynamic. If the stars and planets are dynamic, change and evolve, then so also must fate (whatever that is).

As well, if astrology works the way most astrologers argue that it does, it must include not only planets in our own solar system, but all of the stars and planets in the whole universe. This means that, in plotting the course of a person's life, i.e., making predictions, an astrologer would have to interpret zillions of astronomical factors. This is another reason why I gave it up as a profession: No astrologer can hope to make consistently accurate predictions.

I realize that this comment makes neither skeptic nor Chester and other astrologers happy. But that's the way I see and understand it at this time.

At best, the astrologer sees planetary propensities for giving birth and/or dying. A propensity is not written in concrete.

3. Correct

[Akhenaten]

Please explain to me why it's a huge sweep. :confused:

Sorry the link I provided seems not to work. Strange. I bookmarked the page and it works fine for me . . . The bit I quoted, "Solar and lunar daily geomagnetic variations provide the basic scientific material for electromagnetic sounding of the Earth . . ." is from CSIRO Publishing, The Bulletin of the Australian Society of Exploration. Geophyscists Explorations Geophysics 24(2) 147 - 150. D.E. Winch is the author.

The reason I bring this up is to establish that earth's magnetosphere contains variations known to geophysicists, called the solar and lunar daily magnetic variations. These geomagnetic variations can be measured by scientists and correspond to planetary cycles, i.e., correlate with the Sun and Moon.


<snip>





Does that help identify the problem for you?

You are extrapolating in circles. Messy.

[Olowkow]

Please explain to me why it's a huge sweep. :confused:

Normally, a physicist would have some math to go along with such claims.

....

The reason I bring this up is to establish that earth's magnetosphere contains variations known to geophysicists, called the solar and lunar daily magnetic variations. These geomagnetic variations can be measured by scientists and correspond to planetary cycles, i.e., correlate with the Sun and Moon.Another broad sweep, because such variations have not been shown to affect the personality or genetic makeup of newborns.


As well, if astrology works the way most astrologers argue that it does, it must include not only planets in our own solar system, but all of the stars and planets in the whole universe. This means that, in plotting the course of a person's life, i.e., making predictions, an astrologer would have to interpret zillions of astronomical factors. This is another reason why I gave it up as a profession: No astrologer can hope to make consistently accurate predictions. Welcome to the skeptical community! Just one more step, let's make it "zillions and zillions". Then, what is the point of astrology?

[Garrette]

Bronwyn:

Your responses confuse me.

You agree that it is possible with astrology to predict someone's death, albeit only by those most experienced. Yet you also say nothing can be predicted with consistent accuracy. You also say that using relatives' charts in a group will allow more accuracy (I'm extrapolating a bit from your response).

Let's assume an astrologer with the highest knowledge and greatest experience.

What can be predicted with just one person's chart, and with what accuracy (and consistency?)

What more can be predicted with the family's charts, and with what accuracy and consistency?

If it is just propensities, then how does astrology differ from what is offered by a reasonably sensitive, insightful, and experienced counselor?

[tsig]

RE: solar and lunar daily geomagnetic variations go to:

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/EG993147.html

Q: Solar and lunar daily geomagnetic variations provide the basic scientific material for electromagnetic sounding of the earth . . . variations also provide information on the upper atmosphere . . . which give rise to the ionospheric dynamo . . .

If HARRP inadverdantly alters this delicate ionospheric dynamo, who knows what effects it may wreak on the natural GMF, not mention the weather. I would suggest that the solar-planetary-intergalactic-terrestrial 'magnetic complex' is connected like a web, more intricately interactive and interdependent than present science can accurately measure.

If all subspace, as Dr. Seymour suggests in his latest book, Dark Matters, is permeated by "electrified tunnels," then literally every speck of the universe, including our electrified brains and bodies, has at least the potential to respond to resonance phenomena. I'm not saying it's true, or that it is the physical mechanism by which astrology operates. Only that it's possible that resonance phenomena may play a role. I'm agnostic on how astrology may work -- I don't know. (yes, yes, I know you believe that it does not work, period.)

Resonance:

"In physics, resonance is the tendency of a system to oscillate at larger amplitude at some frequencies than at others. These are known as the system's resonant frequencies (or resonance frequencies)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance

What frequencies does this resonance phenomenon take place and what medium is resonating?

[Bronwyn Elko]

Bronwyn:

Your responses confuse me.

You agree that it is possible with astrology to predict someone's death, albeit only by those most experienced. Yet you also say nothing can be predicted with consistent accuracy. You also say that using relatives' charts in a group will allow more accuracy (I'm extrapolating a bit from your response).

Let's assume an astrologer with the highest knowledge and greatest experience.

What can be predicted with just one person's chart, and with what accuracy (and consistency?)

What more can be predicted with the family's charts, and with what accuracy and consistency?

If it is just propensities, then how does astrology differ from what is offered by a reasonably sensitive, insightful, and experienced counselor?


One person's chart often accurately predicts how that person feels, sees and interprets the world. It describes how they feel/see things from the inside. Their attitude toward, say, science or mysticism, their love of food or sports (or lack thereof), their emotional make-up (extremely jealous or possessive, etc.), how they experienced their parents (perception of parents), and very often their innate talents.

If, say, certain factors are present, one can say, You are likely fascinated by or have a talent in the study of physics . . . or, in occult studies. You have probably been labeled an eccentric by friends, family and those with whom you work; you likely live the life of a hermit, or whatever. You've gone through several different types of jobs and find it difficult to stick to any one profession. You may have experienced your father as being absent in some way, either physically or psychologically, or as cold and cruel, etc. You may undergo a difficult period with your boss or with finances, during the period Aug 2 through Oct 3, or whatever.
This is a small example of one's horoscope may reveal to an experienced astrologer. But I am not an expert.

As for what can been seen 'coming down the pipe' through family charts, I would think one could predict some things. Like a death in the family, for instance. I haven't done this type of speculation, but, according to the principles of astrology, this ought to be so.

I'm not sure an astrological consultation is essentially much different from that given by a good counselor. The main difference might be, I suppose, that the client walks away feeling as though they, too, are somehow intimately connected to the far-flung planets. That their lives have meaning in relation to the stars and all of nature.

For some types, this feeling of interconnectedness with the universe is very comforting, inspiring and hopeful.

Not much worth to skeptics, I know. But to some, the beauty of feeling connected to the universe is simply enough. It's not that astrologers don't care whether science validates their art, btw.

Believe me when I say that I'm disappointed with the majority of astrological predictions. That's why I very seldom use it that way; I don't really see the value of it. Though do I admit to buying lotto tickets when I think cycles are most favorable. So far I'm just slightly ahead in the number of wins; unfortunately, all of those wins have been small. Too bad -- now that would be a practical use of astrology.

[Jack by the hedge]

Please explain to me why it's a huge sweep. :confused:


Sure, no problem: Electromagnetism drives just about everything above the quantum scale which isn't driven by gravity. Chemistry, for example, is electromagnetic in nature, as it's what binds electrons to nuclei and forms chemical bonds in molecules. So anything made from atoms utilizes electromagnetism, in that way at least. On the other hand, "all... living organisms utilize EM fields as a kind of messenger medium" set my anthropomorphism alarm tingling and "relaying some type of interaction" triggered a handwaving alert as it's not obvious exactly what that means.

Electromagnetic fields are busiest working at the atomic level, but I suspect you're considering interactions at an interplanetary scale, which is rather getting into gravity's domain. Sure, electromagnetic radiation can convey information across interplanetary distances easily, but I don't know if that's what you're hinting at. Hence my slight reserve, waiting to see where we're going.

[Bronwyn Elko]

Thank you, Jack. I like your explanation and frank questions.

My computer is tuned to this site.

I'm off to the pub with friends, however. :D

Best,
Bronwyn

[Tricky]

One person's chart often accurately predicts how that person feels, sees and interprets the world. It describes how they feel/see things from the inside. Their attitude toward, say, science or mysticism, their love of food or sports (or lack thereof), their emotional make-up (extremely jealous or possessive, etc.), how they experienced their parents (perception of parents), and very often their innate talents.
If you could show that to be true, you could have a million dollars to contribute to your favorite cause. I doubt that you can, but I'm willing to be convinced. At least you've offered to be tested and for that, I respect you.

I'm not sure an astrological consultation is essentially much different from that given by a good counselor. The main difference might be, I suppose, that the client walks away feeling as though they, too, are somehow intimately connected to the far-flung planets. That their lives have meaning in relation to the stars and all of nature.
I imagine it is not. Counsellors may use word association or other tools to get a person to talk. I don't have any problem seeing astrology used like a Rorschak test, I just don't want it to be touted as any kind of predictive tool.

For some types, this feeling of interconnectedness with the universe is very comforting, inspiring and hopeful.

Not much worth to skeptics, I know. But to some, the beauty of feeling connected to the universe is simply enough. It's not that astrologers don't care whether science validates their art, btw.

I studied Astrology in my youth. I found it inspiring in some ways. I actually got a date with a gorgeous babe because I predicted her sign. (Lucky, but what the hay.) But yes, if feeling good about your "connection to the universe" is important, then that's not of itself a bad thing. But it doesn't matter if it's astrology or I Ching or reading entrails, as long as it makes you feel good. Believing paranormal things gives a lot of people comfort. The problem is that sometimes they value that comfort over reality, and ignoring reality in favor of comfort is not a good thing, IMO. Some people are able to make sure that their paranormal beliefs don't overshadow evidence and science. Sadly, many aren't. They are prey for the huxters, and their gullibility is fed and abetted by honest, thoughtful and sincere believers who convince them that such things are true. Even if they aren't themselves frauds, they are creating victims for fraud. I find that in itself a bit immoral.

Believe me when I say that I'm disappointed with the majority of astrological predictions. That's why I very seldom use it that way; I don't really see the value of it. Though do I admit to buying lotto tickets when I think cycles are most favorable. So far I'm just slightly ahead in the number of wins; unfortunately, all of those wins have been small. Too bad -- now that would be a practical use of astrology.
If astrology were even slightly useful in predicting favorable cycles, lotteries would be bankrupt.

[Garrette]

Bronwyn,

Thank you for the response. As I'm short on time, I'll just nod to Tricky's comments and say I am in agreement with them. I have some thoughts to add later when I find the time but have to bow out for now.

[Bronwyn Elko]

Sure, no problem: Electromagnetism drives just about everything above the quantum scale which isn't driven by gravity."


Only above the quantum level? Are there not "quantum electrodynamics?"


Chemistry, for example, is electromagnetic in nature, as it's what binds electrons to nuclei and forms chemical bonds in molecules. So anything made from atoms utilizes electromagnetism, in that way at least. On the other hand, "all... living organisms utilize EM fields as a kind of messenger medium" set my anthropomorphism alarm tingling and "relaying some type of interaction" triggered a handwaving alert as it's not obvious exactly what that means."

But all living organisms do use EM fields, via celluar activity, neurons, in nerves and even the heart itself. Yes? I call EM a messenger medium because it transmits information throughout our brains and organs, nervous system, etc. Solar emissions and galactic cosmic ray particles also 'transmit" information to earth's magnetosphere, where they may be picked up by the neural network of living creatures.

From the 1998 interview with Dr. Seymour (Magus of Magnetism, B. Elko)

I asked Seymour: Your theory draws upon research into the biological consequences of fluctuations in Earth's magnetosphere. How did this research impact the formulation of your theory?


Seymour's answer was long. Here is a part of what he said.

"Research in magnetobiology shows that a wide variety of organisms respond to changes in Earth's magnetic field. For instance, Franck Brown of Northwestern University, who has done much work in this area, showed how mudsnails and turtles followed the lunar daily magnetic variastion even when these creatures were removed from the sea and lodged inside laboratory tanks. The experiments of Dr. Robin Baker of Manchester University suggest that humans are also sensitive to changes in Earth's magnetic field. Baker first placed people inside a darkened room and asked them to locate North. Most of the time people got it right. But when Baker then fitted these same subjects with a little magnetic skullcap, they lost their ability to find North. this strongly suggests the persence of an internal compass or biological clock. . . What I think might be happening is that the fetus's neural network acts as a sort of antenna that tunes into fluctuations in Earth's magnetic field. The imprinting of the neural antennae depends on genetic heredity, which gives us our basic congenital personality." (p.25, The Mountain Astrologer, Issue #80)

NASA's Magnetospheric Multiscale Mission (MMS), approved for implementation in June of this year, will hopefully provide more information re: the number and types of frequencies contained in Earth's magnetosphere.

As well, one look at the explosive process known as 'Magnetic Reconnection' suggests to me that all earthlings live inside a constantly changing, highly charged magnetic bottle. What this means for astrology, if anything, remains to be seen.

[Bronwyn Elko]

If you could show that to be true, you could have a million dollars to contribute to your favorite cause. I doubt that you can, but I'm willing to be convinced. At least you've offered to be tested and for that, I respect you."

Sorry, but you misunderstood what I said: I am not offering to be tested. Not only because it would take a big chunk of my time, but because I no longer practice astrology (I cast one chart a month, when I buy a lotto ticket.) I have been retired from astrology for eight years.


I studied Astrology in my youth. I found it inspiring in some ways. I actually got a date with a gorgeous babe because I predicted her sign. (Lucky, but what the hay.) But yes, if feeling good about your "connection to the universe" is important, then that's not of itself a bad thing. But it doesn't matter if it's astrology or I Ching or reading entrails, as long as it makes you feel good. Believing paranormal things gives a lot of people comfort. The problem is that sometimes they value that comfort over reality, and ignoring reality in favor of comfort is not a good thing, IMO. Some people are able to make sure that their paranormal beliefs don't overshadow evidence and science. Sadly, many aren't. They are prey for the huxters, and their gullibility is fed and abetted by honest, thoughtful and sincere believers who convince them that such things are true. Even if they aren't themselves frauds, they are creating victims for fraud. I find that in itself a bit immoral.

There's truth to what you say. The same could be said of some, so-called doctors who push pills and other questionable procedures. But not everyone uses medicine and/or astrology this way. The right tool in the wrong hands is very dangerous: a knife can slice bread or arteries.

As for astrology and lottos, if I manage to get lucky you'll be the first person to know. :)

PS don't know why the second quote did not work right; no time to fix it -- being summoned by scary yelling from down the hallway . . .