will Mr. Randi accept this or help me ?

[ManishSoni]

My name is Manish Soni, from India.
In this forum we find all about against Astrology.
but it is not against Astrology but against Astrologer.
that what I feel.

I am ready to give simple proof - Mathematical proof about Astrology. and it is mathematical and answer is in True or false, yes or no. so it is clear every time and mesurable as in any science. I claim for challange not million dollar challange.

=================================
********* My Question is :***************
=================================
will Mr randi or any moderator / person help me to
correct me in putting a challange. or communicate with me
with open mind and prove me wrong. we all are imperfact,
we need some guide to correct it. please help me.

*************************************
I am a computer programmer, what I claim if it is mathematical, then it is programmable...am I correct, and Answer is every time True or False. so it is mesurable..

I am new to Mr. Randi's Language , What I need is an interpreter.

the following system I am posting is simple and mathematical, but its answer is not True or False. but you can try it out , It is every time correct.



============================================
Here is a Simple Mathematical Astronomy based proof of predicting future probability( i.e. Astrology)


Please forgive me about my English/Grammer. pl. understand what I mean it mathematically.

My proposition : We can predict WHEN we have a 'tendency' to spend money or 'extravengence' or let it go regarding money . WHEn above stated attitude is highlighted in everybody's life......It is predictable.....and here are the rule.

Please Do not Post your Critical Vies about Astrology. Just ask questions if you have or test it. then tell me. I can send dates to you if someone send me their Birth date only. We can make Small Software also , everybody can just test on net.


P L E A S E, do notpost your view of Astrology. just check this out.


you should know some Astronomy or your Horoscope...( Not HorrorScope :) )
------------------------------------------------------------
here Natal means The planetary position when you were Born.
Natal Mars means Mars position in the sky at birth(by degrees)
Natal Jupiter means Jupiter Degrees in 360 format at birth.
Natal is fixed....at the time of birth. birth moment is fixed.

same way .....Transit means moving....
Transiting Jupiter means jupiter moving .
Transit Jupiter makes angular relation with Natal Planets.
I think it is enough prelimnary explanation. ask anything you do not understand.

Any program- free programs like Astrolog can tell you about the transit and Natal planets or tell me I will tell you also.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rule : Your natal Mars is on fixed degree. suppose 31 deg.
and When Transiting Jupiter makes angular relation of 90 deg or 180 Deg. or 270 Deg. with Natal Mars .... at that times that person is having tendencies to Spend money as proportionate to his nature and his money resources.

means anybodys Natal Mars is on fixed Deg. 31. Now
31+90=121 ; 31+180 =211 ; 31+270= 301;
When Moving Planet Jupiter is touches - near the deg 121, 211, 301 then this spending tendencies effectively - mesurably increses. Jupiter finishes 2-3 Deg in around a month or less, sometimes more also. so more than 15 Days you have a tendency to spend more, and more,

If Transiting Mars is on Natal Jupiter is making above 3 angular contacts because Mars is slower Planet than Jupiter effective period will be 2-7 days minimum.

Jupiter transit on Mars as steted above comes every 3 years, and Mars Transit over Jupiter ( which is only 2-7 days) is comming approx evey 3-4 months. so it is easier to check but transiting Mars over Jupiter intensity will be low than Transiting Jupiter over Mars.


I have tested this effect, Scientifically ( as what I understood ).
------------------------------------------------------------


- It is every time correct. ( intensity will very)
- It is Mathematical
- It is based on pure Astronomy
- It is programmable.

The only thing can go wrong if person is more aware about the spending, and situation comes but he decides not to spend , he resist, or he does not have money to spend...:)

So with this pre condition if we can check somebody's life, without telling him/her we will be able to judge properly. or you suggest how can I convince you this. because I have seen it right every time....ask any help you need.

The best way to check on somebody else life testing when he/she does not know that you are watching them on particular dates, especially a friend or wife or even teenager children.

- Manish Soni
support@sulekh.com
in the e-mail please specify "Mr. randi's forum" in Subject.



============================================

[CFLarsen]

Manish,

Before we go any further, I think you should be much more precise: How do you define "tendency"?

If a person spends $100 more? $200? How much more of his money should he spend? Perhaps a percentage?

[SkepticScott]

Dear Manish,
Disclaimer: I am representing only myself. I do not represent JREF.

Do not worry about your English. I'm sure if you and JREF agree to a test language will not be a barrier.

I do not think JREF is interested in how something works, the test is only "does it work?" "How" can come after you show it does work. As CFLarsen said, you need to make numerical claims, not just a "tendency". For example,

"Given a person's date of birth, I can predict, with 50% accuracy or better, days when that person will spend at least X dollars."

(X will vary depending on test subject. It should be set by the subject based on what they normally spend each day.)

Comparing numbers are objective. Anyone can look at the data and everyone will get the same answer to "Did the subject spend $100 or more on 5 June 2003?"

"Tendency" is subjective. If asked "Did the subject have a tendency to spend more money on 5 June 2003?" one person could say "yes, because he spent $65 on 7 June 2003" and another person could say "no, because he spent less than average on 5 June 2003."

I think JREF may know some people in India. You may want to contact JREF directly.

You may want to test yourself before contacting JREF. Find a person that has records of what they spent for the last year. Do not look at the records. Have the person make a list of money they MUST spend and when they must spend it. Expenses like "rent on first day of each month", or "taxes on 15 April", should not count because the person has no choice of when to pay. Exclude those from your predictions. Have the person write down how much money would be an 'extravagance'. Write down your predictions. Write down how accurate you expect to be.

Then go over the records. See how many you got correct. See how many you actually got correct. Do not count "near misses". Calculate your "success rate".

Remember a "near miss" is a failure when making your predictions.

Now go over each day of the records and count how many days the person spent the money that would be an 'extravagence'. Calculate how many successes you would have gotten if just picking days at random. Compare it with your success rate.

[j-beda]

Originally posted by SkepticScott
... Find a person that has records of what they spent for the last year.

You might be better served to use multiple people with multiple sets of records, and then see if you can match the records with the people. This way there is less of a chance of tricking yourself into making assumptions of what is big or small payments or things like that.

Given say 12 peole born at different times, if you can not match them better than random chance, then you have not demonstrated a useful feature of your system.

[davefoc]

ManishSoni

I believe that you have posted an interesting challenge and are sincere in your beliefs. I worked with a number of Indian programmers that I came to view as friends, so when I saw your post, I had some good feelings about it right away.

I think the people that have responded already to your post have made some good suggestions.

You may or may not have discovered a method of making predicitons about a person's spending habits using planetary arrangements at that person's birth. I am a skeptic and, as such, think it is wildly unlikely that you have. This, reasonably enough, may not be of any significance to you. I would like to point out that a number of studies have been done looking for some aspect of a person's personality or capability that could be predicted based on his birthdate. None of these studies have produced any significant correlations.

I hope you understood the suggestions that were made to you. The key idea here is that you need to make a specific, testable claim of a capability that you can demonstrate. For instance, "by only looking at a random person's credit card bills you can determine what his birthdate is within two days more than 50% of the time".

This is not necessarily the test you would propose, but it has the key requisite that success or failure can be determined without interpretation or subjective judgement.

The test would go like this:
1. You would be shown the monthly credit card bills from random individuals.
2. You would predict their birthdates
3. Ater you have completed a predefined number of predictions your success or failure for each prediction would be determined by comparing the actual birthdays with the birthdays that you predicted.
4. A successful prediction rate of more than 50% would constitute a success.

My respectful prediction is that if you develop an objective test yourself and use it to test your theory you will find that your theory will not be validated.

Best wishes to you,
Dave

[roger]

Originally posted by ManishSoni
will Mr randi or any moderator / person help me to
correct me in putting a challange. or communicate with me
with open mind and prove me wrong. we all are imperfact,
we need some guide to correct it. please help me.

I am a computer programmer, what I claim if it is mathematical, then it is programmable...am I correct, and Answer is every time True or False. so it is mesurable..

Very well. Write the program.

Input to program: A randomized list of birthday for N individuals, and a randomized list of spending history for each individual.

Output from program: a list identifying which birthday corresponds to which spending history.

Provide all source code so it can be independently compiled and tested. (to avoid chance that you programmed in some kind of cheat)

If this is acceptable it should be trivial to establish the rest of the protocol (how the individuals are selected, how large N is, how the lists are randomized, how the spending history is collected, how many successful matches constitute success, etc).

Hope this helps.
Roger

edited to add: note that this protocol sidesteps some of the (reasonable) objections raised above, such as asking you to define a "tendency" to spend.

[De_Bunk]

How about...

One joker who pretends they have trouble with english leaves...and another turns up...

So...this person wants us all to believe

That a country where 75% of all its population speak and understand fluent english, and have used English since the mid 1800's...this board happens to get the only computer programmer that doesnt use English, either written or spoken everyday, in programming PC's...and, has trouble understanding ...and needs an interpreter..!!

Get real....

Even though English is spoken in preference to India's native language...and taught in nearly every school.....and spoken in every town... in every shop...on every TV station...every radio station...written in every newspaper...Computer manual...Windows OS...

He asks for an interpreter...and then goes on to use words that would shame a college professor...

Better still...He then goes on to make the pretend "I dont really know english"...grammatical errors...

Interpreter..my ass...

Lets see if he understands this post...or will he do an "Agur"...or any of the other "I dont understand english and yet when im pissed off i suddenly can" posters...

It just reminds me of a whole string of threads...and various others who think this kind of posting is amusing...

All i know is this...

I speak several languages...and i can tell you, from most bi / tri-lingual people's learning curve,..they don't use advanced words as does this "Manish Soni"

Not if they have that much trouble understanding that they ask for an interpreter for the written word..

Has any of you seen what a person who genuinely is learning a language writes and posts like...

I have spoken French and Spanish for years...and yet make the same sense and the same mistakes as the average 10yr old Spanish/French child...

This person is clearly not 10yrs old....and uses the language, grammar and sentence structure of an educated person who understands completely...

The spelling mistakes are deliberate and made by a person who understands the written english word, fully..

This is an attempt at another long running troll thread...started by someone who has been here and done this all before...

Well...thats what i think...

Lets see...

De_Bunk

[davefoc]

I was suspicious but chose to accept post as legit.

I think though de_bunk might be right. Both the poor quality of Manish's English and the kind of mistakes he made are suspicious for a person that has enough education to be a programmer in a country where English is far and away the most widely spoken lanquage. Still the guy went to a lot of trouble to write it and I'm not convinced it is a hoax. Of the five or so Indian programmers that I worked with one of them spoke English fairly poorly although still better than Manish, so there is at least a sample of one of an educated person from India who was not fluent in English.

On a completely unrelated topic, I'd like to recommend de_bunk's thread on his exploits working in the coroner's office. I thought it was pretty funny, but perhaps a little ghoulish for everybody.

http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=9655

[thatguywhojuggles]

Looks like De_Bunk caled this person's bluff... they haven't posted in over 3 weeks.

[sadluxation]

Have emailed Manish, and think he does check out ok as a java program[mer] from Gujurat.

I have forwarded his details to the head of the Indian Skeptics so they can decide the best way to put things forward.

S

[susheel]

Originally posted by davefoc
I was suspicious but chose to accept post as legit.

I think though de_bunk might be right. Both the poor quality of Manish's English and the kind of mistakes he made are suspicious for a person that has enough education to be a programmer in a country where English is far and away the most widely spoken lanquage. ...

I think you are being a bit harsh there. The problem with the education system in India has resulted in a curious state where Engineers, doctors and lawyers find it difficult to communicate in English.

It isn't true that English is the most widely spoken language. It may be the most widely spoken single language among the urban populace, which covers only a fraction of the Indian population. Even among them, those who use English fluently as the standard means of communication is limited.

I see Manish as a person who may be genuine be misguided. Religious conditioning developed through generations as 'tradition' and instilled right from birth can be quite effective in creating hard to shake beliefs. What he requires is lots of patient guidance and a fool proof test procedure that would convince him otherwise.

Definitely not value judgements based on his grasp of English.

[ManishSoni]

De_bunk

based on what I have understood from De_Bunk's remarks, I am writting my answer. some clarifications are neccessary.

I am very much disappointed because everybody is busy telling something but nobody is testing it in their lives.

If you do not believe at all in anything, that does not mean it is false.

the same thing is true for me.....If I believe in something that does not means it is True. but atleast I have given all procedures what I have tested as what I understood testing.

You should speak the language of testing.
You can try and correct me in my testings. then only we can arrive at some conclusions. otherwise we will spent our timmings at arguing only. as everybody since last few months are doing.


I am from India, where in most schools English taught as a secondary subject like History or Social Studies. In more than half of schools in India English is NOT taught as a language to be taught but they teach as a subject.

I did not studied in English language. and we rarly speaks in english in a day. may be few words which are common. still I am trying to cope up with the world.

I am a programmer , I do have a small library of all kinds of general books ...nearly 900 + books in which most of them are in English, including Mr. Randi's Book. I have world book encyclopedia of 24 vol.s, using computer since 1990 at my home.
I can understand what is my capacity. but I have presented my theory in maths, not based on words. De_bunk should not waste our time.

I am challenging you if ....if you are scienntific minded, a neutral person, then test my thery with feelings not figures.

ask me anything, any help if you need to calculate maths to predict fure spending events of somebody.

here I am puting one topic of spending, I do have tested more.

I may have written in poor quality english because I am writting directly while I am thinking. I am thinking in my language and translating in english and writting directly. and these kind of subjects are not ordinary communication that we daily use here....Thank You...Hi...How are You.... etc kind of stuff. I understand English Movies also very well.

My spelling mistakes are not delibrate and I am a finger typist not a speedy typist. please do not blame me like this.
to remove this problem I will use speech recognition in near future. for that I have to change my computer Hardware.
I was typing directly so no spell check is available.

The main topic which I discuss here is Mathematics, not English.
feelings not words.
tendency of spending ...NOT the actual bills you have spent...
If you can understand my language....meaning behind the poor language I have used.

Do you happen to know anybody who had given you or ready to give you mathematical proof of Astrology ? ... and ready to write the computer Program for that. the way Scientific methods demands. I am giving you and already gave you something.

please do not look at my mistakes in language...but read the content and apply on your near and dear ones, while the do not know acually you are testing...gathering data of tendency of spending. you will see the results what I have seen.

I will now onwards try to learn from my mistakes in language and sometimes later... you will not have to bare the trouble. I am really sorry for any trouble you have got.

Oh I remember...The lighter side of this discussion is that I can 'write ' better then De_Bunk, you know I am a Calligrapher since 20 + years. De_Bunk can not beat me in ' English Writting '...

[roger]

ManishSoni,

I suggest ignoring people discussing your English skills; I feel sure they cannot communicate as well in your native language.

However, I wonder what you find insufficient in SkepticScott, j-beda, davefoc, and my suggestions.

You are making a claim that sounds unlikely to us. I know nothing of the mathematics of astrology, and don't feel inclined to test out your idea for you. I'm sure you understand.

So, once again, since you state you can program this - write the program, supply the source code, and we'll see.

I'm happy to help you define the inputs and outputs of the program so that it accurately tests your claims; I'm just not willing to do your work for you. I'm not trying to be rude, but there are far too many claims in this world for me to test them all.

There's a million dollars waiting for you if you'll meet this simple request, so I think you'll understand how any response other than a finished program or proposal for writing that program will be greeted with a large dose of sceptism regarding your claim.

Write the program. Show it works. Get a million dollars.

roger

[Upchurch]

This sounds familiar. Wasn't there someone else who was trying to figure out a mathematical proof of astrology? I did a few coorespondance with the guy and then he dropped out of sight, but I can't find the thread. Anyone remember this?

[aggle_rithm]

I've lately been concerned about all the programming jobs being exported to India. If ManishSoni is representative of the intelligence level of programmers over there, I guess I have nothing to worry about. ;)

[tonygraham]

"I am a programmer , I do have a small library of all kinds of general books ...nearly 900 + books in which most of them are in English, including Mr. Randi's Book."

What an awful lot of money to spend on books in a language that you claim not to be proficient in. Hmmmm...:confused:

[The Central Scrutinizer]

ManishSoni,

Just tell all these idiots to shut face. Then send me money.

Thank you.

[AlienX]

The main flaw with the whole idea is that spending patterns can be predicted anyway given certain info about a person - lets start with a good piece of info - how about a birth date ;-)

To me if there is a correlation it's purely because these things operate on cycles and so do we, so when we have two things which cycle "naturally" then it's easy to mistake a correlation.

By this i mean most people will roughly follow a spending cycle of which thier birthday is a key point. Thus this will obviusly influence spending in other periods.

Sorry but i'm not just skeptical at all about astrology - it is meaningless drivel so perhaps i'm too biased to comment.
To me it's an effort to appear justified by using meaningless calculations to predict events.

MS Money does a dam fine job of predicting my spending as it stands whats the point in the "stars" roughly guessing?

Anyway why try for Randi's million, make your program as there are plenty of people willing to waste their money.

All i can suggest is go for it and as well as expecting other people to
have an open mind and believe you, maybe take some of your own advice
and consider it could all be a load of rubbish ;-)
Most scentists approach the same thing in day to day work - come up with a theory then try to prove themselves wrong.

AX

[Moose]

[delurk]

I just wanted to mention that ManishSoni's written English is very much comparable with the quality (in code and displayed text) we'd come to expect from our Indian compeditors: the very reason we'd been winning contracts against their far lower bids, after the first few tenders.

In courseware development, quality assurance is king.

It's the difference between the customer returning the courseware with a centimeter thick stack of corrections and comments (over five or six QA rounds), and two. Not two centimeters, but two corrections total, in the first QA round.

[relurk]

Moose.

[Moose]

[delurk again]

It also occurs to me that any honest prediction of spending by means of astrology has to contend with the fact that spending habits are deterministic.

I, for example, can predict spending habits of more than $100 dollars, as proposed.

For starters, how about Rent >$100 on the first of the month (or the immediately following business day.)

Etc.

ManishSoni's idea is interesting, but since purchases are very much deterministic, aka not random, it's useless as far as a fair and honest test of astrology is concerned. Speaking for myself only, I simply can't see how the JREF could accept a test based around it.

[relurk]

Moose.

[chipotle]

Spendtriftness is an expensive quantity to measure. Find some simpler to measure predictive variable and cook up an astrological theory for it:

Electability - Good since you don't need the subject's involvement to get birthdate and election result.
Shoe size - Easy to measure. But a pain to have to ask.
Longevity - Good again since one can use death records to avoid subject contact.

[RSLancastr]

Whil de_bunk may be correct, I will add that I have worked with many programmers from India, who are working here in the Los Angeles area. Several of them had an even poorer grasp of English than does Manish.

[DeathToSophists]

Originally posted by ManishSoni

My proposition : We can predict WHEN we have a 'tendency' to spend money or 'extravengence' or let it go regarding money . WHEn above stated attitude is highlighted in everybody's life......It is predictable.....and here are the rule.

[/B]

Forget the Millon Dollar Challenge...

If you can come up with a statistical model that accurately predicts this kind of behavior, get in touch with John Nash at Princeton University or Stuart Kauffmann at Los Alamos.

Upon successful demonstartion of this statistical model, you will receive MILLIONS in private and international grants.

;)

[thaiboxerken]

Shut the F*(&! up and send in your notorized application already!

:mad:

Stupid astrologer.

[SpectorDetector]

Typical response kneekickerken

This is yet another example of your ignorance.

I hope this fellow takes the lousy million and proves his theory.

At least he has done something about it, while you sit around playing with fuel cells.

[xouper]

thaiboxerken: Shut the F*(&! up and send in your notorized application already! Stupid astrologer.

SpectorDetector: Typical response kneekickerken
This is yet another example of your ignorance. Ken's response may be rude, but it is certainly not ignorant. The scientific evidence weighs heavily in his favor that astrologers cannot do what they claim.

At least he has done something about it, while you sit around playing with fuel cells.OK, quiz time for the gallery. What is the name of the logical fallacy here?

[DeathToSophists]

Originally posted by xouper
...OK, quiz time for the gallery. What is the name of the logical fallacy here?

non sequitur :wink: logical fallacy; ad hominem.

[SpectorDetector]

Mabey this one can? Or isn't that a possibility?

What exactly is possible ?

Just because others have been proven wrong and downright deceptive doesnt mean every possibale unknown is as such

His response is typical xouper. Oh please lol . :roll:

Its simply the way of skeptics to bash what hasn't been proven scientificy with a closed mind.


Is this a board for discussion or is it a place to dismiss any usefull information because it doesnt fit neatly into the skeptical logic box?

If it were up to skeptics , there would be no electricity, or a vaccine for chickenpox . Vaccines for smallpox and other such diseases would have been dismissed as impossible. Alexander Gram Bell would have been told he was a lunatic for creating the birth of communication.
For that matter The world would still be considered flat for the lack of vision of skeptics.
Thank goodness that some folks have been brave enough to tell skeptics to go get stuffed and continued their work while the cynics and skeptics sat back on their a**es and did nothing except think of excuses as to why everything was impossible.

[no one in particular]

Originally posted by SpectorDetector

If it were up to skeptics , there would be no electricity, or a vaccine for chickenpox . Vaccines for smallpox and other such diseases would have been dismissed as impossible. Alexander Gram Bell would have been told he was a lunatic for creating the birth of communication.
For that matter The world would still be considered flat for the lack of vision of skeptics.
Thank goodness that some folks have been brave enough to tell skeptics to go get stuffed and continued their work while the cynics and skeptics sat back on their a**es and did nothing except think of excuses as to why everything was impossible. By my count there are 9 assertions in the above diatribe. SpectorDetector, I challenge you to defend any one of those assertions. The respectable thing to do is to defend an assertion or withdraw it…

Oh heck, forget bout the rest of them, I just want you to defend the assertion that Alexander Gram Bell created the birth of communication!

[xouper]

SpectorDetector: Mabey this one can? Or isn't that a possibility?Maybe he can. It seems to me, however, that the point Ken was making is go ahead and do it instead of just talking about doing it.

Its simply the way of skeptics to bash what hasn't been proven scientificy with a closed mind.Oh my. And you have the nerve to accuse Ken of making ignorant statements?

I like the way Ian Rowland said it in his book Cold Reading (http://www.ian-rowland.com/ItemsToBuy/ColdReading/FFColdReadingmain.php) on page 174:

<div style="border: solid black 1px; margin: 0 32px 0 0; padding: 24px; background-color: #fff8f0;">This does not amount to proof that psychic beliefs are bogus remnants of outmoded, irrational and superstitious models of the world we live in. But it does amount to good reason to abandon an 'open mind', and to say instead that if the believers want us to acknowledge the reality of phychic ability, the onus is on them to prove their case. ...

In cases where prior knowledge is available, the alternative to an 'open mind' is not 'closed mind'. It is 'an informed mind'. In such contexts, any appeal to 'keep an open mind' is an appeal to prefer ignorance over knowledge. This is not advisable.</div>
For that matter The world would still be considered flat for the lack of vision of skeptics."no one in particular" has already called you on your questionable assertions, but I would like to see you justify this one about the flat earth.

Hint - my challenge to you is an intentional trap, so you may wish to be careful how you answer.

[thaiboxerken]

SG just doesn't like me, it's probably because of my "put up or shut up" attitude.

Lots of beleivers like to talk all about the paranormal, about what they've seen and what they've "researched". None of them, however, have yet to put their money where their mouth is.

Heck, with the JREF challenge, they aren't even gambling any money. If I had superpowers, I'd have the JREF money already.

Here is my conclusion based on this:

1. Believers are too scared to place their beliefs to the test.

2. Believers with superpowers are too stupid to take a free million dollars.

Find me a superpowered person and prove me wrong, SG.

[SpectorDetector]

My only assertion is that it is indeed necessary to test the unknown.

If I ever find enough evidence to take the test, I will be the first in line to take JREFs million.

You ask me to prove the unknown and you also imply that seeking to understand the unknown is ignroance on my part.

I say that making no effort to understand that which is not known is ignorance and denial that facts remain undiscovered is in itself ignorance.

While I respect the rights of others to do nothing , I find it interesting that inaction is acceptable to skeptics.

If nothing else , I have indeed gained an understanding of the nature of the closed mind here on JREF.

I learn much here. It is indeed and enjoyable experience.


P.S.

KneeKickerKen

Its not your so-called intelligence that bothers me , rather its your inability to see outside of the known that intrigues me.

I enjoy your responses :roll: a great deal .

Btw , Its not a matter of like or dislike , its more a matter of understanding and misunderstanding.

[thaiboxerken]

My only assertion is that it is indeed necessary to test the unknown.

Ok. That's my agenda as well. The astrologer here claims something that might be testable. I want him to shut up about it and go test.

If I ever find enough evidence to take the test, I will be the first in line to take JREFs million.

I won't hold my breath.

You ask me to prove the unknown and you also imply that seeking to understand the unknown is ignroance on my part.

Hardly. I just want results. Seek all you want, when you actually find something, take the JREF money and proclaim what you want.

I say that making no effort to understand that which is not known is ignorance and denial that facts remain undiscovered is in itself ignorance.

I make efforts to learn a little bit about something everyday, thus gaining more knowledge. I think many of us do. However, paranormal claims haven't panned out to be anything but fictional accounts or misunderstandings so far.

While I respect the rights of others to do nothing , I find it interesting that inaction is acceptable to skeptics.

Damn right. Why do you insist that skeptics and scientists should chase tall tales to prove that they are just tall tales? It's inefficient to chase every claim, to try and disprove every notion. Instead, we must only entertain those that have supporting evidence associated with them.

If nothing else , I have indeed gained an understanding of the nature of the closed mind here on JREF.

I'm very open minded, just show me what you claim to have and I'll believe it. Produce us a superpowered individual to take the JREF prize.

I learn much here. It is indeed and enjoyable experience.

You must be masochistic.

Its not your so-called intelligence that bothers me , rather its your inability to see outside of the known that intrigues me.

Appeals to ignorance are illogical and useless. You are pleading for people to use the unknown as reason to believe. I understand, you need people to rely on ignorance. Without that ignorance, there wouldn't be the gullibility, would there?


Btw , Its not a matter of like or dislike , its more a matter of understanding and misunderstanding.

I understand perfectly. You don't need evidence, science or logic because you have faith. You have faith that the paranormal exists, and it's this faith that lets you justify beliefs in such nonsense.

[SpectorDetector]

I learn much here. It is indeed and enjoyable experience.




You must be masochistic.

Nope , I just enjoy learning from objecting opinions . Thats not masochsitc , thats a sign of intelligence.

Actually if everyone agreed on everthing it would be a very boring existence for us all. :D

I understand, you need people to rely on ignorance. Without that ignorance, there wouldn't be the gullibility, would there?


This is true to a point. Its additionally important to see beyond the known in order to reach for the knowlege which sometimes escapes us.

You have faith that the paranormal exists, and it's this faith that lets you justify beliefs in such nonsense.

My so called faith is in the chance that the unkonwn holds unanswered questions that do indeed hold logical answers . The only way to find out for sure is to look.

Searching for answers is equal to personal growth and education. I have never found any fault in learning new lessons.


:wink8:

[thaiboxerken]

This is true to a point. Its additionally important to see beyond the known in order to reach for the knowlege which sometimes escapes us.

Yea, but the knowledge of what? Ghosts, spirits.. psychics, pixies.. smurfs and the like are all fictional aspects of reality. All BS claims that lead only to more BS. This is why the law of parsimony was laid out and the brilliance of Occam's razor shines throughout science. This is done so that we don't chase tall tales to find an answer when the answers are already in front of us.

You can go chasing ghosts and fairies, I'll stick with exploring reality.

[xouper]

Ken has addressed most of the points, so I will focus on the ones that I think still need some clarification:

SpectorDetector: ... you also imply that seeking to understand the unknown is ignroance on my part. Since that isn't what I meant, I apologize for not being more clear. I am not saying that seeking to understand the unknown is ignorant. I know of no one who makes that claim, or even implies it.

I say that making no effort to understand that which is not known is ignorance and denial that facts remain undiscovered is in itself ignorance.No one here has denied that there are facts which remain undiscovered. And you are walking on very dangerous ground by suggesting that the people here have made no effort to understand the unknown, especiallay with regard to astrology and various other topics JREF is interested in.

If nothing else , I have indeed gained an understanding of the nature of the closed mind here on JREF. Apparently you didn't read the quote I posted from Rowland. Or if you did, you failed to grasp the significance of it.

What you are calling a 'closed mind' is actually a mind that has already looked at available evidence for astrology and made a provisional conclusion that there's nothing there. If someone offers NEW evidence, most skeptics I know are open minded enough to have a look.

If JREF was as closed minded as you seem to claim, there would be no million dollar challenge. And I assume most of the skeptics here support that challenge, which if true, would refute your assertion that we are closed minded.

Go back and reread the quote from Rowland before you accuse people here of being closed minded.

[XRX]

Originally posted by De_Bunk

So...this person wants us all to believe

That a country where 75% of all its population speak and understand fluent english, and have used English since the mid 1800's...this board happens to get the only computer programmer that doesnt use English, either written or spoken everyday, in programming PC's...and, has trouble understanding ...and needs an interpreter..!!

Get real....

Even though English is spoken in preference to India's native language...and taught in nearly every school.....and spoken in every town... in every shop...on every TV station...every radio station...written in every newspaper...Computer manual...Windows OS...

He asks for an interpreter...and then goes on to use words that would shame a college professor...De_Bunk

You could be right about this being a joke. I don't care. I don't even care about this 'astrology' claim or this thread. I'm interested in your facts.

I was born in India. The country has no native language. Ignore your encyclopaedia if it claims otherwise. The claim is ridculous.
You have no way of knowing whether 75% of the population speak and understand fluent English or not. Try polling a billion people; it doesn't work. Any statistics claiming to cover the entire country are wildly inaccurate.

Two days ago I met a man in Bombay who couldn't communicate with -anyone- in the city. He was just from the next state (Gujarat). The person who finally managed to interpret for him just about understood a quarter of what he was saying, and this interpreter spoke the -same- language. The dialect wasn't different, but his accent was, and that was enough to render him unintelligible. My point is that not only do Indians have trouble with English, they have trouble with other Indian languages.
Because there are so ****ing many of them.

I find your little radio station factoid pretty interesting. My radio must be malfunctioning, because I can't seem to pick up any all-English stations. There are many English-language TV channels but they're far outnumbered by those in other languages. Very few are in Hindi. I can't understand most of what I get on cable.

The same goes for newspapers.

There are people here who haven't even -heard- of computers, so computer manuals and Windows don't matter.

Furthermore, all my college professors bar two spoke English at a level equivalent to or lower than that used by Mr Soni.



As a skeptic it is your duty to make sure your facts are right. If you're ignorant, just say you are - ignorance is different from stupidity and you can't be blamed for it. Nobody expects you to know everything. It's possible to be a know-nothing skeptic; it's the attitude that counts.
But when we're talking facts, being -correct- is what separates you from the occultniks, breatharians and crystal-gazers.

For Christ's sake.



(The Christ bit is a joke. To hell with Christ. Wait...am I allowed to say that here?)





PS: I assume you are a skeptic from your screen name and the content of your posts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[davefoc]

XRX, Thank you for your post. It is a pleasure to have somebody from India posting here and I hope you will post more.

Even though I'm not Indian and have never been to India, I do have a little experience on what you are talking about.

I worked with five Indian programmers. None was a native speaker of the same dialect. One guy spoke something of the native lanquages of the rest but everyone else only spoke English and his native dialect. Four of them spoke passable English, one of which was approaching complete fluency. One of them spoke only rudimentary English.

[XRX]

Thanks, Dave. Nice to meet you.




Originally posted by thaiboxerken

This is why the law of parsimony was laid out and the brilliance of Occam's razor shines throughout science. This is done so that we don't chase tall tales to find an answer when the answers are already in front of us.

You can go chasing ghosts and fairies, I'll stick with exploring reality.


Just checking something: Isn't the law of parsimony (the principle of parsimony) the same as Occam's razor?
Also, did William of Ockham really come up with it?

Anyway, I doubt it's infallible, and certainly hinders creative thinking during the creative stages. It may be applied later on to determine whether or not a theory is logical in hindsight (which it will be, if correct) and to discard the superfluous.
I disagree with the assertion that it is "essential for model building" (external quote). I would contend that it is useful for model testing.

It should be clear that I am not against the employment of the principle of parsimony in, for instance, the investigation of claims of the paranormal, where it is to be used throughout. I am against its unintelligent use in the conceptual stage(s) of design (at least). There is no point having useful tools such as Occam's Razor if we cannot use them appropriately. You have to know just when to take out the Razor.


It should also be clear that I am so off topic that I ought to now leave this thread to the discussion of scientific astrology.

:D


XR